Burden proof is coupled with burden to listen.

[chimp3]

If I tell someone they have the burden of proof, that in no way obligates me to listen to any thing else they have to say. I am not a captive audience.

[Mystic]

If I tell someone they have the burden of proof, that in no way obligates me to listen to any thing else they have to say. I am not a captive audience.

This attitude is ignorant, what's the point of being burdened with a proving something to you if you are not willing to listen?

[vulcanlogician]

I thought Christians and Jews lacked guidance in that most of it was corrupted. When I read the Torah and most of the Bible, I realized, very little of it is corrupted, sure a lot of digresses and there are some immoral teachings, but most of it is on point and in a eloquent manifest manner, that the truth is still manifested in it.

Who is anyone to judge what is or is not corrupted, MK? Of course some of the people who wrote down some stuff in the past have what you or I would call "a pure heart." Atheists can be pure-hearted as well. And when such an individual (whether atheist or theist) sits down to write something sincere, their sincerity is transmitted in their words. That doesn't make it true. That doesn't make it false either. I'm trying to get what you mean by "uncorrupted writing." If I have missed the mark, maybe a clear definition of uncorrupted is in order.

The Torah is very eloquent and beautiful. You guys have serious comprehension issues if you don't know how it proves God and his religion, and the Guides who are the true Kings and Names of God that no person should mix leadership of others with them, because there are no other paths and doors to God but them.

The Bhagavad Gita is very eloquent and beautiful. What does eloquence prove? If it proved anything, then you'd have to say that everything Christopher Hitchens wrote was proven by his (decidedly) eloquent stylings. The Bible does not prove anything because the Bible doesn't try to prove anything. The text is meant to be taken on its own authority. You won't find one argument for or against the existence of God in it.

(I think you might like the Bhagavad Gita, btw. You ever read it?)

And so much of the gospels are absolutely stunning in what is attributed to Jesus.

Yeah but the Gospels have all kinds of crap that were penned in there after the fact to make it look like Jesus fulfilled all the Messianic prophesies. That's shady. Is this the corruption you were speaking of?

I'm a peacenik, so I rather like the peacenik stuff in the Bible (love thy neighbor and all that). I also find quite a few of Christ's parables meaningful and profound (in a strictly moral sense). But guess what else? I pretty much find everything the philosopher William James wrote and published to be meaningful and eloquent. That doesn't make him God and that doesn't make his writings holy.

The Quran comments on the Torah and Gospels and other divine books in the earth eloquently.

As true as that may be, nothing is proven by eloquence.

[chimp3]

If I tell someone they have the burden of proof, that in no way obligates me to listen to any thing else they have to say. I am not a captive audience.

This attitude is ignorant, what's the point of being burdened with a proving something to you if you are not willing to listen?

I may be willing to listen but am under no obligation. Just as you are under no obligation to make any assertion in the first place. We are volunteers, not slaves.

[Mystic]

I'm saying the Torah and Gospels notwithstanding some flaws in it, have comprehensive proof for God and his religion.

---

This attitude is ignorant, what's the point of being burdened with a proving something to you if you are not willing to listen?

I may be willing to listen but am under no obligation. Just as you are under no obligation to make any assertion in the first place. We are volunteers, not slaves.

If you aren't willing to listen, no one is obligated to prove the proof you are looking for.

It's a quite simple concept to grasp.  Grasp it and move forward.

[chimp3]

I'm saying the Torah and Gospels notwithstanding some flaws in it, have comprehensive proof for God and his religion.

---

I may be willing to listen but am under no obligation. Just as you are under no obligation to make any assertion in the first place. We are volunteers, not slaves.

If you aren't willing to listen, no one is obligated to prove the proof you are looking for.

It's a quite simple concept to grasp.  Grasp it and move forward.

I am not compelled to believe you.

[Edwardo Piet]

If a person tells a person they have a burden proof and the person ought to bring, it's very simple to understand this: likewise there is burden for the person being presented the proof to listen attentively and sincerely and seek to understand the other side fully, not just to bicker.

Lest those without proof are equated with those upon proof, and lest, conjecture is equated with what logic and reason proves and lest the deceivers who manipulate people are equated with the true guides and leaders.

You realize that words are supposed to be arranged in a particular sequence in order for them to be comprehensible, right?

Boru

Agreed.

And even the following is easier to rearrange:

Hloy lniooe or MK a carp is fcuinkg a waht?

[chimp3]

I'm saying the Torah and Gospels notwithstanding some flaws in it, have comprehensive proof for God and his religion.

---

I may be willing to listen but am under no obligation. Just as you are under no obligation to make any assertion in the first place. We are volunteers, not slaves.

If you aren't willing to listen, no one is obligated to prove the proof you are looking for.

It's a quite simple concept to grasp.  Grasp it and move forward.

Think of this as if we are on a date. No matter how much I led you on, I can still say no!

[possibletarian]

If I tell someone they have the burden of proof, that in no way obligates me to listen to any thing else they have to say. I am not a captive audience.

This attitude is ignorant, what's the point of being burdened with a proving something to you if you are not willing to listen?

Have you anything new to say, something you have not presented before ?

Seems to me you just want people to repeatedly listen to what you have to say, even if they have heard it before. But then i guess that's how indoctrination works in part. If the 'truth' of what you teach were self apparent (and a god would be able to make it such) then there would be no doubt. If all you are left with is constant repetition of arguments you have had rejected many times before, then why do you think we should listen ?

[Fireball]

I think most people have listened intently at some point or other, many on this forum are ex-believers.

Often when things are dismissed out of hand it's because it is not a new argument being presented, it is one that has been listened to many times before, and just because it's new or truth to you does not mean hasn't been found lacking many many times before.  Also just because it's presented with sincerity does not make it new or any more believable than the many times it has been said sincerely before.

No, no one has a duty to listen to the same failed argument over and over again, no matter how sincere the presentation.

But, but, but, I have the real  "Good News!"... [/theist]

You've taken more time and made a more eloquent response for why I don't argue with the religious than I would have. I've seen enough of their religious flatus to last a lifetime.