tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114020686716767989..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The latest on presuppositionalismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1140284333147146022006-02-18T10:38:00.000-07:002006-02-18T10:38:00.000-07:00Dr. Reppert, You said, "I also think that the Van ...Dr. Reppert, <BR/><BR/><BR/>You said, "I also think that the Van Tilian emphasis on suppressing the truth is a respectable and intelligent position for which biblical support can be given. I do not think that the rhetorical statement that there are really no atheists is equally respectable. I think people who say the latter are really trying to say the former; if so, just say the former and avoid embarrassing your own message by saying the latter."<BR/><BR/>Not that this makes this position any more correct, but I think that this position (the NA thesis) can definitely be used to defend against certain atheists that attempt to thwart the burden of proof. I know you have written on the NA thesis but I didn't see where this 'benefit' was mentioned (I could've missed it is my haste). They will usually say something to the effect that they have a *lack* of belief and therefore no burden. Paul Manata has written on this at his blogsite and it is worth considering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com