Jet Grind

Really? I didn't know that. Just about everyone's (including mine) understanding of the burden of proof is contrary to your's. Perhaps you can find me an authority on this, we'll all be happy to be corrected. And if your not willing to accept the burden of proof, what's your point in coming here anyway? Are you here just to irritate us? Really, I'm interested.

yguy

It is intuitively obvious. If you don't believe it, just try to force me to prove anything. If I don't, of course, I can reasonably expect that many will not believe me, but producing reams of evidence may not change that anyway.

I'm here to say what I think, and have it shot down if need be. So far, no one appears terribly inclined to make the effort to do it in this case, so I'm gonnna stay put. If that ticks you off, ask yourself why, if you dare.

Jet Grind

No one is "forcing" you to do anything, it's a little thing called logic that you are so willingly ignoring. You have already admitted that you're not going to back your claims up so I wonder why I'm even bothering with you.

Please.

What you're doing is not "ticking me off" in the least. Do you think that you're the first ranting theist that I've ever had to deal with? I'm just confronting you on a statement you made, that's all.

yguy

Me too.

The Naked Mage

Dr Rick

It's puzzling, but that's not the same as anger.

Please stick around and continue posting; it's doubtful that you will ever fully appreciate the support your posts provide for the opposing points of view.

You have my gratitude.

winstonjen

So it wasn't sodomy that caused the societies to collapse. Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

yguy

Did someone say it did?

And where would that be?

winstonjen

I thought you did.

Alonzo Fyfe

On the subject of burden of proof, I hold to the principle that the liberty of others to do as they please should be assumed, and the burden of proof rests not on the part of those who wish to be free, but on the part of those who wish to take freedom away.

And so the burden of proof is on those who wish to condemn homosexual acts.

In addition, an essential element of this 'burden of proof' is to actually provide proof. Ungrounded assumptions and personal likes and dislikes are not 'proof' and are not legitimate grounds for a loss of freedom. The person who would deny freedom on the bases of arguments having no merit, is really no better than the person who would deny freedom on the basis of no argument whatsoever.

It is the same principle, held to be a right in a trial by jury -- the principle that a person is to be assumed innocent unless guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not just a legal principle, it is a moral principle, and it is as valid outside the courtroom as it is inside. Indeed, the only thing the legal principle does is take a pre-existing moral principle and codifies it, and gives it substance, within the legal institution -- thus recognizing the difference between just (moral) law and unjust (immoral) law.

In this, unfounded assertions about the Roman empire and other ancient historical events do not count as proof. Indeed, they are just as easily categorized as rationalizations. A certain amount of moral condemnation can be cast, as well, on those so eager to deny another freedom, than they accept flawed and superficial arguments in defense of such action. A good person does not rush to deny freedom to another, but accepts the need to do so only reluctantly -- only when forced to by the weight of arguments he cannot deny or circumvent. Accordingly, a person who rushes to deny the freedom of another, cannot qualify as good.