XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: prochoice@here.now   
      
   On 20 May 2004 18:37:30 -0700, rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B.   
   Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id   
   <7943568.0405201737.73d82f06@posting.google.com> wrote:   
      
   >"Light Templar"  wrote in message news:<   
   W9rc.3775$be.1018@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...   
   >> While Robert B. Winn was contemplating his or her navel in   
   >> news:7943568.0405200932.175ac06b@posting.google.com,   
   >>  he or she gave us all a good laugh with the   
   >> following...   
   >>   
   >> > "Light Templar"  wrote in message   
   >> > news:...   
   >> >> While Attila was contemplating his or her navel in   
   >> >> news:qf4oa0teh61q6fm2t8imvvoastafc38ufr@4ax.com,   
   >> >>  he or she gave us all a good laugh with the   
   >> >> following...   
   >> >>   
   >> >>> On 19 May 2004 18:55:48 -0700, rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B.   
   >> >>> Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >> >>> <7943568.0405191755.24a2f0fc@posting.google.com> wrote:   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>> What is it that you think I should be trying to prove to myself?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>> The truth of your beliefs.   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> Well, I just find out what Jesus Christ taught with regard to any   
   >> >>>> particular thing, and it is proven.   
   >> >>>> Robert B. Winn   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> How do you know?   
   >> >>   
   >> >> What he means is that he accepts dogma as fact and can't figure out   
   >> >> for the life of  him why other people don't.   
   >> >   
   >> > If Jesus Christ said it, then it is true.   
   >>   
   >> Prove it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   You were the one who was   
   >> > trying to prove Jesus Christ wrong.   
   >>   
   >> Nope, I'm trying to get you to prove the assertions you make.  If you can't   
   >> prove them, then they have no credibility by default.   
   >   
   >Well, that is a problem when talking to pro-abortion police state   
   >advocates.   
      
   It seems to be a problem you have since you apparently cannot support   
   anything you say.   
      
   > For instance, I could say,  The Bible says that the sun   
   >shines during the day.   
      
   Which would be a verifiable fact.  But that would do nothing to prove   
   any statement not directly dependent on the sun shinning during the   
   day.   
      
   >The atheist would be compelled to try to prove that wrong because it   
   >is in the Bible,   
      
   Wrong.  There are many true statements in your bible just as that are   
   many true statements in any book.  However (and this is the point at   
   which your mind shuts down) the validity of one statement does nothing   
   to prove the validity of another unrelated statement.   
      
   In the example you hate so much the provable validity of the existence   
   of the city of Atlanta and the provable occurrence of the Civil War   
   does nothing to prove Scarlet O'Hara and Rett Butler were involved   
   with either, or that a plantation named Tara ever existed south of   
   Atlanta.   
      
   In fact, it did not, which can also be proven.  This shows that a book   
   can contain both truth and non-truth, and the truth does not support   
   or prove the non-truth it also contains.   
      
      
   >just as they try to prove Hezekiah's tunnel does not   
   >exist because its construction is described in the Bible.   
      
   Not at all.  It is just that we do not blindly accept being mentioned   
   in your bible is any proof of it's validity.  We look elsewhere.   
      
   >So it seems   
   >that the burden of proof is on the atheists.   
      
   No, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.  If you   
   say something is true (such as that tunnel actually existing in a   
   certain place and being a certain tunnel) you must prove that your   
   statements are true.  It is not necessary for anyone to prove them   
   false, although if that can be done it is certainly allowed in order   
   to further undermine any shred of credibility you  may have left.   
      
   But it is not required.   
      
   This is no doubt far beyond your ability to comprehend or beyond your   
   threshold of acceptance.  Whether you reject this or simply do not   
   understand it really makes no difference does it?  Any response made   
   by you would have little to do with the subject since any substantial   
   response would contain elements you cannot allow in your distorted   
   version of reality.   
      
   Therefore this will probably be ignored in it's entirety.   
      
      
   >Robert B. Winn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)