Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Robert Nusom

Expand Messages
  • Louise
    Robert, I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave s subject line that Moses supported child molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list. If you
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
      Robert,
       
      I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave's subject line that Moses supported child molestation.  It was so inapproriate for this list.  If you would like to continue the discussion, then I suggest that you rename the subject line to something that doesn't sound so blatantly inappropriate. 
       
      If you think a good discussion will result from the subject manner and you present it in an appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me. 
       
      Louise

      Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:

      Louise,

      I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
      group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
      However, I have been working on a response to this
      thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
      Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
      correspondence) . Since the subject matter concerns
      the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a bit,
      also because I think it might open an interesting
      serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I think
      you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.

      Sincerely,

      Bob
      --- Louise <mclouus@yahoo. com> wrote:

      > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
      > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with
      > you can do so in private email.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > Dave Wave <empiricism101@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      > Recent Activity
      >
      > 1
      > New Members
      >
      > Visit Your Group
      > Yahoo! Avatars
      > Share Your Style
      > Show your face in
      > Messenger & more.
      >
      > Y! GeoCities
      > Share Your Resume
      > Show off your
      > talent and skills.
      >
      > Y! Toolbar
      > Groups in 1 Click
      > Add Groups to
      > Yahoo! Toolbar.
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ---
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
      Mail.

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail. yahoo.com


      Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

    • Robert Nusom
      Louise, So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the term as those of us who believe in God in some fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
        Louise,

        So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the
        term as those of us who believe in God in some
        fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
        scripture only in the sense that they presume certain
        preconditions regarding God. To the atheistic world
        those preconditions do not exist. Frequently, those
        who choose not to believe in God do so simply as a
        means to shock and discredit those "fools" who lack
        the intellect or ability to see the "realities" of a
        happenstance world. In the case of Dave, his goal is
        not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
        debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
        preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God of
        Abraham, hold most dearly.

        There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
        first is to get angry at them and offer them no pulpit
        from which to voice their poison. The second is to
        let them run on with the venom until they expose
        themselves for what they are, all the while giving
        them every consideration and benefit of the doubt. In
        my experience the former reaction is the one they most
        like, since it allows them to walk away from the
        engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
        and if you challenge the fantasy, they become enraged,
        these God fearers suffer from a form of schizophrenia.

        Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their lack
        of faith in God, and they do not challenge
        God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
        tenuous than our own. People like Dave want to prove
        that they are right, so they get "in your face". This
        need to prove they are right is a certain and obvious
        sign that they have doubts. My correspondence on the
        issue at hand will center on those doubts.

        It is at worst, a lot of fun. At best, it well might
        make a dent in Dave's psyche that one day might make
        him look at God in a different way.

        I was once a Dave. I am not anymore because someone
        took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
        them for what they were. I am not a Christian, but
        the efforts of that person turned me around until I
        came to love God as a Noahide.

        Sincerely,

        Bob



        --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

        > Robert,
        >
        > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
        > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
        > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
        > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
        > suggest that you rename the subject line to
        > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
        > inappropriate.
        >
        > If you think a good discussion will result from
        > the subject manner and you present it in an
        > appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
        >
        > Louise,
        >
        > I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
        > group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
        >
        > However, I have been working on a response to this
        > thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
        > Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
        > correspondence). Since the subject matter concerns
        > the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a
        > bit,
        > also because I think it might open an interesting
        > serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I
        > think
        > you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Bob
        > --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:
        >
        > > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
        > > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it
        > with
        > > you can do so in private email.
        > >
        > > Louise
        > >
        > > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
        > > Recent Activity
        > >
        > > 1
        > > New Members
        > >
        > > Visit Your Group
        > > Yahoo! Avatars
        > > Share Your Style
        > > Show your face in
        > > Messenger & more.
        > >
        > > Y! GeoCities
        > > Share Your Resume
        > > Show off your
        > > talent and skills.
        > >
        > > Y! Toolbar
        > > Groups in 1 Click
        > > Add Groups to
        > > Yahoo! Toolbar.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > .
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ---------------------------------
        > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
        > Mail.
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
        > protection around
        > http://mail.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make
        > PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Dave Wave
        ... I understand if you use the inappropriateness argument. But as far as I can tell, I supported my interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
          --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

          > Robert,
          >
          > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
          > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
          > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
          > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
          > suggest that you rename the subject line to
          > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
          > inappropriate.

