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.

[Shermana]

I disagree that theists always have the burden of proof. If an atheist tells a theist that the efficacy of prayer is exactly the same as random chance, then the atheist has the burden of proof, since the atheist is the one making a positive claim.

And, when it comes to healing, and health, the burden of proof has been met , by peer reviewed scientific studies from people who were expecting the exact opposite result.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... ray31.html

And all those people were perfectly and obediently following the commandments as the scripture says is necessary for prayer to work? Wow, what a perfectly controlled experiment that totally is biblically correct on its definition of prayer. On the next study, they should get 30 Atheists to pray and see what happens!

If this study was to be even close to objective, they'd have control groups of different kinds of believers.

[Janx]

I disagree that theists always have the burden of proof. If an atheist tells a theist that the efficacy of prayer is exactly the same as random chance, then the atheist has the burden of proof, since the atheist is the one making a positive claim.

And, when it comes to healing, and health, the burden of proof has been met , by peer reviewed scientific studies from people who were expecting the exact opposite result.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... ray31.html

And all those people were perfectly and obediently following the commandments as the scripture says is necessary for prayer to work? Wow, what a perfectly controlled experiment that totally is biblically correct on its definition of prayer. On the next study, they should get 30 Atheists to pray and see what happens!

If this study was to be even close to objective, they'd have control groups different kinds of believers.

Oh I see. I assume you know THE technique one should use for optimal prayer results. If so why aren't you running to the world health organization? You could save millions of lives!

Honestly. If religious groups ACTUALLY believed that prayer worked wouldn't there prayer-offs over who got better results? Wouldn't every priest and monk be trying to perfect ways to reach God? Of course this isn't the case.

So your statements are empty. If even 10% of people praying were doing it right we would see those results. You can't show that there is a "perfect" prayer any more than there are perfect psychics, mediums or fortune tellers. This is just a true Scotsman fallacy.

[dianaiad]

I disagree that theists always have the burden of proof. If an atheist tells a theist that the efficacy of prayer is exactly the same as random chance, then the atheist has the burden of proof, since the atheist is the one making a positive claim.

And, when it comes to healing, and health, the burden of proof has been met , by peer reviewed scientific studies from people who were expecting the exact opposite result.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... ray31.html

And all those people were perfectly and obediently following the commandments as the scripture says is necessary for prayer to work? Wow, what a perfectly controlled experiment that totally is biblically correct on its definition of prayer. On the next study, they should get 30 Atheists to pray and see what happens!

If this study was to be even close to objective, they'd have control groups different kinds of believers.

Oh I see. I assume you know THE technique one should use for optimal prayer results. If so why aren't you running to the world health organization? You could save millions of lives!

Honestly. If religious groups ACTUALLY believed that prayer worked wouldn't there prayer-offs over who got better results? Wouldn't every priest and monk be trying to perfect ways to reach God? Of course this isn't the case.

So your statements are empty. If even 10% of people praying were doing it right we would see those results. You can't show that there is a "perfect" prayer any more than there are perfect psychics, mediums or fortune tellers. This is just a true Scotsman fallacy.

"Prayer-offs?"

Really, Janx?

[Shermana]

Aye, the argument that the Bible has no True Scottish standards for whose prayer gets heard is a lump of rotten haggis!

New International Version (©1984)
The LORD is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

Proverbs 15:30

Now if you then go on to say "Well all those people can't be wicked can they", I will say "How many of them are doing what the Bible says to do?"

[LiamOS]

That's a good question. We might be able to give some insight once we know what criteria must be met.
Also, even if a minority were righteous, it would register a statistically significant result relatively consistently.

And sorry for ignoring our head to head, but I'm looking for a place to live, so I've minimal time to post.