It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So atheists, what if you are wrong

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

Funny because it is exactly what atheists asked for. Promptly dismissed, as I said you would.

No, what was asked for was evidence, not personal anecdotes. Now, while I don't agree with Chr0naut on a lot of his particulars, I still have a healthy respect for him as well as how he presents his views so I'm certainly not trying to diminish the power of what he feels occurred in the hospital that day. But, the bottom line is, one must take it all with a grain of salt as there are no tests or scans showing damage to the vertebrae or spine itself prior to the prayer and a subsequent set of scans after detailing the miraculous healing. The fact is, that it is not an isolated occurrence if there were some trauma that reduced sensation from the accident and subsequent movement by paramedics that was later alleviated. Just as an example and not an analogous comparison, I've got a spinal condition where if I sleep wrong I will sometimes wake up and have no use of or sensation in my left arm from nerves being pinched off by swollen muscle tissue. Within a short period of time I will get full sensation, use and range of motion returned as the muscle swelling reduces and the nerves become less impaired. I'm not saying this is what happened in the personal anecdote being discussed, just that one has to keep their mind open to all possibilities. I don't discount the possibility of divine involvement. Only that the level of evidence, doesn't meet the requirements for evidence. For you to insist otherwise makes you equally "hyper-skeptical" of a science based explanation in lieu of outright confirmation bias towards a religious explanation. To say otherwise is being completely dishonest.




Yes, you are. If eye witness testimony cannot be backed up by anything, why is it even accepted in court cases? Do you have any evidence that he is lying? Or even any reason to suspect that he is? Have you cross examined him and the other people involved? Have you talked to the doctor that attended the prayer? No? What he said would be accepted in a court by a judge, after he was cross examined, but you won't? You will promptly dismiss it as a lie, and you claim you care about evidence?

But eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. How many people have been falsely convicted based on eye witness testimony believed by the jury and COROBORATED by additional evidence presented in a biased light by the police investigating the crimes in question and the D.A. who's job it is to convict someone, anyone, for the crime in court?

Nobody is calling chr0naut a liar. And One could ask you the same questions as you are accepting a personal anecdote as legitimate evidence...have you questioned him? The doctor? Examined medical charts and films? Do you have any evidence of this being a divinely inspired event other than someone claiming so on a message board? Once again, you are making judgments of others based on your own biases and not critically examining the information let alone holding yourself to the standards you demand of those who have a different viewpoint than yourself while lobbing charges at them as though you've got a list sitting next to you from a philosophy course on how to debate. Again, you claim it is being dismissed as a lie... unless I missed someone claiming it is a lie, I don't believe that is the case. I think that it is an example of correlation not being equal to causation but confirmation bias takes over and voila... GOD


What you have is not a 'healthy skepticism'. What you have is textbook hyperskepticism:


Likewise, you are at least as guilty, if not more so in regards to accepting that you could be wrong while insisting that it must be a divinely inspired event. Pure, unadulterated confirmation bias. Nothing more, nothing less.



This was already posted once. You ignored it. It is a documented case.
Miracle of Calanda


Again, confirmation bias and a refusal to take a critical eye and actually look at the situation in question. The only corroborated aspect of this story are the beginning, where he had his accident and was run over and the leg was broken. Once his uncle leaves him at the hospital, the corroboration ends until his parents wake up first and see his leg intact because a guest is sleeping in his room.

Lets actually examine the story( oh...I know, I'm being hyperskeptical because I don't just accept power of your personal dinvine savior, right?)

First, even the Wikipedia article, in the very first sentence states-

The Miracle of Calanda is an event that allegedly took place


From there, we can look at the fact that after going to the first hospital, he allegedly went on foot for 7 weeks on a gangrenous leg. That part of the story is an absolute physical impossibility. Gangrene spread fairly quickly one it sets in. Not only would Miguel not have had gangrene confined to an area allowing them to remove his leg just below the knee, he would have died of sepsis and blood poisoning long before he finished his 7 week journey to the next hospital. What is claimed, is an injury that was absolutely, in no way at all, survivable.

Let's utilize Occam's razor for just a moment here. Is it more likely that a man was able to survive something at a time where proper sanitation was yet to be utilized from a gangrenous injury that modern medicine would not have been able to slow enough for him to survive 7 weeks WITH treatment, let alone with no treatment, on his own and on foot for that entire time? Doing a little reading about that time period would behoove us all as well. 7 weeks is about the time it would take for him to heal at the hospital and obtain his permit from the church to be a beggar. Beggars then, much ;like now, can actually make a decent amount of coin. He would have been well within his rights to be granted a permit for this as he could not properly work with a freshly healed fracture and a rather serious one it would seem from the witness statements. He did not return home for over 2 years. It is an age old tactic for the destitute and indigent to concoct a disability to gain sympathy and increase revenues from begging. It is far more likely that Miguel obtained a wooden leg prior to moving on to Zaragoza, bound his leg and used the wooden leg to appear more injured than he actually was to gain sympathy to increase his returns from begging. Once returning home, he would have kept up the ruse. When a guest was staying at the home of his parents and they gave Miguel's room to their guest.Miguel was forced to sleep on the floor of his parents room. They awoke first and saw his unbound leg and thought it a miracle when in fact he had been playing everyone for over 2 years. The claim was that the leg was somewhat withered, a common effect of not using it for lengthy periods of time. After being forced to use it again, it of course regained a somewhat normal appearance and strength.

