Add new comment

It is a critical point about the burden of proof.  A-theists claimed this territory for themselves, they held a community vote among themselves, and then they informed the other side how the debate proposition was to be framed.   That's not how a debate proposition is resolved.  The debaters negotiate the proposition and sign it.
Carl Sagan's little cliche, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," it's a cheat and they know it's a cheat.  (I knew it was a cheat, before I was a theist.)  But it's a great bumper sticker, and it's very comforting to the closed-minded.
Here's this scientific issue, whether this test subject has Remote Viewing ability, and under ordinary circumstances I would admit it to be scientifically proven.  But I don't like the issue, and I deem it extraordinary, and so I am going to move the goalposts for scientific proof.  And if you get near those goalposts, guess what I'm going to do again?
........
It is a shame, because there are so many philosophical debates that would be scintillating, if we could bring ourselves to face an honest debate.  Universities should be the places for the most open idea exchange in America, the modern-day version of Mars Hill at Athens.  Instead, they are indoctrination centers.