Stuff this entire forum agrees on!

[notachance]

Over several months of posting on this forum, here is a list of things that I think we can all agree on, based on the approval of the majority, and on the patently obvious inability of the minority who disagreed to adequately articulate their case.

1) Theists have the burden of proof.

In court we assume innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty.

Similarly, in discussing the universe overall, we assume a phenomenon is natural until proven supernatural, and the burden of proof is on the theist to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is supernatural.

Disagree? Please post here or here

2) There is no tangible good reason to be a Christian

Theists can give all sorts of reasons why they believe in God, but cannot give any good reason why anybody other than themselves should believe what they believe.

Disagree? Post here

3) There are no prophecies in the Bible

Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to prophecies that actually demonstrate the ability of the author to supernaturally predict the future.

Disagree? Please post here

4) Mary was having sex 9 months before Jesus was born

Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories.

Disagree? Post here

5) Prayer is just talking to yourself, wishful thinking and glorified placebo effect

Disagree? Post here

6) The Bible is no more likely to be a true lesson from God to humanity, than it is likely to be a prank from God.

Disagree? Post here

7) The Bible is no more likely to be written from God, than it is likely to have been written by the Devil.

Disagree? Post here

8) It's no more likely that God inspired the writing of the Bible than that he inspired any other alleged holy book, such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Disagree? Post here

9) If the God of the Bible existed, he would not be worthy of our love

Disagree? Post here or here

10) The Bible condones all sorts of evil behavior

Disagree? Post here

11) There is no evidence whatsoever of God's interventions.

Disagree? Write here

12) There is NO empirical extra-Biblical evidence for supernatural claims in the Bible

Disagree? Post here


So, given the fact that we can all agree on all these things, why are we still here? Atheists won. It's over. It's done. Put a fork in it.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to pretend there is some tangible reason for your beliefs that you can debate in a forum with rules relating to evidence and reason! There isn't.

[100%atheist]

So, given the fact that we can all agree on all these things, why are we still here? Atheists won. It's over. It's done. Put a fork in it.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to pretend there is some tangible reason for your beliefs that you can debate in a forum with rules relating to evidence and reason! There isn't.

Mamma mia! You are probably a rare gnostic atheist. Please try to minimize your generalization efforts, believe me quite a few atheists would disagree with you.

I'm not a gnostic theist. Find me a spot anywhere in my months of posting here where I say "I know there is no God" and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

I am just saying in several different ways that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof on all sorts of central claims of Christianity, and that if they are unable to present new arguments to back up their positive beliefs, they should just stop rehashing the same old tired and false ones.

Seriously 100%atheist, I don't know if you happen to be very tired right now, or under the influence of some narcotic, or mad about something that happened to you in real life, but your post here was a monumental display of ignorance and poor thinking skills. I would suggest you sleep on it, and find it in you to retract everything tomorrow morning. Wow, dude.

I think it will be accurate to state that there is some degree of disagreement between your statements and thoughts of several other atheists, which effectively negates your original statement that "we can all agree on all these things". No, we can't.

Regarding your central idea of the burden of proof, there are Christians who do not claim that they know that God exists. They may believe in God though, which is not the same. For example, if you believe that Fermat theorem is correct, this does not mean anyone expects you to prove it. However, if you claim that you know for sure that Fermat's last theorem is correct, the burden of proof is on you.

Also, I am not sure where you go with accusing me of "a monumental display of ignorance and poor thinking skills". I will ascribe this for now to "an unintentionally poor choice of words".

[notachance]

So, given the fact that we can all agree on all these things, why are we still here? Atheists won. It's over. It's done. Put a fork in it.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to pretend there is some tangible reason for your beliefs that you can debate in a forum with rules relating to evidence and reason! There isn't.

Mamma mia! You are probably a rare gnostic atheist. Please try to minimize your generalization efforts, believe me quite a few atheists would disagree with you.