          I understand if you use the "inappropriateness"
          argument.

          But as far as I can tell, I supported my
          interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
          to remove any posts whatsoever, but when you delete
          posts that are bible-based, because they are
          "inappropriate", it tells me that us skeptics have
          some really hot arguments, so hot that even some
          apologetics forums on the internet (the places you'd
          most likely get an answer from) will not dare touch
          the stuff.

          "keep the little girls alive for yourselves..."

          Not exactly how you greet each other in Sunday School,
          is it?


          --- Dave

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Dave Wave
          ... Psalm 14, the fool has said in his heart, there is no god . They are all corrupt... Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter s goal is not truly understanding, but
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
            --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
            > In the case of Dave, his goal
            > is
            > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
            > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
            > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
            > of
            > Abraham, hold most dearly.

            Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
            no god'. They are all corrupt..."

            Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
            understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
            underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
            choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
            dearly.

            > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
            > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
            > pulpit
            > from which to voice their poison.

            "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
            admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

            > The second is to
            > let them run on with the venom until they expose
            > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
            > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
            > In
            > my experience the former reaction is the one they
            > most
            > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
            > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
            > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
            > enraged,
            > these God fearers suffer from a form of
            > schizophrenia."

            Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
            still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

            If I thought my belief system could not stand
            scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
            everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
            after the first or second admonition.

            Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

            > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
            > lack
            > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
            > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
            > tenuous than our own.

            On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
            the something.

            Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

            Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
            the burden of proof.

            If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
            jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
            obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
            UNBELIEF would be the default position.

            It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
            is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
            Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
            My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
            and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
            belief.

            > People like Dave want to
            > prove
            > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

            That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
            more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
            they disagreed with.

            > This
            > need to prove they are right is a certain and
            > obvious
            > sign that they have doubts.

            So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
            he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
            in Acts:

            "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
            speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
            withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
            reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
            took place for two years, so that all who lived in
            Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
            Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

            Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
            Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
            harboring all that doubt, eh?

            > I was once a Dave.

            I was once a Robert.

            > I am not anymore because someone
            > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
            > them for what they were.

            I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
            attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

            --- Dave

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Robert Nusom
            Dave, Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay format when I discuss and debate. The cut and paste approach, setting out each line and then issuing
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
              Dave,

              Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay
              format when I discuss and debate. The "cut and paste"
              approach, setting out each line and then issuing a
              scathing rebuttal is a bit amateurish to my mind. The
              effect of it is to make anything someone says look
              foolish. In that way, it is disrespectful and I will
              not do it to you. However, you are free to discourse
              however you feel most comfortable.

              Before getting into your thoughts, I should again
              clarify that I am not a Christian and do not believe
              in the body of books called the "New Testament" or the
              "Apocrypha". I also do not believe in the various
              Talmuds or the Kabal. My faith is entirely derived
              from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thusly, your comments
              regarding Paul, the Christian Scriptures and even
              Jesus are not something I am competent to discuss, I
              will leave that to Christians who are far more
              knowledgeable on such things. Frankly, I cannot
              disagree with your assessment of Paul, but that is a
              discussion for another time.

              However, your quotation of the fourteenth Psalm is
              very interesting. I should point out (and I assume
              that you already know) that the term "fool" as used
              here is more closely identified as being someone who
              is morally deficient. The term is not used in the
              same context as the modern idea of a "fool" who is
              someone rather considered intellectually deficient or
              very gullible. The term fool is used, as near as I
              can guess, in its context as a lack of wisdom, meaning
              a lack of Godly wisdom, which is also fodder for a
              whole different discussion. The term is used to say
              that atheists are morally evil and is completely
              appropriate in that context. Given that the best
              definition that I can give for Godly morality is
              obedience to and love of God, an atheist is ipso facto
              incapable of being moral. That isn't to say that
              atheists have no values or even virtues. It does not
              mean that Atheists cannot be "nice" people. It simply
              means that Atheists are in a state of rebellion to
              God, which means they are not obedient to his will and
              therefore cannot, by Godly definition, be moral.

              I guess I don't see how a simple truth that says that
              someone who doesn't believe in God cannot be a part of
              the morality of God is "degrading and debasing the
              underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
              choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
              dearly." If you truly are an Atheist, you should wear
              the monikor like a badge of honor. It attests to the
              reality that you have not been taken in by this
              non-existent God and those fatuous people who have
              fallen for the whole hoax. You are not one of his
              people, and thus are not bound by his sense of
              morality or his expectations. Thus, you are
              absolutely devoid of Godly Morality and, in this
              context, a fool. Of course, to your mind, those of us
              who have been "taken in" by this non-existent God are
              fools in the more modern sense of the term, people who
              are gullible and lack the intelligence to see through
              the whole charade.

