Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Jenny A]

So if you posit unicorns, invisible purples nothings, godzilla, Allah, Joseph Smith's golden tablets, Zeus, Thor, Nessy, cold fusion, the City of Atlanta, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, do not exist the burden of proof is on you Randy.

Exactly. Which is why I don't go to unicorn forums, Jenny. I don't want to have to get into all that in order to prove my point of view. (Especially since I am agnostic about Nessie!). However, I have been to the City of Atlanta (note the avatar).

In return, I expect that anyone who waltzes into a Christianity subforum (even in an Atheist Forum) and says, "God does not exist" has assumed the burden of proof. That's simply how debates are structured. I didn't make that rule.

Who is it that claims he can prove god doesn't exist?  The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, no matter who is making the claim.  Unless, and until someone proves: unicorns, Nessie, or the City of Atlantis (Atlanta I've visiting soon), or god, I see no reason to believe in any of them.  

Seriously, none of those things can be proven not to exist.  We (at least I hope it's we) don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence for them.  If you don't believe in them, then you understand why I don't believe in your tri-god Yahweh/Jesus/Vague-Spirit-Thingy who is both three separate things and yet only one thing despite 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 /= 1

Jenny, are you seriously suggesting that the evidence for the historical Jesus is on par with the evidence for pots of gold or unicorns?

Nope.  There's evidence for the historical Jesus' existence,  just not for his divinity, and precious little for most of his bio.  And no real evidence for Yahweh or the spirit divine or otherwise.

[Randy Carson]

Exactly. Which is why I don't go to unicorn forums, Jenny. I don't want to have to get into all that in order to prove my point of view. (Especially since I am agnostic about Nessie!). However, I have been to the City of Atlanta (note the avatar).

In return, I expect that anyone who waltzes into a Christianity subforum (even in an Atheist Forum) and says, "God does not exist" has assumed the burden of proof. That's simply how debates are structured. I didn't make that rule.

Who is it that claims he can prove god doesn't exist?  The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, no matter who is making the claim.  Unless, and until someone proves: unicorns, Nessie, or the City of Atlantis (Atlanta I've visiting soon), or god, I see no reason to believe in any of them.

Very clever, Jenny. But I am becoming wise to the way the word games are played in this forum. In post 295, Nope said there is no God. That is a positive claim. But you know she never claimed to be able to prove it, so you asked the question in such a way as to make it look like no evidence is required. Very, very clever.
 

Jenny, are you seriously suggesting that the evidence for the historical Jesus is on par with the evidence for pots of gold or unicorns?

Nope.  There's evidence for the historical Jesus' existence,  just not for his divinity, and precious little for most of his bio.  And no real evidence for Yahweh or the spirit divine or otherwise.

As you also know, there IS evidence for the resurrection which would support Jesus' claims of divinity.

So, it's not that there is NO evidence...just none that you are willing to accept for reasons known only to yourself.

[Jenny A]

Very clever, Jenny. But I am becoming wise to the way the word games are played in this forum. In post 295, Nope said there is no God. That is a positive claim. But you know she never claimed to be able to prove it, so you asked the question in such a way as to make it look like no evidence is required. Very, very clever.
 

No, not particularly clever.  Very ordinary in fact.  That's the way all positive claims are dealt with, unicorns included.  If you say there are no unicorns, it's highly unlikely anyone will say prove it because that's not the way the burden of proof works. What we expect is for unicorn believers to prove unicorns.  It's only when we reach god that you want to turn the rules of burden of proof on their head.

As you also know, there IS evidence for the resurrection which would support Jesus' claims of divinity.

So, it's not that there is NO evidence...just none that you are willing to accept for reasons known only to yourself.

I'll be happy to tell you why.  The evidence for unicorns consists of descriptions of them in bestiaries, a few classical references, tapestries, and the missidentification of the the narwhal horn.   It's far from sufficient.  The evidence for the resurrection consists of three anonymous accounts (one of which has only an angle saying see empty tomb) written at least three decades after the event and obviously not  by eye witness, a faked shroud, and a vision by Paul.  Looks about even evidence to me with unicorns being the more likely of the two as a horned horse or deer isn't really all that unlikely though one that heals people with it's horn and only appears to virgins approaches the unlikelihood of the resurrection.  Joseph Smith's golden tablets are more likely as at least we have some actual eyewitness testimony.  Though given the claim, that's far from sufficient for the tablets either.

[The Valkyrie]

Very clever, Jenny. But I am becoming wise to the way the word games are played in this forum. In post 295, Nope said there is no God. That is a positive claim. But you know she never claimed to be able to prove it, so you asked the question in such a way as to make it look like no evidence is required. Very, very clever.
 

