The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I can't look anything up based on the nothing that I found (and yes I looked). I still don't know why you're asking me to look up stuff to support your claim. Do you just enjoy shirking the burden of proof?

ok, I give you credit for looking... not sure what you've been looking for if you haven't found anything.  I'm asking you to look up stuff to refute my claim... you seem to think it will support it, which I'm saying it will, but I challenge you to find a good point to use from the process of their investigation.  Do you enjoy being ignorant?  It seems you're on vacation, you also know I don't shirk the burden of proof and will battle it out with you till the end regardless of burden of proof.  

I'll give you a nudge in the right direction.  This link will give you a summary of the process... you can use terminology from the summary to look up more details about specific points..  I encourage you to do so so you're not making any more assumptions and can come back to me with something legitimate against the process.  

http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_18979_l3.htm

jcgadfly wrote:

Why would the need of the miracle being done solely by the intervention of the saint preclude a doctor visit? Think about it - if the doctor attempts treatment and it makes any positive change then there is doubt about the magic being involved.

and it would not be deemed a miracle by their process of investigation.

jcgadfly wrote:
 

It seems to be far more important for them to make sure of the magic than it is to see if they guy actually got cured (something for which we have only the word of the claimant and the clergy with a vested interest).

just read the link, then get back to me.   It's again a summary and does not go into drastic detail, but gives you the gist of what you're claiming they don't do.

jcgadfly wrote:

You're no more religious than me?  yay! we're both Christians!

or not Sticking out tongue

Cap, from the summary you gave me it seems that the Consulta medica does little more than say "The claimant had <x>. Now he doesn't. We don't know why he no longer has it." They can consult with other doctors but don't need to take their advice if they don't wish to. It looks very much like a rubber stamp committee ad it only needs a simple majority of the five doctors on the voting council to pass it. You mentioned "then it would be tossed as a miracle" - only if three of the doctors believed that the treatment itself did something and the saint didn't guide the doctor's hands. There are still way too many outs in the miracle declaring process.

As for how Christian we both are - you probably have me. You prayed to a statue of Jesus and I didn't.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You are so

Brian37 wrote:

You are so hopeless Cap. You post a link that is nothing more than a list of naked assertions made up by a gang to promote the gang.

You might as well be pointing us to a flat earther's link.

 

I would LOVE it if you brought to light some of those "naked assertions"... then LOVE it even MORE if you stuck to the discussion that might ensue.  See I'm looking for someone to break down their methodology and show how it's flawed...  I'm willing to present that Nobel prize to you when you do.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, from the

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, from the summary you gave me it seems that the Consulta medica does little more than say "The claimant had <x>. Now he doesn't. We don't know why he no longer has it." They can consult with other doctors but don't need to take their advice if they don't wish to. It looks very much like a rubber stamp committee ad it only needs a simple majority of the five doctors on the voting council to pass it. You mentioned "then it would be tossed as a miracle" - only if three of the doctors believed that the treatment itself did something and the saint didn't guide the doctor's hands. There are still way too many outs in the miracle declaring process.

As for how Christian we both are - you probably have me. You prayed to a statue of Jesus and I didn't.

naw, I don't pray to statues... that's idolatry.  

You seem to think that it's down to certain doctors believing that a saint guided, vs something that can be scientifically or medically explained... you didn't read through that other link thoroughly did you.  There's  a part that explains that in order to deem it a miracle it would have to be found inexplicable scientifically and medically, which pretty much nullifies the theories you've been trying to come up with to deem the process bias.  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 "inexplicable

 "inexplicable scientifically and medically" is a very weak basis for claiming anything as significant as a 'miracle'.

Inexplicable results are seen all the time in scientific research - no miracle claims. Either errors in investigation, assumptions, etc, or insufficient current knowledge, or occasionally pointing to a need for an new theory.

Then you have a vote. Which further weakens the strength of any judgement.

What a joke.

Get a leg to grow back perfectly and you'll have something to talk about.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

 "inexplicable scientifically and medically" is a very weak basis for claiming anything as significant as a 'miracle'.

Inexplicable results are seen all the time in scientific research - no miracle claims. Either errors in investigation, assumptions, etc, or insufficient current knowledge, or occasionally pointing to a need for an new theory.

Then you have a vote. Which further weakens the strength of any judgement.

What a joke.

Get a leg to grow back perfectly and you'll have something to talk about.

Yes, they are... but usually based on something that isn't so tangible and familiar as an incurable disease (incurable at this point in time, tangible as in all attempts to cure have failed historically to present)

You can talk about errors in investigation, but how do you screw up the failure to cure a common deadly illness for many decades?  Better yet, how do you miss the medical discovery of a cure for that particular disease without it being painted all over the internet and news?   It's hard to make assumptions when you have access to all the medical records and the doctors who worked directly with the patient and insufficient current knowledge??? come on.  either we have a cure for it or we don't or either our immune systems can defeat it or it can't, what do we need to know that we don't in this case?    Say we find a cure in the future... 100 years from now or even 10... Does that mean we can look back and see that it wasn't a miracle and that this futuristic discovery happened that many years before it was discovered?  Sure it could have been an accident that ultimately paved the road to the cure, but how many times can that happen before you have to deem it a miracle?  10, 100, 1000 times?  

There's a reason why it takes years to confirm and not hours.  

You say claiming it scientifically and medically inexplicable is a very weak basis... what approach might you take?  Mind you I didn't say that was their only basis... this link is a whole writeup... well summary, but still, that tidbit was literally 1 sentence out of the whole thing.  

This also is not a snide attack on your claim, I sincerely want to know your alternate approach to proving the miracle besides scientific and medical knowledge.  I only brought to light the problems I saw with your claim from my perspective.  if I'm way off base here, please show me how.    I will probably ask more questions or try countering more, but that's how I learn.   That way when I can accept your perspective if ever, i will be able to defend that perspective when confronted by someone else.  I will not accept a perspective I can't turn around and empirically defend. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
No alternative approach

No alternative approach available, or required. 

I was in no way referring to the medical staff possibly being unaware of the availability of a cure. Total red herring.

"either we have a cure for it or we don't or either our immune systems can defeat it or it can't, = Absolutely, totally wrong.

Biology is complex, all diseases, all individual instances of a disease, all individual humans have different inherited make-up, and different life-histories. There may or may not be a known workable cure, but that doesn't mean it will always work, or that it is impossible for someone to recover without it, even if highly unlikely.

If anything takes years like that, is that complex, has a high probability of uncertainty, therefore CANNOT be taken as certain, therefore cannot justify being taken as a clear example of something as important and transcendent as the intervention of a deity.

Miracles intrinsically are unprovable - there is no alternativer technique. Like the "God of the Gaps", only 'works' if you assume a current mystery will never be explained naturally, an impossible thing to know in advance.

In any case, they are actually evidence that if there is a God, He is NOT good. He appears to only 'cure' a few people, as stunts, which his fan-boys can use as 'evidence' for Him.

If he was genuinely 'good' and cared for us, those diseases would not exist in the first place, or he would cure everybody who contracted them. Or at the very least, everyone who honestly prayed to him. Are you seriously suggesting that only the few 'miraculous' cures are all he can do?

Divine intervention would not be limited in any way by how difficult or impossible current medical science finds it to trea a disease.

And don't bother quoting scripture - you judge someone's virtue by their actions, not their words.

Cap, you have flimsy evidence, at best, for the existence of a God, and none at all for a benevolent, caring one. This 'miracle' counts more against a caring God than a 'good' one.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It's easy to find something

It's easy to find something to be inexplicable - don't actually look for an explanation.

Shouldn't they do better than the argument from ignorance? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No

BobSpence1 wrote:

No alternative approach available, or required. 

I was in no way referring to the medical staff possibly being unaware of the availability of a cure. Total red herring.

just clarifying

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"either we have a cure for it or we don't or either our immune systems can defeat it or it can't, = Absolutely, totally wrong.

Biology is complex, all diseases, all individual instances of a disease, all individual humans have different inherited make-up, and different life-histories. There may or may not be a known workable cure, but that doesn't mean it will always work, or that it is impossible for someone to recover without it, even if highly unlikely.

if it was known to be possible for the body to defeat on it's own, even in rare cases, that would have been taken into consideration and would be "medical knowledge" therefore rendering the situation not a miracle.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

If anything takes years like that, is that complex, has a high probability of uncertainty, therefore CANNOT be taken as certain, therefore cannot justify being taken as a clear example of something as important and transcendent as the intervention of a deity.

OR.... it could be in this case... just as in many other cases, part of it is the process, but they're also waiting for the disease to resurface deeming it not cured and deeming the situation not a miracle... they also have to wait until the alleged saint dies before deeming them a saint and therefore the investigation is not rushed, which allows for more careful inspection of each piece of information.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Miracles intrinsically are unprovable... *edit

when God is not taken into consideration as a possible cause

BobSpence1 wrote:

In any case, they are actually evidence that if there is a God, He is NOT good. He appears to only 'cure' a few people, as stunts, which his fan-boys can use as 'evidence' for Him.

so in any case, you're claiming you know why God cured certain individuals and the reasoning behind it as well as why others were not cured and the future outcome of each alternative outcome... otherwise, this is ignoratio elenchi.

BobSpence1 wrote:

f he was genuinely 'good' and cared for us, those diseases would not exist in the first place, or he would cure everybody who contracted them. Or at the very least, everyone who honestly prayed to him. Are you seriously suggesting that only the few 'miraculous' cures are all he can do?

you know this for sure... you know how they started and spread and how if God was there he didn't intervene?  Are you sure about this?  Another ignoratio elenchi.... and no that's not ignoring your point, but you're speculating here and it brings no progress to the point. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Divine intervention would not be limited in any way by how difficult or impossible current medical science finds it to trea a disease.

of course it's not which is why cures of incurable diseases, especially instantanious ones are miracles and not medical.

BobSpence1 wrote:

And don't bother quoting scripture - you judge someone's virtue by their actions, not their words.

"...and on the first day..."  oh! ... uh.. sorry.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap, you have flimsy evidence, at best, for the existence of a God, and none at all for a benevolent, caring one. This 'miracle' counts more against a caring God than a 'good' one.

in speculation only.  Unless you can elaborate on this knowledge you seem to be claiming to have.  This being the understanding of why some might have been missed and the alternative outcomes of each.  

Right now I'm not tying to show God to be good or bad.  the fact that the "audience" if you will doesn't believe in my God in the first place makes that point irrelevant.   If you ever come to the conclusion that this God does exist, then we'll talk about whether He's good or bad.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's easy to

jcgadfly wrote:

It's easy to find something to be inexplicable - don't actually look for an explanation.

Shouldn't they do better than the argument from ignorance? 

that's easy to say when you don't know what they actually do.  I'm assuming you have proof that this is all they do... I want the link or source so I can investigate this myself... I'd hate to think that you're just being ignorant.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's easy to find something to be inexplicable - don't actually look for an explanation.

Shouldn't they do better than the argument from ignorance? 

that's easy to say when you don't know what they actually do.  I'm assuming you have proof that this is all they do... I want the link or source so I can investigate this myself... I'd hate to think that you're just being ignorant.  

I'm going by the sources you gave me.

From the link:

"The examination and final discussion of the medical Consulta conclude by establishing the exact diagnosis of the illness, prognosis, treatment and end result. "

Here ends the medical/scientific portion of the examination

"In order to be regarded as a possible miracle the healing must be judged by the specialists as rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge. If perplexities arise during the enquiry the Consulta suspends assessment and asks for further expertise and documentation."

Vague and subjective criteria - no definition of "rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge". If the consulta's knowledge is not current there is nothing that requires them to get/keep current.

"Only after the medical Consulta arrives at a majority or unanimous verdict in favor of the extra-natural character of the healing does the enquiry pass to the Consulta of theologians."

This is essentially "Who believes that this was a miracle? Raise your hands." God doesn't create the miracle - it's decided by majority rule.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap has always been

Cap has always been defending the same thing every other god believer defends.

"HOLLY SHIT I CANT EXPLAIN THIS SO THEREFOR A MAGICAL INVISIBLE SKY DADDY EXISTS, SPECIFICALLY THE ONE I BLINDLY SWALLOWED"

Cap doesn't want to accept that he has as much evidence for his claptrap as a Muslim or Jew or Hindu.

If he had the same evidence for the computer he types his claptrap on as he does for his "miracles" he'd have something. But what he doesn't realize is that he suffers from the same psychology I did when I thought my Winnie The Poo stuffed animal protected me when I was a kid.