If god gifted the man a new leg, why then did it have the scars form his childhood as well as a scar from where the cart ran his leg over? Why were the surgeons who are attributed to the amputation never interviewed by the church? Only the witnesses to the accident and witnesses attesting to his use of a wooden leg were interviewed. Why is that?




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, you are. If eye witness testimony cannot be backed up by anything, why is it even accepted in court cases?

Eye witness testimony may be accepted in court (as in allowed to be heard) but that does not mean it's concrete proof the eyewitness is telling the truth, or even that they remember what they witnessed exactly as it happened. Eyewitness testimony is not always accurate. That's why eyewitness testimony is stronger when it can be backed up by something.



Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

Nope.



Or even any reason to suspect that he is?

I can think of plenty.



Have you cross examined him and the other people involved? Have you talked to the doctor that attended the prayer? No?

Nope. Conveniently, as far as I can tell, there is nothing here but a story. No names, dates, etc.



What he said would be accepted in a court by a judge, after he was cross examined, but you won't?

No, it wouldn't be accepted as proof in a court by a judge, and no I won't blindly accept it as proof either.



You will promptly dismiss it as a lie, and you claim you care about evidence?

I dismiss it as a probable lie, yes. Key word, probable. That means I'm open to the possibility it may have actually happened but I need more then some guy's alleged eyewitness account. I thought I've made that abundantly clear.



What you have is not a 'healthy skepticism'. What you have is textbook hyperskepticism:

This should be rich.



Hyperskepticism is a tactic of intellectually dishonest argument where unreasonably high standards of evidence are required for a claim to be accepted. (Check)

Yes I have a high standard. No it is not unreasonable to be unwilling to blindly accept as fact, that which has not been shown to be fact.



It is often combined with moving the goalpost on the standard of evidence, where as each previous standard is met, the hyperskeptic insists that's not good enough because it didn't meet a higher standard still. (Check)

When have I moved goalposts, and when has "each previous standard" been met? Again, an eyewitness account lacking in any details does not meet any of my standards.



It is sometimes used as a derailing tactic, where the conversation shifts from the topic at hand to what constitutes acceptable evidence for the topic at hand. (Check)

Maybe don't provide weak evidence.



This was already posted once. You ignored it. It is a documented case.

If I missed something of value, my apologies.



Miracle of Calanda

Interesting indeed. Am I going to accept it as fact? No. Why? It doesn't add up, as the poster above me explained.

Allow me to reiterate another reason for my skepticism.

The lack of quantity of these alleged miraculous healings, especially in the modern era. With the frequency at which they are supposed to occur, how come there are not more of them? Where are the doctors scratching their heads?



Not a really good counter as they claim to follow the same God, but I see your point. I would simply remind you that there are cases in the Bible of people of other faiths having their prayers answered.

This is exactly the response I expected.

So you're telling me on one hand, your god answers the prayers from those in other religions or spirituality, but on the other condemns them to hell and even commanded them to be killed in OT times?

Maybe one of those answered prayers was the success of the 9/11 hijackers.

No doubt they prayed before hand, and clearly those prayers were answered.

Or how do you know it isn't Allah or any other deity (e.g. Krishna) answering the prayers of the world?



Your point is? That there are charlatans everywhere? How many 'natural doctors' who claim to heal everything from broken nail to cancer with herbs are there, many of them with thousands of followers? Should we distrust medicine? Charlatans that claim to make your car run on water? Should we distruss science?

My point being that all the charlatans and liars are one of the reasons I demand a high standard of evidence. So I'm not sucked into treating something as fact, that I really have no way to confirm or deny.


edit on 8-3-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Krazyshot, its not worth saying to you that there are some very crazy christians out there, in the same breath there are some very crazy atheists.
I am not talking about atheists as a whole, I do believe atheism is a belief, a deliberate choice not to believe.
You cant know everything, you cant know if God Is real or unreal, the atheist chooses.

Christians are easy to manipulate as a whole but look at the people being manipulated by the governments, its human to be manipulated.

Germans believed in Hitler, they believed in him as a man, Russians believed in Stalin. Modern US Americans believe in Obama. Catholics the Pope, people are easily manipulated.

