W
Windfish
Guest
Yeah, this is a favorite among Harris and his readers. I suggest searching around a bit more before promulgating things that have been discussed and widely refuted.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your argument is based on the false premise that miracles are confined to one religion.
Apart from the fact that his moral teaching is not an **original **basis for all civilised persons throughout the world…
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Provide evidence that belief in the miracles of Jesus is more justified than belief in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba.
Would you say that only one religion at most can be right? If so, why would a person of a false religion be able to work miracles?
W
Windfish
Guest
Clearly, my friend, you haven’t thought this through. You should get more acquainted with actual Christian teachings and the discussion that has already gone about Sathya Sai Baba.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Why should I have to think this through? The burden of proof regarding the veracity of the gospels falls on you (which is partly the point Bertrand Russell was trying to make by the teapot analogy).
I don’t claim that the alleged miracles of Sathya Sai Baba really happened, I’m rather asking you to provide evidence that believing in the alleged miracles of Jesus is more justified that believing in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. Again, burden of proof is on Christians.
I asked for evidence that belief in the miracles of Jesus is more justified than belief in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. If there’s discussion about this that has already done that, than why didn’t you just provide that evidence?
BTW, I’m a theology major at a Catholic college. I’ve taken several bible classes including a graduate theology class on “biblical foundations”. I’ve considered pursuing an MA in theology at my Catholic college (I took that grad class as an undergrad). I’ve taken a class with Scott Hahn before. In other words, I understand Christian teachings very well.
J
John_Pascendi
Guest
No one ever dies for a lie knowing its a lie! The early Christians believed in Jesus returning from the dead for they witnessed many executions by the all powerful state,and with Jesus being starved,beaten,nailed and then sealed up in an air tight tomb,they were convinced enough to follow in His footsteps .No amount of sarcasm wil ever change my opinion of these courageous people! The obvious fact that of all religious faiths in the world ,only Catholic Christianity is attacked constantly in the media…flicks,newscasts,various historical sites,textbooks,talk shows etc etc.There is a reason for this. Catholic Christianity brought into a bleak cold world,tolerance for women,intolerance for slavery and the all powerful state and respect for ones parents and the elderly and the poor!!! Our current pretender to the throne likes to omit Creator from expressions on the Dec.of Independence etc for his marxist belief is that only the state gives (and thus can take) us life,liberty and happiness. Remember boys and girls,a free people can vote itself into slavery,but a slave can never vote itself free!!! Pas
W
Windfish
Guest
Because you’re the one coming in here saying we have to reject Jesus’ miracles because we reject Baba’s “miracles,” when, as an apparent student of Christian teaching, you very well know that this is a false dilemma, as Jesus himself says that others will come after him performing miracles to support false doctrine. But even more basic than this is that we have not at all established if the situation is comparable, which, as discussed elsewhere, it’s not.
The entire reason atheists spend so much time on the burden of proof angle is because atheism has retreated so much throughout the years that now it’s only a “lack of something!” But in reality,on whom the burden of proof rests depends entirely on the terms of the discussion/debate/whatever. For me, it’s a waste of time.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
If one asserts that Jesus did perform miracles (which Christians do), than one would have the burden of proof regarding demonstrating that either that belief in the alleged miracles of Jesus are more justified than those of Sathya Sai Baba, or that they both worked miracles (just the latter may have been doing it by demonic power).
Not true!
I know you’re sick of hearing this, but burden of proof always rests on the person making the affirmative claim, not the one expressing lack of conviction of the claim. If this wasn’t so, disprove all the thousands of gods you don’t believe in (I’m anticipating that you’ll just cite your own religion for this, in which case people of other religions could cite their religion against your religion).
In general, will you accept something until it has been proven false? If I claim that unicorns exist, who do you think the burden of proof falls on? This is why many atheist spend a lot of time on the simple and fundamental issue of burden of proof.
