A case for positive atheism

[fr0d0]

---

It does. It claims that wishes are granted according to prayer, which, if indeed true, should have an observable effect in the world. Prayer has been shown not to do so, in a double blind trial. Theism, or versions of it, also claims that the laws of nature are occasionally suspended, when people visit special holy places, or when they ask for it. No amputee has ever grown back a limb, and never has there been a confirmed miracle with no naturalistic explanation. Admittedly, science has nothing to say about the non-existence of a deist, non-interventionist god, but a theist god has been proven to be either non-existent, arbitrary in his actions, or very ineffectual.

---

No it doesn't. It already laid down the reasoning why none of your examples would hold true.

[The Omnissiunt One]

---

It does. It claims that wishes are granted according to prayer, which, if indeed true, should have an observable effect in the world. Prayer has been shown not to do so, in a double blind trial. Theism, or versions of it, also claims that the laws of nature are occasionally suspended, when people visit special holy places, or when they ask for it. No amputee has ever grown back a limb, and never has there been a confirmed miracle with no naturalistic explanation. Admittedly, science has nothing to say about the non-existence of a deist, non-interventionist god, but a theist god has been proven to be either non-existent, arbitrary in his actions, or very ineffectual.

---

No it doesn't. It already laid down the reasoning why none of your examples would hold true.

Could you point out where this was? I may have missed it.

[fr0d0]

Don't test God - Mathew 4:7
If God were observable then faith wouldn't be necessary, and God would be an entirely different entity than the one described in the bible, and therefore not God.
Theism claims that the laws of nature are occasionally suspended, and also claims that there be no observable evidence of those occurrences.

[The Omnissiunt One]

So the effect of prayer isn't observable? So the parting of the Red Sea/turning the water into wine/walking on water wasn't observable? I don't see how this can be true.

[fr0d0]

Sorry if we're going to look more closely I need to be more accurate with language. Observable as in verifiable. Say Jesus existed and demonstrated that he was God to you... you would have the choice still to believe that or not. Given any seemingly supernatural event the natural human reaction would be to dismiss that event with natural explanation.

The effect of prayer isn't testable. The parting of the Red Sea, making wine from water, if it happened, would be explained by natural forces.

I never watch a magician and think they're actually performing magic. I know the magician is fooling the audience.

It's a matter of internal interpretation. Belief in God provides a framework to interpret phenomena.

[Edwardo Piet]

The burden of proof applies to theism when it makes a claim of existence regardless to whether science has anything to say about it or not.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I maintain that prayer is testable, because we can observe whether the act of prayer has a significant statistical effect in terms of the requests of those prayers being fufilled, to the extent that it wouldn't be explicable by chance. Similarly, there could be a widely observed miracle which defied all naturalistic explanation; the parting of the Red Sea, I think, would meet this criterion.

[fr0d0]

I know Christians who live like biblical believers, in that they believe in everything being spiritual, and everything being potentially God speaking. They use biblical precedent to interpret what God might be saying to them. They feel God guiding them.

Like I said, it's the nature of God not to reveal himself beyond doubt. If you choose to believe God was in the parting of the Red Sea, then that's your choice.