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]

Huh? I absolutely disagree with you on many of your assumptions.
And instead of replying with dozen of posts, I'd prefer to state my disagreement here, in one post.

1) Theists have the burden of proof.

Not all theists are certain that god exists. Such theists are called agnostic theists.
Thus, in general your statement is false.

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

I can name at least one good reason to be a Christian - to keep cultural traditions of your father/motherland.
Thus, in general, your statement is false.

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.

I found it somewhat disturbing to believe that ALL theists believe that others should believe the same things. Though this might be in the foundation of the Bible, I disagree that theism is about following any specific book verbatim.

3) There are no prophecies in the Bible

Even on this one I disagree with you. There are prophecies in the Bible, though none was truly fulfilled. So, technically your statement is inaccurate at best.

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

In order to make such statement, don't you need to believe that Mary and Jesus existed? I strongly doubt they did, but since you claimed they did then the burden of proof is now on you.

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.

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

Prank from god, written by Devil? Can you expand? Are you saying that either way the Bible was likely inspired by God (or Devil)???

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.

[notachance]

Huh? I absolutely disagree with you on many of your assumptions.
And instead of replying with dozen of posts, I'd prefer to state my disagreement here, in one post.

1) Theists have the burden of proof.

Not all theists are certain that god exists. Such theists are called agnostic theists.
Thus, in general your statement is false.

WHAT?????? Are you kidding me???? What has CERTAINTY have to do with the burden of proof???? WHAT? Are you kidding me man?

Are you saying that as long as a prosecutor isn't certain that an accused man is guilty, then he doesn't have the burden of proof?

I'm not saying theists have the burden to prove that of which they are certain. They have the burden to prove that which they believe.

Agnostic theists believe there is a God. If they wish to convince anybody that their belief is justified, they have the burden of proof.

Do you even know what burden of proof means? It doesn't mean that they must only defend their position if they believe that there is absolute proof for it! It's a legal term. Look it up. Come on dude!

I hate it when smart people write stuff without thinking. I've been guilty of that in the past too, but come on!

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

I can name at least one good reason to be a Christian - to keep cultural traditions of your father/motherland.
Thus, in general, your statement is false.

You haven't demonstrated that keeping the cultural traditions of your father/motherland is a good thing. Therefore your statement is false until such a time as you demonstrate that keeping traditions alive is a good thing. For example, is it good to keep alive the Old Testament tradition of stoning homosexuals to death?

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.

I found it somewhat disturbing to believe that ALL theists believe that others should believe the same things. Though this might be in the foundation of the Bible, I disagree that theism is about following any specific book verbatim.

Where did I say that all theists, or even a majority, or even a plurality, believe the we should follow a book verbatim? You are dragging a red herring the size of a tuna into this debate. Why?

3) There are no prophecies in the Bible

Even on this one I disagree with you. There are prophecies in the Bible, though none was truly fulfilled. So, technically your statement is inaccurate at best.

Really? You're not going to acknowledge the obvious implication that by "prophecy" I mean "fulfilled prophecy"? Really? You need me to write out the word "fulfilled" otherwise you get confused, and think that I might mean that there are no unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible? Really?

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

In order to make such statement, don't you need to believe that Mary and Jesus existed? I strongly doubt they did, but since you claimed they did then the burden of proof is now on you.

Jesus Christ, man!!!! Are you kidding me!???!?!?!?!? OF COURSE I make the implicit assumption that Mary and Jesus existed, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARGUMENT. OF COURSEEEE!!!! . Yes, if I were to make the positive claim that Jesus and Mary historically existed, the burden of proof would be on me. I am not making that claim. I am just making the implicit concession that they existed for the purpose of making the argument that the case for the virgin birth has not been made.

Seriously bro. Why are you doing this to yourself! Don't you realize that people are going to read this???

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.

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

Prank from god, written by Devil? Can you expand? Are you saying that either way the Bible was likely inspired by God (or Devil)???

Please. Read the linked OPs if confused. I clearly state that IF WE MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A GOD EXISTS.... then the conclusions above can be drawn.

Please, please, please, find it in you to think before you write, next time.

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.

[LiamOS]

WHAT?????? Are you kidding me???? What has CERTAINTY have to do with the burden of proof???? WHAT? Are you kidding me man?

Say what again!


Sorry...

Anyway, certainty has quite a lot to do with the burden of proof. Your (albeit implicit) claim that Agnostic Theists have to prove that there exists a God is equal to the claim that Agnostic Atheists have to prove that there exists no God.

Are you saying that as long as a prosecutor isn't certain that an accused man is guilty, then he doesn't have the burden of proof?

