Question for Atheists

[hatsoff]

did you read or google any of them?

I told you that I’ve already examined dozens, the latest of which was championed by the OP of this very thread.

Frankly, I don’t feel like wasting my time. It seems like every God-believer thinks that if only I look at this prophecy or that prophecy, then I will be convinced (or, at least, stumped). You are only one of perhaps hundreds of theists I have met who request that I look at their personal favorite prophecies. I’m sorry, but it’s just not worth the effort.

A couple of days ago I reviewed this business of Pius IX and the Papal states. It was a miserable failure. Maybe in a few months I’ll feel like amusing myself with yet another ridiculous prophecy claim. Catch me then.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I told you that I’ve already examined dozens, the latest of which was championed by the OP of this very thread.

there are hundreds to examine. im happy to find a few specific ones if necessary

Frankly, I don’t feel like wasting my time. It seems like every God-believer thinks that if only I look at this prophecy or that prophecy, then I will be convinced (or, at least, stumped). You are only one of perhaps hundreds of theists I have met who request that I look at their personal favorite prophecies. I’m sorry, but it’s just not worth the effort.

i dont have any person favorites, i would be willing to examine the most specific ones, as has been done professionally by a number of authors over the years.

A couple of days ago I reviewed this business of Pius IX and the Papal states. It was a miserable failure. Maybe in a few months I’ll feel like amusing myself with yet another ridiculous prophecy claim. Catch me then.

i dont have a clue what your talking about here. PiusX and the Papal states?

if you wish to Claimm no G-d exists, or that it is not the Christain G-d, why should we take it seriously if you wont examine the evidence that created Christianity? frankly i believe that atheism is a position that must be held as an emotional position and not ones that rational. i am offering you mathematically formulated proof, yet you refuse to examine it.

as copleston said, if you wont sit down at the table, you cant lose an argument.

 

[LBSDBS]

Hatsoff, I haven’t really been following this thread very closely, but I am in to science and spent almost a 3rd of my life studying the subject of God and afterlife on scientific grounds. Even among the very intense matters, I do not establish any belief system or principal without sufficient evidence or proof to back it up, and that includes spirituality, which means I can give rational and logical reasons for ALL of my morals, principals and beliefs.

No one has ever been able to prove that there is a God, but no one has ever been able to prove that there isn’t either. Outside of circumstantial evidence (which favors Christianity IMO) the known scientific evidence for and against the existence of God and/or afterlife is pretty much even.

The very best I can offer you is a very in depth look at how evened out the scientific evidence really is, but if there is something you want to know, feel free to ask me and I will do what I can to help. But I cannot help you learn unless you are open. Again, I have not been following your conversation/s, so I do not know if you are or are not, but if you are not willing to learn, then learn is not something you’ll be able to do.

If you would like to discuss Christianity and spirituality on strictly scientific and evidence/logical grounds, I am more then happy to do so. In fact, that’s how I prefer.

 

[LBSDBS]

What do you make of the prophecies given to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres by Our Lady of Good Success back in the 17th century, which came true EXACTLY as they were told? (You can look it up yourself. They were not vague-they were specific.)

I have never studied on that particular issue, but all this “our lady of” stuff has the ear marks of the occult (which I briefly got sucked in to in my late high school years. The Catholic church has never officially taken any position against this stuff as a whole (and has indeed sanctioned some of it) but allot of it has been busted by the Catholic church and been forbidden, Garabandal being the most recent case I can think of.

Some of them seam to be genuine and meet some (and perhaps all) of the conditions of prophecy, but the apparitioners in these cases tend to have a different outlook on the situation then those spreading the word, who often add the occultist themes themselves.

If you take Fatama for instance. I don’t recall ever learning of any of the children there call the lady: “Our Lady of Fatama.” To them, it was just a heavenly lady they saw who apparently gave them some warnings to issue. It was other people who added the: “Our Lady of Fatama” title and occultist elements.

BTW. In modern terminology, occult is defined as the practice and or belief in paranormal and/or supernatural elements that are not logically explicable. In other words, if you believe or claim to believe in anything that you are incapable of offering reasonable evidence to support, then you are, by definition, an occultist.

In ancient times, the occult (in root form) referred to basically stuff like the Free Masons and KofC and some times deeper, darker versions of the same sort of thing (sometimes Clans.

In terms of the modern definition of the occult, this is one of the main differences that the ancient Isrialites saw between themselves and foreign religions. One of the prophets even said so very bluntly in fact. In other words, the ancient Isrialites based their religion and views on evidence, while everyone else was just making stuff up.

 

[LBSDBS]

I was an atheist. I found comfort and security in it. But now, since I have personally experienced the supernatural, I know beyond any doubt it exists.

