The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[Cathar1950]

We have people all around us claiming they have a personal relationship with Jesus. We have people that claim they have had vision and many more claims by various believers. Why should we be surprised they wrote gospels as stories as they have no resemblance of what we would call real accounts given the evolution of the writings and their interdependence? They are religious writings and we need to be skeptical when we are being told they are some kind of factual accounts that should be believed while not believing other religious materials.
They don’t want them to be just their writings they want them to be everyone’s, no questions asked please.
They want and treat their writings as objective reality while claiming everyone else is somehow subjective and sinister if they have doubts or are skeptical of the claims as any sane and ration person might do and as they do with any writings that might contradict their interpretations. .Even science isn’t safe from their accusing tongues as they repeatedly slander them with their uninformed skeptical claims about everything but what they believe about the Bible and maybe Jesus too.

[Zzyzx]

.

.The bible is NOT a history book.

How could someone that is not a historian and/or has no objective method for determining what is and is not historical make such a claim? Prove your claim with an objective historical method or withdraw it.

The Roman Catholic Church, originator of the bible, agrees with me that the bible is not a history book. Is there anything unclear about this? (Bold added for emphasis).

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy� from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,� they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design� to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical�. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces�.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 574768.ece

.I do not care WHY you have no evidence – only THAT you have no evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction Again!

When you exhaust your dance steps, perhaps you can learn to debate a TOPIC rather than a debater. I understand that you hesitate to actually debate topics or issues – because you have no evidence to substantiate supernatural tales.

.Unanswered questions from the previous post (now numbered 1 to 12 for emphasis):

Yeah you've asked a lot of questions.

Yes, and you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to duck questions with fancy dance steps. I am confident that readers are not impressed by the maneuver in lieu of debate.

Bravo! I just want you to answer one question then we can rationally address some of yours. What is your objective method for determing history?

Or if that is too difficult, how do we objectively determine what is and is not historical?

We are NOT debating history. The bible is NOT a history book – it is theology and possibly mythology and/or fiction.

I dispute CLAIMS that are made by those who propose that supernatural "spirits" or "gods" exist and that they perform nature-defying magical tricks.


Now that you have learned that the bible is not a history book and that "tale" does not mean "false", are there any other diversions that you wish to inject in order to avoid substantive debate?

IF YOU CAN defend supernaturalism, kindly begin by answering the questions posed earlier. I understand that you would cannot or will not attempt to answer honesty and openly – BECAUSE you have no evidence – and can no longer even attempt to use the bible as authoritative. You may be more comfortable in Holy Huddle.

[Goose]

.

.The bible is NOT a history book.

How could someone that is not a historian and/or has no objective method for determining what is and is not historical make such a claim? Prove your claim with an objective historical method or withdraw it.

The Roman Catholic Church, originator of the bible, agrees with me that the bible is not a history book. Is there anything unclear about this? (Bold added for emphasis).

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy� from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,� they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design� to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical�. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces�.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 574768.ece

Your claim: "The bible is NOT a history book." It doesn't say that in the article you quoted. Nor does it give a historical method for how any conclusions were arrived at. Pontification. Nice try though.

Yes, and you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to duck questions with fancy dance steps.

All you have to do is answer one question.

We are NOT debating history.

Yes we are.

The bible is NOT a history book – it is theology and possibly mythology and/or fiction.

Prove this claim with a historical method or withdraw it.

[Goat]

The bible is NOT a history book – it is theology and possibly mythology and/or fiction.

Prove this claim with a historical method or withdraw it.

He has already proven it via the scientific method. Why are you trying to push the manner of which something is proven to another path?

[Goose]

The bible is NOT a history book – it is theology and possibly mythology and/or fiction.

Prove this claim with a historical method or withdraw it.

He has already proven it via the scientific method. Why are you trying to push the manner of which something is proven to another path?

Are you seriously saying a claim regarding history can proven via the scientific method? OK. Prove Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon in 49BC using the scientific method. Make sure it's observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Once you've returned from 49BC in your time machine, please share the results with us. Ready, set, go...

[JoeyKnothead]

Are you seriously saying a claim regarding history can proven via the scientific method? OK. Prove Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon in 49BC using the scientific method. Make sure it's observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Once you've returned from 49BC in your time machine, please share the results with us. Ready, set, go...

I'm just not seeing a lot of folks make claims in regard to Julius Caesar on this site. I am seeing a lot of folks make claims in regards to God or Jesus.

Doesn't the fact we can't take such claims about Julius Caesar on face value also require us to do the same with Bible tales?

[Goose]

Doesn't the fact we can't take such claims about Julius Caesar on face value also require us to do the same with Bible tales?

I don't have any problem with that whatsoever as long as the historical method we use is applied fairly across the board whether it be a claim from the Bible or the Gallic Wars. Do you agree?

[JoeyKnothead]

Doesn't the fact we can't take such claims about Julius Caesar on face value also require us to do the same with Bible tales?

I don't have any problem with that whatsoever as long as the historical method we use is applied fairly across the board whether it be a claim from the Bible or the Gallic Wars. Do you agree?

Completely. Folks ought not go to claiming stuff about the Gallic Wars, or anything, for which they have no proof.

This seems like such a logical debate concept I personally am bemused by those who don't understand or accept it.

[Zzyzx]

.
1. My statement stands. It has been supported with a statement from the originating organization.

2. If you wish to present information to verify that the bible is a history book, feel free to make that attempt.

3. I will not conform to your expectations about how I should debate, but will debate however I deem appropriate.

4. What I will do is help you demonstrate a LACK of evidence to support claims of "miracles" (which CANNOT be shown to have actually occurred in the real world)

5. I will also call attention to the fact that the excuses offered for lack of evidence are further indication of the dubious nature of the supernatural tales.

6. I will do so by continually pointing out to readers that "literal bible believers" cannot answer even simple questions about the fanciful tales and claims regarding magical events (that form the core of supernatural beliefs).

Is there any part of the above that is too difficult to understand?

Ultimately the bible promoter / defender must plead for special consideration for the "god tales" and plead that others accept tales that cannot be substantiated – with claims that "goddidit".

Now, is there an ISSUE that you feel qualified to debate?

[Goose]

Ultimately the bible promoter / defender must plead for special consideration for the "god tales" and plead that others accept tales that cannot be substantiated – with claims that "goddidit".

This statement confirms to me you are not debating but preaching. Throughout this thread and other debates I've had with you over the last year or so I've been advocating for the opposite of this statement - that is we look at the Bible through the same methods we would look at other history. The sheer fact that you and others simply refuse to engage at this level speaks such volumes it is deafening.