Let me assure you, I am not infuriated that you have a closed mind. I do feel sorry for people who lack spiritual connection. They tend to be cynical, amoral, discontent, and generally unhappy people.
On the contrary, your failed attempts at proselytizing has reduced your posts to little more than juvenile name-calling. It’s really rather stereotypical of fundamentalists to react with pith and vinegar to those who challenge their specious opinions regarding their claims to gods and supernaturalism.
The second example is actually a friend of the family, but let me predict, you will accuse me of lying, because you already have. You see, everything has to be a lie, or fallacy, or subjective, or delusional, so that you can maintain your closed mind. It's what you do!
Your anecdotal claims are unverifiable. What is interesting is that you hope to gloss over the fact that cancers do, in fact, have a rare spontaneous remission rate. But, that aside, how convenient that you have such a story to share. How lucky for your “friend of the family” that the gods have “miraculously” cured his cancer. Too bad that the other 100,000 people per year who die of cancer aren’t so blessed by the gods. Screw them. They deserve to die.
Here again, you’re infuriated that others question and challenge your claims to the supernatural. And, how convenient that anyone who doesn’t accept your specious claims is necessarily worthy only of derision. I understand entirely this perspective of the religious fundamentalist and of course I don't think people would by definition behave worse if there was not a belief in gods.
Look, the fact is, people, A) Behave pretty good most of the time regardless of their religious beliefs, and B) when they behave badly, they can't do much worse than they have as theists anyway. I disagree on how difficult it is to accept gods on faith. From my perspective, people generally do it, and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them.
Why are you talking about god like god is a person?
Because religious folks typically slather their gods with human attributes.
Who said miracles were ancient? They happen daily, all over the planet, and this has happened since ancient times.
Identify for us a single, verifiable account of a “miracle”. I am alternately amused and horrified by the attempts of religious fundamentalists to claim “miracles”. So, When is the last time a “miracle” occurred? Identify for us a verifiable account of something outside of the natural, rational world that we can define as “miraculous”. This is not a question regarding your personal beliefs or desires -- it's about a standard of demonstration and supporting corroboration that establishing something true as opposed to it being mere assertion.
Why would the gods not simply be clear about “miracles” and not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers gods who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.
Why does god now become a plural and belong to me? And how many more miracles would god have to perform for you to stop rejecting them and start believing? Maybe god should zap you with a lightning bolt, so you can find a clue?
What a silly comment. I think it is very obvious that fundamentalists allow themselves to be dragged back to medieval thinking, whether that be due to embracing of fear and superstition or some inherent dynamic connected with a conscious desire of supernaturalists (a lot of the former, a little of the latter I think). That people have a explicit
want to live under an abiding fear of angry gods is astonishing perhaps, but no more or less than that of modern humans still embracing miracles for which there are natural explanations. There's this dynamic of self-deception that goes hand in hand with most of the ancient religious beliefs vs. modern reality, and for the most part such deceptions are harmless.
Well, you have proven, even if this scenario happened, you could find a way to explain it away and continue rejecting god. It would demonstrate nothing to you, and you would claim... meh, happens all the time!
And let's also be clear about this, humans have never had to rationalize spiritual belief, we are intrinsically tied to it. It's actually irrational to hold the belief you claim, as a Nihilist.
I’m under no obligation to accept your claims to invented scenarios of supernatural events and appeals to fear and superstition.
Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
Again, miracles could be happening every second, people could be re-attaching limbs left and right, and it would not matter to you. As we clearly see, you will find a reason to disbelieve, regardless of the evidence. It's what you do!
If people actually were re-attaching their severed limbs left and right, it actually would matter to me. But they’re not… unless of course you can identify that people
actually are re-attaching their severed limbs.
Identify for us a single occurrence.
Thanks.
No, you've already established you don't believe in god, and will come up with whatever skepticism is needed to continue disbelief. It would literally make no difference if god manifested in physical form and came to your house personally to say... look, toots, I am REAL, I do exist! You would still reject god. Your mind is closed to the possibility of god, and you'll find every possible excuse to continue disbelief.
Correct. I don’t believe in any past or current configurations of gods. And yes, I’m as skeptical regarding
your claims to gods and “miracles” for good and valid reasons: you offer nothing but anecdotal claims for your opinions.
Science supports my claims to naturalism. Supernaturalists / theists generally have a difficult time being honest and admitting that science
can't support supernaturalism. But we’re to believe your specious claims simply because you base your conclusions upon an ancient text that has no external corroboration and goes directly against the evidence that does exist?
I do detect a lot of desperation in your posts and in the history of religious thought, which is why you have a lot of instances where religious figures have burned the heretical scientists at the stake. One thing religious views cannot stand is evidence that dismantles their "divine revelation". Gods don't make mistakes. They just sort of... purposely obscure.
I don't think you see how that immediately invalidates any possible authoritative characteristic of your datum. If your position is that people really are, suddenly re-attach their severed limbs, you've got a world where any claim is interchangeable with any other claim. And if you argue from such a level of interchangeability (which you do), then why not simply select that which fits in with the available evidence, which is naturalism? why purposely choose the one that fits the least and remains absent any possible demonstration at its core?
I guarantee, you would NOT be convinced. You would simply point to the fact that such things happen all the time, and aren't miracles, but luck. And why are you again trying to introduce theological belief in place of spirituality? I don't even know what "salvation" means, nor do I give a shit if you ever receive it. I don't think god loves you, I don't even think god cares who you are. God is a spiritual force, why would a spiritual force have human attributes? Why would it "need" for you to do anything? Do the forces of nature require you to believe in them? Do tornadoes care if you think they are real?
I guarantee, your specious claims are dismissible as fantasy and conjecture.
Interesting comment regarding tornadoes, though. Isn’t it your gods who causes tornadoes? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.
Much as theists attach human attributes to their gods, I think it’s pointless to attempt to attach “intent” or human attributes to natural forces.
Nature requires no belief in the supernatural. In fact, the
only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic / supernatural one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead… or people re-attach severed limbs?
Glad I have your permission, I feel so much better about things.
Thanks. I’m always available to pass on some reason and rationality to supernaturalists.
You still haven’t been able to define what “spirituality” is and why you feel a need shield your theism behind a burqa behind it. I have trust in science, medicine, the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.
Now I already conclude I have made my assertion logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists assert?
That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!
If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napolean (to use the cliche)?