              As for the rest of your response, the majority regards
              Christian Scriptures and Christian Dogma, for which I
              am absolutely unqualified to offer answer.

              Then you move on to the question of a burden of proof.
              This is an argument I will shrink from. The question
              of a burden of proof is defined by the court system in
              which evidence is presented, I am not on trial and
              neither are you. The only trial we must concern
              ourselves with is the one that will be held before
              God, and that is one for which you have no concern.
              Or do you? I cannot prove there is a God and you
              cannot prove there is not one. It is a debate that
              goes back to the beginnings of recorded history and
              probably well beyond. We will not settle it here. Of
              course, you believe the debate is over and the
              Atheists have won. I, of course, would point to the
              fact that the overwhelming majority of people continue
              to believe in God (or at least, some supernatural
              entity or perception) and the debate can continue
              ad-nauseum.

              I have responded to your Moses post in the other
              forum, where the wording regarding Moses being a
              pedophile (May it never be) was not banned. If the
              people in this group would like to see it, I will post
              it here as well, but I will not change the name of the
              thread, shameful as it may be. Such are my views of
              free speach.

              In the love of God,

              Bob

              --- Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:

              > --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
              > > In the case of Dave, his goal
              > > is
              > > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
              > > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
              > > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the
              > God
              > > of
              > > Abraham, hold most dearly.
              >
              > Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
              > no god'. They are all corrupt..."
              >
              > Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
              > understanding, but that of degrading and debasing
              > the
              > underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we,
              > who
              > choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold
              > most
              > dearly.
              >
              > > There are two ways of dealing with such people.
              > The
              > > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
              > > pulpit
              > > from which to voice their poison.
              >
              > "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
              > admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)
              >
              > > The second is to
              > > let them run on with the venom until they expose
              > > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
              > > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
              >
              > > In
              > > my experience the former reaction is the one they
              > > most
              > > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
              > > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy
              > world
              > > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
              > > enraged,
              > > these God fearers suffer from a form of
              > > schizophrenia."
              >
              > Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
              > still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.
              >
              > If I thought my belief system could not stand
              > scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
              > everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
              > after the first or second admonition.
              >
              > Paul knew what was good for business and what
              > wasn't.
              >
              > > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
              > > lack
              > > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
              > > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
              > > tenuous than our own.
              >
              > On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
              > the something.
              >
              > Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.
              >
              > Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who
              > has
              > the burden of proof.
              >
              > If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
              > jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
              > obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So
              > your
              > UNBELIEF would be the default position.
              >
              > It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
              > is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my
              > heart.
              > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
              > My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position,
              > unless
              > and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
              > belief.
              >
              > > People like Dave want to
              > > prove
              > > that they are right, so they get "in your face".
              >
              > That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
              > more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
              > they disagreed with.
              >
              > > This
              > > need to prove they are right is a certain and
              > > obvious
              > > sign that they have doubts.
              >
              > So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity
              > after
              > he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
              > in Acts:
              >
              > "But when some were becoming hardened and
              > disobedient,
              > speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
              > withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
              > reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
              > took place for two years, so that all who lived in
              > Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
              > Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)
              >
              > Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
              > Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
              > harboring all that doubt, eh?
              >
              > > I was once a Dave.
              >
              > I was once a Robert.
              >
              > > I am not anymore because someone
              > > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and
              > recognized
              > > them for what they were.
              >
              > I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
              > attacks seriously and recognized them for what they
              > were.
              >
              > --- Dave
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
              > protection around
              > http://mail.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Ramon
              Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."  You are a black hole, sucking up all the energy within your reach.  You don't think Titus 3:9 is wise?  Of course you do, but only after giving yourself  way too much credit, all unwarranted.   
                 
                And the psalmist?  Simply speaking the truth as the Creator knows it, and desires to communicate that to us. Very basic really.  But you are so obviously defensive your take on it is amazing.  I have seen these arguments refuted before but you just either ignore them, act unfazed, whatever. 
                 
                Burden of proof?  Please.  Who's been telling you Jesus is knocking at your heart?  Then talk to that person. You stick to your faith and I will stick to mine.  At least I know I have faith.  A very good thing, because it is a primary requirement for a believer.  BELIEVER.
                 
                Now you're going to suck up more energy from whomever wants to engage you, whether in love or in vanity, but this is all you're gonna get from me.  But don't worry, in my book, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am not condemning you in any way.  After all there is only one unforgivable sin, and you are very obviously not capable of committing that sin, so you're pretty safe in terms of eternal damnation.  But you will still be paying this all back.  And you know what they say about paybacks...
                 
                Ramon
                 
                 
                Ephesians 5:11
                And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.


                Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
                --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                > In the case of Dave, his goal
                > is
                > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
                > of
                > Abraham, hold most dearly.

                Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                no god'. They are all corrupt..."

                Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter' s goal is not truly
                understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
                underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                dearly.

                > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                > pulpit
                > from which to voice their poison.

                "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

                > The second is to
                > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                > In
                > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                > most
                > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                > enraged,
                > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                > schizophrenia. "

                Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

                If I thought my belief system could not stand
                scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                after the first or second admonition.

                Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

                > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                > lack
                > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                > tenuous than our own.

                On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                the something.

                Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

                Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
                the burden of proof.

                If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
                UNBELIEF would be the default position.

                It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                belief.

                > People like Dave want to
                > prove
                > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

                That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                they disagreed with.

                > This
                > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                > obvious
                > sign that they have doubts.

                So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
                he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                in Acts:

                "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
                speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

                Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                harboring all that doubt, eh?

                > I was once a Dave.

                I was once a Robert.

                > I am not anymore because someone
                > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                > them for what they were.

                I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

                --- Dave

                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail. yahoo.com



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

              • Jimmy Sloan
                Dave, With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                  Dave,

                  With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule
                  (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                  proposition incur a burden of proof and those that deny a proposition don't
                  incur the burden of proof?

                  You stated that if you claimed that there were a purple people-eater jumping
                  around on my leaft ear, that I would be under no obligation to prove this
                  statement wrong. I am inclined to agree, but not because there is any rule
                  of logic that states this. I would agree only because your proposition is
                  not something that people would be inclined to agree with for very good
                  reasons: We don't have experiential justifications that would lead us to
                  believe in purple people-eaters and even if we did, such a belief would not
                  change our lives in areas of knowledge, morality, our eternal destiny and so
                  on. Plus, it is obvious that your proposition is ad-hoc, so when you move
                  from burden of proof claims in purple people-eaters to that of God, I
                  believe that your move is unwarranted. You said:


                  "It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there is a man named Jesus
                  knocking at the door of my heart. Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not
                  a chance. My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless and until
                  evidence comes in to substantiate your belief."

                  You went from purple people-eaters to Christianity and claimed that it is
                  the same. How is it the same (other than your say so)? It seems to me that
                  you are comparing apples and oranges. Unbelief in purple people-eaters may
                  be one thing but just because we are warranted in our unbelief of such
                  entities, it doesn't follow that there is a warranted universal unbelief in
                  all existential entities and that atheism is a default position. What if I
                  don't believe that existence is real, can you prove that existence is real
                  (as opposed to an allusion)? And, if you can't (and I can assure you that
                  you can't), am I justified in my lack of belief until you provide evidence
                  to substantiate your claims that existence is real? Burden of proof claims
                  are always viewed from within a context; there are no rules of logic that
                  state that unbelief is a default position of some kind. If you think there
                  are, then prove that I have to prove that God exists.

                  I know I could argue quite successfully that -- if anything -- agnosticism
                  is the default position, but I think I can do more than that and argue that
                  theism is the default position. There are no atheistic societies and from
                  our earliest history, man has always held to some type of belief in higher
                  powers. Atheists have always been a minority and without appealing to pure
                  numbers, it seems that such a near universal belief gives warrant to the
                  fact that our belief is justified. Just because some skeptic comes along
                  and says, "I am not happy with that, there is no evidence for God, etc.
                  etc." does not mean that we theists have a burden of proof. Anyone can be a
                  skeptic, that's easy. But until you show me a law of logic or text in a
                  reliable logic textbook, I see no reasons to accept your claim other than
                  just your assertion. An assertion that is, up this point, a baseless
                  assertion without merit.




                  ~ J. Sloan


                  Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
                  nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.





                  >
                  >It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                  >is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                  > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                  >My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                  >and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                  >belief.

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
                  ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.