Atheism and the Church

[R2D2]

Just so we’re clear, my first post (#172) was only to inform that the “amputee” question was already discussed previously.

I think I’ve already PROVED my point that God does not discriminate with His miracles (that was ALL of my point) based on the “Sunday School fables” (your words not mine). Whether the testimonies are true or false (scientifically) is another discussion, and would reach the limit of my knowledge.

Post #3 from that thread (more accurately, #1721844) was from username [runandsew]. The poster was telling a story about John Traynor.

What you’re really asking me is to perform a miracle. Both of us know that I can not.

By the way, is it okay if we don’t call each other names, or at least not be condescending to one another?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Just so we’re clear, my first post (#172) was only to inform that the “amputee” question was already discussed previously.

“Discussion” is not the same as “proven.”

I think I’ve already PROVED my point that God does not discriminate with His miracles (that was ALL of my point) based on the “Sunday School fables” (your words not mine). Whether the testimonies are true or false (scientifically) is another discussion, and would reach the limit of my knowledge.

To “prove” a point takes a great deal more than the simple belief that something happened.

If I told you I believed (and could quote stories from the past) of space aliens coming to earth and regenerating people’s limbs, you would think I was a loon. Why should I believe that some supernatural being does the same?

If you can bring me proof that is accepted by both the scientific and medical communities, then I will certainly reconsider my position! However, I have been a nurse for going on 30 years now and I have never seen nor heard of spontaneous limb regeneration, whether attributed to a god or not.

What you’re really asking me is to perform a miracle. Both of us know that I can not.

Miracles do not exist, they are simply events that, at this moment in time, cannot be easily explained.

If I took the knowledge of modern medicine back to the time of the Black Plague and started healing people, it would be “a miracle.”

No. It would be the understanding of both the germ and viral theories.

By the way, is it okay if we don’t call each other names, or at least not be condescending to one another

I have looked over or correspondence. I do not see any “name calling” of any sort.

 

[R2D2]

“Discussion” is not the same as “proven.” .

But that is exactly the only point that I’m making. I am only informing the posters in this thread that it has already been discussed.

To “prove” a point takes a great deal more than the simple belief that something happened.

Again, I was trying to “prove” that God does not discriminate in His miracles.

If I told you I believed (and could quote stories from the past) of space aliens coming to earth and regenerating people’s limbs, you would think I was a loon. Why should I believe that some supernatural being does the same?

If you can bring me proof that is accepted by both the scientific and medical communities, then I will certainly reconsider my position! However, I have been a nurse for going on 30 years now and I have never seen nor heard of spontaneous limb regeneration, whether attributed to a god or not.

Again, I was trying to “prove” that God does not discriminate in His miracles.

Miracles do not exist, they are simply events that, at this moment in time, cannot be easily explained.

That’s your belief, not mine. And I’m not in any way trying to persuade you otherwise.

If I took the knowledge of modern medicine back to the time of the Black Plague and started healing people, it would be “a miracle.”

No. It would be the understanding of both the germ and viral theories.

Agreed.

I have looked over or correspondence. I do not see any “name calling” of any sort

Calling me a “supernatural mystic” even though you do not believe in anything supernatural or mystical is condescending, As used, it is a “name call”. And honestly, if I have the ability to leave reality I would.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

But that is exactly the only point that I’m making. I am only informing the posters in this thread that it has already been discussed.

To what end?

Again, I was trying to “prove” that God does not discriminate in His miracles.

Again, you failed.

Again, I was trying to “prove” that God does not discriminate in His miracles.

Again, you failed.

Calling me a “supernatural mystic” even though you do not believe in anything supernatural or mystical is condescending, As used, it is a “name call”. And honestly, if I have the ability to leave reality I would.

Mystic: The pursuit of achieving communion identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.

---

Supernatural: ***Pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained from the laws of the natural world. Religious miracles are typical of such “supernatural” manifestations

Which of these do not describe your belief system?

 

[R2D2]

To what end?

That the subject has been discussed, previously.

Again, you failed.

In your opinion, since you do not believe in miracles.

Again, you failed.

In your opinion, since you do not believe in miracles and will never believe in one.

Mystic: The pursuit of achieving communion identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.

***Supernatural: ***Pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained from the laws of the natural world. Religious miracles are typical of such “supernatural” manifestations

Which of these do not describe your belief system?