W
Windfish
Guest
Again this is a false dilemma, and it was you who came in here with the assertions for crying out loud!
This is so simple. If I were determined to convince you that God exists, then, yes, the burden of proof would fall on me. This follows logically and necessarily because of the tacit terms of the discussion I would be initiating. These terms, however, are not the terms for every discussion. There are many atheists that have tried to convince me of the non-existence of God, and so the burden of proof would fall on them simply out of the pretenses of the discussion they initiated.
As you can see, the burden of proof is not always on the Christian and depends entirely on the terms of the discussion. (In this discussion, it feel on AntiTheist to prove that the Gospels are myths, but as I have shown, this is a clumsy, inelegant view that has no explanatory power whatsoever.)
Now, in a debate, where debaters are required to debate for something, this becomes an even bigger problem for your line of thinking.
This would only be the case if, again, they were the terms of the discussion.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
I’m not getting involved in this discussion, but I just realized something - we can accept Baba’s works! I just remembered it is possible for something, in Church Teaching (I really hope I don’t get this wrong, I read it on another thread, sorry if I do), it is possible for one to believe something is supernatural but not a miracle - it could be the devil’s works or some idea of God’s we don’t understand. A Miracle means it helps Church teaching. Supernatural means, well, just that.
Again, if I got this wrong, feel free to correct me.
Again, if I got this wrong, feel free to correct me.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Windfish, if you don’t admit that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, than you would have to accept every claim that hasn’t been disproven, regardless of the agreement of the discussion.
Christians, who assert that Jesus performed miracles, have to show that either 1 belief that Jesus did miracles is more justified than belief that a guy who didn’t perform miracles did, or 2 both Jesus and the other guy performed miracles. Or in other words, if the other guy didn’t perform a miracle, belief in the alleged miracles of Jesus doesn’t have to be more justified than belief in the other guy’s miracles.
How is it a false dilemma?
Considering that we only have copies of copies of copies of the original gospels, the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by people who were not eyewitnesses themselves (one of the gospels mentions it is based off of eyewitness testimony), the gospels where written in a time where people were uneducated and prone to believe in a divine figure (see Apollonius of Tyana, who is very much like Jesus librarising.com/spirituality/apollo.html ), and there are virtually no historical record of Jesus outside the Bible from that time, I think belief in the miracles of Jesus is no more justified than belief in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba.
The burden of proof is on proving that Santa exists, whether one is discussing the existence of Santa with others or contemplating it by one’s self.
I’m assuming that at one point in your life you believed in Santa. I’m also assuming that you no longer believe in Santa. I’m also assuming that you have not disproven the existence of Santa. If all these assumptions are correct, what justification did you have for changing your mind on Santa?
Until one can present evidence that supports the existence of God, it’s as much a fabrication as Santa Clause.
Because AntiTheist did start a thread in which he claimed the gospels are myths, he does have the burden of proof for this claim. I haven’t read most of the thread, but given all the evidence there is against the veracity of the Bible, I’m speculating that he’s been supplying the proof.
Burden of proof is all about default justification. I don’t think you’ve understood that. What stance on a subject is justified has little to do with agreements about terms of discussion.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wanted to believe in the existence of Zeus, Yahweh, or Santa Clause, extraordinary evidence would be required for that belief to be justified.
So your saying the following is a false dilemma:
Christians, who assert that Jesus performed miracles, have to show that either 1 belief that Jesus did miracles is more justified than belief that a guy who didn’t perform miracles did, or 2 both Jesus and the other guy performed miracles. Or in other words, if the other guy didn’t perform a miracle, belief in the alleged miracles of Jesus doesn’t have to be more justified than belief in the other guy’s miracles.
How is it a false dilemma?
Considering that we only have copies of copies of copies of the original gospels, the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by people who were not eyewitnesses themselves (one of the gospels mentions it is based off of eyewitness testimony), the gospels where written in a time where people were uneducated and prone to believe in a divine figure (see Apollonius of Tyana, who is very much like Jesus librarising.com/spirituality/apollo.html ), and there are virtually no historical record of Jesus outside the Bible from that time, I think belief in the miracles of Jesus is no more justified than belief in the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba.
