Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 12-11-2002, 09:39 AM

You're correct, sir.

Polar Bear · 12-11-2002, 09:58 AM

thanks, Objective T, for clarifying my original point. You're right.

Also, one has to wonder ... if miraculous healing really does occur, how come churches don't set up free trips to the healing sites for the faithful? What a great service that would be. Instead of wasting all that money on building hospitals and such, they could just organize free trips to Lourdes or wherever. No more wasting time and money waiting on speculative "scientific" cures -- just send the faithful to lay their hands upon the holy This or the sacred That.

Hawkingfan · 12-11-2002, 10:05 AM

paraphrased from the James Randi Foundation's Testing Facility--For me to believe someone could perform a miracle, they must be able to demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations.
1. They must state clearly in advance, and they and I will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.
2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. I consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. I have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide me with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

3.No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned.

4. THEY MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. They must descibe what will constitute the demonstration. PLEASE: Do not burden me with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! I am only interested in an actual demonstration.
NOTE: No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted, without mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance.

(No one has EVER passed such a test).

Amie · 12-11-2002, 01:39 PM

Hi Jobar

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
What that means is that no matter how miraculous some event appears to be, if we can repeat it (or have it repeated) often enough, we will find a natural explanation. (With the admission that 'often enough' may take centuries or millenia.)

I agree with that since you used the word some...

Quote:

It's very important to realize that holding absolute beliefs is unscientific, and contrary to reason. That fact is one of the good arguments for agnosticism, and the reason why so many believers try to make out atheism to be a belief in the sense of Faith. (That's a discussion for another time and place, though.)

Thanks Jobar...I do agree many believers try to turn the athiest position into one of faith...

Amie · 12-11-2002, 01:48 PM

Hi Biff the unclean

Quote:

And since it's not possible for the impossible to happen then there is no need to even consider it.

yes I understand that is your belief...

Quote:

Please don't mistake my feeble attempts at being polite for the acknowledging of potential miracles.

I don't...

Quote:

Yes, I haven't a doubt.

you have no doubt that I am fooling myself? hmm you seem pretty confident there...

Quote:

You are fooling yourself. You just told me you were, sentence before last.

please show me the exact statement you are referring to. If I "thought" I was fooling myself I would not believe.

Quote:

It comes down to the simple question 'can you prove that there is a God'. You have already admitted that you cannot prove his existence.

I can not prove God's existence, nobody can...

Quote:

Having no way to prove it you cannot possibly know whether it is a fact or not. But you have decided to consider it a fact anyway. Now this has nothing to do with if there is a God or not, this is only about YOU and what YOU know and think. You have decided to consider God's existence a fact despite your complete lack of proof. Now you might give this behavior a flattering title like "FAITH" and consider it a positive attribute. But in actuality it is not "faith;" it is "credulity" and it is a negative attribute not a virtue. It is fooling yourself.

Platitudes

Quote:

Every question ever asked has had a natural answer.

Are you absolutely sure about that??

Quote:

No one in the history of the world has ever even seen anything supernatural.

Now how on earth could you possibly know that???

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]

Infinity Lover · 12-11-2002, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
[b] To qualify as a miracle they must be impossible. And since it's not possible for the impossible to happen then there is no need to even consider it.

Actually a miracle means it happened, in spite of it contradicting the laws of nature. If one happened, that would mean they are possible. It is however impossible to prove that miracles never happen, so if needen't consider that, where does that leave your statement?

I don't believe in miracles, but I could never honestly say with 100% certainty they're impossible.

12-11-2002, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie:
you have no doubt that I am fooling myself? hmm you seem pretty confident there...

Given that, strangely enough, God only decides to perform miracles when there is no opportunity for adequate testing, it is immeasurably more probable that the commonly observe phenomonon of self-delusion is at work rather than the never before seen phenomenon of any violation of the laws of nature.

The fact is that miracles have never been found. Delusion has been found - in abundance. Thus, a claim of miracles is evidence of delusion.

Amie · 12-11-2002, 02:14 PM

Hi Synaesthesia

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
Given that, strangely enough, God only decides to perform miracles when there is no opportunity for adequate testing, it is immeasurably more probable that the commonly observe phenomonon of self-delusion is at work rather than the never before seen phenomenon of any violation of the laws of nature.

The fact is that miracles have never been found. Delusion has been found - in abundance. Thus, a claim of miracles is evidence of delusion.

I understand that is your opinion. Thank you for sharing...Its just not a point of view I have or many others for that matter...

Biff the unclean · 12-11-2002, 03:58 PM

you have no doubt that I am fooling myself? hmm you seem pretty confident there...
I'd bet my soul on it. In fact, according to some, I already have

please show me the exact statement you are referring to. If I "thought" I was fooling myself I would not believe.
That's easy enough because you repeat it in the next sentence

I can not prove God's existence, nobody can...
There you go.
You can't prove it and yet you still believe, therefore you are fooling yourself.