I'm not a gnostic theist. Find me a spot anywhere in my months of posting here where I say "I know there is no God" and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

I am just saying in several different ways that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof on all sorts of central claims of Christianity, and that if they are unable to present new arguments to back up their positive beliefs, they should just stop rehashing the same old tired and false ones.

Seriously 100%atheist, I don't know if you happen to be very tired right now, or under the influence of some narcotic, or mad about something that happened to you in real life, but your post here was a monumental display of ignorance and poor thinking skills. I would suggest you sleep on it, and find it in you to retract everything tomorrow morning. Wow, dude.

I think it will be accurate to state that there is some degree of disagreement between your statements and thoughts of several other atheists, which effectively negates your original statement that "we can all agree on all these things". No, we can't.

Regarding your central idea of the burden of proof, there are Christians who do not claim that they know that God exists. They may believe in God though, which is not the same. For example, if you believe that Fermat theorem is correct, this does not mean anyone expects you to prove it. However, if you claim that you know for sure that Fermat's last theorem is correct, the burden of proof is on you.

Also, I am not sure where you go with accusing me of "a monumental display of ignorance and poor thinking skills". I will ascribe this for now to "an unintentionally poor choice of words".

You claimed at first to disagree with several of my points, and now you only bring up my first point about the burden of proof, so I'm assuming you realize you were wrong in all your other claims.

So let's talk about the burden of proof thing.

You are completely 100% wrong. The burden of proof does NOT rest only on those who assert 100% certainty. That is patently false. You need to understand this.

A prosecutor doesn't need to be 100% certain that an alleged criminal is guilty. The degree of certainty is completely irrelevant. He could personally be only 10% certain that the guy is guilty. But if he makes an assertion to the effect that the guy's guilty, THEN HE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

Burden of proof is NOT the same as proof.

Depending on the circumstance, the burden of proof would have to be met with a mathematical proof (Fermat's theorem), or it could be met with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal case) or it could be met with as little as preponderance of evidence, meaning that the evidence in favor of something is at least a little bit better than the evidence against it (a small claims court case).

If somebody makes the assertion that in their opinion Jesus rose from the dead, for example, it doesn't matter one bit whether they are 100% certain of this or not. If they make the positive assertion that Jesus rose from the dead, they have the burden of proof. In this case, in my opinion, asking for a burden of proof of absolute mathematical proof would be excessive, asking for preponderance of evidence would be too loose, but to ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is adequate.

The overwhelming majority of Christians are agnostic theists, NOT gnostic. Therefore they don't claim to KNOW for sure that God exists. This does not absolve them of their burden of proof, if they choose to make the positive claim that in their opinion God probably exists.

If you make the claim that "Bigfoot definitely exists" then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that Bigfoot definitely exists.

If you make the claim that "Bigfoot probably exists", then you have to burden of proof to demonstrate that Bigfoot probably exists.

If you're certain you have to demonstrate good reason for certainty.

If you're almost certain, you have demonstrate good reason for almost certainty.

A person who doesn't assert knowledge but asserts belief that God exists, doesn't have to demonstrate good reason for asserting knowledge, but has the burden of proof to demonstrate good reason for asserting belief.

Regarding Fermat theorem you wrote

if you believe that Fermat theorem is correct, this does not mean anyone expects you to prove it. However, if you claim that you know for sure that Fermat's last theorem is correct, the burden of proof is on you.

That is patently false.

If I claim 100% certainty, then the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate good reason for 100% certainty. In other words I would have to provide a mathematical proof for the validity of the theorem.

If I didn't claim 100% certainty then I would not have to submit a mathematical proof. If I nonetheless claim that I'm, say, 99% sure that the theorem is correct, then the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate a good reason for 99% certainty. I wouldn't have to submit mathematical proof, but I would have to submit very compelling evidence indeed.

[100%atheist]

You claimed at first to disagree with several of my points, and now you only bring up my first point about the burden of proof, so I'm assuming you realize you were wrong in all your other claims.