He just has an adult version of mental illusion. I outgrew Winnie The Poo.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap,I am not claiming to

Cap,

I am not claiming to know anything specific about God.

I am merely pointing out alternatives that are at least logically possible, and arguably more plausible possibilities. Believers are the ones claiming to know with certainty about God's real motives and capabilities, and ignoring other possible interpretations of what we observe about the world this alleged God allegedly created.

Your position is at least as speculative as anything I have said.

Scripture is just words, claims, from a collection of writings containing many demonstrated historical errors. It does not remotely deserve to be treated as a source of solid evidence for anything except what those guys thought had occurred, not observable, confirmable actions.

"Inexplicable" can only be in the context of current science. It can never mean absolutely inexplicable - some new discovery could be made tomorrow that shows how it could happen. So it should not be used to justify any absolute confirmation of 'miracle'. So such miracle claims can only ever be speculation, not confirmed.

For anyone to claim otherwise is dishonest.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap,I am

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap,

I am not claiming to know anything specific about God.

I am merely pointing out alternatives that are at least logically possible, and arguably more plausible possibilities. Believers are the ones claiming to know with certainty about God's real motives and capabilities, and ignoring other possible interpretations of what we observe about the world this alleged God allegedly created.

Your position is at least as speculative as anything I have said.

Scripture is just words, claims, from a collection of writings containing many demonstrated historical errors. It does not remotely deserve to be treated as a source of solid evidence for anything except what those guys thought had occurred, not observable, confirmable actions.

"Inexplicable" can only be in the context of current science. It can never mean absolutely inexplicable - some new discovery could be made tomorrow that shows how it could happen. So it should not be used to justify any absolute confirmation of 'miracle'. So such miracle claims can only ever be speculation, not confirmed.

For anyone to claim otherwise is dishonest.

 

But they are not "just words". They are words he swallows and because he swallowed them that makes those "words" important.

Unfortunately those "words" ARE important in that those who don't buy them have to constantly battle the magical bullshit contained in them.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'm going by

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm going by the sources you gave me.

which is a summary and that was explained to you right off so that you could use it to further your investigation into debunking the miracle claims.

jcgadfly wrote:

"The examination and final discussion of the medical Consulta conclude by establishing the exact diagnosis of the illness, prognosis, treatment and end result. "

Here ends the medical/scientific portion of the examination

For the Consulta... you fail to take into consideration that all the above as well as interviews with all the people involved can be and are revisited by each department and is cross examined by neutral entities.

jcgadfly wrote:

"In order to be regarded as a possible miracle the healing must be judged by the specialists as rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge. If perplexities arise during the enquiry the Consulta suspends assessment and asks for further expertise and documentation."

Vague and subjective criteria - no definition of "rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge". If the consulta's knowledge is not current there is nothing that requires them to get/keep current.

Do you really need me to define those words for you?  Ok

Rapid:  Quick

Complete:  gone without a trace

Lasting:  No remission (one reason why it takes years to confirm)

inexplicable:  cannot be explained... not by Jcgadfly's standards, but literally cannot be explained by current medical and scientific knowledge.

This last part is hard for me to believe... I mean are you really not thinking or are you just messing with me.  You quoted; "by current medical and scientific knowledge" not by the current knowledge of the Consulta, so how can you question whether the consulta's knowledge is current?  it says so right in the text!  Oh, I get it, you're taking it as the Consulta making that claim and therefore if their knowledge isn't current, they'd still claim it is not realizing it's not... Ok, please reference sources so i can investigate that claim further as well... I have not seen that evidence or reasoning to accept that claim yet.

jcgadfly wrote:

"Only after the medical Consulta arrives at a majority or unanimous verdict in favor of the extra-natural character of the healing does the enquiry pass to the Consulta of theologians."

This is essentially "Who believes that this was a miracle? Raise your hands." God doesn't create the miracle - it's decided by majority rule.

After evidences and interviews have been extensively investigated... unless you believe that's how the American court system works...."case number 45 on the docket... the accused is being tried for a brutal murder... Who in the jury believes he's guilty?  Raise your hands.  majority says he's guilty, life without parole..." I guess if I didn't know what i know about the court system and didn't investigate it futher, I could easily assume that's how it works.  It'd make jury duty a lot less painful... still would wonder why it takes so long then to just have people raise their hands for an answer.

Dude, admit it, you've got nothing without investigating.  You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want, but people on here are not dumb and neither am I.  Nice try though, but you're insulting the intelligence of everyone who follows this thread.  You're now doing exactly what you've been trying to accuse me of doing many times before... Are you a Hypocrite much?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap has always

Brian37 wrote:

Cap has always been defending the same thing every other god believer defends.

"HOLLY SHIT I CANT EXPLAIN THIS SO THEREFOR A MAGICAL INVISIBLE SKY DADDY EXISTS, SPECIFICALLY THE ONE I BLINDLY SWALLOWED"

Cap doesn't want to accept that he has as much evidence for his claptrap as a Muslim or Jew or Hindu.

If he had the same evidence for the computer he types his claptrap on as he does for his "miracles" he'd have something. But what he doesn't realize is that he suffers from the same psychology I did when I thought my Winnie The Poo stuffed animal protected me when I was a kid.

He just has an adult version of mental illusion. I outgrew Winnie The Poo.

 

...and again, a lot of wind without destruction.  Can you stand on anything?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap,I am

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap,

I am not claiming to know anything specific about God.

I know

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am merely pointing out alternatives that are at least logically possible, and arguably more plausible possibilities. Believers are the ones claiming to know with certainty about God's real motives and capabilities, and ignoring other possible interpretations of what we observe about the world this alleged God allegedly created.

We know his capabilities... to what extent we don't know, but we know he's capable of a lot... Motives are made clear in scripture IF YOU TAKE THE SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE IN CONTEXT and not pull out bits and pieces to show your idealism.  This is how religion starts.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your position is at least as speculative as anything I have said.

based on scripture?  I'd agree with you except for what is based off of personal experience... as to which I cannot back up other than by using the other people who experienced what i had with me, which is hardly evidence for anyone who wasn't there unless you trust us completely to be honest and truthful.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scripture is just words, claims, from a collection of writings containing many demonstrated historical errors. It does not remotely deserve to be treated as a source of solid evidence for anything except what those guys thought had occurred, not observable, confirmable actions.

I'd say I'm running through the Bible from a historical point of view as we speak with a very credible historical nonbeliever.  So far we have agreed all the errors he has brought up is congruent with historical writings of that time and in no way has discredited the stories as true in history.  His only case at this point is that they're story telling and it's difficult to find evidences of the stories being told to be true in history,.  As to which I'd agree, though there are still some evidences of those stories being true in history and so far no evidences have been brought up that would take place of that timeline.  

Beyond that, it is agreed upon by scholars that some of what's written in the Bible was in fact eye-witness accounts.  of course we can't observe any of it today, but it's just as confirmable as any other history from that time.  Some may have more artifacts, but all stories that have been discredited have a clear source of reasoning, including a timeline that takes the place of the story in question or a source for the origination of the story other than an actual event.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Inexplicable" can only be in the context of current science. It can never mean absolutely inexplicable - some new discovery could be made tomorrow that shows how it could happen. So it should not be used to justify any absolute confirmation of 'miracle'. So such miracle claims can only ever be speculation, not confirmed.

For anyone to claim otherwise is dishonest.

Sure, from the scientific knowledge, but if it did have a future explanation on how it happens that would easily be understood, then a lot more people would be randomly healed from these aledgedly deadly diseases as well.  This would be seen and from that point deemed not a miracle because other healings just like this would have happened without prayer or a source of Godly interaction.  

It's more about the correlation of events and not so much the healing itself, though that has to be taken into consideration as well to be deemed a miracle.  

With that said, understand that i"m trying to take the same perspective as you, be it that I am trying to point out alternatives that could likely be possible and take a logical approach to the subject.  Any good reasoning to an alternative to what I believe I take into serious consideration and I cross reference with many sources, people included.  I don't take anyone's word on anything just as you...

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm going by the sources you gave me.

which is a summary and that was explained to you right off so that you could use it to further your investigation into debunking the miracle claims.

jcgadfly wrote:

"The examination and final discussion of the medical Consulta conclude by establishing the exact diagnosis of the illness, prognosis, treatment and end result. "

Here ends the medical/scientific portion of the examination

For the Consulta... you fail to take into consideration that all the above as well as interviews with all the people involved can be and are revisited by each department and is cross examined by neutral entities.

jcgadfly wrote:

"In order to be regarded as a possible miracle the healing must be judged by the specialists as rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge. If perplexities arise during the enquiry the Consulta suspends assessment and asks for further expertise and documentation."

Vague and subjective criteria - no definition of "rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable by current medical and scientific knowledge". If the consulta's knowledge is not current there is nothing that requires them to get/keep current.

Do you really need me to define those words for you?  Ok

Rapid:  Quick

Complete:  gone without a trace

Lasting:  No remission (one reason why it takes years to confirm)

inexplicable:  cannot be explained... not by Jcgadfly's standards, but literally cannot be explained by current medical and scientific knowledge.

This last part is hard for me to believe... I mean are you really not thinking or are you just messing with me.  You quoted; "by current medical and scientific knowledge" not by the current knowledge of the Consulta, so how can you question whether the consulta's knowledge is current?  it says so right in the text!  Oh, I get it, you're taking it as the Consulta making that claim and therefore if their knowledge isn't current, they'd still claim it is not realizing it's not... Ok, please reference sources so i can investigate that claim further as well... I have not seen that evidence or reasoning to accept that claim yet.

jcgadfly wrote:

"Only after the medical Consulta arrives at a majority or unanimous verdict in favor of the extra-natural character of the healing does the enquiry pass to the Consulta of theologians."

This is essentially "Who believes that this was a miracle? Raise your hands." God doesn't create the miracle - it's decided by majority rule.

After evidences and interviews have been extensively investigated... unless you believe that's how the American court system works...."case number 45 on the docket... the accused is being tried for a brutal murder... Who in the jury believes he's guilty?  Raise your hands.  majority says he's guilty, life without parole..." I guess if I didn't know what i know about the court system and didn't investigate it futher, I could easily assume that's how it works.  It'd make jury duty a lot less painful... still would wonder why it takes so long then to just have people raise their hands for an answer.

Dude, admit it, you've got nothing without investigating.  You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want, but people on here are not dumb and neither am I.  Nice try though, but you're insulting the intelligence of everyone who follows this thread.  You're now doing exactly what you've been trying to accuse me of doing many times before... Are you a Hypocrite much?  

"Dude", admit it. I did more investigating than you because I read the document instead of simply presenting it and tossing in my own assertions. 

And no, I wouldn't want jury trials decided by majority rule as the acceptance of a miracle is. You probably haven't been on a jury so you may not know this but jurors discuss the evidence for and against the defendant because his life and freedom are in their hands. All the Consulta get is the evidence for the miracle and even then it's a show of hands. All you have brought to the contrary is your assertions is that they "must" look at contrary evidence. Looking at contrary evidence is hard to do when it is not presented.

The "current medical and scientific knowledge" has to be the knowledge of the Consulta and those they choose to speak to. Or are you assuming that they have access to all ongoing research, research still under peer review, and recently published research that hasn't been distributed? Does God just beam this knowledge into their heads? 

Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful for the definitions you condescended to give me. I just think you're letting your desire for miracles and your apparent love for the saints cloud your judgment a little. I do think you are confused on what "remission" means. Remission means it goes away. I think you meant "relapse". Remission, if it occurs for the period of evaluation, would still count as a miracle (even if it returned after they stopped looking - they don't follow the claimant throughout their lives, do they?) 

I'm wondering why you're defending this, though. The claim is that they prayed to the saint for the miracle. Not God, not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I thought you considered that "idolatry". Why are you sticking up for idolaters?

Do your own damn homework, ok? You have to provide proof of the validity of the claim. I don't have to provide proof that it didn't happen. Is your burden too heavy for you? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap,

I am not claiming to know anything specific about God.

I know

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am merely pointing out alternatives that are at least logically possible, and arguably more plausible possibilities. Believers are the ones claiming to know with certainty about God's real motives and capabilities, and ignoring other possible interpretations of what we observe about the world this alleged God allegedly created.

We know his capabilities... to what extent we don't know, but we know he's capable of a lot... Motives are made clear in scripture IF YOU TAKE THE SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE IN CONTEXT and not pull out bits and pieces to show your idealism.  This is how religion starts.  

