What fresh fucknuttery is this? in OD

Now, my UK based readers will have heard of Fabrice Muamba.

For those of you outside Britain, Muamba is a 24 football player. While playing for his club Bolton in a FA Cup quarter final against Spurs he collapsed on the pitch. No-one was near him at the time. Both team doctors and (I’m really not making this bit up) a Suprs season ticket holder who happens to be a cardiologist rushed onto the pitch to help him. He was rushed to hospital and the game was abandoned.

Muamba was clinically dead for 78 minutes. He’s now recovering but it’s still up in the air as to whether or not he will play fottbal again.

People were being urged to pray for him (this will become important later).

Meanwhile, a Christian group in Bath were stopped by the Advertising Standards Authority from handing out flyers saying that God can heal any illness and saying in general, that all you need to get over any disease is prayer. The ASA banned the flyers on the, not unreasonable grounds, that it might lead people to believe that they don’t also need to seek medical help.

Three MP’s have written to the ASA the ASA reverse their decision or offer proof that prayer doesn’t heal disease or they will bring the subject up in Parliament.

Yeah.

Now, I’m not suggesting that prayer doesn’t help in the healing process. In fact, there are studies that prove that remote prayer can actually make a difference in patient recovery times.

But here’s the thing. That’s in addition to medical procedures, not in place of them. I don’t blame the ASA for banning the advert as it is misleading and could actually result in death.

But, of course, there’s all the people who prayed for Muamba. They can’t be wrong, surely?

(Yes, that genuinely is part of the argument from these three. I would comment more on elected officals (or anyone else) using the near death of a young person for political or relgious reasons. But I genuinely don’t think there’s enough capital letters or swear words in the world to do it justice.)

But I do want to talk about burden of proof. It would seem to me that the burden of proof is on the three MP’s, or the Christian group, to back up their claims.

They won’t though. Because their type never do. I’m not saying all Christians are like this but it’ll generally go like this:

Christian: I know God exists.
Athiest: Prove it.
Christian: I don’t need to prove it, I have faith and that tells me that God exists.
Athiest: So, you won’t have any problem offering proof for your claim.
Christian: But I don’t need to. I have faith and that should be enough.

Repeat ad nausium.

This is the way it goes. If I want to dispute that God exists, or that prayer helps healing the burden of proof is on me. However, if you try asking someone to prove something they believe in then they don’t have to prove it. I should just accept their word that they have faith and that is all the proof they, or I, need.

In the meantime, the sky is green and the grass is sky blue pink with a tartan border. I don’t need to provide you with evidence that this is the case, I have faith that it is so. You have to prove me wrong.

Which you can’t. I have faith.

Will