The point is that the prosecutor is arguing the case(i.e. taking on the claim that said man is guilty), not whether the prosecutor is certain, as that is the job of a prosecutor.

I'm not saying theists have the burden to prove that of which they are certain. They have the burden to prove that which they believe.

Why? Can you prove absolutely everything you believe? What about things you merely believe to be more likely?
I think that you likely believe that it is more likely that God does not exist than that God exists. If you do in fact believe that, I hereby challenge you to prove that.

Agnostic theists believe there is a God.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification.

If they wish to convince anybody that their belief is justified, they have the burden of proof.

What if they don't wish to convince anybody? Per your earlier statement, you are required to prove that which you believe.

I hate it when smart people write stuff without thinking. I've been guilty of that in the past too, but come on!

I'm not sure whether this is a personal attack or not...

You haven't demonstrated that keeping the cultural traditions of your father/motherland is a good thing. Therefore your statement is false until such a time as you demonstrate that keeping traditions alive is a good thing. For example, is it good to keep alive the Old Testament tradition of stoning homosexuals to death?

A 'good' reason is a pretty subjective thing.
If, for example, you were raised in a country where apostates are disembowelled, keeping to tradition would arguably be a pretty good reason.
What is a good reason(Even that's a pretty deep philosophical question) is quite subjective, especially where reason is largely absent.

Really? You're not going to acknowledge the obvious implication that by "prophecy" I mean "fulfilled prophecy"? Really? You need me to write out the word "fulfilled" otherwise you get confused, and think that I might mean that there are no unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible? Really?

Honestly, he was completely right to do so. It's not 'obvious' to people who aren't you, and it rather pains me that you assume it is.
You of all people should be aware that leaving things implicit in posts is a really bad plan.

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.

Does this count?

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.

And there goes the last, lonely modicum of respect I had for you.


I don't entirely agree with 100%atheist, but many of your statements were either not relevant to anything, incorrect or simply massive generalisations. On top of that, you've managed to be unspeakably condescending towards 100%atheist for (what appears to be) no good reason.

[notachance]

WHAT?????? Are you kidding me???? What has CERTAINTY have to do with the burden of proof???? WHAT? Are you kidding me man?

Say what again!


Sorry...

Ah ah ah!!!! Very nice.

Anyway, certainty has quite a lot to do with the burden of proof.

No. It has nothing to do with it. Anybody who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof, completely irrespective of how sure they are of the validity of their claim.

Your (albeit implicit) claim that Agnostic Theists have to prove that there exists a God is equal to the claim that Agnostic Atheists have to prove that there exists no God.

NO IT IS NOT! That is as absurd as saying that requiring a bigfoot enthusiast to demonstrate that Bigfoot exists is equal to asking a bigfoot skeptic that he doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not on the one who is not convinced by it.

If all of a sudden I yell "I have an invisible dragon in my basement", is it up to me to demonstrate that ti's true, or is it up to you to demonstrate that it's not true?

Are you saying that as long as a prosecutor isn't certain that an accused man is guilty, then he doesn't have the burden of proof?

The point is that the prosecutor is arguing the case(i.e. taking on the claim that said man is guilty), not whether the prosecutor is certain, as that is the job of a prosecutor.

Yes! Exactly! Certainty has nothing to do with it. If somebody makes a positive claim (That man committed a crime, God exists, I have a dragon in my basement), then he has the burden of proof. How can you possibly have been on this forum for so long and still not understand basic stuff like this?

I'm not saying theists have the burden to prove that of which they are certain. They have the burden to prove that which they believe.

Why? Can you prove absolutely everything you believe? What about things you merely believe to be more likely?

Yes. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the overwhelming majority of things I believe. If I believe that something is merely more likely than something else, then I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that's the case.

I think that you likely believe that it is more likely that God does not exist than that God exists. If you do in fact believe that, I hereby challenge you to prove that.

Actually, I have no idea if God exists or not in the ultimate sense. But I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's more likely than not that he does NOT manifest in the world in the way described by the Bible, the Koran and other holy books.

Agnostic theists believe there is a God.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification.

No it's not. Agnostic theists, don't claim to know there is a deity, but believe there is one. That's it.

If they wish to convince anybody that their belief is justified, they have the burden of proof.

What if they don't wish to convince anybody? Per your earlier statement, you are required to prove that which you believe.

You are not required to prove that which you believe, you are required to prove that which you CLAIM to believe. Sorry if I worded it poorly earlier. Of COURSE, if you don't wish to convince anybody, you don't have to provide any valid argument! I mean, are you really asking me that?

