Athiests do not accept miracles

Often it takes 'tragedy' in one's life, where one cannot rely upon self to solve their problems, and either they perish or reach out to God for help. Maybe your accident experience was an 'outreach' from God, and you rejected His offering of grace? No one can say for sure. But it is all about individual experiences & decisions in life as to where/when/if one makes correct choices.

I dont wish a catastrophe upon you, but I would that God does a work that would humble you and bring you back to your '1st love.' I was raised Catholic and strayed in my late teens-to-late 20's, but my Catholic upbringing and a loving Catholic mother did embed something into my soul that influenced my returning later in life, altho not as a Catholic, but just a Christian. As a Christina only, I have no dogma nor hoops to jump thru as following any denomination, and I feel truly free in my life..not living a life of Do's & Dont's, nor operating in guilt & self-condemnation, but living a joyous life---as joy depends not on the circumstances, but on one's attitude and assurance of their beliefs.

Still hoping for your safe return trip..OD

 

This is the very thing that toppled me from the altar. Why would God make himself known to you through an intervention. Why would He choose YOU yet never once make Himself known to Mother Teresa who begged every day of her life. Why would God speak to her priest but not her. What kind of father figure would that be?

Not at all creepy. A lot of soldiers throughout history gave their lives so I can be where I am today and I pay tribute to them through song at our town's memorial hall on memorial day. I treat Jesus no different with the exception that He was the first soldier.

Hope it makes sense.

Bee

 

God promises that by the end of all of our lives we will be given the opportunity to know the truth. It takes more for some than it does for others. All one has to do is ask God to show them He is there and it will make sense to that individual. Everyone's opportunity is equal and different in their own way.

Okay....

 

frodly:

I've asked this question B4, collectively, to my fellow Christians on here as to "What is their purpose on this section of the forum, and why they post as they do!

My question to you is the same:

"Why do you come to this section of the forum, and what is your purpose in your postings?"

You said you are not angry, so is it for cathartic reasons, or to gain some backing as to your decisions, or what? I would think that if I 'had no problems' with ppl of religion as you say you dont, that I would merely move on with my life and forget my lacking past ...

 

I see, but when DID he make them? I think you know where I'm going with this. Where is the earliest recorded evidence that god 'predicted' miracles would happen in his name? I doubt anyone can produce any record of such claims that date back far enough to predate 'miraculous' events. That being the case, would mean that these 'predictions' were merely someone taking credit for things they already knew happened from time to time.

 

thousands of years ago. Is there a reason you skip everything that comes after?

You are paidly engaging in an arguement from the absurd. First the Bilbe has to exist to document the claims of cause, but God and miracles bothexisted before the Bible, so now we have the claim that God is merely a charlatan, which pre-supposed his existence does it not?

But that is the point, they are miracles precisely because their origins are shrouded in mystery. But when a source claims one thing after another that winds up being correct .... perhaps you do not have conclusive proof, but you do have preponderance.

And that stands in stark contrast to the atheist prediction that miracles do not exist. They do. Ergo, atheism is most definitely wrong, because the predictions it make are clearly inaccurate.

One cannot calim both that something does not exist and all manner of hypothesi save God, anything but God, and claim to be approaching the problem set with honesty.

 

The point is that it's a circular argument either way. If god IS real, then the miracles are his making, and always have been. If god is NOT real, then the bible takes credit for things people knew would happen anyway. Both are internally consistent explanations. Thus, the fact that god appears to predict miracles is not evidence of either god, or miracles being from god.

Yet ANOTHER generalisation? I'm atheist (I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn) and I've said throughout this discussion that 'miracles' are real - it's just that I don't believe they are divine in origin. So atheism is not 'wrong' because of some strawman you just cooked up.

 

The point is preponderance.

And the simple point that is made, is exactly what we claim. Knowledge cannot lead you to God, all it can do is lead down a path of preponderance. One can look at the available clues out there, and, too be blunt, make fairly solid but never conclusive cases for most valid faith choices out there. Its faith that makes the final leap in either direction.

Do you claim that atheism is a faith choice? And there are several atheists in this thread that deny there are any miracles at all. You do, so what does that mean?

Again brother, I know that God is real, not merely because of knowledge, but because I asked for and was given the 'evidence'. Its not something I canb reproduce, and, at the time, I had no idea what the Holy Spirit is. Yet God is real, and then knowledge can produce is ... well, perhaps he is or is not.

That being the point.

 

Basically, I think the discussion can be interesting. When smart people on both sides discuss things, the debates are fascinating. Unfortunately it often becomes a pissing contest, but when that doesn't happen I find it interesting. It is really that simple. It is the same reason I post at this forum in general. I don't think my actions here will have any impact, and it isn't cathartic at all(in fact it is often more frustrating), but it is often interesting. Even when the discussion is absurd, I find the absurdity interesting as well. The only time I find myself questioning coming here is when the commentary is absurd, silly, AND uninteresting. Which seems to be happening too much of late, but whatever.

