The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Angrboda]

If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

---

And why hasn't Randy done due diligence in disproving them all, as well?

Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well.  If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims."  And where is his proof?

Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist.  A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind.  Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take.  It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.


This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true.  For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.


The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism.  His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.

---

Ah...the graveyard of the gods.

Just because some conceptions of god are fictional, does it necessarily follow that all of them are? Even Plato and Aristotle rejected the anthropomorphic deities like Zeus and Hercules in favor of a supreme being or god that created all of reality.

This is irrelevant.  The question was, if you don't believe these other gods in the same way that the atheist doesn't believe in your god, if you are arguing that the atheist has a burden of proof for their disbelief in your god, you have a burden of proof in relation to these other gods.  That you do not apportion the same type of burden of proof for the same type of disbelief is inconsistent.  Either the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof, or you have one which you don't acknowledge.

The theist believes that a god exists. Then, through reason or revelation or both, he narrows the scope of his investigation and chooses to believe in the God that most probably exists.

This is contrary to the majority of cases.  The fact that most conversions happen in childhood, and the greatest predictor of the content of their belief is geography and the majority beliefs of parents and culture is strong evidence that the choice of which god or religion one follows is not such an open and rational choice.  The more likely story is that the god of one's belief is chosen first, and reasons come later.  Otherwise one is left explaining the correlations of geography and culture.

If you wish to prove that Christianity or theism belongs in the graveyard along with all of the failed gods and goddesses of the past, then provide some evidence as to why you believe that the God of classical theism has suffered the same fate as his mythological competitors.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof illicitly.  We are not responsible for disproving your claim in advance of your having met the burden of proof for your claim.  Do you not apply the same skepticism to these other gods as we apply to your god?  You won't believe them until someone provides evidence of their existence.  We won't believe you until you provide appropriate evidence.  This is how the burden of proof is properly apportioned in relation to disbelief in your god, just as in disbelief in other gods.  Your explicit dismissal of a burden of proof in denying these other gods is implicit acceptance that the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof in denying the existence of your god.  The question is not who is making the 'positive' claim, whatever that means.  The burden of proof falls on him who is making an existential claim, a claim that something exists or is.  In denying the claims of a god whose burden of proof hasn't been met, any reciprocal burden is easily met by noting that the claim has not been adequately proved.