You do not, and cannot, know the capabilities of such an imagined being, so utterly beyond the scale and nature of anything we experience, and so beyond our finite and fallible minds. You can only speculate. That is a really fundamentally fallacy on your part. Scripture is equally compatible with a God only concerned to deceive us, to play with us. To detect the real motives of such a being would require truly 'infallible' minds, necessarily having similar capabilities, on some level, superior to that of God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your position is at least as speculative as anything I have said.

based on scripture?  I'd agree with you except for what is based off of personal experience... as to which I cannot back up other than by using the other people who experienced what i had with me, which is hardly evidence for anyone who wasn't there unless you trust us completely to be honest and truthful.  

Scripture cannot verify itself, any reference to it, without very solid empirical backing is of zero significance.

Persoonal experience similarly, even if shared. Without objective empirical verification, anything becomes 'knowable'. Every conceivable religion becomes justifiable on such a basis.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scripture is just words, claims, from a collection of writings containing many demonstrated historical errors. It does not remotely deserve to be treated as a source of solid evidence for anything except what those guys thought had occurred, not observable, confirmable actions.

I'd say I'm running through the Bible from a historical point of view as we speak with a very credible historical nonbeliever.  So far we have agreed all the errors he has brought up is congruent with historical writings of that time and in no way has discredited the stories as true in history.  His only case at this point is that they're story telling and it's difficult to find evidences of the stories being told to be true in history,.  As to which I'd agree, though there are still some evidences of those stories being true in history and so far no evidences have been brought up that would take place of that timeline.  

Beyond that, it is agreed upon by scholars that some of what's written in the Bible was in fact eye-witness accounts.  of course we can't observe any of it today, but it's just as confirmable as any other history from that time.  Some may have more artifacts, but all stories that have been discredited have a clear source of reasoning, including a timeline that takes the place of the story in question or a source for the origination of the story other than an actual event.  

Little, if anything, in scripture is direct eye-witness accounts recorded immediately at the event, or very shortly after. Eye-witness accounts, especially of unusual events, are notoriously unreliable, and rapidly go downhill from there as time passes between the event and writing it down. So that is more very shaky justification

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Inexplicable" can only be in the context of current science. It can never mean absolutely inexplicable - some new discovery could be made tomorrow that shows how it could happen. So it should not be used to justify any absolute confirmation of 'miracle'. So such miracle claims can only ever be speculation, not confirmed.

For anyone to claim otherwise is dishonest.

Sure, from the scientific knowledge, but if it did have a future explanation on how it happens that would easily be understood, then a lot more people would be randomly healed from these aledgedly deadly diseases as well.  This would be seen and from that point deemed not a miracle because other healings just like this would have happened without prayer or a source of Godly interaction.  

It's more about the correlation of events and not so much the healing itself, though that has to be taken into consideration as well to be deemed a miracle.  

With that said, understand that i"m trying to take the same perspective as you, be it that I am trying to point out alternatives that could likely be possible and take a logical approach to the subject.  Any good reasoning to an alternative to what I believe I take into serious consideration and I cross reference with many sources, people included.  I don't take anyone's word on anything just as you...

You are taking the word of the writers of scripture...

You have no warrant at all to assume that an ultimate explanation that may be found is likely to be "easily understood", especially if we see very few of these events occurring. IOW the fact that we see very few such events is a strong indication that it will not be simple. Especially in the context of biological processes, which are among the most complex we know of. So your first argument is backward - that observation supports my position, not yours.

Of course you have to cross-reference and correlate as much as possible, I assumed that. But that can never justify confidence that there is no possible explanation, only, at most, add support for some specific explanation, not an absence of explanation, which is all you have. "GodDidIt" is simply an expression of ignorance , not a claim.

And there is evidence that such events do occur in the absence of any prayer or hint of Godly intervention. But those are never going to be seized upon by religious authorities to be investigated, since they are not going to support their position. And what are the statistics on prayers and/or saintly intervention which didn't work?? Surely you are not claiming that every such appeal always results in cure, so if not, how many times has it not worked, in comparison to the number of full successes? You certainly cannot claim to have seriously and honestly investigated the cases without such data. Look for dis-confirmation at least as diligently as you do for support, it is the essence of science.

Spontaneous remission does definitely occur in even apparently serious conditions, even if rarely.

The highly respected Robert Winston -  a British professor, medical doctor, scientist, and television presenter, a traditional Jew with an orthodox background - did an excellent TV documentary series on religion which included looking into a number of famous 'miracles', and confessed he could find no warrant for their claims, and noted that for many, or even most, diseases, spontaneous remission was far more common than miracle 'cures'.

Even if 'genuine' miracles did occur, they would raise serious issues about the morality of the divine intervener, more concerned with preforming the occasional modest stunt than helping the bulk of those afflicted by his faulty handiwork or the nasty disease organisms he let loose on the planet.

You have no case, the evidence points the other way, at every level. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: You have

BobSpence1 wrote:
You have no case, the evidence points the other way, at every level. 

Well, he's admittedly pious. As much, if not more that most theists.

Which means his level of double standards and hypocrisy will be incredibly high. They have to be, in order for them claim they're most interested in being objective, since they never actually try hard enough to be objective.

It must be something in that Holy Water, or something...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap has always been defending the same thing every other god believer defends.

"HOLLY SHIT I CANT EXPLAIN THIS SO THEREFOR A MAGICAL INVISIBLE SKY DADDY EXISTS, SPECIFICALLY THE ONE I BLINDLY SWALLOWED"

Cap doesn't want to accept that he has as much evidence for his claptrap as a Muslim or Jew or Hindu.

If he had the same evidence for the computer he types his claptrap on as he does for his "miracles" he'd have something. But what he doesn't realize is that he suffers from the same psychology I did when I thought my Winnie The Poo stuffed animal protected me when I was a kid.

He just has an adult version of mental illusion. I outgrew Winnie The Poo.

 

...and again, a lot of wind without destruction.  Can you stand on anything?  

I stand on evidence, not bullshit metaphysics in order to prop up even worse, an unscientific book of myth written by 40 authors over 1,000 year period. WRITTEN BACK THEN and was never under the scrutiny BACK THEN of modern science.

You'd have a better chance merely trying to defend a generic god, which is NOT what your end goal is.

"Metaphysics proves that a god is possible"

Metaphysics is not a science it is mere bullshit someone sold you. The only thing I can give "metaphysics" credit for is the fuckhead who coined the term and sold it was imaginative and elaborate. I give credit to the creativity of the author of Harry Potter, but she is not selling human flight as broom based.

But even if the scientific community suddenly said  as certainly as they defend entropy and gravity and evolution, it would NOT default to the Christian god over any other god, EVEN IF I agreed with you, which I do not.

THE BOTTOM LINE will all claims of the super natural is the bullshit starting point that it is possible for a thought to occur without a material process. Claims of ghosts and god's are the same to me and the same as crap circles and Big foot.

So if you want to convince me that even a generic god is possible, go work on an empirical test that would PROVE to everyone every fucking scientist, that a thought can occur without a material process.

Work on that first before you even try to sell me your bloodthirsty dictator god of Abraham. You know damned well you wont be ever able to do that, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time here and you would have public funding from a scientific university to do such.

If you claimed that your "god" was named Percy and Percy had super natural powers, my challenge would still be the same. And you would STILL have the same problems you are running into now.

If a Muslim or Hindu claimed "metaphysics" proved their god, my objection would be the same. Metaphysics is not a science and would not prove Allah or Vishnu anymore than you claim it proves the god of Jesus. Metaphysics is old dead alchemy bullshit and is only as useful as Star Trec tribbles and Klingons.

WAKE UP. There is no need for Thor or Isis or Allah or Vishnu or Jesus to explain the universe or how it works. You fall for your pet deity for the same reason all humans fall for god/s. You like what you believe and you merely want it to be true. Which is why you fall for elaborate "metaphysics" claptrap.

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR PET DEITY. No  one in human history ever has had evidence for their pet deities. You are in the SAME boat as any other believer of any label. Don't blame me for the bullshit others sold you or the fact that you fell for it.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:BobSpence1

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
You have no case, the evidence points the other way, at every level. 

Well, he's admittedly pious. As much, if not more that most theists.

Which means his level of double standards and hypocrisy will be incredibly high. They have to be, in order for them claim they're most interested in being objective, since they never actually try hard enough to be objective.

It must be something in that Holy Water, or something...

 

 

Please refrain from using the word "atheist" if you insist on saying that Bob is simply the other side of the coin in regards to arrogance.

I do not see his quote as being arrogant anymore than saying "the earth is not flat" is arrogant. Bob never claimed to know everything, NOR should any atheist.

WHAT WE DO SAY, is that what we know now, what we currently know about ALL claims of god/s/supernatural, do not jive with modern science.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF one is placing bets based on our current data, on the existence of a deity ANY DEITY, the  safe bet and the best bet is it is all made up bullshit merely because humans like the idea of a super hero.

If you are going to claim to be an atheist, and you reject the claims of others such as Thor or Isis, should I consider you arrogant for rejecting those claims? No, you rightfully reject those claims because they simply were never true, even when when millions falsely believed Isis and Thor to be as real as any monotheistic god claimed today.

Your human empathy for a fellow human is kicking in here. BUT it is misplaced. You can like Cap and disagree with him, but the claims he makes along with any Muslim or Jew or Hindu, THE CLAIMS, not the person, JUST WHAT A PERSON CLAIMS, are what we are addressing.

The claim of a non material being OF ANY NAME past or present is not a credible claim and deserves every scrutiny and no empathy AS A CLAIM. Claims that are universally proven true are TESTED first, not made up and then defended after they are made up.

Cap is a big boy and can defend himself, just not his claims.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rednef after hitting submit,

Rednef after hitting submit, I realize I may have misunderstood your comment.

BUT, that should serve as evidence to Cap, that perceptions can be notoriously flawed, which makes empirical scientific method that much more important.

The difference between Cap and I is that if he had something I would consider it;. I am certainly willing to admit when I am wrong. The same cannot be said for believers.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Rednef after

Brian37 wrote:

Rednef after hitting submit, I realize I may have misunderstood your comment.

I figured you must have.

It happens.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"Dude", admit

jcgadfly wrote:

"Dude", admit it. I did more investigating than you because I read the document instead of simply presenting it and tossing in my own assertions. 

well... you did toss in your own assertions... and you didn't take the time to research the articles online to find one that might appropriately summarize the process (not easy to find complete details and this one still isn't quite there), so no, I can't admit that.  Reading doesn't require investigating.  Anyone can pick up a paper handed to them and read it, then throw in their own conclusions on it.  sorry dude.  

jcgadfly wrote:

And no, I wouldn't want jury trials decided by majority rule as the acceptance of a miracle is.

the point was it's not what happens even for acceptance of miracles.  It's more like a court process

jcgadfly wrote:

You probably haven't been on a jury so you may not know this but jurors discuss the evidence for and against the defendant because his life and freedom are in their hands. All the Consulta get is the evidence for the miracle and even then it's a show of hands. All you have brought to the contrary is your assertions is that they "must" look at contrary evidence. Looking at contrary evidence is hard to do when it is not presented.

Using the example I did should have given you an idea that I know the process.  I'm telling you what is done.. you're contradicting it as if you've got proof that what I'm saying is not true and yet you come back with nothing.  The article has mentioned bits and pieces of what I have suggested they do, therefore it's not my own assertions being thrown in there, but what is actually claimed to be done.  You can go on all day about this if you want to, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to demand a source from you proving your POV on the subject.  If nothing is presented, then all you have is naked assertions... the one thing you and others have tried to pin on me.  

jcgadfly wrote:

The "current medical and scientific knowledge" has to be the knowledge of the Consulta and those they choose to speak to. Or are you assuming that they have access to all ongoing research, research still under peer review, and recently published research that hasn't been distributed? Does God just beam this knowledge into their heads? 

Those they choose to speak to huh... you act as if they pull names out of a hat or go out onto the street presenting the case to strangers and ask their opinion.  My understanding is they have the most up to date knowledge that is available.  This would likely exclude top secret government type stuff... keep in mind some of those "recently published articles that have not been distributed and research still under peer review"  are from sources in some cases that are in direct contact with them or sometimes are a part of them, so yes, they would have some of that as well.  

You have to keep in mind that to you it's a game, to them, it's a matter of not only the future of a particular person in the eyes of God, but further support of God's work in this world that they know is going to be scrutinized by the non-believing scientific minds of our world.  It's a pretty big deal to declare something a miracle and is not as lax as you'd like it to be to meet your ideals.

