Do sceptics enjoy being sceptics?

[ASimon]

I like the question on this thread. I am curious about how Atheists/skeptics/whatever name you give them attempt to explain miracles? I’m talking about the actual miracles, like the miracles that have happened in Lourdes, France. They have been scientifically reviewed and examined, and have been declared actual miracles. Another great miracle is the bleeding statue of Jesus in Bolivia. That has also been examined many times over, and even been MRI scanned. The results from the scan showed that there was nothing inside of the statue. The DVD science tests faith go very in depth into this. I recommend it to Catholics and atheists. One more to mention the Shroud of Turin is also unexplained in many of it details. I am curious how atheists that are scientists, think they have an explanation for everything and why it happens, cant explain miracles that are documented and examined by other scientists.

There is no such thing as “explaining miracles.” Either we know enough to explain why a particular event happened, or we don’t. But if we don’t, it doesn’t run through to simply call the unexplained event a “miracle.”

 

[atheistgirl]

I like the question on this thread. I am curious about how Atheists/skeptics/whatever name you give them attempt to explain miracles?

I don’t attempt to explain miracles.

Either we can explain something, or we currently can’t in full with our current level of knowledge.

Because we can’t explain something, doesn’t mean a ‘‘miracle’’ has occured.

The miracles I’ve looked at - the dancing sun in the sky at Fatima, the Eucharistic Miracles, and the Shroud, have way too many issues to be ‘‘miracles’’ at least in my mind.

But even so, if a bunch of scientists or doctors said we can’t explain it, that’s exactly what it means, to me anyways - we currently can’t explain it.

Not, it’s a miracle.

Sarah x

 

[Qoeleth]

I truly can’t emphasize strongly enough how utterly deceitful it is to purport that Christ was against asserting distinction (knowingly done or not).

***Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. ***

ProLepanto,

You suggest my interpretation is deceiptful, and you have accused a previous poster of heresy. Rather than jumping to non-evident conclusions, perhaps you should try to suspend judgment (in Sceptical) fashion. Or perhaps you shouldn’t.

Your are at liberty to put forward your own prefered interpretation of Scripture, and your own understanding of orthodoxy. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Nothing can be determined conclusively- except for the goodness, wisdom and supremacy of God, which is an analytical judgment.

Now, if goodness and wisdom can be attributed, with certainty, to God alone, it follows that God alone has undisputed authority and capacity to judge. We are not the judges, but also on equally trial, next to our brothers and sisters and all creation, or so it would seem. Perhaps our judgment is faulty. Perhaps our action in making the judgment is impious.

Therefore, nothing can be determined. All theology is speculative, and the assertion of things ‘dogmatically’ does not demonstrate their necessary truth. But even this may not be asserted dogmatically.

These, at least, are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

In Christ,

Q.

 

[Qoeleth]

ProLepanto,

You suggest my interpretation is deceiptful, and you have accused a previous poster of heresy. Rather than jumping to non-evident conclusions, perhaps you should try to suspend judgment (in Sceptical) fashion. Or perhaps you shouldn’t.

Your are at liberty to put forward your own prefered interpretation of Scripture, and your own understanding of orthodoxy. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Nothing can be determined conclusively- except for the goodness, wisdom and supremacy of God, which is an analytical judgment.

Now, if goodness and wisdom can be attributed, with certainty, to God alone, it follows that God alone has undisputed authority and capacity to judge. We are not the judges, but also on equally trial, next to our brothers and sisters and all creation, or so it would seem. Perhaps our judgment is faulty. Perhaps our action in making the judgment is impious.

Therefore, nothing can be determined. All theology is speculative, and the assertion of things ‘dogmatically’ does not demonstrate their necessary truth. But even this may not be asserted dogmatically.

At least some degree of Scepticism is necessary for faith. If a person says he or she knows for sure God exists, then, in fact, they are not exhibiting faith- but knowledge (or supposed knowledge). Epistemological uncertainty is a necessary condition of faith. If we are Sceptical about God (i.e. we do not assert either His existence [or non-existence] is certain), then we have room for faith- a commitment to live and hope on something which we do not know for sure.

These, at least, are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

In Christ,

Q.

