Athiests do not accept miracles

Nothing is 'contradictory' when a person wants to believe so badly. Square pegs often fit nicely in round holes.

 

Agh, once again, the reasons have been addressed several times. And apparently you need to review that post about the definition of a miracles and my personal belief.

If you fail to read what is repeatedly written ... that is simply obstinance. You are free to disagree, but then the evidence is inconclusive, so who really give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about youe personal view of someone else's faith? Why do I have to take your pedantic mewling about divine origins, based on nothing other than your opinion, as te definition of MY faith?

Your faith beats my faith? Maybe to you - I am not you. Thank God for that.

 

'Extremely' is a subjective word, I wouldn't say you'd have to be 'extremely' in tune with nature to predict that there will at times be events that seem remarkable, unexplained and beneficial. It actually seems a pretty easy prediction to me.

It's trivial in how little it affects my life.

Now hold on a minute. The universe is full of amazing stuff. Just because we don't see any reason behind the existence of something does not mean we don't see that thing. I guess this was just a metaphor though?

There definitely are a lot of people who give that impression. I suspect that they're a vocal minority though. I personally try to take a position not entirely dissimilar to the Christian ethic of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'

And don't we all love to think we speak for a silent majority?

It's one way to describe the reality of it, but it's a description that I'd generally avoid precisely because of it's connotations. Just like many people will get mixed up thinking that the word 'miracle' implies divinity, so too do a lot of people conflate 'faith' with 'religious faith', rightly or wrongly.

I suppose you're right. 'Logic' and 'reason' after all do include the capacity for heuristic evaluation. I evaluate my experiences and come to the conclusion that the likelihood of a god existing is so small as to be safely ignored; you presumably come to the opposite conclusion; neither are inherently illogical because they're based on a logical conclusion of different sets of experiences. Is that sort of what you're saying?

 

So extremely in tune with nature leads you to believe that cancer, in late stages will sometimes and for no reason reverse itself .... and the proximity to believers praying is simply just random chance and occurance in nature?

And yet, here you are?

Well, most of your fellow atheists do not.

Well, in a debate forum, there is no silent majority Either you speak up or you don't

Well, the reason most people confuse the term faith with religion is because its an intregal part of our beliefs. Rarely in the rest of our society are we asked to take things on faith, the term more often used is ... trust. Same thing when you get down to it.

That is just it though, its not all about us. Its about the wider experiences of humanity. And logically, whatever excuse might have to brush away a single instance that we ourselves see .... over the aggregate, when they happen with striking frequency, if unpredictable in timing, then one has to logically ask whether or not there is more to it than simple nature.

God says there is, atheists say there is not. And yet the simple truth of the matter is, having witnessed a miracle, claiming its just a natural occurance that we do not understand yet but someday will .... falls flat.

 

Ultimate aim of the miracles is to establish the unimaginable nature of God and if everything is imaginable then God will become neglected. Every body imagined God as this and that and it leads to clashes between religions and if one realized that GOD is unimaginable then all become silent and clashes vanishes. Clash has come because people tried to paint God as imaginable items in this world. This is the starting point of all the clash.

God do not want any publicity for fame and name. He does not need to prove Himself. Once you are convinced that God is unimaginable there is no need of any proof or any miracle. Even if all the miracles one is disagreeing, then there is one agreeable miracle which is the unimaginable boundary of the universe which already demonstrated the existence of unimaginable miracle and its doer the unimaginable God.

 

As long as the knowledge is not right, the doubts will be coming in your mind continuously. You should not fear to implement the right knowledge because the first stage is to accept the right knowledge in theory only. In course of time only you will gain the courage to implement the right knowledge. The fear in implementation of right knowledge forces you to treat the right knowledge as the wrong knowledge. In such state also, your inner conscience pricks you always suggesting it as right. You will neglect the suggestion since you suffer for your lack of efficiency in getting the right fruit by implementation of right knowledge. You are ambitious of the fruit and you are inefficiency in implementation of the right knowledge removes the possibility of getting the desired fruit.

In such state of confusion, the best solution invented by your mind is to treat the right knowledge as wrong and to think that the desired fruit cannot be achieved by such assumed wrong knowledge. The final result is to treat the right knowledge as wrong. For the same reason, your mind treats the wrong knowledge as right since it is very convenient to implement the wrong knowledge.