I think all I need to do in response to your baseless statement is to invite you to read your own post:

I am just saying in several different ways that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof on all sorts of central claims of Christianity

Also, I didn't think that any detailed response will still be needed after the posts of AkiThePirate with whom I generally agree.

So let's talk about the burden of proof thing.

Okay, let's talk.

You are completely 100% wrong. The burden of proof does NOT rest only on those who assert 100% certainty. That is patently false. You need to understand this.

I understand this, and never claimed otherwise. Would you settle on 97%? Seriously, what you are trying to do here is to talk in terms of absolutes, "100% certainty", "100% wrong". But let's see where you go with this.

A prosecutor doesn't need to be 100% certain that an alleged criminal is guilty. The degree of certainty is completely irrelevant. He could personally be only 10% certain that the guy is guilty. But if he makes an assertion to the effect that the guy's guilty, THEN HE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

I think that personal convictions of prosecutors should not necessarily be in line with their legal statements. Prosecutors have the burden of proof because they make claims (that is required by the rules of legal system).

Burden of proof is NOT the same as proof.

I am not sure what you want to say by this.

Depending on the circumstance, the burden of proof would have to be met with a mathematical proof (Fermat's theorem), or it could be met with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal case) or it could be met with as little as preponderance of evidence, meaning that the evidence in favor of something is at least a little bit better than the evidence against it (a small claims court case).

Again and again, all these require a CLAIM to be made. (and I am also not sure that this is how small claims courts operate).

If somebody makes the assertion that in their opinion Jesus rose from the dead, for example, it doesn't matter one bit whether they are 100% certain of this or not. If they make the positive assertion that Jesus rose from the dead, they have the burden of proof. In this case, in my opinion, asking for a burden of proof of absolute mathematical proof would be excessive, asking for preponderance of evidence would be too loose, but to ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is adequate.

Again, you talk about claims. But how about this (just as an example and not as a statement of my true convictions or believes): "I don't know if Jesus rose from the dead, and I don't claim this, but I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and if this is not what you believe it's absolutely fine with me. And if you ask me to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, I will tell you that I don't have any proof of that and I don't claim that He did. And if you insist that if I have no proof than He didn't rose from the dead, but then I will point out that the burden of proof is on you."

The overwhelming majority of Christians are agnostic theists, NOT gnostic. Therefore they don't claim to KNOW for sure that God exists. This does not absolve them of their burden of proof, if they choose to make the positive claim that in their opinion God probably exists.

WHAT THE ?! //pardon my French.
If Christians "choose to make the positive claim that in their opinion God probably exists", they become GNOSTICS! Also, I am not sure about your claim that "overwhelming majority of Christians are agnostic theists". Do you have any supporting information.

If you make the claim that "Bigfoot definitely exists" then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that Bigfoot definitely exists.

This is correct. But what if I don't make such claim, and I still believe in Bigfoot?

If you make the claim that "Bigfoot probably exists", then you have to burden of proof to demonstrate that Bigfoot probably exists.

This is probably correct. But what if I don't make such claim, and I still believe in Bigfoot?

If you're certain you have to demonstrate good reason for certainty.

If you're almost certain, you have demonstrate good reason for almost certainty.

NO, I don't. I am certain about many things, but I may never make any claims about them. Until I make a claim, it's just between me and me. The only circumstance when I would HAVE TO demonstrate any good reason for certainty is when I try to convince others that I am right. In all other circumstances, I don't have to do it.

A person who doesn't assert knowledge but asserts belief that God exists, doesn't have to demonstrate good reason for asserting knowledge, but has the burden of proof to demonstrate good reason for asserting belief.

I wonder what such proof going to be. Let me say, I belief that God exists and I can proof that I have a good reason for my belief because I like to have doughnuts on Sunday mornings.