The skeptics talk a big game, but if they ever experienced something like what I did, I know they would run for the door, leaving nothing behind except for a trail of smoke!

I actually understand exactly what you are talking about (having died before) and experienced “supernatural” as you call it (I call it paranormal or phenomenon) so many times that I managed to experiment with it. Specifically, the effects are so overwhelming that you just go along with it. In the last case, I managed to really examine what was happening AS it was happening.

About 4 years ago, I drowned from lung inflammation after being sick for half a year. In that case, I actually saw the whole light and tunnel stuff that people talk about and all. Funny thing was, even when it was happening, I could tell that the whole "light and seemingly floating, calm sensation was my brain shutting down. TBH, the reason I really understood that was because I had a death wish at the time and was genuinely hoping that I would succeed in dieing, so I was thinking about it more the way you might think about getting to the finish line to win a very close race. In other words, I was making an effort to go along with it.

The really weird part wasn’t the tunnel and light stuff. After I had completely stopped breathing for what seamed like a few minutes and basically so spaced out that I couldn’t tell even immediately afterwords if I was still conscious or not, I had a feeling like a child was leaning over me (I lived alone at the time, had no visitors and the only door in to my house was dead bolted shut) and then I suddenly choked out a half a tea cup of flam in one shot and started breathing again.

I have also had ghost encounters, dreams that seamed like warnings and the whole 9 yards. While experiences like this might make some people gungho about spirituality, what they did for me is make me very careful, questioning and basically, watching my step in how I live, believe and treat others.

That’s also what got me in to science. Once you establish that there are forces in the universe that we really don’t understand, and that some of them may have permanent impacts on you spiritually, religion starts to look much more like spiritual Russian Roulette. I got in to science because I want to know for sure what the spiritual threats are, if they even exist.

That all said, these seemingly spiritual and supernatural experiences certainly seam very real and convincing (in my case, because you sense and feel things that you never experience at any other time or any other way) and DOES present some very important evidence to they who experiences it, but they ultimately prove nothing.

Having looked deeply in to the teachings and evidence left behind by the prophets, I put my trust in them, but my scientific search for answers continues and will continue until the day I can prove to you beyond any doubt that there is or isn’t a God and/or afterlife.

 

[reggieM]

I was an atheist. I found comfort and security in it. But now, since I have personally experienced the supernatural, I know beyond any doubt it exists.

The skeptics talk a big game, but if they ever experienced something like what I did, I know they would run for the door, leaving nothing behind except for a trail of smoke!

Good words – that is very true. The same would happen with those who experience an exorcism or even just “ordinary miracles” which do occur for millions of people.

Faith is a gift. God sows the seeds of that gift in every soul. But the person needs to seek the pure good and thus desire God in order for the seeds of faith to grow.

Seeking the Good is something all can do. Atheism, unfortunately, cuts off the search for the Good with material nature. There can be no paradise for atheism since all is limited to what material-imperfect nature can provide.

But even in the material-physical world, we catch fleeting glimpses of the Good which is Paradise with God (which is actually nothing but God Himself).

Each atheist should recognize those fleeting glimpses and pursue them. Find their source and origin. Seek to know why they’re only fleeting, and yet we have a desire for that Good to last forever.

Eventually, even without having to seek ghosts or remarkable phenomenon (as you and others have done) – the supernatural will be revealed.

But it’s not something that can be demanded to be produced on command. It requires some reverence and homage – reverence for the gift of Faith, of the Truth and of Life itself. That’s when true insight can come to the person.

But cutting off paths of knowledge even before pursuing the evidence (of prophecies, miracles, supernatural events) is closing off the possiblity of Truth and of the Goodness we should all seek.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Good words – that is very true. The same would happen with those who experience an exorcism or even just “ordinary miracles” which do occur for millions of people.

Faith is a gift. God sows the seeds of that gift in every soul. But the person needs to seek the pure good and thus desire God in order for the seeds of faith to grow.

Seeking the Good is something all can do. Atheism, unfortunately, cuts off the search for the Good with material nature. There can be no paradise for atheism since all is limited to what material-imperfect nature can provide.

But even in the material-physical world, we catch fleeting glimpses of the Good which is Paradise with God (which is actually nothing but God Himself).

Each atheist should recognize those fleeting glimpses and pursue them. Find their source and origin. Seek to know why they’re only fleeting, and yet we have a desire for that Good to last forever.

Eventually, even without having to seek ghosts or remarkable phenomenon (as you and others have done) – the supernatural will be revealed.

But it’s not something that can be demanded to be produced on command. It requires some reverence and homage – reverence for the gift of Faith, of the Truth and of Life itself. That’s when true insight can come to the person.

