Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!tjt
From: tjt@masscomp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Resurrection and the Burden of Proof
Message-ID: <138@masscomp.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-May-83 23:20:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: masscomp.138
Posted: Sat May 28 23:20:25 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 29-May-83 08:23:18 EDT
References: ihuxu.172
Lines: 23


    Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty"
    judicial concept as justification for placing the burden
    of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians.  He makes
    it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one.
    Consider that in the country from which we derived much
    of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position
    is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"!  By historical
    precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of
    refuting the Resurrection.
		    Vickie Klick
		    BTL - ihuxu!klick

If you seriously claim that the burden of proof should always fall on
non-believers, how about refuting the claims of Buddhism, Hinduism,
Shinto, ....  Of course, if you consider belief in Christianity to be
sufficient refutation of these claims then in fairness, you ought to
also consider belief in atheism sufficient refutation of Christian
claims.
	
		    Tom Teixeira
		    ...!decvax!genrad!masscomp!tjt