Regarding Fermat theorem you wrote

if you believe that Fermat theorem is correct, this does not mean anyone expects you to prove it. However, if you claim that you know for sure that Fermat's last theorem is correct, the burden of proof is on you.

That is patently false.

If I claim 100% certainty, then the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate good reason for 100% certainty. In other words I would have to provide a mathematical proof for the validity of the theorem.

If I didn't claim 100% certainty then I would not have to submit a mathematical proof. If I nonetheless claim that I'm, say, 99% sure that the theorem is correct, then the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate a good reason for 99% certainty. I wouldn't have to submit mathematical proof, but I would have to submit very compelling evidence indeed.

Now I see why you started this with discussing certainties. If you claim that you are 99% know the solution to a mathematical problem this is equal to you having no solution.

[dianaiad]

Over several months of posting on this forum, here is a list of things that I think we can all agree on, based on the approval of the majority, and on the patently obvious inability of the minority who disagreed to adequately articulate their case.

1) Theists have the burden of proof.

For you to assume that:
a. we ALL (everybody who posts here) agree with you because
b. anybody who doesn't is inarticulate and unable to make a point,

is not only poisoning the well, it's also begging the question, and a bit of a True Scot...and a considerable amount of ad hominem going on there.

You know who has the burden of proof? The one who makes the positive claim. Thus, if a theist says 'There is a God,' then yes, the burden of proof is on him. However, if the atheist says "there isn't one,' THEN guess who has that burden?

(hint...not the theist.)

When either one says 'I believe," or "I don't believe," there is no burden, except to prove that s/he is telling the truth when s/he says 'I believe" or "I don't." I have no idea how you are going to get any proof of that, either way. I tend to take people's word for it. It's easier.

So, no, I don't think we 'all agree' on this one.

In court we assume innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty.

OK.

A complete and utter non-sequitur, but OK...except of course that I have noticed that the atheists seem to consider Deity guilty of all sorts of horrific things and insist that the theists prove Him NOT guilty. Sort of screws your point up a bit, there...

Similarly, in discussing the universe overall, we assume a phenomenon is natural until proven supernatural, and the burden of proof is on the theist to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is supernatural.

Sure, if s/he claims that it was and that you have to believe it. However, if you claim that some event was absolutely 'natural,' in that Deity had nothing to do with it, then you are the one making the claim, and...guess who carries the burden of proof then?

Disagree? Please post here or here

That's too much maze. Let's deal with this thread topic in this thread.

2) There is no tangible good reason to be a Christian

Theists can give all sorts of reasons why they believe in God, but cannot give any good reason why anybody other than themselves should believe what they believe.

Disagree? Post here

Just because YOU don't think the reasons are good doesn't mean that everybody else must agree with you. This is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. Sorry, but this is also not a case of 'everybody agrees.'

Of course, if you do happen to get a majority vote in your favor, I would suggest that the name of the forum be changed to something more appropriate to the participants; "Atheists discussing the foolishness of all theism," perhaps, or just "Atheism Rocks!"

Problem is, if you are going to have a debate on a religious debate forum, you are going to have disparate opinions....and quite a few people who are actually (whisper this) religious.

Ergo, no 'everybody agrees that there are no good reasons to be ....(insert religion here)" idiocy.

3) There are no prophecies in the Bible

Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to prophecies that actually demonstrate the ability of the author to supernaturally predict the future.

Disagree? Please post here

There are LOTS of prophecies in the bible. Indeed, the question isn't whether there are any. It's whether they actually came true. Now whether you believe they did or not is your right, but let's not get stupid about claiming that there weren't any.

4) Mary was having sex 9 months before Jesus was born

Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories.

Disagree? Post here

Given that YOUR position regarding the virgin birth rests entirely upon your claim that there is no God, I find that a problem, 'burden of proof' wise. After all, it has been proven rather thoroughly that virgins can, and DO, give birth. WE can do it. For you to claim, then, that it was impossible for a deity, especially the deity Who created all things in the first place, to do it is a ludicrous position to take.