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful for the definitions you condescended to give me. I just think you're letting your desire for miracles and your apparent love for the saints cloud your judgment a little.

i have no attachment to the saints and care not about the Catholic hierarchy.  Miracles is just another avenue I'm using to discuss the possibility of God.. it seems at this point this is one topic that has direct real world proof and no counter evidence for what has been officially declared.   Unless you've been holding out on me... by the way you talk, I think you are.  Spill it... what've you been hiding on us?  Right now this is necessary, otherwise, you look like a hypocrite.

jcgadfly wrote:

I do think you are confused on what "remission" means. Remission means it goes away. I think you meant "relapse". Remission, if it occurs for the period of evaluation, would still count as a miracle (even if it returned after they stopped looking - they don't follow the claimant throughout their lives, do they?) 

actually, I understand that they do follow the claimant throughout their lives.  Obviously they don't put a tracker on them, but the cases not only take years to confirm and aren't officially confirmed until the alleged Saint has died, but even after if the claimant is still alive, followup through the years is necessary.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm wondering why you're defending this, though. The claim is that they prayed to the saint for the miracle. Not God, not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I thought you considered that "idolatry". Why are you sticking up for idolaters?

uh... nooooooo... the Saint prayed for them to heal them... not the other way around... The alleged saint will have prayed to God for a healing in a particular individual and then the healing would have had to take place... the families would also pray but not to the saint, only to God.  They may have prayed for the saints prayer or asked for such intervention, but again, prayer was directed to God... did you find this in the article?   I'll have to reread.  Maybe you can quote the text.

jcgadfly wrote:

Do your own damn homework, ok? You have to provide proof of the validity of the claim. I don't have to provide proof that it didn't happen. Is your burden too heavy for you? 

Uh, sorry, it's on your shoulders... I have shown you an entity that proves the validity of miracles... I have even researched a summary of the process of this proof... You dont' have to prove it didnt' happen, only show where their process is flawed... and I need a source.    You seem to keep wanting to transfer the burden... it's typical for anyone who has been put in a corner... I should be asking you if the burden is too heavy for you.  

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me at this point... are you expecting me to set up a face to face with the alleged saint and claimant?  I don't believe i am able to do that.  You wanted proof with a source, you got it, the article is written.  You questioned the process, i found a summary that covers all the counters you have tried.  All you've given me as reasoning to doubt is speculation... based on what? I don't know.    Quit crying about it and show your cards.   If you've got nothing, just admit it.  It's not a big deal.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You do not,

BobSpence1 wrote:

You do not, and cannot, know the capabilities of such an imagined being, so utterly beyond the scale and nature of anything we experience, and so beyond our finite and fallible minds. You can only speculate. That is a really fundamentally fallacy on your part. Scripture is equally compatible with a God only concerned to deceive us, to play with us. To detect the real motives of such a being would require truly 'infallible' minds, necessarily having similar capabilities, on some level, superior to that of God.

I had said we know his capabilities but not to the extent that they go... We know he created everything we know that exists and can destroy it just as easily.  We know He can change anything he wants about it whenever He wants.  Of course we're talking on 2 different levels... you're talking about limits of capabilities, in that sense, no we can't know that, but I'm talking about being aware of what he is capable of for sure.    If he is truly an imagined being, then yes, speculation only because we did not create Him, but if he's real, it's even more speculation, though we'd have an idea of capabilities.  We know that there's nothing we can think up that he's not capable of doing at this point.  

I'm trying to discipher between not being able to know Him at all and knowing Him and who He is.  I want to clarify that not knowing the LIMITS of his capabilities in no way makes us not know Him and who He is.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scripture cannot verify itself, any reference to it, without very solid empirical backing is of zero significance.

it cannot verify itself, but it can support itself due to the fact that the authors, time periods and even in some cases cultures are all completely different and unrelated in many cases.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Persoonal experience similarly, even if shared. Without objective empirical verification, anything becomes 'knowable'. Every conceivable religion becomes justifiable on such a basis.

This is true... The bible covers this too... but when it comes to backing you and your god up, that's where most religions fall apart.  but... this is also why the successful religions have survived.  Each one can justify itself in its own way.  Note that the biggest religions in the world are the ones that follow the same God... e.g. Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim.  They're different due to perspective on source of information.  In other words, the true God prevails, the false gods, unable to back themselves up, struggle to survive.  

the objective empirical verification could be miracles, which i am discussing right now, could be history, archaeology, etc... for you, Quantum theory maybe?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Little, if anything, in scripture is direct eye-witness accounts recorded immediately at the event, or very shortly after. Eye-witness accounts, especially of unusual events, are notoriously unreliable, and rapidly go downhill from there as time passes between the event and writing it down. So that is more very shaky justification

In todays world, this perspective works... Back then, nothing was written as it happened... it wasn't conceivable.  There is historical evidence that "notes" were written with intent to be transferred onto a more permanent material.  It is understood that 99% of those notes would not exist today due to their material and care of storing.  think of a sticky note in your office.. or a note pad for a reporter, they'd write down important information on it, but once it's transferred, it's usually discarded.  You'd be hard pressed to find notes from most places written last year let alone 2-3000 years ago.  

As far as eye-witness accounts, a lot of what is written is not, but some is.  The thing with the information that's not is people were much more careful about verbal transferrance of information back then due to the fact that verbal transferrance was one of the main ways of getting information from one place to another.  today we don't need to take such care... if it's that important, we either write it in a note, email it, text it, or document it in a word processor.  If it's urgent, we call someone.  They did not have any of those luxuries and notes were hard to write due to the fact that a convenient note pad was not invented.  You wanted to write something down, you'd have to find yourself an appropriate rock or a stick or rip some bark off a tree and hope that you have something that would efficiently carve the information into it so that you could read it later.  

You can't conclude the information in these times was not accurate because we don't have proof of a note written in the moment.  It's not typical of any historical document of this time.  The Bible stories are written in a very similar manner as any other historical document from the time.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are taking the word of the writers of scripture...

only to find out what happened and how we got to where we are... not to grow a relationship with God.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You have no warrant at all to assume that an ultimate explanation that may be found is likely to be "easily understood", especially if we see very few of these events occurring. IOW the fact that we see very few such events is a strong indication that it will not be simple. Especially in the context of biological processes, which are among the most complex we know of. So your first argument is backward - that observation supports my position, not yours.

I assumed something found could be easily understood, not that it will be easily understood and likely won't be.  It was just a hypothetical for the sake of argument.  

The point was, it's not known now and doesn't happen more commonly.  Those 2 factors would deem it less likely to be a miracle of God and more likely to be found out in the future. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course you have to cross-reference and correlate as much as possible, I assumed that. But that can never justify confidence that there is no possible explanation, only, at most, add support for some specific explanation, not an absence of explanation, which is all you have. "GodDidIt" is simply an expression of ignorance , not a claim.

You know better than that.  I don't claim God did it and you know it.  But through a process of investigation, you can come to that conclusion when God is allowed to be a possibility among many.

BobSpence1 wrote:

And there is evidence that such events do occur in the absence of any prayer or hint of Godly intervention. But those are never going to be seized upon by religious authorities to be investigated, since they are not going to support their position. And what are the statistics on prayers and/or saintly intervention which didn't work?? Surely you are not claiming that every such appeal always results in cure, so if not, how many times has it not worked, in comparison to the number of full successes? You certainly cannot claim to have seriously and honestly investigated the cases without such data. Look for dis-confirmation at least as diligently as you do for support, it is the essence of science.

by stating that statistically there are more prayers that may not have been answered deeming it not a miracle of God, you're assuming that prayer is a constant and that God is a constant... we've established that neither are and therefore it won't matter so much how many prayers were never answered, rather how many occurrances of miracle healings occurred without any means of spiritual intervention.  This would include no appeal from any entity associated with the victim to a spiritual power of any sort, not just Christian healings.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Spontaneous remission does definitely occur in even apparently serious conditions, even if rarely.

sure, spontaneous yes, but instantly?  We're talking healings that have been confirmed that took someone one day on their death bed unable to even talk to walking and talking the very next day as if nothing ever happened.  Those are more rare of course, but are associated with spiritual appeals.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The highly respected Robert Winston -  a British professor, medical doctor, scientist, and television presenter, a traditional Jew with an orthodox background - did an excellent TV documentary series on religion which included looking into a number of famous 'miracles', and confessed he could find no warrant for their claims, and noted that for many, or even most, diseases, spontaneous remission was far more common than miracle 'cures'.

i don't dispute that people spontaneously heal, but what exactly was the difference between those spontaneous healings and claimed miracle healings.  Also, how sure are they that the non miracle healings had no spiritual intervention what so ever.. in other words, no family member prayed for their healing, or friends, or no prayer themselves and no greater reasoning to heal this person for the purposes of a spiritual being's intent for the future.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if 'genuine' miracles did occur, they would raise serious issues about the morality of the divine intervener, more concerned with preforming the occasional modest stunt than helping the bulk of those afflicted by his faulty handiwork or the nasty disease organisms he let loose on the planet.

sure, but unless you understand the ramifications on both ends, you can only speculate to those intentions.  In order to question the intent of the intervener toward the healing, you'd need to understand how the sickness originated as a disease, how or why that person got it and what might be for the future if healed and if not.   Also, is it for a stunt which is unlike the God of the Bible or an honest healing done becasue of an appropriate appeal.   I can't say I know the first thing about how a healing is done or chosen, but I do know that it's not unknown to have happened and there are a small number of confirmed healings due to the strict standards that have been put in place to deem a healing a miracle.  this in no way suggests there haven't been other miracles, only that they've never been officially confirmed.  There is a far larger number of claimed healings.  in the millions.  much is questionable, but much is also possible.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

You have no case, the evidence points the other way, at every level. 

 

no, sorry, you haven't shown me good sound reasoning to claim that yet.  Only speculative cynicism.  e.g. your "genuine miracles" post.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I stand on

Brian37 wrote:

I stand on evidence...

Then start showing some.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I had said we know his

Quote:
I had said we know his capabilities but not to the extent that they go... We know he created everything we know that exists and can destroy it just as easily.

Ok, take that same sentence and strip it of invisible thinking beings and magic and scientists would put it like this.

"We know nature's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go. We know nature is an process, not a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical obsurvation. Nature both produces new things easily as and destroys it just as easily"

There, your "sense of awe" remains in tact without the superstition.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You cannot know the

You cannot know the attributes of any creator being, not just the extent of them, beyond having sufficient power to create a Universe.

That implies nothing about any other attributes, nothing about ultimate motives, intentions, etc.

And logically it doesn't even require awareness, intelligence - IOW just a sufficient 'natural' force is all that is necessary.

You are just making a series of naked assumptions.

Quote:

by stating that statistically there are more prayers that may not have been answered deeming it not a miracle of God,

I did not state that, I asked you what evidence you had to the contrary, that prayer increased the likelihood of such remission. To establish that, you need to analyse all the data, ie the 'misses' as well as the 'hits'.

I said that only a minority of spontaneous remissions are identified as 'miracles'. That implies that there is no evidence that prayer is necessary for the occasional spontaneous recovery.

As to people 'suddenly' recovering apparently completely, that need medical proof that a significant internal injury, trauma, organ damage from disease, or similar had disappeared. It would count for infections, which can, in principle, clear up suddenly as the infecting organisms succumb to some change of conditions. And they would need to be followed up to make sure it is a real cure, not just a temporary effect. Like is often seen in 'faith healers', where the strong emotional belief can get them springing up out of their wheel chairs. As often as not, they relapse and sometimes even die within weeks or less.

The fact that many, maybe most, people suffering serious afflictions will have been fervently prayed for, and that only a tiny percentage recover, is ample evidence that most prayer is not answered. The tiny percentage where an argument can be mounted for a true 'miracle' cure supports the more plausible conclusion that spontaneous remissions are not physically impossible, and occasionally occur independently of any supposed divine intervention. 

The extreme rarity of such remissions is absolutely an indictment of God. Not to mention NO regrown limbs. And with or without prayer.

But then you said you do not claim 'God did it'....

Now you are back to claiming only we cannot rule God out as a possible explanation, once we bend and stretch our understanding sufficient to allow for the possibility of your God idea. 

The evidence of massive undeserved suffering in the world, much of it due to natural disasters and diseases built-in to our bodily 'design' or due to 'created' disease organisms, is way more than "speculative cynicism".

