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