In Reply to: Re: Bible Questions posted by OT2 on February 18, 2006 at 14:55:35:
If you took my post to be an ad hominem attack, I do apologize.
I specifically worded my post to avoid that, which is why I said, "from the way you write" and "you give the impression that", which are both distinctly different than saying "you are".
Neither were they accusations made to draw away from the point of the argument, but to state that from your description of atheism and then Christianity, it led me (the reader) to believe that you were the type of person that, shall we say, gets 110% behind whatever your current belief set might be and thus promotes it enthusiastically. This then would move the rational observer to call into question your findings.
You explained this further and I take your comments at face value. However, the way your original post was constructed, that was the impression I was left with.
As far as my belief that Christianity is "hogwash". That was the kinder, gentler term I chose to use. My more poignant thoughts are saved for off the internet where I do not have to spend hours typing out what I can say in fifteen minutes and where my hand gestures, sarcasm and facial expressions entertain rather than infuriate the way blocks of type have a tendency to do.
Although I do not agree with everything that Paul Tobin says on his website (nor I have even read every page that he has on it), most of what I have read concerning the Old Testament, New Testament, Jesus, the early apostles and other related issues, I do agree with having previously covered similar territory in research of my own before discovering his website.
I see no reason why I should spend months of my time re-articulating the facts that he has laboriously documented. I feel he has done a credible job at disproving Christianity. Beyond that, it is simply a matter in choice of belief, or what makes the most logical sense to me.
I am firmly convinced that people will believe what they want to believe, and that documentation and research will be taken whichever way those who read it wish to interpret it. I am comfortable interpreting the findings to point against Christianity, you on the other hand (assuming we are discussing the same documentation) are comfortable interpreting them to point to Christianity.
However, as far as where the burden of proof lies, I do believe science agrees that it is impossible to prove a negative, and therefore it is the positive statement that requires proof.
Similarly, long before I was born the debate began over whether such burden should lie with with theism or atheism. I choose to believe the former, you the later.
To each his own. I have no desire to prove anything to anyone and I have no desire to have you waste your time trying to "prove" it to me.
Believe away.