Whereas you display naive credulous acceptance of anything that supports your PoV.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"Dude", admit it. I did more investigating than you because I read the document instead of simply presenting it and tossing in my own assertions. 

well... you did toss in your own assertions... and you didn't take the time to research the articles online to find one that might appropriately summarize the process (not easy to find complete details and this one still isn't quite there), so no, I can't admit that.  Reading doesn't require investigating.  Anyone can pick up a paper handed to them and read it, then throw in their own conclusions on it.  sorry dude.  

jcgadfly wrote:

And no, I wouldn't want jury trials decided by majority rule as the acceptance of a miracle is.

the point was it's not what happens even for acceptance of miracles.  It's more like a court process

jcgadfly wrote:

You probably haven't been on a jury so you may not know this but jurors discuss the evidence for and against the defendant because his life and freedom are in their hands. All the Consulta get is the evidence for the miracle and even then it's a show of hands. All you have brought to the contrary is your assertions is that they "must" look at contrary evidence. Looking at contrary evidence is hard to do when it is not presented.

Using the example I did should have given you an idea that I know the process.  I'm telling you what is done.. you're contradicting it as if you've got proof that what I'm saying is not true and yet you come back with nothing.  The article has mentioned bits and pieces of what I have suggested they do, therefore it's not my own assertions being thrown in there, but what is actually claimed to be done.  You can go on all day about this if you want to, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to demand a source from you proving your POV on the subject.  If nothing is presented, then all you have is naked assertions... the one thing you and others have tried to pin on me.  

jcgadfly wrote:

The "current medical and scientific knowledge" has to be the knowledge of the Consulta and those they choose to speak to. Or are you assuming that they have access to all ongoing research, research still under peer review, and recently published research that hasn't been distributed? Does God just beam this knowledge into their heads? 

Those they choose to speak to huh... you act as if they pull names out of a hat or go out onto the street presenting the case to strangers and ask their opinion.  My understanding is they have the most up to date knowledge that is available.  This would likely exclude top secret government type stuff... keep in mind some of those "recently published articles that have not been distributed and research still under peer review"  are from sources in some cases that are in direct contact with them or sometimes are a part of them, so yes, they would have some of that as well.  

You have to keep in mind that to you it's a game, to them, it's a matter of not only the future of a particular person in the eyes of God, but further support of God's work in this world that they know is going to be scrutinized by the non-believing scientific minds of our world.  It's a pretty big deal to declare something a miracle and is not as lax as you'd like it to be to meet your ideals.

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful for the definitions you condescended to give me. I just think you're letting your desire for miracles and your apparent love for the saints cloud your judgment a little.

i have no attachment to the saints and care not about the Catholic hierarchy.  Miracles is just another avenue I'm using to discuss the possibility of God.. it seems at this point this is one topic that has direct real world proof and no counter evidence for what has been officially declared.   Unless you've been holding out on me... by the way you talk, I think you are.  Spill it... what've you been hiding on us?  Right now this is necessary, otherwise, you look like a hypocrite.

jcgadfly wrote:

I do think you are confused on what "remission" means. Remission means it goes away. I think you meant "relapse". Remission, if it occurs for the period of evaluation, would still count as a miracle (even if it returned after they stopped looking - they don't follow the claimant throughout their lives, do they?) 

actually, I understand that they do follow the claimant throughout their lives.  Obviously they don't put a tracker on them, but the cases not only take years to confirm and aren't officially confirmed until the alleged Saint has died, but even after if the claimant is still alive, followup through the years is necessary.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm wondering why you're defending this, though. The claim is that they prayed to the saint for the miracle. Not God, not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I thought you considered that "idolatry". Why are you sticking up for idolaters?

uh... nooooooo... the Saint prayed for them to heal them... not the other way around... The alleged saint will have prayed to God for a healing in a particular individual and then the healing would have had to take place... the families would also pray but not to the saint, only to God.  They may have prayed for the saints prayer or asked for such intervention, but again, prayer was directed to God... did you find this in the article?   I'll have to reread.  Maybe you can quote the text.

jcgadfly wrote:

Do your own damn homework, ok? You have to provide proof of the validity of the claim. I don't have to provide proof that it didn't happen. Is your burden too heavy for you? 

Uh, sorry, it's on your shoulders... I have shown you an entity that proves the validity of miracles... I have even researched a summary of the process of this proof... You dont' have to prove it didnt' happen, only show where their process is flawed... and I need a source.    You seem to keep wanting to transfer the burden... it's typical for anyone who has been put in a corner... I should be asking you if the burden is too heavy for you.  

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me at this point... are you expecting me to set up a face to face with the alleged saint and claimant?  I don't believe i am able to do that.  You wanted proof with a source, you got it, the article is written.  You questioned the process, i found a summary that covers all the counters you have tried.  All you've given me as reasoning to doubt is speculation... based on what? I don't know.    Quit crying about it and show your cards.   If you've got nothing, just admit it.  It's not a big deal.

Damn, cappy, I thought you read the supposed proof you provided (not that an assertion proves jack but you keep clinging to those straws). How could the sainthood prospect pray for the claimant's healing in 1992 when he died in 1976? The dead sainthood prospect supposedly prays to God but the miracle claimant prays to the saint. So now you're back to defending idolatry unless of course you can prove that spirits talk to each other.

I have to show you where someone else said there was a mistake in the process of determining miracles while you can simply present the process as absolutely right and perfect? Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Do you have proof that the Consulta follows these saints throughout their lives? Or are you just asserting it? Is this another claim that you want me to prove for you?

I don't have to prove something didn't happen to dispute a claim that it did. I thought you'd learned that some time ago. I guess you haven't figured out how to carry that burden of proof you own, The only reason that you believe that your other summary covers the objections I have made is because you really need your version of God to be a miracle worker. That likely connects to how your version of God amazingly agrees with what you do and think.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
true story

BobSpence1 wrote:
Get a leg to grow back perfectly and you'll have something to talk about.
It happened, it was a Lourdes' miracle. Then they found it was a fake, because that man saw his leg off, hid it in a hole in the ground, then reattached it. Shocked

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I stand on evidence...

Then start showing some.

Jesus fucking Christ on a cracker cappy!

"Prove it cant happen" DOES NOT WORK. Not on any issue, not just god claims. You've been on this board almost 4 years. If you learn anything please get that through your thick skull.

"Prove I cant fart a Lamborghini out of my ass"

"Prove that Angelina Jolie isn't given me a blow job"

"Prove that I don't have a billion dollars. I'ts an invisible bank account"

"Prove that I don't have an invisible pussy under my dick"

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic NO MATTER WHAT THE CLAIM IS. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

Things are not true by default merely because of the ability to make something up and utter it.

OTHERWISE

"My purple invisible snarfwidget is real"

"My cursmudgen is real"

"My pink unicorn is real"

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

You have ZERO evidence for your pet invisible non-material super hero. You merely want your super hero to be real. You want your super hero to be so real so badly that you cling to elaborate claptrap to support your fantasy.

It is all in your head, thats it. When you get that, you will understand why your argument fails.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I had

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I had said we know his capabilities but not to the extent that they go... We know he created everything we know that exists and can destroy it just as easily.

Ok, take that same sentence and strip it of invisible thinking beings and magic and scientists would put it like this.

"We know nature's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go. We know nature is an process, not a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical obsurvation. Nature both produces new things easily as and destroys it just as easily"

There, your "sense of awe" remains in tact without the superstition.

 

That's great... now let's try this... "we know the government's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go.  We know the government uses many processes and don't answer to a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical observation.  The government both produces new things easily and can destroy it just as easily."  

See, i can substitute words too without needing an excuse for another explanation.  Does that mean that perspective is right? Or the only way?  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I had said we know his capabilities but not to the extent that they go... We know he created everything we know that exists and can destroy it just as easily.

Ok, take that same sentence and strip it of invisible thinking beings and magic and scientists would put it like this.

"We know nature's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go. We know nature is an process, not a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical obsurvation. Nature both produces new things easily as and destroys it just as easily"

There, your "sense of awe" remains in tact without the superstition.

 

That's great... now let's try this... "we know the government's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go.  We know the government uses many processes and don't answer to a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical observation.  The government both produces new things easily and can destroy it just as easily."  

See, i can substitute words too without needing an excuse for another explanation.  Does that mean that perspective is right? Or the only way?  

The difference between God, nature and the government is that the latter two don't command that people stop looking for an explanation.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You

BobSpence1 wrote:

You cannot know the attributes of any creator being, not just the extent of them, beyond having sufficient power to create a Universe.

That implies nothing about any other attributes, nothing about ultimate motives, intentions, etc.

And logically it doesn't even require awareness, intelligence - IOW just a sufficient 'natural' force is all that is necessary.

You are just making a series of naked assumptions.

By stating the above about a being you believe does not exist, are you not making naked assumptions?  

We can know what He has communicated to us, this would be through scripture as well as understanding through a relationship.  Basically to say I "cannot know the attributes of any creator being" is to say you cannot know the attributes of your wife.  Granted the difference is you can have a physical relationship with her, but physicality doesn't necessarily familiarize you with her attributes or ultimate motives, intentions, etc.  Same rule applies.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I did not state that, I asked you what evidence you had to the contrary, that prayer increased the likelihood of such remission. To establish that, you need to analyse all the data, ie the 'misses' as well as the 'hits'.

right, you did not state that.  It seemed implication was there, otherwise there wouldn't have been a purpose for you to question me studying the statistics.  

Not only that though as you just stated, but we'd also have to analyze the state of mind of each person in prayer and the intentions behind each prayer.   We'd also have to make note of any and all prayer for that particular person from any source that might have awareness of the situation and be praying.  Prayer in volumes has been noted to be more effective when the intentions are right.  

The biggest hurtle to get over for effectively and efficiently supporting a study for prayer is the unknown, which is God.  Regardless of what is prayed for and how many and who, God still has a choice as to the outcome of those prayers.  God is not a computer where you can input prayer and get a guaranteed output.  So then to discover that more prayer is not answered, is that a definitive conclusion that there is no God?  Due to the unknown in this study, we are still unable to conclude due to such data.  It's the futile effort of proving a negative.  I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but let's say more prayer is not answered.  That negative outcome does not negate the possibility of God, due to the choice factor.  Instead, the study should focus more on the positive outcomes of prayer and whether those outcomes were really due to prayer or not.   Hence the focus on confirmed miracles.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I said that only a minority of spontaneous remissions are identified as 'miracles'. That implies that there is no evidence that prayer is necessary for the occasional spontaneous recovery.

Due to the extensive investigation into each miracle and the factor that it is understood that most miracles of God from around the world are likely not reported to a source that 1. would take them seriously and 2.  Would investigate it deep enough to confirm the case, it makes sense that only a minority of spontaneous remissions are identified... AND CONFIRMED as miracles.    Therefore this does not imply that there is no evidence that prayer is necessary for spontaneous recovery.   Beyond that, is there not the possibility also that without prayer, spontaneous recovery could happen through a metaphysical avenue?  This opens up another unknown if in fact this is something to consider.  despite the lack of prayer, any such occurrences always had some sort of spiritual experience that can be reported from what I understand.

BobSpence1 wrote:

As to people 'suddenly' recovering apparently completely, that need medical proof that a significant internal injury, trauma, organ damage from disease, or similar had disappeared. It would count for infections, which can, in principle, clear up suddenly as the infecting organisms succumb to some change of conditions. And they would need to be followed up to make sure it is a real cure, not just a temporary effect. Like is often seen in 'faith healers', where the strong emotional belief can get them springing up out of their wheel chairs. As often as not, they relapse and sometimes even die within weeks or less.

which is why the honest investigations and confirmations of miracles takes years and has constant followups.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The fact that many, maybe most, people suffering serious afflictions will have been fervently prayed for, and that only a tiny percentage recover, is ample evidence that most prayer is not answered. The tiny percentage where an argument can be mounted for a true 'miracle' cure supports the more plausible conclusion that spontaneous remissions are not physically impossible, and occasionally occur independently of any supposed divine intervention. 

The problem is here is there must be support to conclude that there was in fact no divine intervention of any sort due to the healings that have happened outside of prayer, but still with a spiritual interaction.  Again also, the factor of the state of mind and intentions of those praying.   Even more, we'd have to take into consideration the future ramifications of every prayer being answered... also what if there are conflicting prayer, which gets answered and why?  E.g. a dying relative might be suffering greatly, I've known some to pray for a quicker death so that the suffering will stop while others would still pray for healing.  

Future ramifications would include major overpopulation (be it that most would even pray for their dying elderly grandmother to survive their sicknesses and live forever if they could) or particular influences of those individuals that might cause problems on other avenues.  