In essence, you are claiming that Mary was not a virgin because...why is that, exactly, again? Suffice it to say that there is no universal agreement on this issue, either.

5) Prayer is just talking to yourself, wishful thinking and glorified placebo effect

Disagree? Post here

Again, 'we all agree' unless we don't, in which case we are too inarticulate (euphemism for 'too stupid to live, probably) to debate and thus our votes don't count?

Sheesh.

6) The Bible is no more likely to be a true lesson from God to humanity, than it is likely to be a prank from God.

Disagree? Post here

In order for it to be 'a prank from God,' There has to be a God to play pranks. You conflicted, there, notachance?

Ah, well...we are back to the 'we all agree unless we don't, but those who don't are theists and too dumb to stack bricks, so their votes don't count" idea. (shrug)

7) The Bible is no more likely to be written from God, than it is likely to have been written by the Devil.

Disagree? Post here

ibid....

8) It's no more likely that God inspired the writing of the Bible than that he inspired any other alleged holy book, such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Disagree? Post here

I dunno about the Koran, but I agree with you about the bible and the Book of Mormon; the likelihood of both books being inspired by Him are identical.

Oh, and the point about your one way view of whose votes count in all this is still noted.

9) If the God of the Bible existed, he would not be worthy of our love

Disagree? Post here or here

Well now, THAT'S an opinion...one you are certainly entitled to, but one that is definitely not a position 'we all agree on."

Unless, of course, you manage to figure out how to throw out all the theist votes.

10) The Bible condones all sorts of evil behavior

Disagree? Post here

11) There is no evidence whatsoever of God's interventions.

Disagree? Write here

12) There is NO empirical extra-Biblical evidence for supernatural claims in the Bible

Disagree? Post here


So, given the fact that we can all agree on all these things, why are we still here? Atheists won. It's over. It's done. Put a fork in it.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to pretend there is some tangible reason for your beliefs that you can debate in a forum with rules relating to evidence and reason! There isn't.

OH, never mind....got tired of wading through all that.

Notachance, the condescending arrogance of your claim that 'we all agree' to those things you want to think, and if we don't, we are inarticulate boobs who don't deserve to be counted in the 'we' belonging to this forum, is a shining example of precisely the sort of attitude that makes me wonder why atheists are SUPPOSED to be the logical, scientific and erudite among humans.

If I could raise one eyebrow, it would be scraping the 'popcorn' off of my ten foot ceiling.

Ah, well, I can do it virtually....

[100%atheist]

A complete and utter non-sequitur, but OK...except of course that I have noticed that the atheists seem to consider Deity guilty of all sorts of horrific things and insist that the theists prove Him NOT guilty. Sort of screws your point up a bit, there...

I'd do it normally only when someone makes a positive claim that his deity is an all-loving one.

Sure, if s/he claims that it was and that you have to believe it. However, if you claim that some event was absolutely 'natural,' in that Deity had nothing to do with it, then you are the one making the claim, and...guess who carries the burden of proof then?

Usually there is some verifiable evidence to claims of natural character of phenomena and often people who make such claims do not shy to present evidence.

On the rest, I find myself in a surprising agreement with the tone of your response with the only exception that I do not believe in god.

[notachance]

You know who has the burden of proof? The one who makes the positive claim. Thus, if a theist says 'There is a God,' then yes, the burden of proof is on him. However, if the atheist says "there isn't one,' THEN guess who has that burden?

Diana, we agree on basics! Yey.

If the theist says "there is a God" and the atheist says "I don't believe that". Then the burden of proof is on the theist.

If the atheist says "there are no Gods" and the theist says "I don't believe that", then the burden of proof is on the atheist.

Now. I would never dream of making the positive claim that "there are no Gods", therefore I have no burden of proof.

Do you have any positive claim to make about religion? Do you not claim that "God exists", do you not claim that "Jesus is the son of God"? Do you acknowledge that while this is what you believe, it's not actually demonstrably true? Or do you assert that it's true?