For the sake of argument, lets drop the context of a discussion for now. Lets say you’re a little kid growing up who believes in Santa. You’re not debating the existence of Santa with anyone. Would you be justified in believing in Santa so long as the existence of Santa isn’t disproven? Of course not. This is the absurdity of not placing burden of proof on those who are making the affirmative claim.
The burden of proof is on proving that Santa exists, whether one is discussing the existence of Santa with others or contemplating it by one’s self.
I’m assuming that at one point in your life you believed in Santa. I’m also assuming that you no longer believe in Santa. I’m also assuming that you have not disproven the existence of Santa. If all these assumptions are correct, what justification did you have for changing your mind on Santa?
Until one can present evidence that supports the existence of God, it’s as much a fabrication as Santa Clause.
If they are trying to convince you that belief in God is not justified, than they can rightly argue that the burden of proof is on you (because believing in God without evidence is unjustified just as believing in Santa Clause without evidence is not justified). If on the other hand they are trying to prove that there probably isn’t a God, than they would have burden of proof.
What is the default position that is justified for one to take on an ancient book? Is it to believe in it or to not believe in it until it has been reasonably shown to be authentic and accurate? If you say it is the former, than you would have to believe that what is contained in the works of classical mythology until you could disprove them.
Because AntiTheist did start a thread in which he claimed the gospels are myths, he does have the burden of proof for this claim. I haven’t read most of the thread, but given all the evidence there is against the veracity of the Bible, I’m speculating that he’s been supplying the proof.
If in a debate, an intelligent debater failed to disprove the existence of Santa Clause, Poseidon, or Zeus, does that mean belief in Santa Clause, Poseidon, or Zeus is justified? Absolutely not.
Burden of proof is all about default justification. I don’t think you’ve understood that. What stance on a subject is justified has little to do with agreements about terms of discussion.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wanted to believe in the existence of Zeus, Yahweh, or Santa Clause, extraordinary evidence would be required for that belief to be justified.
W
Windfish
Guest
I really can’t, man. I’m so, so over those basic arguments from 2007. I just can’t. 
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
You can’t what?I really can’t, man. I’m so, so over those basic arguments from 2007. I just can’t.
I’d appreciate it if instead of avoiding addressing the issue and adopting this condescending attitude, you actually address what I said about Santa:
If you’re “so over those basic arguments” than they should be easy for you to address.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
You’re merely asserting that the Gospels are “primary sources.” What evidence do you have that they are even eyewitness testimony?
Let’s see what you present:
Let’s hear some of this evidence. Present it, and let’s see if it convincingly demonstrates that the authors of the text were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry.
As TruthSeeker points out, there are all kinds of magical and extraordinary claims that you don’t accept that have eyewitnesses supporting them. You can’t have a consistent worldview if you choose to accept ancient (supposed) eyewitnesses but reject modern day eyewitnesses whom you can go talk to if you like.
W
Windfish
Guest
I have made brief mentions of the internal and external evidence which supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels and their reliance on eyewitness testimony. You are now asking me to present this evidence, which is fine, but, if I am to be honest with you, I am not prepared at all to condense the thousands of pages of text on this issue into a post for you. Such an undertaking is simply beyond my ability and my patience. I will refer you, then, to some books:
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
This Historical Jesus
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?
The Jesus Legend
Jesus and the Gospels an Introduction and Survey
The Aims of Jesus
The Resurrection of the Son of God
The latter two are especially important. I think I have written enough, though, to show that your vague skepticism has no explanatory power whatsoever and is a very clumsy view.