The questions you have are great.  I dont' know if you realize the investigation on this plane is much much more in depth than anyone has ever done.... or from what I can tell, is capable of doing be it that we have no abilities of studying the future and alternative outcomes at this time. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

The extreme rarity of such remissions is absolutely an indictment of God. Not to mention NO regrown limbs. And with or without prayer.

well, science is in the process of regrowing limbs with I believe it's a stomach acid or something of the sort from a pig... that in my mind would hardly be a miracle today if in fact they have perfected the science... they were able already to regrow the tip of a mans finger from the joint successfully.  

if we were able to confirm in a day what was a miracle of God and what wasn't or what prayer was answered and what wasn't, I believe you'd find that it's not as rare as the studies show... the problem is we have no way of confirming so quickly, therefore, the literally thousands of miracle submissions that are still under investigation will still take years for even a few of them to be confirmed... this not taking into consideration those that have not been submitted for study.

BobSpence1 wrote:

But then you said you do not claim 'God did it'....

Now you are back to claiming only we cannot rule God out as a possible explanation, once we bend and stretch our understanding sufficient to allow for the possibility of your God idea. 

I love how it's MY god idea.  You're right, I don't claim "God did it." I investigate just as anyone else would on a cause that's not immediately understood, still allowing God to be a possibility among many others.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The evidence of massive undeserved suffering in the world, much of it due to natural disasters and diseases built-in to our bodily 'design' or due to 'created' disease organisms, is way more than "speculative cynicism".

Whereas you display naive credulous acceptance of anything that supports your PoV.

suffering whether it's undeserved or not is speculatory and subjective.  A family member of a murderer may feel the person murdered justly and that a death penalty or life in prison is undeserved, yet the victims family would disagree of course.   Some things I believe may be undeserved, but then again much of the suffering is caused by mankind outside of natural disasters, therefore we have no one to blame but ourselves for that.  As far as natural disasters, does one live on the coast in an ignorant bliss of the possibility of a hurricane or tsunami hitting them and killing them and their family?  Maybe some do... I don't.  Regardless of the fact that Boston hasn't gotten hit by what would be considered a major hurricane or tsunami in our known history doesn't mean it could never happen and I know that if it does and I lose family, we chose to take that risk regardless of how low.  

I could live in paranoia all my life and frantically drive away from any possibility of a severe storm but driving in itself has its hazards, so which is the safest choice... I guess I should build myself a bomb shelter and make those poor saps who dare to live on the surface restock my food stash every month.  

Enough cynicism.  My point is anything could happen and I'm not going to blame anyone for it because natural disasters aren't anyone's fault, they're my own if I choose to sit out a hurricane or live on the coast period.  If I choose to live in the heartland, I know I'm at risk for tornadoes.   

You've said you want to know what I believe.  I believe God created nature, but that he designed nature to be self sufficient.  In other words, he doesn't run it like a game, he made it so that it runs itself.  If a natural disaster happens, I believe it's because there was an imbalance in the system and nature was just trying to balance it out.  (studies into weather phenomenon supports this)  I do believe that we are at some fault for the severity of the imbalance due to pollution and the increase in temperature extremes due to the pollution.  Are we then to blame for natural disasters?  Eh... maybe, but not likely, because they'd happen anyway, just not as frequent at times possibly.

As for the rest of suffering, e.g.  starvation, wars, etc... we only have ourselves to blame.  Those with billions of dollars could feed a small 3rd world country on their own... if we all pooled in our pocket change, everyone would have food and medical supplies, but we don't.  

So in conclusion, yes there is a lot of undeserved suffering, but there is a lot of deserved suffering.  For the undeserved, we must ask ourselves, am i bias about it being undeserved and could I have helped it.  If no to both, then others might be to blame, but in all I've shown above, there's no logical way we can blame God.  To even conceive blaming God, we'd have to consider the possibility of being puppets in God's hands.  Yes hes' capable of destroying all suffering... but do we really want to be controlled to that extent?  I don't... is that being naive?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damn, cappy,

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn, cappy, I thought you read the supposed proof you provided (not that an assertion proves jack but you keep clinging to those straws). How could the sainthood prospect pray for the claimant's healing in 1992 when he died in 1976? The dead sainthood prospect supposedly prays to God but the miracle claimant prays to the saint. So now you're back to defending idolatry unless of course you can prove that spirits talk to each other.

I have to show you where someone else said there was a mistake in the process of determining miracles while you can simply present the process as absolutely right and perfect? Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Do you have proof that the Consulta follows these saints throughout their lives? Or are you just asserting it? Is this another claim that you want me to prove for you?

I don't have to prove something didn't happen to dispute a claim that it did. I thought you'd learned that some time ago. I guess you haven't figured out how to carry that burden of proof you own, The only reason that you believe that your other summary covers the objections I have made is because you really need your version of God to be a miracle worker. That likely connects to how your version of God amazingly agrees with what you do and think.

You have a lot of questions, yet you don't investigate.  I've asked you to show me the flaw in the process... you're doing a great job ignoring that.  Can you find one or not?  I'm not asking you to prove to me the claim, only prove to me the process of confirming miracles is flawed and how... SPECIFICALLY.  Still waiting.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The

jcgadfly wrote:

 

The difference between God, nature and the government is that the latter two don't command that people stop looking for an explanation.

actually, of the 3, i believe the Government is the only one that does in fact command that people stop looking for an explanation.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jesus fucking

Brian37 wrote:

Jesus fucking Christ on a cracker cappy!

mmmm... Christ crackers... guaranteed stale, from the day of purchase.

Brian37 wrote:

"Prove it cant happen" DOES NOT WORK. Not on any issue, not just god claims. You've been on this board almost 4 years. If you learn anything please get that through your thick skull.

YOu know more than most I'm not asking you to prove what can't happen, but only support what you think you know... but you can keep claiming that if you'd like.

Brian37 wrote:

"Prove I cant fart a Lamborghini out of my ass"

yea, that one I'd like to see first hand.

Brian37 wrote:

"Prove that Angelina Jolie isn't given me a blow job"

I'll leave that one to the imagination

Brian37 wrote:

"Prove that I don't have a billion dollars. I'ts an invisible bank account"

yea, the Swiss have their ways of keeping those accounts invisible.

Brian37 wrote:

"Prove that I don't have an invisible pussy under my dick"

I'll just take your word on that...

Brian37 wrote:

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic NO MATTER WHAT THE CLAIM IS. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

...and you're making the claim that God does not exist... I'm the skeptic between you and I.  You claim I've claimed God exists... as far as you and I are concerned, I've only asked you for reasoning on your perspective.

Brian37 wrote:

Things are not true by default merely because of the ability to make something up and utter it.

then why do you keep doing that?

Brian37 wrote:

OTHERWISE

"My purple invisible snarfwidget is real"

"My cursmudgen is real"

"My pink unicorn is real"

point and case

Brian37 wrote:

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

Thank you... finally you understand

Brian37 wrote:

You have ZERO evidence for your pet invisible non-material super hero. You merely want your super hero to be real. You want your super hero to be so real so badly that you cling to elaborate claptrap to support your fantasy.

It is all in your head, thats it. When you get that, you will understand why your argument fails.

I could make the same claim about you... soooo... why don't we stop farting around and actually discuss your reasoning for once?  Do you even know why you believe what you do?

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

The difference between God, nature and the government is that the latter two don't command that people stop looking for an explanation.

actually, of the 3, i believe the Government is the only one that does in fact command that people stop looking for an explanation.  

I see. You haven't actually read the Bible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn, cappy, I thought you read the supposed proof you provided (not that an assertion proves jack but you keep clinging to those straws). How could the sainthood prospect pray for the claimant's healing in 1992 when he died in 1976? The dead sainthood prospect supposedly prays to God but the miracle claimant prays to the saint. So now you're back to defending idolatry unless of course you can prove that spirits talk to each other.

I have to show you where someone else said there was a mistake in the process of determining miracles while you can simply present the process as absolutely right and perfect? Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Do you have proof that the Consulta follows these saints throughout their lives? Or are you just asserting it? Is this another claim that you want me to prove for you?

I don't have to prove something didn't happen to dispute a claim that it did. I thought you'd learned that some time ago. I guess you haven't figured out how to carry that burden of proof you own, The only reason that you believe that your other summary covers the objections I have made is because you really need your version of God to be a miracle worker. That likely connects to how your version of God amazingly agrees with what you do and think.

You have a lot of questions, yet you don't investigate.  I've asked you to show me the flaw in the process... you're doing a great job ignoring that.  Can you find one or not?  I'm not asking you to prove to me the claim, only prove to me the process of confirming miracles is flawed and how... SPECIFICALLY.  Still waiting.

The questions came from my investigation - they also show the flaws in the process. I understand that your worship of Catholicism and miracles makes your rational examination of these flaws impossible.

You're waiting for things that have been delivered to you. Lying is beneath you (or at least I thought it was). The 9th commandment - not an option for you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I see. You

jcgadfly wrote:

I see. You haven't actually read the Bible.

Which Bible are you referring to?  The one I've read implies to the reader to constantly check their own understanding of the truth.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I see. You haven't actually read the Bible.

Which Bible are you referring to?  The one I've read implies to the reader to constantly check their own understanding of the truth.  

And make sure that it lines up with God's truth  - absolutely no chance for "God's truth" to be incorrect? It's kind of hard to check one's understanding of the truth when you limit yourself to those who agree with your views.

"Be still and know that I am God" doesn't allow for examination of evidence.

What do you do if you take God up on his challenge in Malachi 3:10 and it doesn't happen? Most Christians rationalize and give God all manner of outs.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Merely

Brian37 wrote:

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

Quote:
Thank you... finally you understand

Will you PLEASE stop with the pathetic projection.

Science does not "make shit up"

Theism has always "made shit up"

You just cant stand that our current scientific knowledge is not propping up your fictional invisible non-material super hero.

The Christian god, nor any of the god/s of Abraham are real. They all come from the same past and were all started in an ignorant age by ignorant people.

You might as well be claiming your pet deity is a giant invisible snail who magically pops out ice cream while orbiting Mars and it would amount to the same "making shit up".

Thougts require a material process. PERIOD. That is not what I claim, that is what science proves. THERE IS NOTHING in evolution that thinks(to whatever degree) that does not have some sort of material to react to the environment around it. Flies have brains. Gods do not because gods don't exist. Not yours not any.

Allah, Jesus, Thor, Apollo are all human inventions an none of them are real. Just like vocanos are not gods. You merely suffer from wishful thinking like every other credulous human who merely wants a super hero.

YOU LOST, accept reality before you waste your entire life on a stupid self inflicted superstition.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The questions came from my investigation - they also show the flaws in the process. I understand that your worship of Catholicism and miracles makes your rational examination of these flaws impossible.

into only the link I gave, nothing outside... which is where you'd find answers to most of your questions.  

My worship of Catholicism and miracles?  Wait... who are you and what have you done with jcgadfly.  I knew something was fishy... Did you kill him?!  I'm on to you.

The real jcgadfly would know why I just blew milk out of my nose because of that statement.

jcgadfly wrote:

You're waiting for things that have been delivered to you. Lying is beneath you (or at least I thought it was). The 9th commandment - not an option for you.

Ok, so you've revieled flaws in their investigation... let's recap and see where the flaws were.... ok so...

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn, cappy, I thought you read the supposed proof you provided (not that an assertion proves jack but you keep clinging to those straws). How could the sainthood prospect pray for the claimant's healing in 1992 when he died in 1976? The dead sainthood prospect supposedly prays to God but the miracle claimant prays to the saint. So now you're back to defending idolatry unless of course you can prove that spirits talk to each other.

Are you saying spirits are mute?  Show me this reasoning please.  

Catholicism does promote praying to those other than God, but those who are with God.  I don't accept this methodology.  Does this completely nullify the miracle?  No, but it makes it harder to prove.  The credit of giving it to a particular human is beyond what I was talking about.  They investigate so thoroughly so that they can regulate sainthood.  Due to the fact that this person did pray to a picture of the pope on a newspaper, it may likely be deemed not a miracle.  Then again, if the evidence points to prayer being the reason to the cure, then it may be deemed a miracle... .where the catholic church falls apart is giving credit where it's due.  If they confirm this miracle, the credit goes to a person and not God whereas the finger should be pointed to God alone.  (by faith you are healed)  Just because someone misunderstands the process doesn't mean their heart's not in the right place.