 

I will accept that explanation, as my limited previous experiences with you have given me the impression that you are an honorable man.

Just hoping that you are not on here to 'damage' ppl's faith, or 'enlighten' them to the futility of their 'folly' of belief in something greater than them.

Having been around religious ppl, several denominations, and experiencing all the pitfalls of what I call 'dead religion,' I understand the anger of those who are atheists due to early life's experiences with churches or a religion, that may have hurt or disappointed them. But lashing out to individuals with that anger is still not right.
Those most likely fall in the category we call 'militant atheists.' But the remaining atheists who dont operate in anger & hatred, are welcome to post their complaints or beliefs with me....I try to reason w/ppl, and follow up with a few more posts, but I attempt not to argue as such.

 

Uhm, no. Again, a miracle is not simply, "an unexplained event". Said event must be attributed to a supernatural/divine cause for it to be considered a miracle.

Now you're getting it! Thanks for helping me prove my point.

If a miracle is an unexplained event attributed to a supernatural cause, and the supernatural cannot be tested/falsified/confirmed/etc, then by logical deduction, miracles cannot exist.

In other words, you cannot have "documented miracles" (scientific or otherwise) if you cannot confirm that some event is actually a miracle.

How can you have a preponderance of something that is a logical contradiction? That's like saying, "I have 5 square circles".

LOL, listen to yourself. I am quite calm. The only one "blowing their stack" is you - at the possibility that someone else might.

 

If I were to claim that atheism is a faith choice it would probably only be in response to someone asking me what religious faith I followed. In that sense, yes. I don't think we need to use such narrow definitions that atheists need to utterly avoid any word that has a religious connotation. Case in point: I think some people take the word 'miracle' a little too literally.

You keep talking about preponderance though. Could you elaborate? Are you saying there's more miracles than we should expect if there was no god? Or that there's a preponderance of evidence indicating that those miracles that DO happen, do so because god intended it?

 

Agh the strawman. Why bother clarifying if you are just going to tell me what my position is?

Again, miracles are by definition unexplained and miraculous events - like the curing of cancer.

I PERSONALLY ascribe them to God, but I PERSONALLY acknowledge that the evidence base for said conclusion is rather less than conclusive.

Yet here you go telling me what I opinion is and why that opinion, which is not mine, is wrong?

Well, whatver floats the atheist's boat.

Just remember, one of our simple standards is to avoid lying. What about atheists?

 

I have spoken at great length about preponderance.

The simple fact of the matter is that science leads to agnosticism. If you conclude there is no God, you make a leap of faith. Yet, here you claim that you are not doing so?

Kinda like miracles are definitely not God - because you faith tells you so. No evidence can be offered to support that claim. It just faith.

 

Perhaps sometimes, people colloquially use the word "miracle" to just refer to any unexplained event. However, the standard and most accepted definition refers to an unexplained event specifically with a supernatural/divine cause.

That said, the context of the discussion in this thread has been centered around religion and God, which would infer the standard definition. As such, your constant attempts to ignore that specific "supernatural" element are disingenuous at best.

So, if by "miracle", you really are just referring to any random unexplained event, then your argument makes no sense. Of course atheists will agree that there have been events that are as yet unexplained (in fact, most of us already have). What exactly is it then, that you are trying to get us to admit? Are you just trying to get us to use the religiously loaded word "miracle", even though you've specifically defined it with the religious connotation stripped out? What's the ultimate point of that?

Fine. If you define "miracle" as nothing more than "an unexplained event", then I agree that miracles exist.

Now what did that prove? Absolutely nothing.

How is it not yours? You just said that you personally ascribe them (miracles) to God. So now we're back to the standard definition of "an unexplained event with a supernatural/divine cause".

You're being completely contradictory.

I doesn't look like it's atheists that you should be worried about, but yourself.

 

OK, I'll take your word for it as, to be quite honest, I'm not sure I'm interested enough to trawl back through this entire thread looking for the explanation.

You're putting words in my mouth, in direct contradiction to the very post you're quoting. To repeat: "In that sense, yes" I do have faith. Perhaps you could say it's that I have faith that I've come to the right conclusion even though I can't conclusively prove it. I'm ok with that being called faith, of a sort, although I know many others froth at the mouth at the suggestion. Again, I don't think atheists need to completely avoid words with any sort of religious connotation.

 

mir·a·cle/ˈmirikəl/




Noun:




1.A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
2.A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.


There you go.

In short, as I have explained several times now, I BELIEVE in the first, but I ACKNOWLEDGE the second.

See if you can grasp that?