Let's say --to make this clearer for you-- that I was going to fool you.
"Hey Amie," I say, "better hurry up and go home and put on your best clothes. Pierce Brosnan is coming over to visit you."
If you believe my story and act on it we can say that I have fooled you.
So what is it that constitutes me fooling you. Most important is that I have no information about Mr Brosnan's comings and goings at all. Do I know that he his going to your house? Absolutely not. If I had proof of what he was doing I wouldn't actually be fooling you I'd be giving you actual information.
Can I prove that he isn't going to your house? No, however the probability of him doing that is very, very close to zero.
I fooled you because I gave you information that I don't posses and you believed me.

Now you say that "I can not prove God's existence, nobody can"
You are saying that you do not have the information that God exists. But you are telling yourself that God exists--even more than that, you have a story you tell yourself about his personality and his likes and dislikes. If you can't even prove that he exists you can't possibly know what he's like.
And you believe this story. So you are doing exactly the same thing to yourself that I did in the Pierce Brosnan episode. I told you a story that I had no way of knowing if it was true or not (I could not prove it) and fooled you into believing it.
You tell yourself a story you can not prove and even admit that "nobody can." This time it is you who are fooling yourself.
You can't come back and say "well, you can't prove that there isn't a God." That would be as silly as when I said that I couldn't prove that Pierce Brosnan wasn't going to your house and used it as an excuse to say that he was.

Biff-No one in the history of the world has ever even seen anything supernatural.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amie--Now how on earth could you possibly know that???

Because there is no supernatural to see. It's nothing but a fiction.
Feel free to prove me wrong. You can thumb your nose at me as you cash the Amazing Randi's million dollar check. But so far all you have about the supernatural are poorly written stories and not facts.

Amie · 12-11-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
I'd bet my soul on it.

wow

Quote:

You can't prove it and yet you still believe, therefore you are fooling yourself.

sorry dear try again. I am not fooling myself by believing in God.
I enjoyed your parallel though...

Quote:

Because there is no supernatural to see. It's nothing but a fiction.

you claimed no one in history has seen any supernatural though, again you don't "know".
you merely believe that to be the case based on your own personal perceptions and subjective interpretations...
"No one in history" pretty big claim you've got there darling...

Quote:

Feel free to prove me wrong. You can thumb your nose at me as you cash the Amazing Randi's million dollar check. But so far all you have about the supernatural are poorly written stories and not facts.

yeah I could use the money right about now...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2002, 09:39 AM	#81
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You're correct, sir.

12-11-2002, 09:58 AM	#82
Polar Bear Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 40	thanks, Objective T, for clarifying my original point. You're right. Also, one has to wonder ... if miraculous healing really does occur, how come churches don't set up free trips to the healing sites for the faithful? What a great service that would be. Instead of wasting all that money on building hospitals and such, they could just organize free trips to Lourdes or wherever. No more wasting time and money waiting on speculative "scientific" cures -- just send the faithful to lay their hands upon the holy This or the sacred That.

12-11-2002, 10:05 AM	#83
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	paraphrased from the James Randi Foundation's Testing Facility--For me to believe someone could perform a miracle, they must be able to demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations. 1. They must state clearly in advance, and they and I will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. 2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. I consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. I have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide me with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 3.No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. 4. THEY MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. They must descibe what will constitute the demonstration. PLEASE: Do not burden me with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! I am only interested in an actual demonstration. NOTE: No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted, without mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. (No one has EVER passed such a test).

12-11-2002, 03:58 PM	#89
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	you have no doubt that I am fooling myself? hmm you seem pretty confident there... I'd bet my soul on it. In fact, according to some, I already have please show me the exact statement you are referring to. If I "thought" I was fooling myself I would not believe. That's easy enough because you repeat it in the next sentence I can not prove God's existence, nobody can... There you go. You can't prove it and yet you still believe, therefore you are fooling yourself. Let's say --to make this clearer for you-- that I was going to fool you. "Hey Amie," I say, "better hurry up and go home and put on your best clothes. Pierce Brosnan is coming over to visit you." If you believe my story and act on it we can say that I have fooled you. So what is it that constitutes me fooling you. Most important is that I have no information about Mr Brosnan's comings and goings at all. Do I know that he his going to your house? Absolutely not. If I had proof of what he was doing I wouldn't actually be fooling you I'd be giving you actual information. Can I prove that he isn't going to your house? No, however the probability of him doing that is very, very close to zero. I fooled you because I gave you information that I don't posses and you believed me. Now you say that "I can not prove God's existence, nobody can" You are saying that you do not have the information that God exists. But you are telling yourself that God exists--even more than that, you have a story you tell yourself about his personality and his likes and dislikes. If you can't even prove that he exists you can't possibly know what he's like. And you believe this story. So you are doing exactly the same thing to yourself that I did in the Pierce Brosnan episode. I told you a story that I had no way of knowing if it was true or not (I could not prove it) and fooled you into believing it. You tell yourself a story you can not prove and even admit that "nobody can." This time it is you who are fooling yourself. You can't come back and say "well, you can't prove that there isn't a God." That would be as silly as when I said that I couldn't prove that Pierce Brosnan wasn't going to your house and used it as an excuse to say that he was. Biff-No one in the history of the world has ever even seen anything supernatural. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amie--Now how on earth could you possibly know that??? Because there is no supernatural to see. It's nothing but a fiction. Feel free to prove me wrong. You can thumb your nose at me as you cash the Amazing Randi's million dollar check. But so far all you have about the supernatural are poorly written stories and not facts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.