No, not particularly clever.  Very ordinary in fact.  That's the way all positive claims are dealt with, unicorns included.  If you say there are no unicorns, it's highly unlikely anyone will say prove it because that's not the way the burden of proof works. What we expect is for unicorn believers to prove unicorns.  It's only when we reach god that you want to turn the rules of burden of proof on their head.

As you also know, there IS evidence for the resurrection which would support Jesus' claims of divinity.

So, it's not that there is NO evidence...just none that you are willing to accept for reasons known only to yourself.

I'll be happy to tell you why.  The evidence for unicorns consists of descriptions of them in bestiaries, a few classical references, tapestries, and the missidentification of the the narwhal horn.   It's far from sufficient.  The evidence for the resurrection consists of three anonymous accounts (one of which has only an angle saying see empty tomb) written at least three decades after the event and obviously not  by eye witness, a faked shroud, and a vision by Paul.  Looks about even evidence to me with unicorns being the more likely of the two as a horned horse or deer isn't really all that unlikely though one that heals people with it's horn and only appears to virgins approaches the unlikelihood of the resurrection.  Joseph Smith's golden tablets are more likely as at least we have some actual eyewitness testimony.  Though given the claim, that's far from sufficient for the tablets either.

And, don't forget, unicorns are mentioned in the bible so they must be real.

[Huggy Bear]

And, don't forget, unicorns are mentioned in the bible so they must be real.

Apparently someone hasn't learned that words change their meaning over time.
https://en.glosbe.com/en/ang/unicorn

unicorn
(historical) In various Bible translations, used to render the Latin unicornis or rhinoceros (representing Hebrew רְאֵם); a reem or wild ox.

So yes, unicorns existed.

[The Valkyrie]

It's amazing how the religious will scream "interpretation" for arguments against their mythology but don't accept the same arguments for against their own claims.

This, of course, is one interpretation of the claim.

[Jenny A]

And, don't forget, unicorns are mentioned in the bible so they must be real.

Apparently someone hasn't learned that words change their meaning over time.
https://en.glosbe.com/en/ang/unicorn

unicorn
(historical) In various Bible translations, used to render the Latin unicornis or rhinoceros (representing Hebrew רְאֵם); a reem or wild ox.

So yes, unicorns existed.

Look at that Huggy!  You found an actual fact.   However, and this is my point, the medieval church included the unicorn in their bestiaries on the basis of that mistranslation.  It's only during more critical translations and readings during the Renaissance and later, that the unicorn was discarded.  Modern cirtical analysis shows the Bible to be anything but historically accurate or divinely inspired.   Why having accepted the unicorn mistranslation don't you apply your brain to the rest of the "holy" book?

[robvalue]

Ugh, we're back on the argument from ignorance again? What will it take for people to learn about logical fallacies?

So... every Christian owes me 10 grand each. It's up to each Christian to definitively prove that they do not owe me the money, or else pay up. Some debts were made in previous lives, but the contracts made clear the payment continued in case of death. I have all the paperwork for all the debts but I'm not going to show you.

I'll accept undoctored video evidence of every second of your life and previous lives, to make it a little easier on you. It wouldn't cover telepathic contracts but it would be a start.

[Razzle]

And, don't forget, unicorns are mentioned in the bible so they must be real.

Apparently someone hasn't learned that words change their meaning over time.
https://en.glosbe.com/en/ang/unicorn

unicorn
(historical) In various Bible translations, used to render the Latin unicornis or rhinoceros (representing Hebrew רְאֵם); a reem or wild ox.

So yes, unicorns existed.

So you acknowledge that the Church has mistranslated some of the Bible for centuries in the past, believing things that most Chritians now reject. Do you equally apply this mistranslation argument to dismiss the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin?

[Huggy Bear]

Apparently someone hasn't learned that words change their meaning over time.
https://en.glosbe.com/en/ang/unicorn

So yes, unicorns existed.

Look at that Huggy!  You found an actual fact.   However, and this is my point, the medieval church included the unicorn in their bestiaries on the basis of that mistranslation.  It's only during more critical translations and readings during the Renaissance and later, that the unicorn was discarded.  Modern cirtical analysis shows the Bible to be anything but historically accurate or divinely inspired.   Why having accepted the unicorn mistranslation don't you apply your brain to the rest of the "holy" book?

It's not a mistraslation, it's a LATIN word not english. for instance the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis", there are other latin words found in the old testament e.g. "Lucifer".