HelenM

And...show me a decapitated man and I'd have no trouble believing that someone claiming to be a Christian did it, and felt entirely justified in doing it, because he believed that God wanted him to.

Anyone who posts here with any sort of regularity can't seriously claim to ignore the issue - but I think I understand what you are saying...

love
Helen

Jayhawker Soule

Science has been so extraordinarilly effective in eroding the domain of god as to fully warrant the presumption against theism. And it is precisely the insistence on natural causes that drives science to repeatedly search for and find those causes. The bottom line is: when in doubt, doubt, don't pray.

Jayhawker Soule

Andrew,

I wonder if you would briefly define your theism. Specifically, what are your views on Baal, JHWH, Kali, and Zeus? I'd also be interested in the results of your open-mindedness when it comes to astrology and past life regression. Finally, where do you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate? Thanks.

Ted Hoffman

It still remains that "supernatural" is just a viewpoint. It is not a fact that supernatural events occur, even when they do, they are just stuff we cannot explain or we have never experienced before.

Who are we to decide what is and is not supernatural? "Supernatural" was primitive mans name for the "unexplainable/ incomprehensible".

Even if God rose me from the Dead, why should I worship him? The reward and punishment mentality (primitive mans way of thinking) is the driving force of all religions. And I find it simply disgracefully childish and simpleminded.

So NO andrew, for me what U classify as a miracle would just be evidence of two things:
a) A more "able" force compared to me
b) Some unexplained/ unknown phenomena

Even if it were God, he'd have to do more than break rules he created.

As someone said earlier, reality doesnt need to be worshipped. Just to be scrutinized and to be understood.

And reality doesn't go away or play hide and seek games. Its consistent and unchanging.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Panta Pei

More dishonesty from Andrew and a complete disregard of the posts from people who, in all sincerity, could not discern if his 'sworn and notarized' ruse was an authentic claim or not and were open minded enough to demand his proof or clarification on the issue.

Note the more focused posts after he admits it was all a hypothetical ploy so that he could posit the falsehood that there is a belief system of 'naturalism' in order to refute the 'strawman' system or chastise those he purports are its disciples.

Again, a simple reflection of the close-minded theist mind regarding what is a mere non-belief in their fairy tales and superstition.

He poses the tired xtian assertion:

"In fact though many atheists characterize themselves as being open minded and objective in reality they defend the belief system of naturalism to almost preposterous degree (invoking aliens for instance) while rejecting any other explanation as even possible. Is this the signature of open mindedness?"

Aliens are preposterous to this 'open-minded' theist, yet, biblical fables must be considered factual

Let me get this right, atheists expect to be able to explore all claims through honest inquiry, but they are close minded.

Yet, theists believe the most outlandish absurdities based on 'faith' in the face of natural reality, but they are to be considered open minded.

Utter nonsense

The fact is that science is open to criticism and free, open minded inquiry, which is the opposite of religion. Religion condemns you in all manner of dishonest ways if you subject it to criticism.

Andrew and many like him (jojo-sa Islam) portray this position very well.

Keep 'challenging atheism', Andrew, or at least your version of it.

After all, it will keep you from stating exactly what you believe in order for us to review your level of open mindedness regarding facts and evidence

~ Steve

HelenM

Hi jaliet

Ok, if reality is consistent and unchanging then how can things happen that we've never experienced before or cannot explain? Are these statements of yours, that I quoted back (not the whole post, I know - I hope you don't mind), consistent with one another?

Is this how to reconcile them: that although you allow in theory for the possibility of the unexplainable/never-before experienced, in reality that never really does happen? Or, not in a way that is not explainable afterwards?

Do things happen which cannot be explained?

If so, what ought our response to be? (If anything?)

love
Helen

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Getting back to the miracle issue, there is one assumption always left out of miracle definitions: the event is morally good. One only hears of miracles of healing; one never hears of miracles of death.

For example, many years ago, I read an interesting book about the Chief of Detectives in NYC. Although I have forgotten the exact details, two men were out on the water shooting at cans. A bullet from their rifle hit the can, and ricocheted. The bullet continued to travel until it had reached the limit of its range. There it entered a car window that was only open a slit -- if the window had been closed, the bullet, almost spent, would have bounced off -- and entered a woman's temple, killing her instantly. Now why wasn't that a miracle of evil? We can all think of similar amazing bad things happening...

Michael

babelfish

turtonm, I read about that same case in Reader's Digest quite a few years ago. There is also the recent case up here in the northeast, I believe, where a drunk driver plowed into another car which, miraculously, was being driven by his own mother! (She was killed, sadly.)

Since so many people on this thread seem to be saying that they would be utterly convinced of the existence of God if they were presented with a case of someone who lived after being decapitated, I thought I would help out Andrew Theist in his quest to convert you. Here is an authentic case of <a href="http://members.tripod.com/earthdude1/headless_chicken/mike.html" target="_blank">someone who lived after he was decapitated.</a>

Jayhawker Soule

The assertion of dishonesty seems unfortunate and, on the face of it, unwarranted.

You write ...

You make a sarcastic generalization about theists which you support by a generalization about religion (the two being somewhat different) and then castigate your opponent as being characteristic of "this position". Are you willing to paint folks such as George Washington, Alfred North Whitehead, and Martin Grdner with the same brush, or is Andrew somehow uniquely worthy of this diatribe? Perhaps there's some history here of which I'm unaware. If so, forgive my naivete.

Wyrdsmyth

There are theists who deny the existence of free will. And a large number of scientific philosophers argue for soft determinism, which means free will and determinism are somehow compatible. If the free will issue is a "thorn" at all, it is notoriously moreso one to theology than to what you call naturalism.

Saying "free will is evidence for the supernatural" is kind of a let down, and probably isn't going to impress anybody. Philosophers of all stripes and traditions have been arguing over what free will is, and what it isn't, for millenia.