The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartinJordan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lax16 said:
I thought agnostics were the ones that are not certain there is no god?

I looked up several definitions of atheist and found this to be a consistent definition:
atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Please explain why those who wrote about the life of Christ and their writings are different than those wrote about the cosmos and their writings.

What definition of empirical are you working with? This is from Merriam Webster:

1
:* originating in or based on observation or experience
2
:* relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3
:* capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4
:* of or relating to empiricism
Click to expand...
I thought agnostics were the ones that are not certain there is no god?

The two are not mutually exclusive, one refers to knowledge the other to belief. If I had to be pigeonholed into a position I would say I was an agonistic atheist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

However, the bottom line is a accept no religious claims because non of them have meet their burden of proof.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
This is just simply nonsense, point me to ONE good contemporary philosopher that rejects the burden of proof. And by asking me to disprove god when I simply reject the claim is asking me to address two prongs of an argument simultaneously. :o
Click to expand...
I am still puzzled by why anyone would “reject” anything without having, themselves, reviewed diligently the arguments for the viewpoint they are rejecting.

No one, not even modern philosophers, reject what they haven’t sufficiently understood or considered.

It doesn’t make sense to reject any proposition without sufficient reason for doing so. That implies the “burden of proof” lies with anyone who honestly seeks to know the truth.

It is not intellectually honest to reject what one has not sufficiently thought over for oneself.

Not having sufficient reason for believing a claim to be true does not amount to a warrant for rejecting the claim. The position of neutrality or being “undecided” is not beyond possibility.

Yet, you seem to be insisting that it is intellectually honest to reject claims even when those claims are not clearly true or false.

A more logically consistent position is that unproven claims, either way, are held open to further consideration or evidence, not rejected.

There is no reason to assume every proposition MUST be categorically accepted or rejected when sufficient warrant either way has not been achieved.
MrEmpiricism said:
This is just simply nonsense, point me to ONE good contemporary philosopher that rejects the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
What? Do you want me to survey them to find one?

I doubt GOOD philosophers would take from “burden of proof” what you do.
MrEmpiricism said:
And by asking me to disprove god when I simply reject the claim is asking me to address two prongs of an argument simultaneously. :o
Click to expand...
That would be the intellectually honest thing to do IF you are interested in the truth of the matter and not merely bolstering your current beliefs.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I am still puzzled by why anyone would “reject” anything without having, themselves, reviewed diligently the arguments for the viewpoint they are rejecting.
.
Click to expand...
This is a key issue that you need to understand before we can go further, and btw where did I say that people have not “reviewed diligently the arguments for the viewpoint they are rejecting”? The WHOLE point is the arguments ARE reviewed diligently and they cannot meet the burden of proof!

Ok let start with the burden of proof.

I can lift a Jumbo get over my head, do you believe me?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
I don’t know you tell me, you are the one making the claim!

As before, why would ANYONE accept a claim they cannot verify.
Click to expand...
It is YOU who are claiming that YOU will reject any claim YOU cannot verify.

I am asking YOU to define what YOU mean by “verify,” so I can determine what level of burden exists FOR ME to prove ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to YOU.

How can anyone meet YOUR standard for “burden of proof” without YOU letting all and sundry know where the threshold for that standard is located?

That is like playing a game where you define “points scored” as those made between “goalposts” but refuse to make any statement about what the “goalposts” are or where they are to be found. If I determine a reasonable location for situating goalposts, you will simply disallow them as not the ones you had in mind.

I recognize the game you are playing. Whatever I say is “proof” you will simply deny is “proof” FOR YOU.

I can’t prove anything TO YOU without YOU clearly defining what constitutes “proof” for YOU.

Again, what does “verify” mean TO YOU?

Otherwise, I have no reason to think any effort on my part will be worth it.
 
Peter_Plato said:
It is YOU who are claiming that YOU will reject any claim YOU cannot verify.
Click to expand...
I am not claiming I will reject a claim a cannot verify, I simply do.

Now again,

I can life a jumbo jet over my head, do you believe me?
 
MrEmpiricism said:
I thought agnostics were the ones that are not certain there is no god?

The two are not mutually exclusive, one refers to knowledge the other to belief. If I had to be pigeonholed into a position I would say I was an agonistic atheist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Click to expand...
I disagree. I know someone who is a militant athieist who rejects all connection to organized religion, any moral stances taken on any subject and HATES people who are conservative, Christian, traditional…Claims that anyone that believes in God is weak, stupid and gullible. He takes great pride in his atheism and claims to be intellectually superior to those who believe in God, especially Jesus Christ.

His brother, OTOH, is agnostic. He is conservative because of what he calls “common sense” regarding everyday decisions, not sure if there is a God but open to the conversation. Not offended by religious people, although very skeptical. Admits there might be a benefit to believing in God and finds his militant atheist brother very angry and unappealing.

I am assuming, by your definition, you are more like the agnostic in your openness to discuss religion, but may feel intellectually superior to those who see that religion makes sense and is provable, connecting you to atheism. Am I close?
However, the bottom line is a accept no religious claims because non of them have meet their burden of proof.
Click to expand...
You did not answer the question though. What criteria do you use for religious claims and for claims about the cosmos?

How do those who have written about the cosmos, and their writings, meet the burden of proof? Please answer this, I REALLY want to know.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
This is a key issue that you need to understand before we can go further, and btw where did I say that people have not “reviewed diligently the arguments for the viewpoint they are rejecting”? The WHOLE point is the arguments ARE reviewed diligently and they cannot meet the burden of proof!

Ok let start with the burden of proof.

I can lift a Jumbo get over my head, do you believe me?
Click to expand...
What is a “Jumbo get?"
 
lax16 said:
I disagree. I know someone who is a militant athieist who rejects all connection to organized religion, any moral stances taken on any subject and HATES people who are conservative, Christian, traditional…Claims that anyone that believes in God is weak, stupid and gullible. He takes great pride in his atheism and claims to be intellectually superior to those who believe in God, especially Jesus Christ.

His brother, OTOH, is agnostic. He is conservative because of what he calls “common sense” regarding everyday decisions, not sure if there is a God but open to the conversation. Not offended by religious people, although very skeptical. Admits there might be a benefit to believing in God and finds his militant atheist brother very angry and unappealing.

I am assuming, by your definition, you are more like the agnostic in your openness to discuss religion, but may feel intellectually superior to those who see that religion makes sense and is provable, connecting you to atheism. Am I close?

You did not answer the question though. What criteria do you use for religious claims and for claims about the cosmos?

How do those who have written about the cosmos, and their writings, meet the burden of proof? Please answer this, I REALLY want to know.
Click to expand...
"I disagree. I know someone who is a militant athieist who rejects all connection to organized religion, any moral stances taken on any subject and HATES people who are conservative, Christian, traditional…Claims that anyone that believes in God is weak, stupid and gullible. He takes great pride in his atheism and claims to be intellectually superior to those who believe in God, especially Jesus Christ."

Yep, he is a subset.
 
lax16 said:
You did not answer the question though. What criteria do you use for religious claims and for claims about the cosmos?

How do those who have written about the cosmos, and their writings, meet the burden of proof? Please answer this, I REALLY want to know.
Click to expand...
The exact same, can I verify it.

I do not accept scientific claims because they are written, I accept them because they are verifiable.
 
Off to enjoy my sat night not, I will reply tomorrow. As always, thanks for the conversations 👍. Peace to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top