But cutting off paths of knowledge even before pursuing the evidence (of prophecies, miracles, supernatural events) is closing off the possiblity of Truth and of the Goodness we should all seek.

Atheists are usually materialists (at least in my experience), but not necessarily so. That is, it is possible to have an atheist who is not a materialist.

 

[reggieM]

Atheists are usually materialists (at least in my experience), but not necessarily so. That is, it is possible to have an atheist who is not a materialist.

True. I was referring to the common sort of atheists that we see very frequently on CAF. Those are almost always materialist.

 

[Shredderbeam]

True. I was referring to the common sort of atheists that we see very frequently on CAF. Those are almost always materialist.

Oh, ok. No argument there.

 

[gearhead]

what about the dozens of convergent prophecies in Scripture? written over millenia by men who didnt know eachother, live in the same places or times, yet they came true in Christ. there are so many, and many of them are very specific, the mathematical odds against such a thing are astronomical.

Which prophecies?

Even if you assume that the Gospel writers told the absolute truth, many of the “prophecies” about Jesus that the Gospels claim were fulfilled aren’t prophecies at all. And a significant number of them were anything that a person with knowledge of them could do (e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a colt and a donkey). And there are many Messianic prophecies that Jesus didn’t fulfill.

There are hundreds of documented miracles.

And most of them for religions other than Christianity.

Why should we believe Christian “miracles” over, say, Hindu ones (for example)? Are they all real? What do Christian miracles have going for them that other religions’ miracles don’t?

 

[bbentrup]

Anyways we know from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, that a non-believer will not accept a message even from someone returning from the dead. They have Moses and the Prophets - that is sufficient.

I think miracles and prophecies can be great conduits for faith, but any believer needs to be careful about using them as proof-hammers. Some individual miracles are really, really hard to make out anything against them, and that is good, but someone could always think of something. My thought is that, collectively, it’s a pretty damning case against non-belief, but I respect the Atheist that has carefully considered them and remains unconvinced. Hopefully, it should give the Church some credence in the atheist’s mind that a lot of their facets couldn’t be fully explained away.

I was an atheist too for about a year. Even though, I didn’t believe in the Church, and thought it was wrong, I sincerely hoped I was wrong since that didn’t mean much good for the world otherwise. Miracle stories were a part of my return, but a small part, much more important was that what I thought were contradictions in church teaching were not contradictions, that the Church’s teaching was very logical, that it did holy works, that there were reasonable explanations for some of the superficially shady parts of the Bible, that I existed, that the alternative view of life in all its intricacies as a giant accident was even less likely to be true, and that I had a human need for hope. Great for miracles, but I am truly grateful for the gift of faith which would allow me to believe even if no verifiable miracle ever existed.

 

[reggieM]

And most of them [miracles] for religions other than Christianity.

Interesting claim – please provide some documentation to support it.

Why should we believe Christian “miracles” over, say, Hindu ones (for example)? Are they all real?

For a person who denies the miraculous in an a priori manner (as 99% of the atheists on CAF do, and therefore I suppose you do also), then you’ve already pointed to evidence that miracles do occur. In fact, you’ve changed the argument to a question about discerning the truths and powers of two different, supernaturally-oriented belief systems (Catholicism and Hinduism).

Your next assumption, which is not supported by any facts given, is that one is required to believe Christian miracles over Hindu miracles – as if they both cannot be true manifestations of God’s power.

Regarding the question of whether they are “all real” or not – the Catholic Faith does not even pursue it’s own miracles with the assumption that every claim about the miraculous is real. Investigations into the claims and questions about what happened, interviews with eye-witnesses or objective means of verification are always sought.

With this kind of scrutiny, many claims of the miraculous are not accepted by the Catholic Church. Why would Catholics then think that every Hindu claim of the miraclous is real?

But the purpose behind your line of questioning is of interest to me. Apparently, you think that the fact that miracles occur in other faith traditions means that miracles actually do not occur anywhere at all. This does not follow, as I see it.

For the atheist-materialist, it’s very important to investigate the possiblity that miracles do occur – just as the Catholic Faith teaches. There are several books on this topic – as this one:

Saints Who Raised the Dead

What do Christian miracles have going for them that other religions’ miracles don’t?

Again, you’re changing the topic for a reason I don’t understand. If you’re willing to accept that miracles do occur, then we can talk about the meaning of miracles and the relative merits of various religious traditions where the miracles take place. Additionally, we can talk about the messages that God communicates to humanity through the working of miracles.

The fact that many religious traditions report miracles is evidence that miracles do occur. That evidence should be explored and evaluated.
What does not make sense is to dismiss the possiblity that miracles could ever occur without investigating the best, most well-founded claims that they do occur.