Notice, I am not necessarily denying Sai Baba’s “miracles.” My faith does allow for that possibility, and, in fact, Christ warned of false prophets who would perform signs and wonders. Further, many of our own Catholic saints, with the power of God, performed miracles. This is why the “dilemma” TruthSeeker60 presents is a false one. So let’s see this eyewitness testimony…
It is also an uncritical comparison. Sai Baba has been sufficiently discredited by investigators, and materialization, for which he is primarily known, is an ancient art in India. But the most uncritical mistake being made, here, is the comparison between Judaism and Hinduism and ethnic Jews and Indians. There is a vast, vast difference between them and their respective predispositions to things like the acceptance of miraculous claims. There are simply historical, religious, and sociological elements that you are not even conceiving of - for more on this see N.T. Wright’s the Resurrection of the Son of God.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
This Historical Jesus
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?
The Jesus Legend
Jesus and the Gospels an Introduction and Survey
The Aims of Jesus
The Resurrection of the Son of God
The latter two are especially important. I think I have written enough, though, to show that your vague skepticism has no explanatory power whatsoever and is a very clumsy view.
Notice, I am not necessarily denying Sai Baba’s “miracles.” My faith does allow for that possibility, and, in fact, Christ warned of false prophets who would perform signs and wonders. Further, many of our own Catholic saints, with the power of God, performed miracles. This is why the “dilemma” TruthSeeker60 presents is a false one. So let’s see this eyewitness testimony…
It is also an uncritical comparison. Sai Baba has been sufficiently discredited by investigators, and materialization, for which he is primarily known, is an ancient art in India. But the most uncritical mistake being made, here, is the comparison between Judaism and Hinduism and ethnic Jews and Indians. There is a vast, vast difference between them and their respective predispositions to things like the acceptance of miraculous claims. There are simply historical, religious, and sociological elements that you are not even conceiving of - for more on this see N.T. Wright’s the Resurrection of the Son of God.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It seems unreasonable to restrict miracles to Christians. Jesus didn’t restrict His attention to Jews. He gave His life for everyone…I’m not getting involved in this discussion, but I just realized something - we can accept Baba’s works! I just remembered it is possible for something, in Church Teaching (I really hope I don’t get this wrong, I read it on another thread, sorry if I do), it is possible for one to believe something is supernatural but not a miracle - it could be the devil’s works or some idea of God’s we don’t understand. A Miracle means it helps Church teaching. Supernatural means, well, just that.
Again, if I got this wrong, feel free to correct me.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is obvious that some religions must be closer to the truth than others. Even for an atheist polytheism is more unreasonable than monotheism because it infringes the principle of economy.
“a false religion” is a misnomer. Every religion contains truths accepted even by atheists.
W
Windfish
Guest
Let me ask you this: isn’t polytheism also metaphysically impossible, since, if God exists, simplicity would have to be one of His qualities since he lies outside time? I mean, aren’t the concepts of “parts” and “division” and “separateness” which are necessary for polytheism totally incompatible with the simplicity and immutability necessitated by timelessness?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Some Hindus believe the gods are aspects of one Supreme God. The Christian doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is apparently less simple than Unitarianism but One Supreme Person is the apotheosis of egoism rather than genuine love! This goes to show that the nature of simplicity is less simple than it appears…
R
Rocinante
Guest
my understanding of polytheism is that the gods are manifestations of the divine rather than “parts” divisions" and “separateness.” the polytheistic view is similar to the jewish view and the taoist view in that the god that can be talked about is not the one that is most worth talking about. all the gods are more like the christian metaphors for god: god is a shepard, god is a father, a son, a judge, a king, a lover seeking his beloved, a spirit, a mother carrying for her child, etc. but none of these individual conceptions are any possible conception can ever be adequate the divine which is beyond concepts and can not even be said to exist since it is beyond is and is not. a dogmatic claim about the divine is always simultaneously true and false, which is why polytheists don’t go to war over dogma. words about reality are never confused with ultimate reality. they instead assimilate what notions can be assimilated and discard the thresh.
- Status