A question for atheists

[Anim8]

Most of the people I know at least in some way believe in God, it wasn’t until recently that I had ever encountered an atheist. It was really weird because their train of thought is almost completely alien to me. Anyways I got to thinking about that and I was wondering. What do you guys think about miracles? I mean not just the ones in the bible, but the ones we can see today (eg. The shroud of Turin, Our Lady of Guadalupe ect.). What is your take on these things?

 

[Flopfoot]

From what I know atheists say all miracles are either myths or can be scientifically explained. Basically they don’t believe they are miracles.

If an atheist witnessed a miracle first-hand (say, Fatima) they would be more likely to convert. But if an atheist just hears about Fatima, they can say many things - that you’re making it up, or that the people who testified to it were mad, or it was an optical illusion, or that people made it up to try and prove God, or for some other agenda. After all, there are some people who don’t believe that the Holocaust really happened (and there is tons of evidence saying that it did). People don’t believe everything they are told.

 

[Anim8]

Flopfoot:

From what I know atheists say all miracles are either myths or can be scientifically explained. Basically they don’t believe they are miracles.

If an atheist witnessed a miracle first-hand (say, Fatima) they would be more likely to convert. But if an atheist just hears about Fatima, they can say many things - that you’re making it up, or that the people who testified to it were mad, or it was an optical illusion, or that people made it up to try and prove God, or for some other agenda. After all, there are some people who don’t believe that the Holocaust really happened (and there is tons of evidence saying that it did). People don’t believe everything they are told.

That’s what I thought, but what about miracles that they can see for themselves, and ones science has admitted it cannot explain? Like the ones I mentioned above.

-EDIT-

It seems I posted this in the wrong forum…sorry

 

[thistle]

Anim8:

That’s what I thought, but what about miracles that they can see for themselves, and ones science has admitted it cannot explain? Like the ones I mentioned above.

-EDIT-

It seems I posted this in the wrong forum…sorry

To an atheist there is no such thing as a miracle. Even something that can’t be explained now they say will be explained naturally or scientifically at some stage.

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

Flopfoot:

If an atheist witnessed a miracle first-hand (say, Fatima) they would be more likely to convert. QUOTE]

Remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man asked to go back to warn his brothers. Abraham said that even if a man were to rise from the dead, they would not believe.

Atheists deny the existance of God. Their whole existance is based on denial, discrediting and dismissing = DDD. They believe in nothing, trust in nothing and have nothing to look forward to. The only thing they believe in is a contrarian life disaggreeing with everything around them.

What would make someone be and act like this? Are they so afraid that maybe they are responsible to their Maker for their actions they would DDD everything? Accountability is a scary thing to the atheist.

 

[Nullasalus]

Ted CharlotteNC:

Flopfoot:

What would make someone be and act like this? Are they so afraid that maybe they are responsible to their Maker for their actions they would DDD everything? Accountability is a scary thing to the atheist.

I’ve seen some atheists who fall into that category. But I believe for a large number, they simply don’t want to feel as if they’re lying to themselves. Faith is a worrying prospect, and can be misplaced.

 

[Hitetlen]

It is almost impossible to answer this, it is so incorrect.
Ted CharlotteNC:

Atheists deny the existance of God.

There are two levels of atheism: “weak” and “strong”. Weak atheists say that they don’t see any reason to believe in a “god” or they never heard of this concept, or are unable to comprehend the concept of a “god” (this includes all children who are too young). Strong atheists say that the concept of “god” is incoherent and/or contradictory, so they explicitly deny the existence of a “god”.
Ted CharlotteNC:

Their whole existance is based on denial, discrediting and dismissing = DDD. They believe in nothing, trust in nothing and have nothing to look forward to.

This is total BS. Atheists believe in many things and trust many things.
Ted CharlotteNC:

The only thing they believe in is a contrarian life disaggreeing with everything around them.

More BS…
Ted CharlotteNC:

What would make someone be and act like this? Are they so afraid that maybe they are responsible to their Maker for their actions they would DDD everything? Accountability is a scary thing to the atheist.