One advantage that Catholicism does have over Hinduism is that Catholicism has built a very strong theological scholarship which is founded in the principles of Western philosophical rationality. So, many of the same methods used in Western science are applied to the understanding of miracles (as in Lourdes where doctors are consulted to give expert opinion).

 

[gearhead]

Interesting claim – please provide some documentation to support it.

That non-Christian religions claim their own miracles? You really need me to support this? I thought it was common knowledge.

For a person who denies the miraculous in an a priori manner (as 99% of the atheists on CAF do, and therefore I suppose you do also), then you’ve already pointed to evidence that miracles do occur.

Not so much, actually.

I was just trying to make a point. If you reject the purported miracles of Hinduism or any other non-Christian religion (BTW: you do, right?), then you can’t rightly expect me or any other non-Christian to accept your miracles with a similar level of support.

In fact, you’ve changed the argument to a question about discerning the truths and powers of two different, supernaturally-oriented belief systems (Catholicism and Hinduism).

Kinda. I don’t know if it’s where the thread was going, but usually these sorts of conversations end up with the theist claiming that the atheist is being irrationally skeptical or demanding an unreasonable standard of evidence. I thought I’d turn things around a bit and establish what your standard of evidence is for outlandish, supernatural claims.

Your next assumption, which is not supported by any facts given, is that one is required to believe Christian miracles over Hindu miracles – as if they both cannot be true manifestations of God’s power.

So the same God is simultaneously performing miracles for the Christian and the Hindu faithful? I suppose I can’t think of any reason to exclude the possibility (assuming we’ve accepted for argument’s sake that miracle-wielding deities may be running around ), but I think this would be difficult to reconcile with the theology of either religion.

Regarding the question of whether they are “all real” or not – the Catholic Faith does not even pursue it’s own miracles with the assumption that every claim about the miraculous is real. Investigations into the claims and questions about what happened, interviews with eye-witnesses or objective means of verification are always sought.

With this kind of scrutiny, many claims of the miraculous are not accepted by the Catholic Church. Why would Catholics then think that every Hindu claim of the miraclous is real?

I didn’t necessarily mean to ask whether every single miracle is real; more whether both Christianity and religions whose theologies are incompatible with Christianity could be simultaneously supported by miracles.

But the purpose behind your line of questioning is of interest to me. Apparently, you think that the fact that miracles occur in other faith traditions means that miracles actually do not occur anywhere at all. This does not follow, as I see it.

Apparently you didn’t get the point I was aiming at: the fact that you, every other Christian and virtually every person on the planet reject miracle claims from the religions they don’t believe in on a regular basis indicates that there’s nothing unreasonable about rejecting miracle claims.

Again, you’re changing the topic for a reason I don’t understand. If you’re willing to accept that miracles do occur, then we can talk about the meaning of miracles and the relative merits of various religious traditions where the miracles take place.

No, I’m not. I’m just trying to find a reasonable level of skepticism for miracle claims that we can all agree with. Or I’m setting up a consistency trap; I haven’t really decided which yet.

What does not make sense is to dismiss the possiblity that miracles could ever occur without investigating the best, most well-founded claims that they do occur.

Okay - go for it. What’s the best, most well-founded claim for a miracle that you know?

One advantage that Catholicism does have over Hinduism is that Catholicism has built a very strong theological scholarship which is founded in the principles of Western philosophical rationality. So, many of the same methods used in Western science are applied to the understanding of miracles (as in Lourdes where doctors are consulted to give expert opinion).

How is this an advantage? Is there anything stopping anyone from using these “principles of Western philosophical rationality” to evaluate claims from Eastern religions?

 

[reggieM]

I was just trying to make a point. If you reject the purported miracles of Hinduism or any other non-Christian religion (BTW: you do, right?),

No, I certainly don’t reject claims of miracles out of hand from any religious tradition. I would take the attitude of the Catholic Church and start by being skeptical of the claim – and look at the evidence (as I explained previously).

The validation process used by the Church is rigorous and I also believe the supernatural claims of the Church in this matter. I have also seen my share of miracles personally. As I said earlier, faith is a gift that must be desired through prayer. When one prays to God, the answer to prayer itself is miraculous since it comes through a supernatural power and communication.

then you can’t rightly expect me or any other non-Christian to accept your miracles with a similar level of support.

Ok, that does follow – that is, if I rejected claims from other religions (which I don’t).

I don’t know if it’s where the thread was going, but usually these sorts of conversations end up with the theist claiming that the atheist is being irrationally skeptical or demanding an unreasonable standard of evidence. I thought I’d turn things around a bit and establish what your standard of evidence is for outlandish, supernatural claims.