You haven't demonstrated that keeping the cultural traditions of your father/motherland is a good thing. Therefore your statement is false until such a time as you demonstrate that keeping traditions alive is a good thing. For example, is it good to keep alive the Old Testament tradition of stoning homosexuals to death?

A 'good' reason is a pretty subjective thing.
What is a good reason(Even that's a pretty deep philosophical question) is quite subjective, especially where reason is largely absent.

My original Op, linked in this thread, asks for non-subjective and non-personal reasons to be a Christian. I acknowledge that there are personal and subjective reasons. The scope of my argument is that there aren't objective or sharable reasons.

Really? You're not going to acknowledge the obvious implication that by "prophecy" I mean "fulfilled prophecy"? Really? You need me to write out the word "fulfilled" otherwise you get confused, and think that I might mean that there are no unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible? Really?

Honestly, he was completely right to do so. It's not 'obvious' to people who aren't you, and it rather pains me that you assume it is.
You of all people should be aware that leaving things implicit in posts is a really bad plan.

Ok, by prophecy I mean fulfilled prophecy in this context. Also, if I ever say in the future that I live in New York City, I mean that I live in the New York City on planet earth. Who knows, there might be another city called New York City on some other planet in a distant galaxy, and I wouldn't want anybody to get confused and assume I was referring to that New York City.

[Janx]

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.

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.

When I first came to this forum I questioned the plausibility of having a debate about fantastical concepts. I concluded that by coming to this forum those who's reason is based on rational though are accepting participation on a subjective playing field. By being here you and everyone else are accepting intangible and irrational concepts for the sake of debate.

Please understand that the mind and society it participates in are complex. Human are IRRATIONAL BY NATURE.

Tangible and effective results can be attained from subjective concepts thus I disagree with your point 2) that Christianity is useless. It is far from useless and I'm sure we are both aware of this. Yes there are other, perhaps better paths, to achieve results delivered by religions. This doesn't automatically disqualify this such outdated tools. I can't count how many time's I've tried to fix something with my hands because I was to lazy to open a tool box. Sometimes it works, most of the time it fails, and it teaches me that the default position of the mind is to conserve energy. Religion is a habit. It is very difficult to think one's way out of a habit.

[notachance]

Please understand that the mind and society it participates in are complex. Human are IRRATIONAL BY NATURE.

Then the purpose of this post is to remind of the profundity of this irrationality, as it relates to religion.

Tangible and effective results can be attained from subjective concepts thus I disagree with your point 2) that Christianity is useless. It is far from useless and I'm sure we are both aware of this. Yes there are other, perhaps better paths, to achieve results delivered by religions. This doesn't automatically disqualify this such outdated tools. I can't count how many time's I've tried to fix something with my hands because I was to lazy to open a tool box. Sometimes it works, most of the time it fails, and it teaches me that the default position of the mind is to conserve energy. Religion is a habit. It is very difficult to think one's way out of a habit.

I agree with what you're saying. The reason you think you disagree with my post is that you misunderstand it. Please read the linked OP relating to this.

the default position of the mind is to conserve energy. Religion is a habit. It is very difficult to think one's way out of a habit.

That is a fascinating way of looking at it. You're absolutely right.

[LiamOS]

NO IT IS NOT! That is as absurd as saying that requiring a bigfoot enthusiast to demonstrate that Bigfoot exists is equal to asking a bigfoot skeptic that he doesn't exist.

Again, you use an incorrect analogy. If somebody said "Bigfoot exists." OR "Bigfoot does not exist." they would be required to support their claim.
If, however, somebody said "I don't know whether or not Bigfoot exists, but I think it probably does." OR "I don't know whether or not Bigfoot exists, but I think it probably doesn't.", neither would be required to support their claim.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not on the one who is not convinced by it.

Exactly. You seem to be having difficulty in comprehending what a positive claim actually is, though.

If all of a sudden I yell "I have an invisible dragon in my basement", is it up to me to demonstrate that ti's true, or is it up to you to demonstrate that it's not true?

Again, this is not an applicable analogy. Consider the analogy again with your statement being "I don't know whether or not I have an invisible dragon in my basement, but I think I do."

Yes! Exactly! Certainty has nothing to do with it. If somebody makes a positive claim (That man committed a crime, God exists, I have a dragon in my basement), then he has the burden of proof.

You're still misunderstanding what I'm getting at. To remind you, the point in question is that not all Theists are making positive claims with respect to Gods. Do you still disagree?

How can you possibly have been on this forum for so long and still not understand basic stuff like this?