 

[ProLepanto]

ProLepanto,

You suggest my interpretation is deceiptful, and you have accused a previous poster of heresy. Rather than jumping to non-evident conclusions, perhaps you should try to suspend judgment (in Sceptical) fashion. Or perhaps you shouldn’t.

Your are at liberty to put forward your own prefered interpretation of Scripture, and your own understanding of orthodoxy. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Nothing can be determined conclusively- except for the goodness, wisdom and supremacy of God, which is an analytical judgment.

Now, if goodness and wisdom can be attributed, with certainty, to God alone, it follows that God alone has undisputed authority and capacity to judge. We are not the judges, but also on equally trial, next to our brothers and sisters and all creation, or so it would seem. Perhaps our judgment is faulty. Perhaps our action in making the judgment is impious.

Therefore, nothing can be determined. All theology is speculative, and the assertion of things ‘dogmatically’ does not demonstrate their necessary truth. But even this may not be asserted dogmatically.

These, at least, are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

In Christ,

Q.

If God held that objective truth was beyond our grasp, we would not be gifted the ability to reason. Nor would Christ have taught us a distinct path.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad

Also note that your assertion that judgment be reserved to God, is in fact a judgement.

Now, my conclusions were each supported by evidence. Taestron’s Heresy was clearly highlighted by historical and philosophical precedence. And the utter falsehood of your assertion (Id Est Judgment) was brought to light by Scripture itself. This is a Catholic forum, we believe in right and wrong, neither of which subject to predilections. If words such as: Deceit, Heresy, Good, Evil and Judgement are too much of an affront to your sensibilities then perhaps you should take up Buddhism. For as C.S. Lewis said, Christianity is a fighting religion.

 

[Qoeleth]

If God held that objective truth was beyond our grasp, we would not be gifted the ability to reason. Nor would Christ have taught us a distinct path.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad

Also note that your assertion that judgment be reserved to God, is in fact a judgement.

Now, my conclusions were each supported by evidence. Taestron’s Heresy was clearly highlighted by historical and philosophical precedence. And the utter falsehood of your assertion (Id Est Judgment) was brought to light by Scripture itself. This is a Catholic forum, we believe in right and wrong, neither of which subject to predilections. If words such as: Deceit, Heresy, Good, Evil and Judgement are too much of an affront to your sensibilities then perhaps you should take up Buddhism. For as C.S. Lewis said, Christianity is a fighting religion.

Christ also said, “He that is not against me is for me.”

And James said “God’s justice is never served by human anger.”

Yes, Christianity is a fighting religion. And let forgiveness and kindness be our weapons.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are wrong. Perhaps we are both wrong, and God alone is right.

 

[ProLepanto]

Christ also said, “He that is not against me is for me.”

And James said “God’s justice is never served by human anger.”

Yes, Christianity is a fighting religion. And let forgiveness and kindness be our weapons.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are wrong. Perhaps we are both wrong, and God alone is right.

I pity those whose safety is your responsibility. Would you defend your child from a pedophile with “forgiveness”?

 

[BigFig1]

There is no such thing as “explaining miracles.” Either we know enough to explain why a particular event happened, or we don’t. But if we don’t, it doesn’t run through to simply call the unexplained event a “miracle.”

I can agree that just because we don’t know how something/anything happened does not call it a miracle. But to the miracles that have been examined and verified miracles(such as some I have mentioned), cannot be explained by natural or scientific laws. In the cases of all the documented miracles(actually verified), they all have their core representation coming from Jesus and the gospels. (one example-Jesus healed many sick; Lourdes miracles) It is obviously your choice to believe the relevance between the miracles what Jesus did and preached. To me message is clear, Christ is King.
Thank you for your response by the way.
God bless

I don’t attempt to explain miracles.

Either we can explain something, or we currently can’t in full with our current level of knowledge.

Because we can’t explain something, doesn’t mean a ‘‘miracle’’ has occured.

The miracles I’ve looked at - the dancing sun in the sky at Fatima, the Eucharistic Miracles, and the Shroud, have way too many issues to be ‘‘miracles’’ at least in my mind.

But even so, if a bunch of scientists or doctors said we can’t explain it, that’s exactly what it means, to me anyways - we currently can’t explain it.

Not, it’s a miracle.