 

Prof, you've asked me about it several time. Science cannot solve teh mystery of God, all we can do is examine the evidential record and make a case that deal with the preponderance of the evidence.

It is no different than picking a region of space and debating whether or not there is a black hole. THe stronger case wins, even though th reality is that non one, at least currently, can get in a little space ship and fly up and actually check that region of space for a black hole.

The Big Bang is another case in point. We cannot actually go back to the instant of creation, but with things like cosmic backgroud radiation out there, the Big Bang is the current paradigm, even though there is a chance that it could be wrong because we cannot actually verify the instant of creation.

And remember Prof, you are saying that there is no component to faith in atheism - yet the science leads to agnosticism.

What you said was you would acknowledge faith ONLY in response to answering a question about your faith choice.

And teh simple fact of the matter is what makes this such, frothy as you put it, for so many atheists is that it gets right to the heart of the rhetoric of modern atheism. Atheism is the result of reason, a rejection of the supernatural and stupid .... and yet, like all other faith choices out there - its faith. And acknowledging that reason and logic leads to faith?

Well, that is a problem for atheists, and why so many of them froth at the mouth at the contention of it.

 

I got it, and I already touched on this in my last post - of which you completely failed to address a single point.

Go ahead, give it another shot.

 

That is because its already been addressed several time. Why I believe they are of divine origin has been addressed .... even if I acknowledge that it cannot be conclusively proven.

You are about ten posts behind, once again, pride gives you the illusion that you are ahead.

Feel free to actually address the points that were made before your strawman.

And, as you can see, you are not being either misquoted or misunderstood:

Hence the need to ONCE AGAIN clarify a position that you refuse to accept - by citing a dictionary. Ten posts behind bro - and the silly ass accusations about the incpotence of others are already flowing. Nice.

 

Yes, I think I get what you're saying here, but I don't see the preponderance of evidence in favour of miracles being divine in origin.

I thought I'd said pretty much the opposite. I think it's fair to say I have faith in the decision to consider god non-existent. Admittedly it's a fairly trivial form of faith, a bit like having faith that I'm not going to crash my car tomorrow. But it's there.

What I was getting at was that I wouldn't go about telling people I have faith that god doesn't exist. That's not how I would phrase it, but if someone was to put it that way I wouldn't object to it either. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

I don't acknowledge that reason and logic leads to faith, but then I also don't have a problem with people saying that the jump from agnosticism to atheism is a leap of faith, either. I may be in a minority there though.

 

No, you completely skipped over the important parts. Here it is again...


So, if by "miracle", you really are just referring to any random unexplained event, then your argument makes no sense. Of course atheists will agree that there have been events that are as yet unexplained (in fact, most of us already have). What exactly is it then, that you are trying to get us to admit? Are you just trying to get us to use the religiously loaded word "miracle", even though you've specifically defined it with the religious connotation stripped out? What's the ultimate point of that?

Fine. If you define "miracle" as nothing more than "an unexplained event", then I agree that miracles exist.

Now what did that prove? Absolutely nothing.

I did no such thing, only pointed out that you ignored my important points.

 

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

There is the list of what I am referring to as miracles. Why you are having trouble grasping that and argueing about definition that I think are pretty damb plain is beyond me.

Everyone else seem to grasp what I am saying, if there is a point in my thesis that you are not understanding, then ask for the clarification.

 

Miracles are but one part of a much larger preponderance case, one in which God claims certain events, and, every time we check we find them. So, either people were extremely in tune with naturally occuring but unexplained events, or there is a possibility of something more.

Miracles are just one part - not the part, and in this specific case, the thesis is that atheists will not accept, in most cases, that they are even happening. But they are. And saying, "Well, that is not God," is intellectually no diffrent than saying, "Well, that is God."

Accept it isn't trivial at all. You take on faith that all others are wrong, and the evidential basis for it is .... damb near non-existant.

What atheism really amounts to is looking out at the universe and not seeing anything. Which is fine. That in an of itself does not require one to reject others who do - and that is the thing about this modern incarnation of atheism - it most definitely DOES.

Well, it is the reality of it?

And yet it does if you are atheist. When the evidential record is inconclusive, and yet you make a decision to believe in a conclusive disposition anyway ... that is faith.

faith
(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

If examining the evidential record leads you to preponderant belief that there is no God, yet you acknowledge that the evidence is not conclusive, then logic and reason most definitely lead you, as it does us, to make a leap of faith.

 

Firstly, the parts that I specifically pointed out to you don't directly have to do with that. You've made several rants about how atheists refuse to accept "miracles", even though they are "documented". That is what my comments were in reference to, and that is also what you still have failed to address.

Second, the link you keep referencing is specifically about faith-healing, which naturally would define "miracle" as being supernatural/divine in origin. So again what you are saying is contradictory.