If all you're saying is that you believe that Jonah lived in the stomach of a whale, but don't even make the slightest microscopic movement in the direction of asserting that such a belief is in any way more valid than my belief that Pinocchio lived in the stomach of a whale, then that's fine, you don't have the burden of proof because you made no positive claim.

But if you say "I believe in Jonah's story" and I say "I believe in Pinocchio's story" and you say anything other than "I acknowledge that my belief is no more grounded in truth than yours is", then you're making a positive claim, and the burden of proof to demonstrate the objective validity of your claim is on you.

Right?

And don't get me wrong, it would be the exact same thing if I directly or indirectly asserted that my Pinocchio belief is in any way more justified than your Jonah belief.

When either one says 'I believe," or "I don't believe," there is no burden, except to prove that s/he is telling the truth when s/he says 'I believe" or "I don't." I have no idea how you are going to get any proof of that, either way. I tend to take people's word for it. It's easier.

I agree.

So, no, I don't think we 'all agree' on this one.

Ok, I stand corrected. I should have worded it better. I should have said this: The person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. If theists make a positive claim (99% of which do) they have the burden of proof. In the extremely rare occasions in which they don't make an explicit or implicit positive claim, then they don't. If atheists make a positive claim (1% of us do), then they have the burden of proof. In the overwhelming majority of cases, when they are just disbelieving theists' positive claims, then they don't.

In court we assume innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty.

OK.

A complete and utter non-sequitur, but OK...except of course that I have noticed that the atheists seem to consider Deity guilty of all sorts of horrific things and insist that the theists prove Him NOT guilty. Sort of screws your point up a bit, there...

It's not a non-sequitur, it's an analogy. Atheists don't believe in deities so they can't consider deities guilty of anything. If anything, atheists might point to gruesome and immoral parts of the Bible to counter theists' positive claim that the Bible is authored by a benign entity.

Similarly, in discussing the universe overall, we assume a phenomenon is natural until proven supernatural, and the burden of proof is on the theist to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is supernatural.

Sure, if s/he claims that it was and that you have to believe it. However, if you claim that some event was absolutely 'natural,' in that Deity had nothing to do with it, then you are the one making the claim, and...guess who carries the burden of proof then?

Correct. If I make the positive claim that an event was definitely not supernatural, the burden of proof is on me. If I make the tentative assumption that supernatural stuff doesn't exist, based tentatively on the fact that no evidence exists in favor of it and on the fact that Occam razor removes the necessity for it, then I am not making a positive claim and have no burden of proof.

2) There is no tangible good reason to be a Christian

Theists can give all sorts of reasons why they believe in God, but cannot give any good reason why anybody other than themselves should believe what they believe.

Disagree? Post here

Just because YOU don't think the reasons are good doesn't mean that everybody else must agree with you. This is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. Sorry, but this is also not a case of 'everybody agrees.'

well Diana, can you give me a good reason why I should be Christian? Because it will make my life better? Patently false. Because this way I will not go to heaven? Patently indemonstrable. Because it will make me more moral? Patently false? Because it's the truth? Burden of proof on you baby!

3) There are no prophecies in the Bible

Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to prophecies that actually demonstrate the ability of the author to supernaturally predict the future.

Disagree? Please post here

There are LOTS of prophecies in the bible. Indeed, the question isn't whether there are any. It's whether they actually came true.

Please read the 26 words after "There are no prophecies in the Bible". I clearly say what I mean, you are dragging a red herring the size of a killer whale into the conversation. JUST READ WHAT I JUST WROTE. 5 lines up from the very words you're reading right now!

4) Mary was having sex 9 months before Jesus was born

Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories.

Given that YOUR position regarding the virgin birth rests entirely upon your claim that there is no God,

I never claimed that there is no God, so it's physically impossible for my doubt of all 28 virgin birth stories I know of to be based on that. Please read what I wrote. Here, I'll rewrite it here for you: Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories. Got it?