Your mind links the right fruit to the wrong knowledge and thus make you feel to get the right fruit through the implementation wrong knowledge assumed as right. This is the analysis of the instantaneous psychological process, unaware of which, people like the implementation wrong knowledge assuming as right and assume the achievement of right fruit. When all your doubts are cleared, the courage to implement the right knowledge is spontaneously generated. Some doubt existing in your mind unconsciously is responsible for your fear in the implementation.
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

 

Again, you're saying 'extremely', and I'm saying it's not extremely in tune at all. I'm saying that things like you just described are bound to happen every now and then - parying for seriously ill people is very common, and remission happens.

Here I am. An internet forum seems the ideal place for trivial diversions.

Are you sure? You're saying that most atheists don't appreciate the awesomeness of the universe? I'd be suspicious of such a claim to be honest.

Agreed. Which is why I don't mind the term being used.

Indeed, for example, things like unexplained remission bears some investigation! But I have faith (no pun intended) that the medical establishment and others have already looked into it quite a bit.

I'm sorry if the explanation I would give falls flat for you. I admit it's unsatisfying. But not being satisfied with an answer isn't enough for me to conclude that it is evidence of a god. Again, mileage may vary, I guess.

 

Once again, still didn't actually address a single thing.

That's ok though, I understand why. It's because you don't really have an adequate response, so you resort to your tried and true method of straw men and red herrings in an attempt to save face. I mean really, what can you say when someone points out that you've destroyed your own arguments with simple logical contradictions.

No worries, your secret is safe with me. Maybe no one else will notice.

*giggles*

 

No worries, its been addressed and you emotionally don;t like the answer. Therefore, as I am telling another atheist, you are a victime of intergalatic time travelling conspiracy when people don;t answer questions the way you wish to pigeon hole them into?

Do all atheists have issues with boundaries and control?

Kind of hard to be destroying my arguement with logical contradictions if I am not answering anything am I? WOuldn't that be a logical contradiction? To be both doing something and NOT doing something?

Well, I guess with intergalatic time travelling conspiracy - anything is possible

 

If I ask you, "how many fingers am I holding up?", and you respond with "I use two eggs in my cookie recipe", you have provided an answer, but you did not answer the question.

I know, right? It's quite telling when you've said so little, yet still have managed to contradict your own arguments.

 

The question has been answered repeatedly. There is the difference between what can be definitively proven, and what one ultimately believes the truth is. Its called faith.

And when someone repeatedly spells out that the cause of something is officially indeterminate, and you start ragging on about how stupid people are for thinking its supernatural - even though you certainly cannot prove it isn't - all you are doing is asking people to take your faith as gospel.

And being a total tool about it by coming up with degrading caricatures that insult other people's intelligence because people don;t conform to your prejudicial sterotypes in their analysis - which really means that your questions are not being answered, at the same time our answers are full of logical contradictions, which happens all the time when things are not answered at all! Intergalatic time travelling conspiracy makes many things possible. And who needs God when you have that instead?

Well, I fully understand why you are atheist.

 

See, this isn't even what I was asking you about. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to provide relevant answers if you demonstrate that you aren't really paying attention.

I never called anyone stupid. If my pointing out your contradictions makes you feel stupid, well, that's not my issue.

I don't have to. In fact, I need not even try. That is the responsibility of those claiming that it is supernatural (like you are, but yet somehow you still aren't ).

I have no faith.

No, you really don't.

You don't even understand atheism itself.

 

No, logic means you support your contention. A burden of proof is not on everyone but yourself, what you do is called an arguement from ignorance.

And it is ignorance, maybe you should re-read what I wrote about miracles 12 times now? I realize English is difficult, particularly for those that think everyone else is stupid. Never them though - its logic that drive them, but for some reason athtards never have a buren of proof! So its not proof that drives them at all. Its just athardedism.

Fortunately, not being an arrigant prick, I am aware of dictionary, and aware that I am not the person aware of these miraculous documents. Ergo, I understand atheism and when people are just being asses an using atheism as an excuse for excessively poor behavior and the utter inability to make and support a simple thesis statement.

But of course, there is no way the hallmarks of a stupid person would intergalatic time travelling conspiracy theories, deliberately avoiding statements in a debate, while screaming in whiney ass victimization and tawdry insults - those are the hallmarks of INTELLECT (now watch, the proverbial, "I know you are but what am I!!! - Deny everything, make whiney counter accusations!!!!". I wonder why atheists seem to think they are so smart when their intellect appears locked in elementary school?

