Demophon

I cant post the entire list so we shall start with 1-2.

Evidence NO#48
Compare prayer to a lucky horseshoe

We have all seen plenty of superstitions. There are the superstitions that a rabbit's foot or a four-leaf clover bring good luck. There are the superstitions that breaking a mirror or seeing a black cat bring bad luck. And we all know that these superstitions are silly. A rabbit's foot or a broken mirror has no good or bad influence on the course of events. This is obvious to any intelligent person.

Evidence NO#28
Notice how many gods you reject

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.


My resource has photographs of many of these discoveries to INvalidate the Bible. None of these are available on the web. these are just 50, but there are many books that provide far more archaeological discoveries with photos to INvalidate the Bible.

Demophon

Roger Pearse

These arguments seem to involve some simple fallacies, as types of argument (whether or not the bible is ... whatever you are saying it is .. is not the point).

This is two arguments combined together, plus a dubious appeal.

1. There is such a thing as superstition, therefore any religious belief is superstition.

2. If any object of a class is fake, all objects of a class are fake.

3. The last sentence is an emotional, not a rational argument.

Argument 1 is a non-sequitur. We all agree that there is superstition. That gives us no information as to whether all religious belief is superstition. It could be; could be not.

Argument 2 is a fallacy. If some banknotes are fake, that does not mean all are fake. It is a false generalisation.

This argument involves trickery. It omits the belief of the person arguing, and then argues that, since there are so many other beliefs, any one of those listed must be wrong. But the same would apply to the beliefs of the person arguing, and on the same grounds.

Note that arguing that people conform to the society in which they grow up is correct. Unfortunately it is not an argument against any system of belief which is a system, long-established, and organised. It is an argument against people who live by a set of beliefs which they acquire ad-hoc from the period and society in which they live. Most atheists would fall into the latter category; Christianity, by definition, should not do so (although doubtless sometimes individuals do).

I hope they are better thought-out than these examples, tho. Whether Christianity is true or not, we don't consider it false using reasons like this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

semiopen

I agree that the arguments presented are not unbelief's or logic's finest moments. However. I was struck that while the effects of prayer have been scientifically scrutinized to some extent, I have never heard of anyone studying the efficacy of carrying a rabbit's foot. Personally I think prayer is relaxing.

Once again your logic is impeccable Roger. However, I would suggest the person in a recent post who combined Pascal's wager with going to work naked has committed errors at least as grevious. I was going to question why you didn't point out that person's errors, but thinking about it, the secular group seemed capable of dealing with him without help.

The web site given certainly could use a little work.

Anat

Roger, is there evidence that prayer works better than placebo? I looked into it a while back, and in those days I found a lot of placebo effect and faulty experiments.

Is there a reason to prefer the Christian god over Zeus? Is the evidence for one greater than for the other?

These are the questions one needs to address regarding the points in the articles.

Demophon

Avast ther me hearty! Belay that landlubber talk!!

Yarrr, thar be indecisiveness in ye words. Ye be one of those indecisive scallywag type? If ye be, prepare yer self to be walkin' the plank!

Yarrr, that be true enough if we be talking about banknotes, but I be showing that wishing on a rabbit's foot equals prayer. Besides, it be unlucky for the rabbit... Ehh?
Ye be bring up banknotes or the like again, I be gettin' the Cap'n and ye will be tied to the yardarm and be receivin' the cat o' nine tails!

An' the last statement is a observation. Any cabin boy be knowin' this! An' what ye be feelin' "emotionally" about that? Sadness? Anger? Fear? Speak up lad an' stop yer whimperin' like a beaten scurvy dog! Arrrg.

Ye words be of trickery! All gods can't be true, but all can be false. Straighten up lad! The Cap'n be walking this way an' he be havin' the eye for you!

Yarrr, thar be that indecisiveness again. Plank drawn.... get to walkin' !

Awmte

No, the argument is that the believer cannot show a rational reason why he rejects A, B, C, E, F but does not reject D. To be logically consistent, he must also reject D for the same reason(s) he rejects A...F.

Roger Pearse

Indeed; and the same applies to the unbeliever; why does he reject A, B, C, D, but not E?

I think you replied before reading my comment :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

That was really my point.

Never saw the post. :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Anat

The unbeliever rejects all concepts of god for the same reason - they are all making unusual claims with no evidence.

Toto

I think that Roger read the brief summary from the OP and not the website. The website does not say "There is such a thing as superstition, therefore any religious belief is superstition" or anything similar. It says that scientifc studies of prayer have shown that it is not more effective than a lucky rabbit's foot. The explanation that it offers is "God is Imaginary."

More relevant to this forum is Proving the Bible is Repulsive or take a look at slavery or a few others.

Not that I am encouraging any debate along those lines here. I think we have discussed those topics before.