I guess the difference is I can see where many christians act poorly, you may think that modern atheists and those on the far left or right act sensibly.
What you deem acceptable I deem ludicrous


and yes the bible needs to be taught, otherwise people like those who gave marjoe all that cash wont be able to discern truth from lies, will stop serving homosexuals wedding cakes and believe evolution is a fact.
And clearly its not an easy book to understand, but you already know that so you want to score points.

As for God, He has clearly given us dominion, free will over our own lives, He will step in when He is ready. God doesnt dance to the tune we play, He just allows the music to play.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
While I hesitate to say that atheists can't be manipulated, I'm a little curious as to how this would work. Though again, I'm working with the real definition of atheism and not YOUR definition of atheism that is contingent on atheists believing in evolution, so I'm unlikely to get a satisfactory answer from you here.


Pride, greed, lust, vainglory. Easy emotions to use to manipulate people. Fastest example that comes to mind is the declaration by the Horsemen that atheists should call themselves 'brights' as a way to show how they are superior to the believers. People have a natural need to identify with a tribe. Give them something they want to identify with, massage their ego, and they are your thralls.



I have not met many educated christians in the teachings of the bible, most dont understand it any more than atheists, there in lies the problem


Nice to meet you.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
No, what was asked for was evidence, not personal anecdotes.
(...)
one has to keep their mind open to all possibilities. I don't discount the possibility of divine involvement. Only that the level of evidence doesn't meet the requirements for evidence.


Personal anecdotes are evidence. And you do not keep your mind open to all possibilities. You keep your mind closed to one possibility (God), demanding a very high standard of evidence to even consider it, and force yourself to accept any other possibility, despite no evidence whatsoever supporting it.



But eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. How many people have been falsely convicted based on eye witness testimony believed by the jury and COROBORATED by additional evidence presented in a biased light by the police investigating the crimes in question and the D.A. who's job it is to convict someone, anyone, for the crime in court?


Irrelevant. All evidence is inaccurate to a degree, being subjective and relying on interpretation. Now you tell me, how many?



Nobody is calling chr0naut a liar. And One could ask you the same questions as you are accepting a personal anecdote as legitimate evidence...have you questioned him? The doctor? Examined medical charts and films? Do you have any evidence of this being a divinely inspired event other than someone claiming so on a message board?


I am not the one asking for evidence, receiving exactly what asked, dismissing and asking for more, receiving, dismissing and asking for more, and so on. Unlike you, I do have an open mind. I understand that this may or may not have been caused by God, and that lack of evidence pointing to a conclusion means that every possibility is equally as liked as a cause. Remember, you are the one who said that if you can think of another cause, then the credit does not go to God. You will ascribe the cause to anything but God, despite no evidence supporting your opinion of what caused it, either. You are rationalizing, struggling to find excuses to not to admit even the possibility that miracles happen.



Likewise, you are at least as guilty, if not more so in regards to accepting that you could be wrong while insisting that it must be a divinely inspired event. Pure, unadulterated confirmation bias. Nothing more, nothing less.


I insisted on nothing. I criticized the way you dismissed the evidence.



If god gifted the man a new leg, why then did it have the scars form his childhood as well as a scar from where the cart ran his leg over? Why were the surgeons who are attributed to the amputation never interviewed by the church? Only the witnesses to the accident and witnesses attesting to his use of a wooden leg were interviewed. Why is that?


I will answer you the same thing that is always answered. The interviews that took place followed the standard procedures of the time. The conclusions, following standard procedure of investigations of the time, concluded that a miracle took place. What you are demanding for is that they follow standards comparable to today's, which they couldn't. Again, you are simply criticizing any and all evidence presented to you, so you can dismiss it, as I said you would.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Krazyshot, its not worth saying to you that there are some very crazy christians out there, in the same breath there are some very crazy atheists.
I am not talking about atheists as a whole, I do believe atheism is a belief, a deliberate choice not to believe.
You cant know everything, you cant know if God Is real or unreal, the atheist chooses.

Christians are easy to manipulate as a whole but look at the people being manipulated by the governments, its human to be manipulated.

Germans believed in Hitler, they believed in him as a man, Russians believed in Stalin. Modern US Americans believe in Obama. Catholics the Pope, people are easily manipulated.


That's true. Though to me, when you recognize an obvious source of manipulation, you should stop listening to it. To me, that's the entire Christian faith.


I guess the difference is I can see where many christians act poorly, you may think that modern atheists and those on the far left or right act sensibly.
What you deem acceptable I deem ludicrous


That's because you are an old world Christian living in the modern world. We've moved on from your archaic beliefs.


and yes the bible needs to be taught, otherwise people like those who gave marjoe all that cash wont be able to discern truth from lies, will stop serving homosexuals wedding cakes and believe evolution is a fact.
And clearly its not an easy book to understand, but you already know that so you want to score points.