It’s the person who denies, without investigation, the literally countless claims of miracles which have occurred in human history who is being “outlandish”. What kind of explanation can that person give? That those billions of people are hallucinating and only the scant minority of atheists are not? It’s a totally unreasonable position – especially since it closes off investigation by declaring that all of the claims of the miraculous are false before even knowing what they are. It’s running away from the evidence, not towards it.

So the same God is simultaneously performing miracles for the Christian and the Hindu faithful?
I suppose I can’t think of any reason to exclude the possibility

That is an excellent thought. To understand the nature of God, we have to stretch our boundaries at times, and also use the evidence that the world provides. We have many religious traditions and a long human history of writing and teaching about God’s interaction with humans.

I think this would be difficult to reconcile with the theology of either religion.

I can’t speak for Hinduism, but it’s not difficult to reconcile with Catholicism since God calls all people by grace (supernatural power). Those who pray to God are rewarded – even if the prayer is faulty and the theology is not completely true. God judges the sincerity and desire of the person in pursuing the Good. St. Paul taught that when he was preaching to the pagan Greeks and he actually praised their limited understanding of God. So, a person’s response to God is through following the various “leads” that are given – the goal is a full union with God Himself. Miracles are given by God to teach a person about the supernatural life. A Hindu who experiences a miracle will want to know more about God, and that is a good thing.

I didn’t necessarily mean to ask whether every single miracle is real; more whether both Christianity and religions whose theologies are incompatible with Christianity could be simultaneously supported by miracles.

Ok, that’s a different topic and I will post more about that tomorrow.

Apparently you didn’t get the point I was aiming at: the fact that you, every other Christian and virtually every person on the planet reject miracle claims from the religions they don’t believe in on a regular basis indicates that there’s nothing unreasonable about rejecting miracle claims.

Actually, you mentioned Hinduism and that is certainly one faith that does not reject Catholic miracles. You might be interested in this place called The Lourdes of the East – a Marian shrine where millions travel each year. It’s a scene of a Marian apparition in India and where many claim miraculous healings. The majority of pilgrims are Hindu or Moslem – Catholics are the minority (at this Catholic shrine).

No, I’m not. I’m just trying to find a reasonable level of skepticism for miracle claims that we can all agree with. Or I’m setting up a consistency trap; I haven’t really decided which yet.

Ok – but I think the extreme skepticism that we usually find it not a reasonable level. In the same way, a naive faith on every claim of a miraculous sighting is the other extreme. For myself, I would expect a person to have an open mind about miracles for the mere fact that they are so commonly cited (and have been for centuries).

Okay - go for it. What’s the best, most well-founded claim for a miracle that you know?

Well, I did provide one book that you could review. I would recommend also the Lives of the Desert Fathers (or the Paradise of the Fathers if you can find that title).

Probably the best, most commonly cited Catholic miracles are those of Fatima and Lourdes. The Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Guadalupe are two more visible “continuous” miracles. The life of Padre Pio is a good example – as are all the stigmatics (and there are some living today). Some saints like St. John Vianney, St. Francis Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, St. Catherine of Siena and others (Butlers Lives of the Saints is a massive collection) were known for working hundreds of miracles.

You could check the canonization of any Catholic saint and notice the miracles worked. They are investigated at a very serious level – with skepticism as the first attitude.

How is this an advantage? Is there anything stopping anyone from using these “principles of Western philosophical rationality” to evaluate claims from Eastern religions?

Western philosophy is not a part of the Hindu tradition – there is a different attitude towards mysticism and towards the miraculous also. This is changing with Westernization in India - but that’s a strong point in itself.

 

[gearhead]

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this.

Ok, that does follow – that is, if I rejected claims from other religions (which I don’t).

Okay… which claims from other religions do you actually accept?

Or are you getting at the idea that you’re open to miraculous claims from all sources, but so far, the only ones that have met your standard have been Catholic?

It’s the person who denies, without investigation, the literally countless claims of miracles which have occurred in human history who is being “outlandish”.

I’m not saying that outlandish things necessarily can’t happen, but claims of miracles necessarily involve rare events that can’t easily be explained by normal phenomena. Apart from the intervention of some supernatural force, they’d be impossible. That’s what I’m getting at.

What kind of explanation can that person give? That those billions of people are hallucinating and only the scant minority of atheists are not? It’s a totally unreasonable position – especially since it closes off investigation by declaring that all of the claims of the miraculous are false before even knowing what they are. It’s running away from the evidence, not towards it.

I don’t think that at all. I think it’s just a matter of different approaches to evidence.