After all, it has been proven rather thoroughly that virgins can, and DO, give birth. WE can do it.

Are you making the positive claim that in the "year 0" they had in-vitro fertilization technology?

For you to claim, then, that it was impossible for a deity, especially the deity Who created all things in the first place, to do it is a ludicrous position to take.

Whoa! Where did this talk of a "Deity who created all things" come from!??!!? Are you making the positive claim that such an entity exists? If so, how do you plan to meet your burden of proof? If you are not making that positive claim, why are you introducing the concept in the first place, considering that you know perfectly well that we don't share belief in that deity?

In essence, you are claiming that Mary was not a virgin because...why is that, exactly, again? Suffice it to say that there is no universal agreement on this issue, either.

Well, I'm happy to type it again. With Copy and Paste features it's not so hard.

Here you go: Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories.

Want one more? In red this time, jsut for fun. It's really easy. If you ask me to tell you what I just wrote, I can copy and paste all day: Christians have failed to meet their burden of proof that this particular miraculous birth story is more credible than the dozens of other miraculous birth stories.

5) Prayer is just talking to yourself, wishful thinking and glorified placebo effect

Disagree? Post here

Again, 'we all agree' unless we don't, in which case we are too inarticulate (euphemism for 'too stupid to live, probably) to debate and thus our votes don't count?

Sheesh.

Ok, you got me here. I got a little tired and failed to properly qualify what I mean in the way that I did in previous entries. What I should have added is this: Theists have failed to meet the burden of proof for their positive claim that prayer is more than just talking to yourself, wishful thinking and placebo effect.

I just don't see any evidence to support the notion that there is more to it than that, therefore as per Occam's razor I will operate under the perfectly reasonable assumption that there is no more to prayer than what one can readily observe empirically, until such a time as positive evidence is discovered to back up the positive assertions of theists.

6) The Bible is no more likely to be a true lesson from God to humanity, than it is likely to be a prank from God.

Disagree? Post here

In order for it to be 'a prank from God,' There has to be a God to play pranks. You conflicted, there, notachance?

If you had read the original post that this section refers to, you'd have noticed that I qualify that clearly by saying "If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a God exists, then.... bla bla bla". Not a conflict. Just a thought experiment.

Ah, well...we are back to the 'we all agree unless we don't, but those who don't are theists and too dumb to stack bricks, so their votes don't count" idea. (shrug).

Nope, in the post in question, I presented an hypothetical scenario about the existence of a God, without making positive claims, and invited theists to back up the positive claim that "The Bible is not a prank". Nobody was able to do it.

7) The Bible is no more likely to be written from God, than it is likely to have been written by the Devil.

Disagree? Post here

ibid....

Ditto. Read the original post. You commented on it at length if memory serves.

8) It's no more likely that God inspired the writing of the Bible than that he inspired any other alleged holy book, such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Disagree? Post here

I dunno about the Koran, but I agree with you about the bible and the Book of Mormon; the likelihood of both books being inspired by Him are identical.

Oh, and the point about your one way view of whose votes count in all this is still noted.

I phrased this poorly also. I should have written it this way: Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to the claim that any one book is more likely than any other to be the word of a deity.

9) If the God of the Bible existed, he would not be worthy of our love

Disagree? Post here or here

Well now, THAT'S an opinion...one you are certainly entitled to, but one that is definitely not a position 'we all agree on."

Unless, of course, you manage to figure out how to throw out all the theist votes.

Ok, I straight up worded this poorly. I should have written this: "Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof with regards to their positive claim that the God of the Bible is worthy of our love".

It goes without saying that if you are not among the theists who make any of the claims above, then this doesn't apply to you.

10) The Bible condones all sorts of evil behavior

Disagree? Post here

11) There is no evidence whatsoever of God's interventions.