I tend to have trouble understanding that which makes no sense, I guess...

Actually, I have no idea if God exists or not in the ultimate sense. But I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's more likely than not that he does NOT manifest in the world in the way described by the Bible, the Koran and other holy books.

That he does not(Present tense) means nothing, really.

No it's not. Agnostic theists, don't claim to know there is a deity, but believe there is one. That's it.

Largely, yes. Agnostic Theism is quite complicated in itself, though.

You are not required to prove that which you believe, you are required to prove that which you CLAIM to believe. Sorry if I worded it poorly earlier.

I think I have a right to claim that I believe whatever I want. According to this, the statement "I believe God exists." is on par with "God exists."
One is merely a statement of what one believes, while the other is a positive claim.

Of COURSE, if you don't wish to convince anybody, you don't have to provide any valid argument! I mean, are you really asking me that?

Whoah, whoah! Let's not get too existential here.

There is a contradiction between this statement and the previous one. Consider the man who says "I believe God exists." who does not want to convince anybody. According to your statement here, he is not required to provide a valid argument, but according to the preceding quote, he is. Which is it?

My original Op, linked in this thread, asks for non-subjective and non-personal reasons to be a Christian. I acknowledge that there are personal and subjective reasons.

Very well.

Ok, by prophecy I mean fulfilled prophecy in this context. Also, if I ever say in the future that I live in New York City, I mean that I live in the New York City on planet earth. Who knows, there might be another city called New York City on some other planet in a distant galaxy, and I wouldn't want anybody to get confused and assume I was referring to that New York City.

A prophecy is not a fulfilled prophecy, that's that. I don't care how obvious you think it is; it is not obvious to me(And at least one other person), and the statement is incorrect.

[notachance]

Aki, without splitting too many hairs, I think our main point of contention is this:

According to you, if I say "there is a dragon in my basement", then I have the burden of proof to demonstrate the veracity of my claim.

But if I say "I believe there is a dragon in my basement", then I don't have any burden of proof.

That's just crazy, man!

You might be right if the second statement, rather than being "I believe there is a dragon in my basement", was something like "I know that there is no way of determining whether or not there is a dragon in my basement, I know that there is no justifiable reason to think that there is, but I just choose to believe so for no good reason". If that were the statement, then the person would have no burden of proof.

I'm sorry, but that is not applicable to the kind of God claims made on this forum by theists.

If somebody believes that their God belief is true, and attempts to persuade anybody of that, as in for example on a forum called Debating Christianity & Religion, then they have the burden of proof.

If somebody says something to the effect of "I believe Bigfoot is real and you should believe that too", then it's up to them to present evidence to back up their claim. Just the fact that they said those words, doesn't automatically put me in the position where I now have to demonstrate that Bigfoot isn't real.

Expressing belief in something for which there is no evidence, doesn't automatically make belief and disbelief in that undemonstrated thing equally viable and rational.

[Question Everything]

Aki, without splitting too many hairs, I think our main point of contention is this:

According to you, if I say "there is a dragon in my basement", then I have the burden of proof to demonstrate the veracity of my claim.

But if I say "I believe there is a dragon in my basement", then I don't have any burden of proof.

That's just crazy, man!

You might be right if the second statement, rather than being "I believe there is a dragon in my basement", was something like "I know that there is no way of determining whether or not there is a dragon in my basement, I know that there is no justifiable reason to think that there is, but I just choose to believe so for no good reason". If that were the statement, then the person would have no burden of proof.

I'm sorry, but that is not applicable to the kind of God claims made on this forum by theists.

If somebody believes that their God belief is true, and attempts to persuade anybody of that, as in for example on a forum called Debating Christianity & Religion, then they have the burden of proof.

If somebody says something to the effect of "I believe Bigfoot is real and you should believe that too", then it's up to them to present evidence to back up their claim. Just the fact that they said those words, doesn't automatically put me in the position where I now have to demonstrate that Bigfoot isn't real.

Expressing belief in something for which there is no evidence, doesn't automatically make belief and disbelief in that undemonstrated thing equally viable and rational.

I think I can clear things up with an example.

I have a belief that the universe came about and operates by totally mechanistic means. There is no way I can prove this belief to be true, and while this belief could be proven false (somebody winning the JREF prize maybe), so far no one has done so.

However, this belief is rational because it is based on many hundreds of years of scientific observations with a natural rather than supernatural cause being found for just about everything, and the more we understand something the more natural and the less supernatural we see it to be. Only in the things that we don't understand yet do we see any possibility of the supernatural. I see no reason for any exceptions to happen in this pattern.