semiopen

This is a small point Toto, but so far as I know there have not been scientific studies of the efficacy of a lucky rabbit's foot. Scientific studies of prayer seem to indicate that they have no observable effect. The mention of rabbit's foot is uncalled for and not scientifically based. Not that its the end of the world, but this is a poor website, I sincerely hope it is the worst anti theist website.

Jaecp

This thread is a trap anyway.

A "Hilarious Trap", but a trap nontheless

Demophon

Ahh, but that is where you are wrong. The rabbits foot is a base line of where to start and comparing that to prayer. Am I wrong on that? If so, how?

I can PROVE that wishing for luck with the rabbits foot is exactly, exactly like asking for a prayer to be answered.

But the evidence that I would provide would be scoffed at by theists. So unless it be be shown that prayer is much more likely to be answered than a rabbits foot, the rabbits foot can be used as a base.

Toto

I doubt that any foundation would approve a grant for studying the efficacy of lucky rabbit's foot charms on the treatment of cancer. It's obvious to anyone who has tried wishful thinking that it just doesn't work, whether or not it is aided with lucky charms.

The Templeton Foundation has funded most of these prayer studies in an effort to show that religious prayer is more powerful than rabbit's feet. So far, it's been money down the rathole.

show_no_mercy

I think the OPs argument comes from an inductive argument.

God A doesn't exist (like Zeus)
God B doesn't exist (like Isis)
God C doesn't exist (like Thor)

[...]

God X doesn't exist (you get the idea)
God Y doesn't exist

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that God Z (the Abrahamic God) doesn't exist.

A believer in the Abrahamic god is special pleading when he agrees to the long line of non-existent gods, but makes an exception to his or her own god-belief when they're all based primarily on the same type of evidence - personal revelation. If it wasn't based on personal revelation, then all we'd have to do to convince people to not be Christians or Muslims would be to point out Bible contradictions. Holy books are secondary when the primary catalyst for belief is some unexplainable funny feeling.

Saying that "nonbelief" somehow falls into the same line of induction is a category error.

Petergdi

This is a mischaracterization of the position of Abrahamic monotheists. The monotheist does not claim anthything about the ontological status of Zeus, Thor, etc. The monotheist simply claims that they are not gods.

Peter.

show_no_mercy

Tell that to the Muslims who destroyed statues of Buddha because they considered it idolatrous and worshiping a false god (Ironically Buddhists don't consider Buddha a god).

Petergdi

They sure as anything weren't claiming non-existence for the Buddha. They were claiming that those statues were idols. They would have been even more offended by comparable statues of Muhammad.

Peter.