For example, if someone were to hear an anecdote from someone who had supposedly terminal cancer, went to Lourdes, and found on her return home that the cancer had disappeared, this would be very compelling by itself, and I understand why people would be convinced of Lourdes’ miraculous power by stories like this. However, when you consider that cancer is sometimes mis-diagnosed, or that cancer sometimes does go away inexplicably even at run-of-the-mill places, or that the vast majority of people with terminal diagnoses who go to Lourdes still die of their illnesses, a person can be left with a different impression.

Have you ever seen the web site Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? It approaches the subject with humour, but it makes a valid point: miracles attributed to God seem only to occur when there’s at least some slim chance that the thing can happen naturally. God sometimes “cures” cancer (a set of diseases we don’t fully understand) but he never restores amputated limbs (something we know can never happen naturally).

I can’t speak for Hinduism, but it’s not difficult to reconcile with Catholicism since God calls all people by grace (supernatural power). Those who pray to God are rewarded – even if the prayer is faulty and the theology is not completely true. God judges the sincerity and desire of the person in pursuing the Good. St. Paul taught that when he was preaching to the pagan Greeks and he actually praised their limited understanding of God. So, a person’s response to God is through following the various “leads” that are given – the goal is a full union with God Himself. Miracles are given by God to teach a person about the supernatural life. A Hindu who experiences a miracle will want to know more about God, and that is a good thing.

But not your God. Isn’t a path toward Ganesh a path away from Christ?

Ok, that’s a different topic and I will post more about that tomorrow.

Ok – but I think the extreme skepticism that we usually find it not a reasonable level. In the same way, a naive faith on every claim of a miraculous sighting is the other extreme. For myself, I would expect a person to have an open mind about miracles for the mere fact that they are so commonly cited (and have been for centuries).

Yes, they have been commonly cited - seemingly in proportion to our ignorance. God seems to bring back people from the dead much less often now that medical science developed the ability to identify actual death and since undertakers began embalming corpses.

The most telling thing for me, though, is that it seems that in every case of a miracle that’s actually investigated and where enough information exists to evaluate it rationally, none that I’ve ever heard of have actually proven themselves to be miracles.

However, if you know of some well-supported miracles, feel free to present the one you think is best supported by evidence. Then we can look at it and decide for ourselves.

Well, I did provide one book that you could review. I would recommend also the Lives of the Desert Fathers (or the Paradise of the Fathers if you can find that title).

Probably the best, most commonly cited Catholic miracles are those of Fatima and Lourdes. The Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Guadalupe are two more visible “continuous” miracles.

The Shroud of Turin? Really? I thought that the Vatican has conceded that it’s a medieval forgery.

The life of Padre Pio is a good example – as are all the stigmatics (and there are some living today). Some saints like St. John Vianney, St. Francis Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, St. Catherine of Siena and others (Butlers Lives of the Saints is a massive collection) were known for working hundreds of miracles.

You could check the canonization of any Catholic saint and notice the miracles worked. They are investigated at a very serious level – with skepticism as the first attitude.

Okay… I’m only passingly familiar with a few of those, and Padre Pio’s the only one where we have the advantage of relatively recent information. How about we look at his case?

Just so we’re clear, which miracles are you talking about? You referred to “the life of Padre Pio”, so I assume that we’re talking about his stigmata and not events attributed to him that happened after he died, right?

 

[reggieM]

Okay… which claims from other religions do you actually accept?

For purposes of this discussion, I accept the claim that God exists. This is the first point that you do not accept – so it doesn’t make much sense to go beyond that. Again, I’m a Catholic and this is a Catholic site. There are a lot of questions about why you’re here and what you hope to accomplish. What are you looking for?

Or are you getting at the idea that you’re open to miraculous claims from all sources, but so far, the only ones that have met your standard have been Catholic?

No, I accept that God intervenes in people’s lives in many different ways. My primary interest is Catholicism for reasons other than the many miracles that are evidenced in the Catholic Faith. You seem to be putting all of the apologetic for a religion on its claims of miracles, but there are many other aspects to consider.

When people pray and receive answers to prayer – that is an expression of supernatural power.

I’m not saying that outlandish things necessarily can’t happen, but claims of miracles necessarily involve rare events that can’t easily be explained by normal phenomena.

In the Catholic world, that is not true at all. Our religion is based on daily, on-going interventions of the supernatural. Again, people pray to God for that reason. That is how most people test the existence and presence of God – not through laboratory experiments, but through a personal exploration of spiritual powers that they perceive. They find an illumination in their spiritual life and they pursue it.

Apart from the intervention of some supernatural force, they’d be impossible. That’s what I’m getting at.

Sure – here is one:

Commander closes submarine door against tons of water pressure

“A military commission later determined that what Cotrina did was humanly impossible.”