And some more BS. I am really disappointed to see such an incredible set of misconceptions.

Now to reply to Anim8:

What is your take on these things?

There are some good observations by the other posters. I can add a few things.

In order for something to be considered a true “miracle” it is necessary that this phenomenon would be impossible to explain by natural causes. And I mean not just now at our level of knowledge and understanding, but truly inexplicable now and forever - impossible to explain in principle.

To say that: one would need omniscience, full knowledge of everything, not just our current knowledge, but everything we shall ever know about nature in the future. Obviously that is an impossibility, we are not omniscient and never will be. Therefore even to call something a “true miracle” is intrinsically incorrect.

Now what to do about things we cannot explain as of yet? Nothing, but increase our knowledge. But the number of these things is miniscule if there are any at all. Anyhing can can be recreated by natural means (stage magicians) is “ab ovo” not a miracle. The “Shroud of Turin” has been proven not to be as old as it was claimed.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Hitetlin

*There are two levels of atheism: “weak” and “strong”. Weak atheists say that they don’t see any reason to believe in a “god” or they never heard of this concept, or are unable to comprehend the concept of a “god” (this includes all children who are too young). *
**
This also is an incredible misconception.

Children may never have heard of democracy. Does that make them aristocrats?

 

[Hitetlen]

Gilbert Keith:

Hitetlin

*There are two levels of atheism: “weak” and “strong”. Weak atheists say that they don’t see any reason to believe in a “god” or they never heard of this concept, or are unable to comprehend the concept of a “god” (this includes all children who are too young). *

This also is an incredible misconception.

Children may never have heard of democracy. Does that make them aristocrats?

No, it makes them ignorant. The word: “theist” designates someone who believes in a “god”, the word “a-theist” means someone who does not believe in a god. These words designate the **presence **or absence of a belief - nothing more, nothing less. Grammar and linguistics sure rule, don’t they?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

The word: “theist” designates someone who believes in a “god”, the word “a-theist” means someone who does not believe in a god.

No, the word atheist means one who believes there is no God. It is a deliberate conscious position, not a position of ignorance.

 

[Hitetlen]

The word: “theist” designates someone who believes in a “god”, the word “a-theist” means someone who does not believe in a god.

No, the word atheist means one who believes there is no God. It is a deliberate conscious position, not a position of ignorance.

That is only your opinion. Linguists disagree.

Lack of belief does not equal the denial of something. This is the difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism. But this is not the subject of this thread, so let’s try not to derail it. If you are interested, open another thread about it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

You opened the door. Now you want to slam it shut.

Your position is really too ludicrous to be discussed any further. You would have us believe that all children are born atheists because they are ignorant of God?

Please!

 

[Anim8]

Hitetlen:

The “Shroud of Turin” has been proven not to be as old as it was claimed.

If you are referring to the carbon 14 testing in 1988 it can hardly be trusted because of the fire (I don’t remember when the fire happened, sometime in the middle ages I believe). The fire would have released carbon from other objects and then the carbon would have settled onto the shroud.

Also the shroud was repaired and the dye from that repare job would have effected the testing.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html

The only real reason I asked (not looking to start a debate) was because science has no way of explaining them. Take for example the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. How could a man (especially back then) have created such a thing? There is no sign of paint or dye of any kind on the image. The cloth itself was changed somehow. And the level of detail is far too accurate for anyone of that time. I doubt anyone could even replicate it today. The image for example in her eye that reflects the room in which the image was shown to the bishop. Or the stars (I think are on her robe) that show the exact position of the stars on the exact day when the image supposedly appeared. I just wasn’t sure if atheists had an opinion, or just dismissed them without giving them a second thought.

 

[MonicaC]

Hitetlen:

That is only your opinion. Linguists disagree.

Lack of belief does not equal the denial of something. This is the difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism. But this is not the subject of this thread, so let’s try not to derail it. If you are interested, open another thread about it.