Well then I guess the bible's message isn't important enough that only a select few people will ever able to understand it correctly even though it preaches that it is meant for everyone. Because clearly, with all the interpretations of the bible, not ALL of them are correct. And that's before you even get to the people who aren't even Christian and never will be. For example, your interpretation is EXTREMELY unlikely.


As for God, He has clearly given us dominion, free will over our own lives, He will step in when He is ready. God doesnt dance to the tune we play, He just allows the music to play.


Then why is believing in him necessary?



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
Pride, greed, lust, vainglory. Easy emotions to use to manipulate people. Fastest example that comes to mind is the declaration by the Horsemen that atheists should call themselves 'brights' as a way to show how they are superior to the believers. People have a natural need to identify with a tribe. Give them something they want to identify with, massage their ego, and they are your thralls.


Can't argue with this.


Nice to meet you.


Nice to meet you too I guess, but I didn't say that. Someone else did.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Eye witness testimony may be accepted in court (as in allowed to be heard) but that does not mean it's concrete proof the eyewitness is telling the truth, or even that they remember what they witnessed exactly as it happened. Eyewitness testimony is not always accurate. That's why eyewitness testimony is stronger when it can be backed up by something.


That's why they are cross examined for accuracy. If no inconsistencies are found, they are accepted as as accurate as humanly possible. Yet, you simply dismiss it, without even considering it evidence.



I can think of plenty.


Then go ahead and make your case. Or are you afraid that the person may come back and counter it?



Nope. Conveniently, as far as I can tell, there is nothing here but a story. No names, dates, etc.


And yet, the person is an active member of this forum, we have a private message system, we've been here for days, and you could have easily asked him for any missing details. Why didn't you? I mean, it is his private life, I can perfectly understand why he wouldn't divulge personal details in an open to read, google-indexed forum. But why didn't you ask for more, if you felt it was needed, I cannot fathom.



No, it wouldn't be accepted as proof in a court by a judge, and no I won't blindly accept it as proof either.


Why not?



I dismiss it as a probable lie, yes. Key word, probable. That means I'm open to the possibility it may have actually happened but I need more then some guy's alleged eyewitness account. I thought I've made that abundantly clear.


And yet, you made no efforts toward it.



Yes I have a high standard. No it is not unreasonable to be unwilling to blindly accept as fact, that which has not been shown to be fact.


I am glad you at least admitted to being a hyperskeptic on this subject.



The lack of quantity of these alleged miraculous healings, especially in the modern era. With the frequency at which they are supposed to occur, how come there are not more of them? Where are the doctors scratching their heads?


The doctors are dismissing it as a probable lie, and not bothering to investigate it.



So you're telling me on one hand, your god answers the prayers from those in other religions or spirituality, but on the other condemns them to hell and even commanded them to be killed in OT times?


Hell is not a biblical teaching. It was an appropriation of a greek pagan myth by some very pagan-friendly early Christians. But yes, He did command a lot of people to be killed and even killed a lot of people Himself. What's that to do with the topic at hand, namely, you dismissing any and all evidence presented to you, as I said you would, and you desperatedly trying to justify why you must be a hyperskeptic about any religious claims?



My point being that all the charlatans and liars are one of the reasons I demand a high standard of evidence. So I'm not sucked into treating something as fact, that I really have no way to confirm or deny.


And my point is that your 'high standard of evidence' only really applies to a single topic, which are religious claims, despite the fact that your justifications apply equally to a broad range of subjects, and that your 'high standard of evidence' is none of such, but it is actually a pattern of behavior of dismissal of any and all evidence presented for religious claims without even considering it.
edit on 4/8/2015 by Leahn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's because you are an old world Christian living in the modern world. We've moved on from your archaic beliefs.


People have been saying that for about 2 thousand years now. People always seem to believe that history ends with them.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

History doesn't end with me, but holding on to old ways just because they are old is dumb. If we can show scientifically that those ways are either inferior, wrong, or unhealthy, then instead of fighting the change, just accept it. It may actually IMPROVE your life. Then later down the line, even NEWER things will come out that will make those concepts we have now outdated. At that point, if we can show that they are better for us, then let's accept them. This doesn't mean that we have to abandon ALL of our traditions either. There ARE traditions that we've shown scientifically that are healthy for us. Like the tradition of medicine.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Prezbo369



Unless you posses a belief in a god, then you're an atheist, an agnostic atheist but still an atheist.

Not true , I accept the possibility of an intelligent force behind the Universe , I don't have to believe to accept the possibility and if I accept the possibility then I don't disbelieve.


Yet you don't posses the belief in a God, you lack belief in a god, making you an atheist...

Leaving the possibility open for such a creature/force existing is why you're an agnostic atheist rather than a nostic atheist just like 99% of atheists.