Sarah x

Hello Sarah!
Thank you for your answer . The answer that I put above your question is basically the same answer i would like to give to you. I do have another question. I am curious what about those miracles you listed, specifically the shroud, and the Eucharistic miracles you have, “too many issues with”.
I must also say to you and all other atheists on this site, are the kindest atheists I have met on the internet/in a conversation! Its good to know some atheists have some decency.
God bless

 

[atheistgirl]

I am curious what about those miracles you listed, specifically the shroud, and the Eucharistic miracles you have, “too many issues with”.

I’m currently looking more indepth for example at the claims of the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires. When you consider the lab is unnamed, the lab tech is unnamed, there’s evidence of changed names on the Internet, hopeless chain of custody for starters, it’s just not credible, to me.

And of course, I recognize disproving one miracle, or at least highlighting the utter lack of credibilty in the claims, does not mean other miracles didn’t happen.

I don’t know enough about others as I haven’t looked closely enough, but things like the sun dancing in the sky would be recognized and picked up by astrologers and no such official records exist, where as we know that mass halluciantions exist.

For me, I can’t bridge the gap from something is unexplained, to this must be a miracle.

I must also say to you and all other atheists on this site, are the kindest atheists I have met on the internet/in a conversation! Its good to know some atheists have some decency.
God bless

Oh, com’on.

It’s polite, charitable interesting posters like you that bring out the best in us

Sarah x

 

[LoveToLive]

The question to a sceptic is what would it take for them to believe an event is without a medical explanation? What test and by whom would make the grade? Does one need a copy of a signed lab report? What about the logic that if false claims are made about a professional, that professional might object and the objection would be known? For example Frederick Zugibe and the Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires and claims made by Dr. Ricardo Castanon. Can you have an impartial investigator? I think it is possible to argue anything regardless. Medjugorje is great for sceptics. Read this one: scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_2_pandarakalam.pdf.

Consider how people did not believe the earth was round. I am sure many sceptics died believing it.At some point in the middle ages it all changed.

If miracles were so well defined then would we really feel we have free will? What fun is it if God spells it out? Then we are serving a dictator.

So sceptics enjoy being sceptics and believers enjoy believing.

 

[NormalBeliever]

I’m currently looking more indepth for example at the claims of the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires. When you consider the lab is unnamed, the lab tech is unnamed, there’s evidence of changed names on the Internet, hopeless chain of custody for starters, it’s just not credible, to me.

And of course, I recognize disproving one miracle, or at least highlighting the utter lack of credibilty in the claims, does not mean other miracles didn’t happen.

I don’t know enough about others as I haven’t looked closely enough, but things like the sun dancing in the sky would be recognized and picked up by astrologers and no such official records exist, where as we know that mass halluciantions exist.

For me, I can’t bridge the gap from something is unexplained, to this must be a miracle.

Oh, com’on.

It’s polite, charitable interesting posters like you that bring out the best in us

Sarah x

Well…read the book Unseen:The New Evidence

Also,I have found a website that clearly shows a video interview with not just Frederick Zugibe but also Robert Lawrence,clearing up this contradiction.

Here is the page of a thread with more evidence:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=906087&highlight=zugibe&page=3

Scroll down until you find it.

Also watch Q&A videos on Youtube of Ron Tesoriero who answers other questions.

Ron Tesoriero when asked about peer-review said that Robert Lawrence,who said to him he was an atheist,converted after reading the book Unseen:The New Evidence.

I guess this is his way of answering the question if any peer-review was done on the miracle.

Here is the interview with Frederick Zugibe:acs-cpanel2.acsinternet.com.au/~unseen/host-to-heart-from-a-living-person/

Here is the interview with Robert Lawrence:acs-cpanel2.acsinternet.com.au/~unseen/evidence-of-life-buenos-aires-1996-communion-host/

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The question to a sceptic is what…

This thread has been dormant for 2 years.

According to other threads in which the moderators have commented (just before locking the thread) is that it’s generally not a good idea to resurect a thread in which no one has commented for a while. I’ve seen such comments made after no one has participated in a thread for a few months. With this thread being over 2 years old it seems to go well past that.

 

[ANV]

Sometimes satisfying, other times not.

 

[tonyrey]

Sometimes satisfying, other times not.

Then life is not totally worthless! (One positive view in the midst of negativity