Your defination sounds alot more like agnostic, not atheistic.

 

[Hitetlen]

MonicaC:

Your defination sounds alot more like agnostic, not atheistic.

Atheism refers to metaphysics (what exists?), while agnosticism refers to epistemology (how do we gain knowledge about reality?). Theism does not mean “knowledge” that a god exists, it just means that someone believes in a “god”.

Some people say that it is impossible to “know” if a god exists, but they nevertheless believe in one. These are “agnostic theists”. Others say that it is impossible to know if a god exists, and therefore they don’t believe in a god. These are “agnostic atheists”.

The term “agnostic” is an incorrect metaphysical term.
Gilbert Keith:

You would have us believe that all children are born atheists because they are ignorant of God?

Yep, they are implicit as opposed to explicit atheists. And no, they are not “evil” just because their mind is not mature yet to even comprehend the concept of a “god”. Small children are unable to believe anything under a certain age. Your objection is an emotinal one: “how dare I say that a sweet, innocent child is an evil atheist?”.

By the way, I bet you are an atheist, too, when it comes to Zeus, Jupiter, Isis, Zoroaster, Brahma, or millions of other gods. Since you don’t beleive in them you are also an atheist in that regard.

Anim8:

How could a man (especially back then) have created such a thing?

I am not familiar with the details, but that is not impossible. The people who built Stonehenge were “primitive” by today’s standards, but their observations were astonishingly accurate and precise. No need to presume “divine” interventions or miracles.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

“how dare I say that a sweet, innocent child is an evil atheist?”.

Now you are making up straw arguments as you go along.

Who in this forum ever referred to a child as an “evil atheist”? These are your words, not anyone else’s.

 

[Hitetlen]

“how dare I say that a sweet, innocent child is an evil atheist?”.

Now you are making up straw arguments as you go along.

Who in this forum ever referred to a child as an “evil atheist”? These are your words, not anyone else’s.

I was just joking not serious!!!

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

“how dare I say that a sweet, innocent child is an evil atheist?”.

Now you are making up straw arguments as you go along.

Who in this forum ever referred to a child as an “evil atheist”? These are your words, not anyone else’s.

Pax vobiscum!

Atheists love strawmen, in my experience. They also love to do two things when arguing (again, this is in my experience talking with them): act like they are intellectually superior to you, using as many big words as they possibly can (even to the point of making no sense), and ending rational discussion with generalizations and simple dismissal of any evidence to support the existance of God.

Take one conversation I had on another site, for example. A woman on there claimed that she teaches college level Irish history and then went on to cite Martin Luther as the cause of the Troubles in the North. English imperialism is the cause of the Troubles, not the Protestant Reformation (Irish resistance to English rule had been going on for hundreds of years before Martin Luther was even born). She tried to establish herself as my intellectual superior by listing some phony credentials and didn’t bother to find out that I am a history major and full-blooded Irish. Then I was talking about miracles. She simply told me that anyone who claimed they had witnessed a miracle was either hysterical or a liar. She told me that my friend, her co-workers, and many residents in an assisted living center who had heard a ghost in an empty room where a woman had died were all either hysterical or liars. She didn’t want to have a rational discussion about it. Then came the strawman–she told me that the sky was purple with pink pokadots and if I told her it wasn’t then I was calling her a liar. Wow.

Every atheist I have ever spoken or conversed with has not simply “not believed” in God. They have believed that there is no God and that everyone who believes in God is weak-minded and afraid of reality. Agnostics are not like that usually, which is why what you have been describing, Hitetlen, sounds like agnosticism. Now I’m not saying all atheists are like this, mind you, just all the ones I have spoken with.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

Sorry I offended you and your massive intellect and prompted you to abbreviate obsentaties on this forum. For that I am truly sorry. May God have mercy on me.

 

[coyote]

At the risk of severly offending someone I still must say…

Hitetlen,
Why cast pearls before swine?
Some dogs just contine to chase their own tails.