If when asked whether or not you believe in a god you say 'yes' you're a theist. If you say anything else, including 'i don't know', you're an atheist.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Leahn

History doesn't end with me, but holding on to old ways just because they are old is dumb. If we can show scientifically that those ways are either inferior, wrong, or unhealthy, then instead of fighting the change, just accept it. It may actually IMPROVE your life. Then later down the line, even NEWER things will come out that will make those concepts we have now outdated. At that point, if we can show that they are better for us, then let's accept them. This doesn't mean that we have to abandon ALL of our traditions either. There ARE traditions that we've shown scientifically that are healthy for us. Like the tradition of medicine.


I think you should read Spengler, or Toynbee. It may (unlikely, but still) help you to deal with your own chronological snobbery. History does not move forward. History moves in circles. Getting yourself acquainted with the idea of anacyclosis may be a good introduction on the subject. Truth is, Christians have dealt with your kind multiple times in our 2-thousand or so years of existence. We are still here, they are not. This is enough argument for the wise.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Leahn

History doesn't end with me, but holding on to old ways just because they are old is dumb. If we can show scientifically that those ways are either inferior, wrong, or unhealthy, then instead of fighting the change, just accept it. It may actually IMPROVE your life. Then later down the line, even NEWER things will come out that will make those concepts we have now outdated. At that point, if we can show that they are better for us, then let's accept them. This doesn't mean that we have to abandon ALL of our traditions either. There ARE traditions that we've shown scientifically that are healthy for us. Like the tradition of medicine.


I think you should read Spengler, or Toynbee. It may (unlikely, but still) help you to deal with your own chronological snobbery. History does not move forward. History moves in circles. Getting yourself acquainted with the idea of anacyclosis may be a good introduction on the subject. Truth is, Christians have dealt with your kind multiple times in our 2-thousand or so years of existence. We are still here, they are not. This is enough argument for the wise.


History doesn't move it cycles. It repeats itself every now and then when people don't learn from the mistakes of previous people, but even then it isn't exactly the same.

As far as Christians dealing with "my kind" (whatever that's supposed to mean), atheism and agnosticism are at high points in Christian history. Our numbers have never been higher (and that belief rate is still increasing). It seems that when Christians can't imprison or execute people for not believing as they do, people don't flock to the Christian faith. Hence why belief in Christianity is dropping in the 1st world. America is really actually behind in this to be honest.

I mean it's not like top Christians haven't noticed this either. Christian belief in 3rd world countries is on the rise. So let's see, countries with HIGHER education rates are seeing Christian belief waning or stagnating, while countries with LOWER education rates are seeing Christian belief increasing. I wonder if there is a correlation? Might want to run some tests to confirm there. That is if you believe in science and statistics.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
History doesn't move it cycles. It repeats itself every now and then when people don't learn from the mistakes of previous people, but even then it isn't exactly the same.


"Repeating itself every now and then" is the definition of a cycle. Details are not relevant. The "Grand Game" is. And the Grand Game is always the same.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As far as Christians dealing with "my kind" (whatever that's supposed to mean), atheism and agnosticism are at high points in Christian history. Our numbers have never been higher (and that belief rate is still increasing). It seems that when Christians can't imprison or execute people for not believing as they do, people don't flock to the Christian faith. Hence why belief in Christianity is dropping in the 1st world. America is really actually behind in this to be honest.


Incorrect. Christian population have remained stable across the years, at roughly 33% of world's population. You're confusing population with demographics. Atheists represent less than 8% of world's population and the most recent research suggests a slow decline as atheists are among both the lowest fertility rate and the lowest retention rate amongst worldviews.



I mean it's not like top Christians haven't noticed this either. Christian belief in 3rd world countries is on the rise. So let's see, countries with HIGHER education rates are seeing Christian belief waning or stagnating, while countries with LOWER education rates are seeing Christian belief increasing. I wonder if there is a correlation? Might want to run some tests to confirm there. That is if you believe in science and statistics.


Yes, there is a correlation. But it is not the one you think.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
That's why they are cross examined for accuracy. If no inconsistencies are found, they are accepted as as accurate as humanly possible. Yet, you simply dismiss it, without even considering it evidence.

You realize we're talking about something fantastical right? Mere eye witness testimonies do not establish anything as fact, especially the fantastical. I am not denying the importance of eyewitnesses, just pointing out that people claiming to witness something doesn't mean their claims are true. If all it takes for you to believe something is true, is someone telling you a story about it.. are you skeptical about anything?




Then go ahead and make your case. Or are you afraid that the person may come back and counter it?


Earlier I said:


My point being that all the charlatans and liars are one of the reasons I demand a high standard of evidence. So I'm not sucked into treating something as fact, that I really have no way to confirm or deny.