A mystic is a follower of mysticism (which you defined above). I am not a mystic. I’m simply a theist. Your definition of supernatural is accurate.

But sir, my objection is the use and tone (condescendingly) of the (above) words you use on your posts.

Does did mean we are not going to have a pleasant (both ways) discussion about atheism/theism?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

That the subject has been discussed, previously.

A circular argument.

In your opinion, since you do not believe in miracles.

A circular argument.

In your opinion, since you do not believe in miracles and will never believe in one.

A circular argument AND a unknowable prediction.

A mystic is a follower of mysticism (which you defined above). I am not a mystic. I’m simply a theist. Your definition of supernatural is accurate.

…or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.] A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic, from the Greek (mysteria).

But sir, my objection is the use and tone (condescendingly) of the (above) words you use on your posts.

One cannot decipher tone, nor intent, simply through text. And my “intent” was to state that you 1) are a believer in the supernatural (God) and 2) practice such beliefs (mysticism). Nothing more.

Does did mean we are not going to have a pleasant (both ways) discussion about atheism/theism?

I always enjoy talking about theology (just ask TR!)

 

[R2D2]

A circular argument.

I think not, but if you say so…

A circular argument.

I think not, but if you say so…

A circular argument AND a unknowable prediction.

…not unknowable, just highly improbable.

…or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.] A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic, from the Greek (mysteria).

From Merriam-Webbster
Mysticism:
Function: noun
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

I’m not trying to do all that stuff. Like I said, I’m not a mystic nor supernatural and certainly not a supernatural mystic.

One cannot decipher tone, nor intent, simply through text. And my “intent” was to state that you 1) are a believer in the supernatural (God) and 2) practice such beliefs (mysticism). Nothing more.

Well, if I was mistaken that you were being condescending, then I can only offer my apologies. It is difficult to discern what you mean when stating that I’m a supernatural mystic and I should go back to reality.

As I stated above, I do not practice mysticism and I’m not a supernatural being. Therefore, I am not a supernatural mystic and do not desire to be labeled as one.

I always enjoy talking about theology (just ask TR!)

That’s why I was reading this thread, and hopefully [TR] and other posters in this forum will concur.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

I think not, but if you say so…

I think not, but if you say so…

Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: “If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most cast-iron rigor”. In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

…not unknowable, just highly improbable.

Don’t be so quick to align the word “miracle” with religion. The word miracle is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning “something wonderful.”

The term “miracle” may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term “divine intervention”, by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

In casual usage, “miracle” may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even to anything which is regarded as “wonderful” regardless of its likelihood, such as birth.

From Merriam-Webbster
Mysticism:
Function: noun
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

I’m not trying to do all that stuff. Like I said, I’m not a mystic nor supernatural and certainly not a supernatural mystic.

You are both.

You believe in a God (a supernatural being) [2: : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (i.e. “belief”)

You postulate [3: b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power (i.e. “God”)

Both from your posted terminology. It’s not a BAD thing. I’m not saying you’re a warlock R2D2, but it IS the correct terminology for a theist.

Well, if I was mistaken that you were being condescending, then I can only offer my apologies. It is difficult to discern what you mean when stating that I’m a supernatural mystic and I should go back to reality.

Well, you must admit, nothing from that link strengthens your case (i.e. prove that limb regeneration has been achieved, either WITH or WITHOUT the help of God.)
R2D2;2759691:

As I stated above, I do not practice mysticism and I’m not a supernatural being. Therefore, I am not a supernatural mystic and do not desire to be labeled as one.

All theists practice mysticism. However, it’s usually called “religion”. And no, YOU are not a supernatural being, but God is (i.e. beyond the natural realm. Super+natural)

That’s why I was reading this thread, and hopefully [TR] and other posters in this forum will concur.

TR and I are addressing the morality issue.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Getting back to the earlier discussion in which we were at your point of view that morals were a learned behavior standard but mothering was an innate behavior. I am hoping you can elaborate on what is and is not innate. And also how you know what is and is not innate.

BTW 3____a is from post #163
____a) Men with decent intentions acting poorly in an unknowing manner, this is really a form of ignorance

Also amputees are not morally defective, thus they do not need cured.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Getting back to the earlier discussion in which we were at your point of view that morals were a learned behavior standard but mothering was an innate behavior. I am hoping you can elaborate on what is and is not innate. And also how you know what is and is not innate.

Hey TR,

I thought I’d lost you there for a minute.