Disagree? Write here

12) There is NO empirical extra-Biblical evidence for supernatural claims in the Bible

Disagree? Post here


So, given the fact that we can all agree on all these things, why are we still here? Atheists won. It's over. It's done. Put a fork in it.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to pretend there is some tangible reason for your beliefs that you can debate in a forum with rules relating to evidence and reason! There isn't.

OH, never mind....got tired of wading through all that.

Notachance, the condescending arrogance of your claim that 'we all agree' to those things you want to think, and if we don't, we are inarticulate boobs who don't deserve to be counted in the 'we' belonging to this forum, is a shining example of precisely the sort of attitude that makes me wonder why atheists are SUPPOSED to be the logical, scientific and erudite among humans.

If I could raise one eyebrow, it would be scraping the 'popcorn' off of my ten foot ceiling.

Ah, well, I can do it virtually....

I agree I worded it poorly. I am properly chastised.

Some of the statements I made, I worded clearly, and made it obvious that I wasn't making positive claims, but rather commenting on that failure of theists to back up their positive claims.

For others, I did mess up. Please consider those statements modified as per the wording of this post.

[notachance]

On the rest, I find myself in a surprising agreement with the tone of your response with the only exception that I do not believe in god.

Kumbaya! I think that Diana, from what I can tell, is a nice and decent person. That you would minimize the difference of your atheism vs her theism in the context of a forum on religion, shows that you're here with some mysterious axe to grind, rather than with an honest desire to debate the very difference in worldview you casually brush aside.

[100%atheist]

On the rest, I find myself in a surprising agreement with the tone of your response with the only exception that I do not believe in god.

Kumbaya! I think that Diana, from what I can tell, is a nice and decent person. That you would minimize the difference of your atheism vs her theism in the context of a forum on religion, shows that you're here with some mysterious axe to grind, rather than with an honest desire to debate the very difference in worldview you casually brush aside.

I think your multiple attempts to focus on personal attacks rather than on supporting your claims makes it really difficult to debate anything with you.

P.S.: Didn't you proclaim in your OP that we all agree on what you said and there is nothing more to discuss?

[notachance]

On the rest, I find myself in a surprising agreement with the tone of your response with the only exception that I do not believe in god.

Kumbaya! I think that Diana, from what I can tell, is a nice and decent person. That you would minimize the difference of your atheism vs her theism in the context of a forum on religion, shows that you're here with some mysterious axe to grind, rather than with an honest desire to debate the very difference in worldview you casually brush aside.

I think your multiple attempts to focus on personal attacks rather than on supporting your claims makes it really difficult to debate anything with you.

I responded cogently and pointedly to every single one of your contestations of my claims, the one about prophecies, the one about the Virgin Mary, etc. All of them. Every single one.

You haven't responded to any of my statements in defense of my position, except for the one about burden of proof. This doesn't necessarily demonstrate that you tacitly concede that all but one of your initial contestations were unfounded and flawed, but it surely doesn't prove the opposite either.

The only thing you continued the discussion on, was the concept of burden of proof, which I promptly responded to at length, and am still waiting for a counter response to.

If you still have any problems with the meat of any of my original claims or my responses to your contestations of my claims, please verbalize them. Do not make the claim that I haven't responded fully and honestly to your serious questions, just because in addition to doing so I also make a flippant exclamation of "kumbaya" and note the irony of your siding with a theist because of her polite tone rather than because of the content of her post.

Dude, either abandon your position, or explain how it remains feasible in light of my response to your initial claims. With all respect and appreciation, please quit whining.

[otseng]

Seriously 100%atheist, I don't know if you happen to be very tired right now, or under the influence of some narcotic, or mad about something that happened to you in real life, but your post here was a monumental display of ignorance and poor thinking skills. I would suggest you sleep on it, and find it in you to retract everything tomorrow morning. Wow, dude.

Moderator Warning

These would be considered to be a personal attack and would be against the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.