I'm not afraid of anything. Nor are any reasons for me to suspect a liar proof that person is lying. But because people do lie, and there is a particular trend of "wolves in sheep's clothing" in religion, who do nothing but manipulate and lie to their flocks, I'm going to take things with an extra grain of salt.

Please note that I am not willing to believe crap just because and I'm going to consider things from multiple angles. My consideration that there may be a lie or misunderstanding of an event in no way constitutes proof that person/event is false. It means I want some solid evidence. You know, not an anecdote with absolutely nothing to back it up.

If I was a troll I would come on here and tell all kinds of wild stories. And, I can only surmise you would believe every single one of them because I would write as an eye witness.



And yet, the person is an active member of this forum, we have a private message system, we've been here for days, and you could have easily asked him for any missing details. Why didn't you? I mean, it is his private life, I can perfectly understand why he wouldn't divulge personal details in an open to read, google-indexed forum. But why didn't you ask for more, if you felt it was needed, I cannot fathom.

I think your confused about which particular case I'm complaining about. I'm complaining about the one where the boy allegedly was cured of twenty-six diseases.

As far as the other member's personal story. I already explained that I found it interesting, had no explanation, but was not ready to attribute anything to God. There are a number of variables that are unknown to me. There is no way to confirm OR deny that a bonafide God given miracle.

In other words, even though I'm doubtful god did anything, I'm open minded.

Again.. conclusive proof would be, well conclusive.



Why not?

Because eye witness testimony is not the be all end all in court. Important? Sure, absolutely. But as I said, humans are fallible. Some people lie. Some people remember things differently. Some people form false memories. Many an innocent person has been sent away because of faulty eye witness testimony. That's why evidence backing up the claims of eye witnesses makes them more reliable.



I am glad you at least admitted to being a hyperskeptic on this subject.

Call me whatever you want, Idc. I can at least sleep at night knowing that my world view can change based on evidence, and that I don't try to pigeon hole the world into my view of it.



The doctors are dismissing it as a probable lie, and not bothering to investigate it.

Sure buddy. Out of all the vanishing acts tumors play, out of all the sudden bouts of cancer gone forever, out of all the crippled able to walk again.. out of all this that and the other alleged miracle healings, not a single documented verifiable case in modern medicine. And according to you it's because the doctors are dismissing them..

Riiight. Do you realize how big of a deal this would be to the scientific community?



Hell is not a biblical teaching. It was an appropriation of a greek pagan myth by some very pagan-friendly early Christians.

It's nice to find something we agree on.



But yes, He did command a lot of people to be killed and even killed a lot of people Himself. What's that to do with the topic at hand, namely, you dismissing any and all evidence presented to you, as I said you would, and you desperatedly trying to justify why you must be a hyperskeptic about any religious claims?

I brought god's wrath into it because you claimed he sometimes answers the prayers of people in other religions. You said it said so in scripture. While I don't know if that's true (source please), I wanted to point out that God (at least in the OT) had a very different method of dealing with those that didn't follow him.

You tried to account all the miracles of other faiths to your God.

You also ignored the question, "How do you know it isn't heir gods answering the worlds prayers?"



And my point is that your 'high standard of evidence' only really applies to a single topic, which are religious claims, despite the fact that your justifications apply equally to a broad range of subjects, and that your 'high standard of evidence' is none of such, but it is actually a pattern of behavior of dismissal of any and all evidence presented for religious claims without even considering it.

Actually you don't know me at all and how I approach subjects. You assume I wave things away simply because they are religious. While it's most certainly easy to wave them away after years and years of their claims falling by the wayside.. No, I don't just wave anything away without considering it.

You have no idea about what lead me to atheism. It happened over a long period of time where I was seeking out proof of my religion. I found absolutely none.

Again I will ask, how do you know your god is answering prayers? How do you know it isn't any of the others claimed to exist?

Answer: You don't.
edit on 8-4-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Christian belief in 3rd world countries is on the rise. So let's see, countries with HIGHER education rates are seeing Christian belief waning or stagnating, while countries with LOWER education rates are seeing Christian belief increasing. I wonder if there is a correlation? Might want to run some tests to confirm there. That is if you believe in science and statistics.


What was it Martin Luther said? Oh yeah,

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."

May as well throw this one out there as well,

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."


edit on 8-4-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
Personal anecdotes are evidence. And you do not keep your mind open to all possibilities. You keep your mind closed to one possibility (God), demanding a very high standard of evidence to even consider it, and force yourself to accept any other possibility, despite no evidence whatsoever supporting it.


Do you even read what you are writing? Cognitive dissonance much? You need to remove the stick from you a$$ because you keep repeating the same statements over and over like a mantra...that I'm closed minded and reuse evidence for your personal god. It's quite frankly, bull s# and patently untrue. You refuse to even consider that your own standards of acceptability are so dangerously low that in comparison anything reasonable appears to be a demand of a very high standard. Your entire premise is founded on circular reasoning.