Many things are possible in the great intergalatic time travelling conspiracy apparently? Who needs God when you have fallacy and immaturity? Definitely not atheists.

 

LOL, what? I didn't leave anything off. I just took that sentence and split it up into several different responses. The part you think I removed was directly below the part that you responded to. And below that, were my responses to the parts of the sentence you claim I removed - which you even included in your quoted reply!

Wow, thanks for spectacularly proving my point that you don't pay attention.

Absolute nonsense. I'm not making a contention, you are. I'm simply pointing out the glaring flaws in your arguments, including their self-contradiction.

I have, and none of it actually addressed the questions/points that I presented to you.

Your ridiculous attempts at insults aside, atheists have no burden of proof because atheists aren't making a claim. Though you haven't grasped this simple concept yet, so I don't really expect you to now (I'll bet you have another nonsensical mouth-foaming rant ready to fire off about this, however).

LMFAO.

O. M. G. Thank you for that.

 

Yep the intergalatic time traveling conspiracy is in full swing. Once again, another 'brilliant' atheist is reduced to sputtering insults and silly accusations - must be hard when the masters of the time space continum cannot bully people into saying things, and the be to proud, stubborn, and stupid, to acknowledge that a debate requires two congent people discussing an idea.

Not one lazy, concieted ass telling someone else what they think and why they are wrong - and then insulting them for attempting to actually correct what their OWN OPINION is on the subject at hand.

I guess actually listening to and acknoweldgeing people and other opinions is hard for those who lack the slef esteem to actually challenge and examine their positions ... so you don't.

Well, have fun with your utter inability to civilly debate anything. Bye!

 

Yes, so uncivilized of him to call people arrigant (sic) pricks, wasnt it?

 

Yes, its incredibly uncivil to repeatedly state your opponents opinions for them, repeatedly accuse them of failing to answer question - when they are clearly answering them - while lecturing people about how stupid they are.

Feel free to explain his position for him, because this is all I can get.

Feel free to explain to me how someone can be both not answering questions and yet condemning themselves with logical contradictions to issues they aren't even answering ... in rebuttal to claims he's not making.

Guess how many times Null has done this?

So yeah, he can stop acting like an arrogant prick and man up with a something that looks like a supported thesis statement.

If not?

Now, feel free to explain how any of that, and its all we ever get from Null, is the result of atheism or has any bearing on the origins of miracles in the slightest?

Its just an arrogant prick needing to put other people down because of self esteem issues that make it difficult for him to contence disagreement. Simple as that.

But, as you have actually provided some insight about faith and atheism, perhaps you would care to explain it too him ... so he can characterize it as a mouth foaming rant to an issue he is not even claiming about in a question you aren't answering! No doubt your contradictions will be many.

 

Which I have not done.

Because you haven't. All you could do was repeat the whole deal about the differences of the definitions of "miracle", which had no bearing on what I was trying to get you to address at the time - which I also pointed out then. Instead of realizing this, you repeated the definition thing again and then, for some odd reason, seemed to feel insulted that I didn't accept your irrelevant and off-topic "answer". Followed by various rants and insults.

Which I also have not done.

I've already been over this. You are providing responses, but not containing answers directly relevant to the questions being asked. The information that you have provided has proved self-contradictory.

I don't know, how many times have you contradicted yourself? That many.

No, it's all you ever get from me, due to the vile manner in which you treat people all the time. If you would treat others better, you would get treated better - but you already know this, because we've had this conversation before. Unfortunately, I have yet to see you try it.

I fully admit that some of my posts toward you are not as civil as they probably should be. I'd rather not stoop to that level, but I also don't like to let others step all over me or those around me. So, you get what you give.

One of the differences between us though, is that I never call you (or anyone else) names.

I wasn't putting you down, I was putting down your arguments. The problem is, for whatever reason, that you have a frequent tendency to get personally offended anytime someone disagrees with you. Unfortunately, that is an issue you need to face on your own, we can't help you there.

I call a spade, a spade.

 

By all means null, explain riddle me this.

The origins of miracles are defined by you telling me what my opinion is on teh subject, then ridiculing YOUR interepretation of the position, while ignoring mine.

Which is, once again, orifins of miracles listed are unexplained and unexplainable, but I BELIEVE - on faith - that they come from God for a myriad of reasons, none of which are conlcusively proveable.