The canonization of every Catholic saint involves the investigation of miracles.

For example, if someone were to hear an anecdote from someone who had supposedly terminal cancer, went to Lourdes, and found on her return home that the cancer had disappeared, this would be very compelling by itself, and I understand why people would be convinced of Lourdes’ miraculous power by stories like this. However, when you consider that cancer is sometimes mis-diagnosed, or that cancer sometimes does go away inexplicably even at run-of-the-mill places, or that the vast majority of people with terminal diagnoses who go to Lourdes still die of their illnesses, a person can be left with a different impression.

A person who has decided in an *a priori *manner, against the actual evidence, that miracles cannot occur – is not open to the information that is provided at places like Lourdes. For example, when certified medical personnel state that “there is no scientific explanation” for the cure – it means that the cure does not fall into an explicable pattern.

But again, the data on miracles from a Catholic perspective alone is vast. If you’re looking to learn something about this, and you’re open to the information – you should spend some serious time reading and researching Catholic sources on this information.

If you’re closed to the evidence (and most atheists are), then you’re not seeking to learn.

… miracles attributed to God seem only to occur when there’s at least some slim chance that the thing can happen naturally.

I think it would be worth your time to look at some of the miracles that have occurred where there is not a slim chance that the thing could happen naturally. Then, when we see a person saying, simultaneously, that they believe a miracle occured (God made His presence known), it’s important to be open minded about this.

I understand that there are some people who have, basically, a hatred of God. For them, it’s important to fight against evidence of miracles – they do not want to learn about the experiences that people have had, because they have already set themselves in opposition. They do not want to consider that miracles do happen because that leads to belief in God – and they are inwardly opposed to God. So, they’re in a war against spiritual communion with God and all aspects of the supernatural.

God sometimes “cures” cancer (a set of diseases we don’t fully understand) but he never restores amputated limbs (something we know can never happen naturally).

That’s something we might learn about the nature of God. Knowing about God, and more importantly, knowing God through communication with him requires different skills than we would use when learning about other academic disciplines.

But also, importantly, you’re claiming that the restoration of an amputated limb could “never” happen naturally (so, if it did – you would be immediately converted to a theistic position, right? ) … From experience we know that if an amputated limb did grow back, our atheist friends would be able to find a vast number of reasons to find that event unremarkable. They would do as you’re doing now – look for more spectacular tricks for God to perform, they would claim that the new limb is not a big deal, they would claim that nobody ever said that “it could never happen”, and “we know more about science now”, etc.

The Gospel says exactly the same thing … “they wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead”.

But on a related topic, I just searched Google on “new bone growth” and there are many links. I know a man who had his leg lengthened with new bone growth miraculously. There’s no need to reply by asking me to “prove it”. Your view of my statement here (and of me) must be that I am deluded or lying.

But again, you’d make that judgement without knowing anything about my credibility or what I actually experienced. You’d conclude that something like a miracle could not possibly occur without actually falsifying the claim yourself.

But not your God. Isn’t a path toward Ganesh a path away from Christ?

For an atheist, a path toward Ganesh is a path towards God, and thus an indirect path towards Christ. That is how conversions happen many times – a person finds God, then seeks a path to worship Him. Then, that path is corrected and purified and many become Catholic.

The Shroud of Turin? Really? I thought that the Vatican has conceded that it’s a medieval forgery.

No, not at all.

 

[reggieM]

Okay… I’m only passingly familiar with a few of those, and Padre Pio’s the only one where we have the advantage of relatively recent information. How about we look at his case?

I would suggest that you read the biography of Padre Pio by Carty.

You referred to “the life of Padre Pio”, so I assume that we’re talking about his stigmata and not events attributed to him that happened after he died, right?

I’m talking about the miracles of Padre Pio – all of them.
How do you plan on investigating these? By reading atheist websites?

To investigate the topic and learn something about it, you have to approach it without bias. If you’re not capable of doing that, then there’s no sense in discussing the matter. Anyone can claim skepticism about any matter at all. That is merely insincerity and sophistry.

If you want to study the topic, you need to be prepared to make the case that the defenders of Padre Pio’s miracles (through his whole life) make. You have to investigate the sympathetic sources and not merely dismiss them with an off-handed comment but find some reason why hundreds of people experienced his miraculous powers.

That is the fundamental problem. You’ve concluded, out of hand, that every person in human history who has ever experienced the supernatural power of the grace of God in their lives (virtually every person who prays to God experiences this) is wrong (deluded, ignorant, mislead).

That makes a discussion with you very simple. You hear the word “miracle” and think “delusion”. You may claim that if you saw an amputated limb restored, then you would believe, but there is nothing you’ve said that indicates that at all.