It’s 5 am here, so I’m off to bed!

I’ll return and take it up from here tomorrow.

Also amputees are not morally defective, thus they do not need cured.

Mentally, no. Physically, yes. My point is that God (supposedly) provides medical “miracles” all of the time, but not to amputees.

But let’s save that argument for another time and move back to OUR discussion.

See you tomorrow.

Michael

 

[dolphinlove]

Hey TR,

I thought I’d lost you there for a minute.

It’s 5 am here, so I’m off to bed!

I’ll return and take it up from here tomorrow.

Mentally, no. Physically, yes. My point is that God (supposedly) provides medical “miracles” all of the time, but not to amputees.

But let’s save that argument for another time and move back to OUR discussion.

See you tomorrow.

Michael

You havent been banned yet?
See, miracles do happen!

 

[Montalban]

You havent been banned yet?
See, miracles do happen!

 

[dolphinlove]

I just couldnt help myself.
I thought pointing out God’s miracles would help this poor lad.

 

[R2D2]

Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: “If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most cast-iron rigor”. In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

How many times do I have to state that I am merely pointing out that the subject of amputees have been discussed in another thread? Can you not understand that I am not arguing with you in regards the veracity of the testimonies in that thread? It seems it’s a pretty simple concept to understand without being overtly pendantic.

As far as my argument is concerned, here’s a simplified version:

Premise 1: Atheist by (by definition) do not believe or have a lack of belief in a diety or god(s)

Premise 2: God can perform miracles (or a god can perform miracles)

Conclusion: Therefore an atheist do not believe in miracles attributable to God (or god, diety, etc.). (from premise 1 and 2)

Stephen Barker would agree that that is not circular, and thus a valid argument.

Don’t be so quick to align the word “miracle” with religion. The word miracle is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning “something wonderful.”

The term “miracle” may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term “divine intervention”, by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

This is a Catholic forum, therefore aligning miracles to God is always assumed.

In casual usage, “miracle” may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even to anything which is regarded as “wonderful” regardless of its likelihood, such as birth.

Agreed.

You are both.

Certainly not.

You believe in a God (a supernatural being) [2: : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (i.e. “belief”)

You added i.e. “belief”, should be “as intuition or insight”.

You postulate [3: b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power (i.e. “God”)

Again I do not

Both from your posted terminology. It’s not a BAD thing. I’m not saying you’re a warlock R2D2, but it IS the correct terminology for a theist.

Well, you must admit, nothing from that link strengthens your case (i.e. prove that limb regeneration has been achieved, either WITH or WITHOUT the help of God.)

All theists practice mysticism. However, it’s usually called “religion”. And no, YOU are not a supernatural being, but God is (i.e. beyond the natural realm. Super+natural)

TR and I are addressing the morality issue.
[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[R2D2]

Continued from above.

Both from your posted terminology. It’s not a BAD thing. I’m not saying you’re a warlock R2D2, but it IS the correct terminology for a theist.

While I agree that it is not a bad thing to be a supernatural mystic, however, if you attach that comment to the phrase “let’s get back to reality”, it gives a different meaning.

Well, you must admit, nothing from that link strengthens your case (i.e. prove that limb regeneration has been achieved, either WITH or WITHOUT the help of God.)

Again look at the summary of my argument above. My orginal post was predicated with the acronym 'FYI’, and therefore should only be taken as informational, not argumentative.

All theists practice mysticism.

Not all. That is your generalization.

However, it’s usually called “religion”. And no, YOU are not a supernatural being, but God is (i.e. beyond the natural realm. Super+natural)

Agreed.

TR and I are addressing the morality issue.

I hope you have a good one.

As for me I have to bow out. I’m going to subscribe to another thread. Implicit from the other posters here I am beggining to suspect that they had an unpleasant experience with you.

May you be well and happy.

 

[Sixtus]

, most thieves & criminals out there have religion, many are catholics. reminds me of the Godfather.

You are basing your opinion of Catholicism on drama?

I think that is a very inaccurate statement to make and cannot in my experience be applied to the general population.

Catholics that I know are very caring, kind, loving people who go around their everyday tasks looking for vulnerable people to befriend and assist.

The also go around using every occasion in their lives to give praise, glory and thanks to Almighty God.

Go to Mass as often as possible. Devote time every day to reading the Sacred Scriptures and other Holy Books and inspired writings, prayer and meditation.