My point with the article was for you to tear apart the process of determining a miracle.  Who the miracle is credited toward is not a factor in this be it that "miracles" can be caused by any spirit, even demons as understood by many Christians, therefore the question really comes down in Christianity to whether it was a miracle of God... as far as you and I are concerned, was it a spiritual intercession or not?  Damn jcgadfly, I thought we were on the same page here... and btw... that information was not written in that particular article, but it shows you have started the process.  I was mistaken to say you haven't investigated, I should have said you barely started and are already making conclusions, which is irrational by any standard.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I have to show you where someone else said there was a mistake in the process of determining miracles while you can simply present the process as absolutely right and perfect? Sorry, that doesn't wash.

well no, didn't present it as absolutely right and perfect.  I presented it as a challenge to you to actually start using your brain again.  You used to do that and I enjoyed our conversations much more when you did.

BTW, you have lately done exactly what you are trying to accuse me of doing here... don't be a hypocrite.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you have proof that the Consulta follows these saints throughout their lives? Or are you just asserting it? Is this another claim that you want me to prove for you?

I'm not asking you to prove claims, I'm asking you to tear apart the process of investigating claims.  You can go and find 100's of claims yet to be confirmed... you telling me you don't like the claims isn't going to convince me you're right about the claim not being a miracle.  What will is you showing me how the process of determining miracles is flawed.   What' they're missing more specifically.

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't have to prove something didn't happen to dispute a claim that it did.

didn't ask you to

jcgadfly wrote:

I thought you'd learned that some time ago.

Already knew it

jcgadfly wrote:

I guess you haven't figured out how to carry that burden of proof you own, The only reason that you believe that your other summary covers the objections I have made is because you really need your version of God to be a miracle worker. That likely connects to how your version of God amazingly agrees with what you do and think.

... so this is your conclusion and attempt at squashing the miracle claims.  Sorry dude, not only were you off the mark on tearing apart the process, but you showed no reasoning to doubt the claim other than the state of mind of the person praying be it that they prayed to a dead pope and not to God directly.  The Bible states that it is the state of heart that matters and not so much the mind.    The Bible also states that miracles can happen from other spiritual sources.    Therefore you have yet to show me any reasoning to believe this particular miracle claim is not from a spiritual source or God.  

I can see where this is going to go too.. here I am justifying something I don't believe in so that my miracle claim can still be true in my mind.  

Alright, lemme debunk a scientific theory with the same level of reasoning and evidence.... There are fossil gaps, therefore evolution does not happen.    You and i both know that's not going to fly and neither is your case about the person praying to someone besides God.  It's already talked about in scripture... might want to review the Bible.  

Let's not get off topic here too.  I really want you to start debunking the PROCESS of determining a miracle.  I want you to take each part of it and show me your investigation as to how it's flawed and could not possibly point to a spiritual intercession.  Good luck

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And make sure

jcgadfly wrote:

And make sure that it lines up with God's truth  - absolutely no chance for "God's truth" to be incorrect? It's kind of hard to check one's understanding of the truth when you limit yourself to those who agree with your views.

is that what I do?  guess I fooled myself... I thought this was an atheist/non-believing site.  my bad

jcgadfly wrote:

"Be still and know that I am God" doesn't allow for examination of evidence.

in other words, stop for a moment and realize who you're talking to.  Not stop thinking and just assume.   It'd be like you going up to your boss all concerned about your job security, your boss confirming you're fine and you still frantically questioning it... you're boss likewise could say "be still and know that i'm your boss".  In other words, he has power over your job security and is assuring you you're fine.    don't doubt your bosses abilities.  

jcgadfly wrote:

What do you do if you take God up on his challenge in Malachi 3:10 and it doesn't happen? Most Christians rationalize and give God all manner of outs.

In many cases it has been shown that blessings come from gifts to God's purposes... but besides that, you're refrencing to a particular situation where God told a specific peoples to do something and promised an outcome.  It did not say, "to all who put all their tithes into the church I will..."  regardless it still has happened all over the world in many different instances.  Therefore to see that not happen wouldn't be a question to a Christian in the first place because they apparently would be better versed in the scriptures than you are.    It would surprise me however if a whole church followed that expectation that nothing would come out of it.  This of course assuming their hearts were in the right place as well.  

lemme guess... this is me giving God an out and not me giving you scripture as it is literally written.  hmm... interesting perspective... would you not then be manipulating it to meet your ideals in this instance?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

Quote:
Thank you... finally you understand

Will you PLEASE stop with the pathetic projection.

I'm just messing with ya... I told you I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore.

Brian37 wrote:

Science does not "make shit up"

no, but you do

Brian37 wrote:

Theism has always "made shit up"

 

...and so have people outside of theism throughout history... so your point?  oh wait, you're right and they're wrong.  should have understood that.  all history is right without question regardless of how many have tried to change it and make it to their ideals, but if it has to do with a god, then they must have made it up... it's the only way Brian can be right.

Brian37 wrote:

You just cant stand that our current scientific knowledge is not propping up your fictional invisible non-material super hero.

well... it kind of is... sorry Brian... if anything it's not knocking God out of the picture.

Brian37 wrote:

The Christian god, nor any of the god/s of Abraham are real. They all come from the same past and were all started in an ignorant age by ignorant people.

and your excuse today is???

Brian37 wrote:

You might as well be claiming your pet deity is a giant invisible snail who magically pops out ice cream while orbiting Mars and it would amount to the same "making shit up".

you are pretty good at it.  snails now huh.  It's getting more entertaining, I can say that.

Brian37 wrote:

Thougts require a material process. PERIOD. That is not what I claim, that is what science proves.

Science has proven to detect a thought it is required to have a material source or process... Be it that science understands so little about thought and how it works exactly, isn't it a little premature for you to be claiming that science proves that thought can't happen outside a material process?  

Brian37 wrote:

THERE IS NOTHING in evolution that thinks(to whatever degree) that does not have some sort of material to react to the environment around it. Flies have brains. Gods do not because gods don't exist. Not yours not any.

and all I want is your studies backing this up.  By what you're claiming, someone has actually tried to capture a thought and has failed due to evidence that points to thoughts not only being projected through a material process, but originating from that same exact source.    Please, I'm begging you to show me this study, i can't wait to see it.  I'm on the edge of my seat here!

Brian37 wrote:

Allah, Jesus, Thor, Apollo are all human inventions an none of them are real. Just like vocanos are not gods. You merely suffer from wishful thinking like every other credulous human who merely wants a super hero.

Anyone can say that, but you can't back yourself up.  I can say they all are real and we're still in the same spot you and I have been in for years.  You would be a good Jehovah's Witness.  They'd probably automatically promote you to overseer.    

Brian37 wrote:

YOU LOST, accept reality before you waste your entire life on a stupid self inflicted superstition.

Show me the way Buddah.  I-I mean Brian.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The questions came from my investigation - they also show the flaws in the process. I understand that your worship of Catholicism and miracles makes your rational examination of these flaws impossible.

into only the link I gave, nothing outside... which is where you'd find answers to most of your questions.  

My worship of Catholicism and miracles?  Wait... who are you and what have you done with jcgadfly.  I knew something was fishy... Did you kill him?!  I'm on to you.

The real jcgadfly would know why I just blew milk out of my nose because of that statement.

jcgadfly wrote:

You're waiting for things that have been delivered to you. Lying is beneath you (or at least I thought it was). The 9th commandment - not an option for you.

Ok, so you've revieled flaws in their investigation... let's recap and see where the flaws were.... ok so...

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn, cappy, I thought you read the supposed proof you provided (not that an assertion proves jack but you keep clinging to those straws). How could the sainthood prospect pray for the claimant's healing in 1992 when he died in 1976? The dead sainthood prospect supposedly prays to God but the miracle claimant prays to the saint. So now you're back to defending idolatry unless of course you can prove that spirits talk to each other.

Are you saying spirits are mute?  Show me this reasoning please.  

Catholicism does promote praying to those other than God, but those who are with God.  I don't accept this methodology.  Does this completely nullify the miracle?  No, but it makes it harder to prove.  The credit of giving it to a particular human is beyond what I was talking about.  They investigate so thoroughly so that they can regulate sainthood.  Due to the fact that this person did pray to a picture of the pope on a newspaper, it may likely be deemed not a miracle.  Then again, if the evidence points to prayer being the reason to the cure, then it may be deemed a miracle... .where the catholic church falls apart is giving credit where it's due.  If they confirm this miracle, the credit goes to a person and not God whereas the finger should be pointed to God alone.  (by faith you are healed)  Just because someone misunderstands the process doesn't mean their heart's not in the right place.

My point with the article was for you to tear apart the process of determining a miracle.  Who the miracle is credited toward is not a factor in this be it that "miracles" can be caused by any spirit, even demons as understood by many Christians, therefore the question really comes down in Christianity to whether it was a miracle of God... as far as you and I are concerned, was it a spiritual intercession or not?  Damn jcgadfly, I thought we were on the same page here... and btw... that information was not written in that particular article, but it shows you have started the process.  I was mistaken to say you haven't investigated, I should have said you barely started and are already making conclusions, which is irrational by any standard.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I have to show you where someone else said there was a mistake in the process of determining miracles while you can simply present the process as absolutely right and perfect? Sorry, that doesn't wash.

well no, didn't present it as absolutely right and perfect.  I presented it as a challenge to you to actually start using your brain again.  You used to do that and I enjoyed our conversations much more when you did.

BTW, you have lately done exactly what you are trying to accuse me of doing here... don't be a hypocrite.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you have proof that the Consulta follows these saints throughout their lives? Or are you just asserting it? Is this another claim that you want me to prove for you?

I'm not asking you to prove claims, I'm asking you to tear apart the process of investigating claims.  You can go and find 100's of claims yet to be confirmed... you telling me you don't like the claims isn't going to convince me you're right about the claim not being a miracle.  What will is you showing me how the process of determining miracles is flawed.   What' they're missing more specifically.

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't have to prove something didn't happen to dispute a claim that it did.

didn't ask you to

jcgadfly wrote:

I thought you'd learned that some time ago.

Already knew it

jcgadfly wrote:

I guess you haven't figured out how to carry that burden of proof you own, The only reason that you believe that your other summary covers the objections I have made is because you really need your version of God to be a miracle worker. That likely connects to how your version of God amazingly agrees with what you do and think.

... so this is your conclusion and attempt at squashing the miracle claims.  Sorry dude, not only were you off the mark on tearing apart the process, but you showed no reasoning to doubt the claim other than the state of mind of the person praying be it that they prayed to a dead pope and not to God directly.  The Bible states that it is the state of heart that matters and not so much the mind.    The Bible also states that miracles can happen from other spiritual sources.    Therefore you have yet to show me any reasoning to believe this particular miracle claim is not from a spiritual source or God.  

I can see where this is going to go too.. here I am justifying something I don't believe in so that my miracle claim can still be true in my mind.  

Alright, lemme debunk a scientific theory with the same level of reasoning and evidence.... There are fossil gaps, therefore evolution does not happen.    You and i both know that's not going to fly and neither is your case about the person praying to someone besides God.  It's already talked about in scripture... might want to review the Bible.  

Let's not get off topic here too.  I really want you to start debunking the PROCESS of determining a miracle.  I want you to take each part of it and show me your investigation as to how it's flawed and could not possibly point to a spiritual intercession.  Good luck

 

1. So if I saw nothing outside of those links in my investigation and ask you to support your position it's because I haven't looked? It can't be because there is no information? 

2. I'm saying spirits don't exist as I've seen no evidence for them. You're the one saying that spirits can do all these wonderful things based on the petitions of the faithful. The interesting part is that you still make that claim even for the cases where those prayers don't work.

3. So those who are with God aren't other than God? Why pray to them by name then? Distinction without a difference. Remember, the Catholics got rid of the "graven image" commandment.  It's not one of their ten.

4. You claim that if I had actually investigated that I would find that they have countered all my claims and that the miracle claims are beyond reproach because the investigative process is so thorough. Hard to see a difference between that and "absolutely right and perfect". Don't strip those gears reversing your position.

5. I do enjoy those "If you don't agree with me, you're not using your brain" shots - keep them coming. They're amusing coming from the willfully ignorant.

6. I've been debunking the process by asking questions about the flaws in the process - where have you been? Oh yeah, you've been telling me that I haven't been doing research instead of defending your position. support your stance - don't make it easy on me. Oh wait... you don't like to look at opposing views. so much for checking one's understanding". Never mind. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

Quote:
Thank you... finally you understand

Will you PLEASE stop with the pathetic projection.

