Does Till make a living on atheism? (was Fw: Kalam Cosmological Argument 2

Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:05:00 -0500 (00889689900, 19980312015730.AAA117@briandea) 

TILL
Yes, the universe also consists of existents that are dependent on matter.
Thoughts, for example, exist, but they are dependent on the gray matter in
brains. I wouldn't have it any other way.  Wouldn't it be terrible if we existed but
couldn't think?

RON
You on the other hand have been unable to offer any evidence that God does
not exist or that the universe spontaneously generated. How can you ask me
to provide evidence that He does exist when you have not proven He does
not?  Where's the beef! 

TILL
I'll make a deal with you.  When you prove that fairies do not exist, I will
then undertake to prove that "God" doesn't exist.

RON
I am not a leader of an organization that dedicates itself to the 
proposition that fairies do not exist. Nor do I devote extensive amounts 
of my time propagating this notion. I do not label myself an afaeryst. 
Frankly I don't much care whether faeries do or did exist and I will not 
form an internet chat group to convince myself and others that faeries 
are not. Do you see the difference? Or perhaps you  now consider 
yourself an agnostic? Based on your lack of evidence this would be a 
much more honest and scientific position.

TILL
You are implying that I am the leader of an organization that dedicates
itself to the proposition that God does not exist, but I am not the leader
of any such organization.  *The Skeptical Review* focuses only on exposing
the absurdity of the biblical inerrancy doctrine, and this was made very
plain in the very first editorial article of this paper:

We could quibble and say that ours is not a religious publication.  In 
the strictest sense of the word, religion is the expression of belief in and 
reverence for a supernatural entity, so in that respect ours will certainly
not be a "religious" publication. At no time will we be found admonishing our 
readers to "believe in God"; we won't even get involved in the theism-atheism
controversy.  Being primarily agnostic in our convictions, we will leave this
matter to those who are far more sure of their positions (on both sides) than
we could ever be.  

     Our purpose will be to promote critical examination of the Bible
inerrancy doctrine, and that will make ours an unusual publication. There
are journals that devote some space to this subject, but only one other we know 
about that exists only to challenge traditional assumptions on which this
belief  has thrived.  As our readers get to know us, we suspect that many will 
concur in saying that we are far from religious. Some might even insist that 
"irreligious" more  appropriately describes us. Nevertheless, our editorial 
purpose will focus in each issue on an important religious matter--the 
doctrine of Bible inerrancy--and so to that extent we have to agree that ours is a 
religious publication.  We just can't think of *The Skeptical Review* as being 
only "another" religious publication.  We think we will be quite different
from the others.


That statement appeared in our first issue published (January 1990), and we
have stuck to this policy ever since.  "My" organization was established to
oppose biblical inerrancy and NOT atheism, and "my" internet group was
established for the same reason.  The title of the list is "Errancy" and NOT
"Atheism."  You made a statement that challenged us to assume the burden of
proof on an issue that is really your responsibility to prove, so either
assume that burden or else we will know that you are ducking and dodging as
usual.

RON
 Obviously your discussions are not limited to proving the errancy of 
Scripture. Anyone reading it would conclude that you are pushing 
atheism. Are you suggesting that you believe in or are unsure about the 
existence of God, but simply disbelieve the inerrancy of the Bible?