Catholics in my experience tend to work in jobs or perform social roles such as education, welfare, nursing and are active in the voluntary sector of charity work

They also tend to be members of organisations such as SVP, KSC, CWL, Life, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children-and are outspoken critics of abortion and exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.

They also appear to have a finely tuned conscience with which they live in harmony for most of the time, which indicate that they are not particularly disturbed by guilt.

In business, I am amazed at the good reputations for honest business among practicing Catholics that I am aware of.

There are always those who appear not to practice their faith in their everyday lives. I am sure that applies to elements within every parish and among all denoms but in the main, the Catholics that I know work hard to make Christ a reality to other peoples lives.

Athiests in my experience put self first, loved ones second and all else including God third or not at all. Catholics by contrast tend to put God first, neighbour second and self third.

It is hardly surprising that Wild Eyed Athiest has never met God, nor witnessed a miraculous intervention or mystical encounter with the Risen Christ.

In my hard experience, a pre-requisite is the recognition that whatever we think of ourselves, before the unfathomable, loving awesome uncreated Almighty God, we are as nothing and have nothing to boast.

Coming before Him in humility He does indeed exhalt us and lift us up to a status unbecoming of our insignificant relationship to Him and higher orders of creation.

It is not WHAT we ask but HOW we ask that largely determines the degree of His intervention. This unworthy wretch knows only too well and has throughout my entire life witnessed many many interventions by His awesome and gentle love for creation.

 

[Sixtus]

One thing that stands out to me in the contributions to this thread is the contributions from non-Christians which are conspicous by their absence of love and respect by Attack, aggression and lack of love.

By contrast the responses by my sisters and brothers in faith are evident by their gentleness, lack of personal attack and lack of aggression.

I think that is all that needs be said about the differences between the two opposing view-points.

I guess that sums up the core differences between athiesm and the Church of Christ.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

How many times do I have to state that I am merely pointing out that the subject of amputees have been discussed in another thread? Can you not understand that I am not arguing with you in regards the veracity of the testimonies in that thread? It seems it’s a pretty simple concept to understand without being overtly pedantic.

You have made this statement many, many times now, and I am still unsure as to WHY you think it has a purpose. One could state that MANY subjects have been previously discussed in other threads, but once again, what would be the purpose? Why even make the statement? Your logic eludes me.

As far as my argument is concerned, here’s a simplified version:

Premise 1: Atheist by (by definition) do not believe or have a lack of belief in a deity or god(s)

Agreed.

Premise 2: God can perform miracles (or a god can perform miracles)

Disagreed. The Purple Unicorn is the only being able to perform miracles.

Conclusion: Therefore an atheist do not believe in miracles attributable to God (or god, diety, etc.). (from premise 1 and 2)

True. Atheists do not believe in god(s), therefore are unable to believe a miracle can be attributed to a being that does not exist.

Stephen Barker would agree that that is not circular, and thus a valid argument.

And nevertheless, it is untrue, as you have amply illustrated.

This is a Catholic forum, therefore aligning miracles to God is always assumed.

Most assuredly agreed. I simply wished to point out to you that the word is not inclusively religious.

Certainly not.

You most certainly are, your own definition proved it to be so.

You added i.e. “belief”, should be “as intuition or insight”.

You do NOT believe in a God?

Again I do not

You do NOT believe in the power of God?

You are going around in circles here, my friend. Do you have anything else you wish to discuss?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

[While I agree that it is not a bad thing to be a supernatural mystic, however, *if you attach that comment to the phrase “let’s get back to reality”, it gives a different meaning.

Perhaps. However, your post reportedly refuting my assertion was baseless, and if you will forgive me, yet another religious fallacy.

Again look at the summary of my argument above. My original post was predicated with the acronym 'FYI’, and therefore should only be taken as informational, not argumentative.

Again, I don’t understand why you think this information would be of use to anyone in the discussion. These same questions have been debated on the internet for YEARS. I would hope that everyone already knows this information.

Not all. That is your generalization.

Disprove it and I will concede the point.

I hope you have a good one.

And you my friend.

As for me I have to bow out. I’m going to subscribe to another thread. Implicit from the other posters here I am beginning to suspect that they had an unpleasant experience with you.

I wonder why.

May you be well and happy.

And you.

 

[Bishopite]

[WildEyedAtheist;2746029]
1.) Moral(s) are defined by a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
**

Which one of these groups holds to the correct “code of conduct?”