Irrelevant. All evidence is inaccurate to a degree, being subjective and relying on interpretation. Now you tell me, how many?


And here you shift the goal posts yet again. First, the eye witness testimony is unequivocally acceptable to you and in the very next breath all evidence is inaccurate and subjective. But god is clearly the real answer though right?

Since you asked for the numbers, of the 2000 known, overturned, wrongful convictions between 1989 and 2012 43% of them involved eye witness testimony that led to the conviction.
www.innocenceproject.org...
www.innocenceproject.org...
www.innocenceproject.org... ication
abcnews.go.com...
www.outsidethebeltway.com...


I am not the one asking for evidence, receiving exactly what asked, dismissing and asking for more, receiving, dismissing and asking for more, and so on.


No, you're worse. You're blindly accepting it and proclaiming it to be evidence that was requested but it's not evidence, it's a personal anecdote. That you can't or refuse to, see the difference is very telling.


Unlike you, I do have an open mind. I understand that this may or may not have been caused by God, and that lack of evidence pointing to a conclusion means that every possibility is equally as liked as a cause.


You're now contradicting your earlier statements that this is indeed the evidence asked for. Which is it? Evidence in the affirmative for a miracle or evidence that all possibilities are equal which apparently still means god to you?


Remember, you are the one who said that if you can think of another cause, then the credit does not go to God. You will ascribe the cause to anything but God, despite no evidence supporting your opinion of what caused it, either. You are rationalizing, struggling to find excuses to not to admit even the possibility that miracles


Way to twist my words! well done there. I never said that "if I can think of another cause then the credit doesn't go to god". What I said was that if there is a rational, natural explanation then the more logical answer is that, not "god". Not the same thing despite your inability or refusal to see that, because it's far easier for you to pain everyone who doesn't see the world through your own ruby glasses with the same broad brush strokes whether they apply or not. See, I don't actually care what you believe. I support your right to believe whatever makes you happy as long as you use that belief positively. You give the appearance that you feel threatened by people who don't share your convictions though. I can't say for sure though. I don't know you and can only base my perceptions of you on how you portray yourself online. But it's certainly how you come off.



I insisted on nothing. I criticized the way you dismissed the evidence.


No...? Continuing to repeat that this is all evidence for divine healing is somehow not synonymous with an insistence that this angle is the truest angle there is somehow? Interesting perspective you have there. You're a hypocrite of the highest order and it's quite obvious to anyone reading that you admonish me for requesting evidence that has too high of a standard while blindly accepting anecdotal statements as evidence without engaging in any of your own due diligence.


I will answer you the same thing that is always answered. The interviews that took place followed the standard procedures of the time. The conclusions, following standard procedure of investigations of the time, concluded that a miracle took place. What you are demanding for is that they follow standards comparable to today's, which they couldn't. Again, you are simply criticizing any and all evidence presented to you, so you can dismiss it, as I said you would.


No, what I'm doing is pointing out the logical flaws in the investigation and more so, the story itself. Ignoring the reality of that and not addressing those issues and instead choosing to attack me is pretty standard tactic in self deception. Good for you. I'm not criticizing any and all evidence. I'm criticizing the lack of evidence that you are presenting. Your own citation starts off with how it is an Alleged event yet you're still comfortable touting it as gospel truth. And if that's not the case then you are merely trolling for your own entertainment.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
You realize we're talking about something fantastical right? Mere eye witness testimonies do not establish anything as fact, especially the fantastical. I am not denying the importance of eyewitnesses, just pointing out that people claiming to witness something doesn't mean their claims are true. If all it takes for you to believe something is true, is someone telling you a story about it.. are you skeptical about anything?


Prove that it is fantastical. Otherwise, it is just your bias showing. Someone claiming to witness something doesn't mean their claims are true. Also doesn't mean their claims are false. This is why witnesses are cross-examined. Unless you are an atheist, then all claims you disagree with are always false by default, no need to investigate further.



I'm not afraid of anything. Nor are any reasons for me to suspect a liar proof that person is lying. But because people do lie, and there is a particular trend of "wolves in sheep's clothing" in religion, who do nothing but manipulate and lie to their flocks, I'm going to take things with an extra grain of salt.


So, it is a guilty by association fallacy. You have no evidence that he is lying, and no reason to believe that he is lying, other than your own prejudice against religious people. I wonder if with the recent scandals of fraud on scientific fields, if you say the same about scientists.


It means I want some solid evidence. You know, not an anecdote with absolutely nothing to back it up.


Any and all other evidence offered would be promptly dismissed, as well.



If I was a troll I would come on here and tell all kinds of wild stories. And, I can only surmise you would believe every single one of them because I would write as an eye witness.


