Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!scott
From: sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: 'Proof' of God's Existence
Message-ID: <3704@qip.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 90 23:20:40 GMT
References: <1990Jul9.214540.17609@acd4.UUCP> <4b8341f3.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <4926@milton.u.washington.edu> <4b8c0bcf.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <9528.269c81e6@pbs.org> <S`T$~S@rpi.edu> <9543.269d90c9@pbs.org> <5051@milton.u.washington.edu> <9580.26a17f64@pbs.org> <graham.
Reply-To: sc...@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ
Lines: 55
Posted: Wed Jul 18 00:20:40 1990

In article <9591.26a2d...@pbs.org> btiff...@pbs.org writes:
>
>I think the man was insane, so even if
>that were true, an insane man might die for a hoax.

On what do you base your asssessment of his sanity?

>The apostles were not
>insane, they were very much sane,

On what do you base your assessment of the apostles' sanity?

>and I still find it irrational to believe
>they would knowingly die for a hoax.

Why do you find it irrational?  Do you contend that no sane man has ever
knowingly died for a hoax?  Can you demonstrate that A)they were sane, and
B)no one sane dies for a hoax?

>My original statement, which no one
>has yet refuted, is that I find it hard to believe the apostles would die for
>a hoax.

This is rich.  How does anyone other than you refute a statement of your
beliefs?  You're not asking anyone to refute that the apostles would not
die for a hoax, because you make no such claim.  Your claim is about your
*belief* about whether the apostles would die for a hoax.

If you present the assertion that the apostles *could not* have knowingly
died for a hoax as a fact, how about providing some evidence for it?

>	This is unwarranted.  The things I'm reading in this thread indicated to
>me that most people are theorizing al kinds of things when they really know
>very little about the history in question.

Yeah, and one of the things they are `theorizing' about is that the apostles
would not die for a hoax; unfortunately, they are doing so without much
support, so it isn't much of a theory.

>But that makes no difference --
>it's not important to have the facts straight, only to find excuses to doubt
>the possibility of the resurrection.

Do you assert a resurrection?  If so, support it with evidence.  If you feel it
is the duty of others to refute the claim, and not of yourself to support it,
then how about refuting the existence of invisible pink unicorns?

>It's becoming pretty obvious who the
>irrational ones are around here.
 
It sure is; just look in the mirror.



scott