Which is quite similiar to agnostic atheism, which is of course the stalwart belief that there is no God, while not claiming that there is no God, and relying on absolutely no evidence, to still be based in fact and science in a manner that makes others delusional, because atheism is simply that there is no God, but is simultaneously a doctrine and set of standards superior to all else, and complex beyond either understanding or explanation .... and is somehow relavent to the position on the origins of miracles and makes everyone else prone to delusion and illogic?

So, lets repeat. As the source of miracles cannot be conclusively found, we MUST conslusively deny a supernatural origin - this is a logical fallacy.

The opposite is, because there is no evidence that miracles ARE NOT divine, they are therfore OBVIOUSLY and DEFINITIVELY DIVINE in origin.

That too is an arguement from ignorance. But of course, you aren't actually claiming anything at all ... and no questions you ask are ever answered .... execept all answers, that are not happening, are foaming mouthed rants and contradictions ... to a faith you don't have about a position you cannot define that is only understood by you.

Yes Null, we know you are a super victim, in addition to a weak, highly emotional and accusatory poster who cannot either make or support a position he never makes. We gotcha.

 

I could never understand what you hope to gain by building up a room full of straw men and whacking away at them. Yet it is the manner of the vast majority of your posts - and not just to me, but everyone. The thing is, you're not even good at it. It's always embarrassingly blatant and just looks silly and foolish. None of them ever slip by anyone, but you just keep trying and trying.

At least you're determined and consistent, which are normally decent qualities. However, in this case, aside from being an incredibly dishonest practice, it just drags out every thread you participate in to a painful and non-productive crawl.

Except that's not at all what I said - so bravo again for not paying attention.

What I said was, if a miracle is defined as an unexplained event with a supernatural cause, then a "miracle" cannot exist due to the fact that a supernatural cause cannot be tested, falsified, or confirmed - which means that one cannot actually attribute a supernatural cause to an event - which conflicts with that definition - which means a "miracle" is a logical contradiction.

Your responses to this consisted of:

1. "a miracle is just an unexplained event"
2. "I believe miracles to be divine in origin"
3. "here is the definition of miracle which shows it doesn't have to be supernatural/divine"
4. "here is my source which 'proves' miracles occur"

1 and 3 both conflict with 2 and 4. Why would you be arguing that a miracle need not be supernatural/divine if you personally believe that they are? That makes no sense. Then you try to offer up a link which supposedly proves "scientifically documented miracles" under the guise of the non-supernatural definition, yet the source itself is specifically about faith-healing, which would require the divine meaning.

Yeah, quite contradictory.

Never said that, only pointed out the standard definition and connotation of the word "miracle".

I had asked you several other questions to which you just repeated the same nonsense above, but which had no bearing on the questions that I asked.

This should all be pretty simple reasoning.

How can something that is specifically a lack of faith, be a faith?

I'll help you - it can't. That's another one of those logical contradictions you seem so fond of.

It's been defined for you innumerable times. To put it simply, theists make a claim that cannot be adequately backed up. As such, some of us realize that there is no reason to believe said claim.

No, it seems to be understood by everyone but you.

 

And the response was quite clearly trhat science can indeed document things that it cannot explain ... like the Big Bang. Like Evolution BEFORE we knew about DNA.

That was written before you asked your question, and, exactly as charged, you failed to read or comprehend what my position was in favor of telling me that attempting to corret ANOTHER egomanical atheist was ... a foaming mouth rant against a case you were not making about a subject in which you have no claims that I was not answering, but somehow was contradicting myself with logical fallacies.

All because you failed to acknowledge a single point, and are now mad and poutish when I dismiss your rambling and silly ass emotional accusations as nothing more than arrogance and giant chip on your shoulder.

I guess having asked you to clarify your position or what you failed to understand about mine was somehow too difficult, and when you finally do, after a dozen rants full on nonsense and childish accusations, it seems it was a simple question to answer and clarify.

Of course, YOU are never at fault when this happens. Clearly you are victim and probably need an advocate come let you cry on their shoulder or something.

All because you insist on using the logical fallacy of silliness - I have neither FAITH NOR PROOF!!!! But I am right and you are wrong!!!! You see!!!!

Once again, its a pretty simple point, so I am glad we got your emotional trainwreck rather than simply acknowledging and countering a point ... which you, not I, are failing to acknowledge.

"And the response was quite clearly trhat science can indeed document things that it cannot explain ... like the Big Bang. Like Evolution BEFORE we knew about DNA. "

This is the kind of behavior that is nothing short of athtarded.