You are biased. I am not. I made no claims whatsoever about the story. Whether it is true or false is of no consideration to me whatsoever. The only claim I made was that no matter what evidence was offered, atheists would find an excuse to deem in invalid and dismiss it. So far, I was not proven wrong as no atheist would even consider it as evidence, much less examine it.



I think your confused about which particular case I'm complaining about. I'm complaining about the one where the boy allegedly was cured of twenty-six diseases.

As far as the other member's personal story. I already explained that I found it interesting, had no explanation, but was not ready to attribute anything to God. There are a number of variables that are unknown to me. There is no way to confirm OR deny that a bonafide God given miracle.


If your claim is correct, then why do you keep asking for evidence of it? No amount of evidence will ever be enough to confirm it to you, yet you keep saying 'just show evidence and I will believe.' With the second breath you say there is no way to confirm it.



Because eye witness testimony is not the be all end all in court. Important? Sure, absolutely. But as I said, humans are fallible. Some people lie. Some people remember things differently. Some people form false memories. Many an innocent person has been sent away because of faulty eye witness testimony. That's why evidence backing up the claims of eye witnesses makes them more reliable.


Sure, but that's not my point. My point is that eye witness testimony is considered evidence even in court, but atheists will proclaim that eye witness testimony is not evidence. None of your replies so far have many any attempt to correct this wrong statement.



Sure buddy. Out of all the vanishing acts tumors play, out of all the sudden bouts of cancer gone forever, out of all the crippled able to walk again.. out of all this that and the other alleged miracle healings, not a single documented verifiable case in modern medicine. And according to you it's because the doctors are dismissing them..

Riiight. Do you realize how big of a deal this would be to the scientific community?


Yes. Because doctors, even today, will accept "alternative" medicine, even when they are proven to work. My father is only walking today due to acupuncture, when all the doctors told him that the only way he could ever walk again was by undergoing surgery to replace his kneecap, and even then he would only walk with a cane. Yet, he walks without one. To this day, I haven't met a doctor who would advise acupuncture.

Yes, I am sure it would be a very very big deal, and the doctors wouldn't treat it with derision and scorn. Riiight.



I brought god's wrath into it because you claimed he sometimes answers the prayers of people in other religions. You said it said so in scripture. While I don't know if that's true (source please), I wanted to point out that God (at least in the OT) had a very different method of dealing with those that didn't follow him.


His problem, not mine. I will tell you the same thing I told previously on this thread. You are talking about a being whom is described as omnipotent, the very description of it being that the entire power of the Universe thrown against Him at once wouldn't suffice to stay His hand. That's what being omnipotent means. That He does as He pleases and there is nothing you can do about it. The Bible describes that "all the nations of the Earth are nothing more than the fine dust on the scale", the dust we don't bother to wipe because it doesn't register. You are a single speck of dust of it. We live in His Universe. It is God's game, God's rules, like we or not. If He decided to bring His wrath upon someone in the past, or if He wants to do it again in the future, your only option is to accept that He will do as He pleases, and try to stay out of His way.



You also ignored the question, "How do you know it isn't heir gods answering the worlds prayers?"


I don't. Knowledge isn't a luxury I can afford. I didn't mean to ignore the question. I only thought it was rhetorical and the answer was obvious.



Actually you don't know me at all and how I approach subjects. You assume I wave things away simply because they are religious. While it's most certainly easy to wave them away after years and years of their claims falling by the wayside.. No, I don't just wave anything away without considering it.

You have no idea about what lead me to atheism. It happened over a long period of time where I was seeking out proof of my religion. I found absolutely none.

Again I will ask, how do you know your god is answering prayers? How do you know it isn't any of the others claimed to exist?

Answer: You don't.


See what I mean by a rhetorical question? Problem is that you cannot find proof of any religion. You also cannot find any counter-proof. That's part of the game. The Bible says that Satan was allowed to seed such mess in order to weed out those without true faith. I guess you lost.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
What was it Martin Luther said? Oh yeah,

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."

May as well throw this one out there as well,

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."



He was wrong. Faith and reason walk hand in hand, being both sides of the same coin. It is not reason that is the greatest enemy of faith. It is money. Or, more aptly, the security that comes with a comfortable life without struggle for survival.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I can tell you whats WRONG with YOU ! I am an atheist and I don't think about that nonsense but then I see your dumb question on here and it further proves my point that you religious people (I assume You are) cannot exist without bothering other people with your nonsense. As an atheist I could care less what You think or believe, we generally don't go there because the conversation is boring and when someone gets their butt hurt over a stupid book then whats the point. Why do You need to know what an atheist thinks about or feels about your question ? THATS THE PROBLEM, if You are so happy as a religious person then be happy, obviously You are not because You feel the need to find other people that feel as You, there are plenty in church, mind Your own business and keep that stuff to yourself or for church or for people who want to talk about it, Im not talking ATS, Im talking in general life.




top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join