I'm just messing with ya... I told you I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore.

Brian37 wrote:

Science does not "make shit up"

no, but you do

Brian37 wrote:

Theism has always "made shit up"

 

...and so have people outside of theism throughout history... so your point?  oh wait, you're right and they're wrong.  should have understood that.  all history is right without question regardless of how many have tried to change it and make it to their ideals, but if it has to do with a god, then they must have made it up... it's the only way Brian can be right.

Brian37 wrote:

You just cant stand that our current scientific knowledge is not propping up your fictional invisible non-material super hero.

well... it kind of is... sorry Brian... if anything it's not knocking God out of the picture.

Brian37 wrote:

The Christian god, nor any of the god/s of Abraham are real. They all come from the same past and were all started in an ignorant age by ignorant people.

and your excuse today is???

Brian37 wrote:

You might as well be claiming your pet deity is a giant invisible snail who magically pops out ice cream while orbiting Mars and it would amount to the same "making shit up".

you are pretty good at it.  snails now huh.  It's getting more entertaining, I can say that.

Brian37 wrote:

Thougts require a material process. PERIOD. That is not what I claim, that is what science proves.

Science has proven to detect a thought it is required to have a material source or process... Be it that science understands so little about thought and how it works exactly, isn't it a little premature for you to be claiming that science proves that thought can't happen outside a material process?  

Brian37 wrote:

THERE IS NOTHING in evolution that thinks(to whatever degree) that does not have some sort of material to react to the environment around it. Flies have brains. Gods do not because gods don't exist. Not yours not any.

and all I want is your studies backing this up.  By what you're claiming, someone has actually tried to capture a thought and has failed due to evidence that points to thoughts not only being projected through a material process, but originating from that same exact source.    Please, I'm begging you to show me this study, i can't wait to see it.  I'm on the edge of my seat here!

Brian37 wrote:

Allah, Jesus, Thor, Apollo are all human inventions an none of them are real. Just like vocanos are not gods. You merely suffer from wishful thinking like every other credulous human who merely wants a super hero.

Anyone can say that, but you can't back yourself up.  I can say they all are real and we're still in the same spot you and I have been in for years.  You would be a good Jehovah's Witness.  They'd probably automatically promote you to overseer.    

Brian37 wrote:

YOU LOST, accept reality before you waste your entire life on a stupid self inflicted superstition.

Show me the way Buddah.  I-I mean Brian.  

THEY ARE NOT MY STUDIES. I DID NOT INVENT SCIENCE, I DID NOT INVENT EVOLUTION, I DID NOT INVENT DNA.

You are trying to make the beef with me. Go fucking debate Darwin. We've had over a hundred years of evolution constantly being upheld and over 50 years of knowing what DNA IS.

Every time it has been consistent in science. Every animal that has a degree of thought has a material process that goes along with that capability of  thought. Even without a brain, anything that lives requires material. Even non living objects require material.

Get the fuck over it. There never was nor every will be anything that thinks like a human that is invisible and non material. Your bullshit is nothing more than anthropomorphic placebo wishful gap filling BULLSHIT. You might as well be claiming the voclano can think like a human.

Again, even if you skipped the clap trap comic book called the babble and merely claimed the universe was a thinking entity I'd call bullshit on that too.

You are trying to justify a spook, a ghost, superman, super hero. Instead you should be accepting it as the made up superstition you KNOW it is.

ADININE, GUANINE, THYMINE, CYTOSINE....................IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE. That is required to make up all brain parts that allow for neurons MORE MATERIAL, to pass information around the brain.

Since a god does not have DNA or neurons or a physical brain, I am calling bullshit on ALL god claims, not just yours.

You lost. Just accept it is all in your head and you are merely allowing your false sense of awe fuck up your logic.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. So if I

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So if I saw nothing outside of those links in my investigation and ask you to support your position it's because I haven't looked? It can't be because there is no information?

if that's the case, then it's all you have to say.  I can support was is mentioned in the link.  From other random research over years, i have found the details to be quite thorough under each category.  I don't know if you're having problems finding information whether I'd be able to find any more at this point then.  If anyone has access to resources, you would right?

jcgadfly wrote:
 

2. I'm saying spirits don't exist as I've seen no evidence for them. You're the one saying that spirits can do all these wonderful things based on the petitions of the faithful. The interesting part is that you still make that claim even for the cases where those prayers don't work.

prayer is not a constant, you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.  I have seen evidence for spiritual existence.  Many others have seen the same, it's basically personal experience as evidence... but research to confirm what I saw is legitimately spiritual.  

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So those who are with God aren't other than God? Why pray to them by name then? Distinction without a difference. Remember, the Catholics got rid of the "graven image" commandment.  It's not one of their ten.

yea, Catholics don't get it quite right.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. You claim that if I had actually investigated that I would find that they have countered all my claims and that the miracle claims are beyond reproach because the investigative process is so thorough. Hard to see a difference between that and "absolutely right and perfect". Don't strip those gears reversing your position.

oh no, not doing that.  I only confirmed that research would give you the answers to those questions that you specifically asked... or should I say skeptically asked.  Some of what was asked was answered in the link, others I don't believe should have been too hard to find.    Then again you said you looked and couldn't find anything?  nothing in the library either?  

jcgadfly wrote:

5. I do enjoy those "If you don't agree with me, you're not using your brain" shots - keep them coming. They're amusing coming from the willfully ignorant.

sadly again you know me better than that.  I want you to disagree, but I want you to back it up and not just blindly disagree without basis.  I like your comment about how you haven't seen any reason to believe there are spirits.  Keep on that plane of thinking, don't make conclusions on things you can't support.

jcgadfly wrote:

6. I've been debunking the process by asking questions about the flaws in the process - where have you been? Oh yeah, you've been telling me that I haven't been doing research instead of defending your position. support your stance - don't make it easy on me. Oh wait... you don't like to look at opposing views. so much for checking one's understanding". Never mind. 

Dude, I had answered some of your questions... but then you complain about taking my word on it.  So I tell you to go find the information yourself.   Make up your mind... do you want me to defend what I have presented or are you going to need more than my word on it?  The best defense is the evidence the opposing side discovers on their own.  

You're so sure you're in the right, give me something to investigate on this that will show me why this process is flawed to the point of discrediting any confirmed miracles by this entity.  

BTW, asking questions does not debunk, it only inquires about details.  The details could debunk, but only if they are contrary to the claim.  So far your only legitimate question about a "flaw" was the healing of an individual by a dead person.  Do you have others?  that was clarified by the understanding of the state of mind of catholics.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:THEY ARE NOT

Brian37 wrote:

THEY ARE NOT MY STUDIES. I DID NOT INVENT SCIENCE, I DID NOT INVENT EVOLUTION, I DID NOT INVENT DNA.

no, of course you didn't... are you going to use any of them in your defense, other than points like things evolved and were not created?  I mean legitimately pull out the meat in each and use it to defend your point of view

Brian37 wrote:

You are trying to make the beef with me. Go fucking debate Darwin. We've had over a hundred years of evolution constantly being upheld and over 50 years of knowing what DNA IS.

the Bible never discredits evolution, only inter-special evolution.  Darwin himself has questioned his own conclusions on evolution.   I'll take him on, but I have a feeling he and I would agree more than disagree.

Brian37 wrote:

Every time it has been consistent in science. Every animal that has a degree of thought has a material process that goes along with that capability of  thought. Even without a brain, anything that lives requires material. Even non living objects require material.

everything we have tangibly requires material.  does that mean there couldn't possibly be a non-material existence outside the material?  What is alive to us is something with a working physical body that can interact with the physical world around.  A dead person does not interact with the world because they are dead, but the Bible says they are not dead, only dead to the physical existence.  This is where the difference lies.

Brian37 wrote:

Get the fuck over it. There never was nor every will be anything that thinks like a human that is invisible and non material. Your bullshit is nothing more than anthropomorphic placebo wishful gap filling BULLSHIT. You might as well be claiming the voclano can think like a human.

....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we lost ya again.

Brian37 wrote:

Again, even if you skipped the clap trap comic book called the babble and merely claimed the universe was a thinking entity I'd call bullshit on that too.

of course you would... nothing that you disagree with is ever possible...

Brian37 wrote:

You are trying to justify a spook, a ghost, superman, super hero. Instead you should be accepting it as the made up superstition you KNOW it is.

how do I KNOW it is made up?  This is the question I've asked you many times.. you come back with; "delusional, wishful, fantasy", but nothing substantial that would actually allow me to KNOW what you're telling is actually the truth

Brian37 wrote:

ADININE, GUANINE, THYMINE, CYTOSINE....................IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE. That is required to make up all brain parts that allow for neurons MORE MATERIAL, to pass information around the brain.

...and where does that information come from?

Brian37 wrote:

Since a god does not have DNA or neurons or a physical brain, I am calling bullshit on ALL god claims, not just yours.

I know this.  Dark matter is Bull as well right?  

Brian37 wrote:

You lost. Just accept it is all in your head and you are merely allowing your false sense of awe fuck up your logic.

You keep saying that, but the thing is, for me to lose, you'd actually have to make a case against mine... takes effort


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So if I saw nothing outside of those links in my investigation and ask you to support your position it's because I haven't looked? It can't be because there is no information?

if that's the case, then it's all you have to say.  I can support was is mentioned in the link.  From other random research over years, i have found the details to be quite thorough under each category.  I don't know if you're having problems finding information whether I'd be able to find any more at this point then.  If anyone has access to resources, you would right?

jcgadfly wrote:
 

2. I'm saying spirits don't exist as I've seen no evidence for them. You're the one saying that spirits can do all these wonderful things based on the petitions of the faithful. The interesting part is that you still make that claim even for the cases where those prayers don't work.

prayer is not a constant, you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.  I have seen evidence for spiritual existence.  Many others have seen the same, it's basically personal experience as evidence... but research to confirm what I saw is legitimately spiritual.  

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So those who are with God aren't other than God? Why pray to them by name then? Distinction without a difference. Remember, the Catholics got rid of the "graven image" commandment.  It's not one of their ten.

yea, Catholics don't get it quite right.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. You claim that if I had actually investigated that I would find that they have countered all my claims and that the miracle claims are beyond reproach because the investigative process is so thorough. Hard to see a difference between that and "absolutely right and perfect". Don't strip those gears reversing your position.

oh no, not doing that.  I only confirmed that research would give you the answers to those questions that you specifically asked... or should I say skeptically asked.  Some of what was asked was answered in the link, others I don't believe should have been too hard to find.    Then again you said you looked and couldn't find anything?  nothing in the library either?  

jcgadfly wrote:

5. I do enjoy those "If you don't agree with me, you're not using your brain" shots - keep them coming. They're amusing coming from the willfully ignorant.

sadly again you know me better than that.  I want you to disagree, but I want you to back it up and not just blindly disagree without basis.  I like your comment about how you haven't seen any reason to believe there are spirits.  Keep on that plane of thinking, don't make conclusions on things you can't support.

jcgadfly wrote:

6. I've been debunking the process by asking questions about the flaws in the process - where have you been? Oh yeah, you've been telling me that I haven't been doing research instead of defending your position. support your stance - don't make it easy on me. Oh wait... you don't like to look at opposing views. so much for checking one's understanding". Never mind. 

Dude, I had answered some of your questions... but then you complain about taking my word on it.  So I tell you to go find the information yourself.   Make up your mind... do you want me to defend what I have presented or are you going to need more than my word on it?  The best defense is the evidence the opposing side discovers on their own.  

You're so sure you're in the right, give me something to investigate on this that will show me why this process is flawed to the point of discrediting any confirmed miracles by this entity.  

BTW, asking questions does not debunk, it only inquires about details.  The details could debunk, but only if they are contrary to the claim.  So far your only legitimate question about a "flaw" was the healing of an individual by a dead person.  Do you have others?  that was clarified by the understanding of the state of mind of catholics.  

I'll take the last part here. The problem is that you want me to find support for my position while at the same time accepting your unsupported assertions. 

That's not fair. I think you know that.

You also know that my questions were about more than a dead guy answering prayers. They also concerned the fact that the Church selects the people on the Consulta so it is far more likely that they will come up with conclusions that the Church wants to see. That is a question of bias which you answered with "No they don't" and refused to support it.

I also brought up how easy it is to fake miracles and the signs and wonders that the RCC is so fond of. Again, all I got from you was "No they don't".

I may not have a brain (in your view) but you've given up on using yours. Not sure if we have much more to discuss until that changes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin