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

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Robert Nusom

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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 1ยข/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 2 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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.