What lives of the Catholic saints (there are hundreds) have you read? Again, it’s merely cynicism to dismiss the widespread experience of human beings across the world as if they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth.

To find God, you have to work at it – you have to seek the Good. That’s what God is.
Atheism is not a journey towards the fullness of Good and it cannot seek that. It cuts off the search.

We see that a lot here on CAF. Atheists who come on this site with really nothing to contribute to the topic at all. Then they claim that they’re really not searching for anything about God, but they’re just “amused” by Catholicism. They don’t want to learn about the Catholic Faith, they take no effort to study it – instead, we get some childish ridicule, as if that has any value at all.

Thus, we see those kinds of atheists as shallow and lacking an ability to reflect on the religious experiences of people who have faith in God. Again, there is a hatred of God and religion is something that they want to attack.

I detect that is the case with you. I hear some stock arguments that can be found on any atheist’s blog. For me, that’s not a discussion it’s just mud throwing.

 

[gearhead]

For purposes of this discussion, I accept the claim that God exists. This is the first point that you do not accept – so it doesn’t make much sense to go beyond that.

I think that may be a key difference between us. If it’s taken as given that the Christian God exists, I think it can be quite reasonable to think that such a God would be actively doing things in the world. OTOH, not only do I not take as given that God behaves as described in the Bible, I don’t take it as given that God (or any other supernatural thing) exists at all.

That being said, I do think it can make sense to go beyond that. However, you have to realize a key difference between our worldviews, and therefore (I assume) in our standards of evidence: if you already accept with certainty that God exists, He is eternal, He has performed miracles in the past as described in the Bible, and He has promised to watch over and protect humanity in future, then it’s not that extraordinary to claim that He is still performing miracles now just as He promised. However, to someone like me, who has yet to accept any of those premises, the claim of a miracle is amazingly extraordinary. And like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Again, I’m a Catholic and this is a Catholic site. There are a lot of questions about why you’re here and what you hope to accomplish. What are you looking for?

About this issue specifically, or in general?

Mainly, I’m here to learn more about Catholicism. My wife’s Catholic and the Church will have some impact on the lives of our future children. I’d like to figure out what that impact is likely to be.

Also, though this is a very, very distant possibility at this point, I promised my wife I’d try to keep my mind as open as it could be to becoming Catholic myself. However, since then, my exploration of my own beliefs has led me to label myself an atheist instead of an agnostic as I used to (and more recently simply “humanist”, since I’ve come to feel that my religious beliefs or lack of them shouldn’t be what defines my belief system) and my exploration of what the Church teaches has led me even further away from it than I ever was. So… I’m still trying my best to keep my promise, but I’m not holding my breath.

No, I accept that God intervenes in people’s lives in many different ways. My primary interest is Catholicism for reasons other than the many miracles that are evidenced in the Catholic Faith. You seem to be putting all of the apologetic for a religion on its claims of miracles, but there are many other aspects to consider.

No, I’m not. Or at least, that wasn’t my intent. My thinking was along the lines of what I touched on before: once a person has accepted that the Catholic Church is correct, the mental hurdle to accept Catholic miracles as valid is much smaller than the hurdle involved in accepting, say, Hindu or Pagan miracles. In the one case, the miracle is simply a specific instance of something you already held to be generally true; in the other case, accepting the miracle as true would involve rejecting as false a whole number of ideas you’d already accepted as true with high certainty.

When people pray and receive answers to prayer – that is an expression of supernatural power.

This is only evidence of supernatural power if the opposite effect implies the opposite conclusion. When people pray and receive no answer, is this an expression of supernatural impotence?

In the Catholic world, that is not true at all. Our religion is based on daily, on-going interventions of the supernatural. Again, people pray to God for that reason. That is how most people test the existence and presence of God – not through laboratory experiments, but through a personal exploration of spiritual powers that they perceive. They find an illumination in their spiritual life and they pursue it.

And my “personal exploration” has led me to conclude that no gods exist at all. Are both your “exploration” and mine equally valid?

Sure – here is one:

Commander closes submarine door against tons of water pressure

“A military commission later determined that what Cotrina did was humanly impossible.”

The canonization of every Catholic saint involves the investigation of miracles.

Great - this is exactly the sort of thing that I can get my teeth into.

I’m an engineer by profession, and (if I dust off the parts of my brain I haven’t used since university), if you can give me the water levels involved and the size and shape of the door and the rooms on either side, I can probably come up with a decent estimate of the actual force that would be required to close the door.

BTW - in some quick Googling, I found another article that said he couldn’t close the door because of the angle of the ship as sunk, not because of water pressure. Maybe before we begin, we should establish all the facts of the matter.

Also, I realized something important: a sinking submarine wouldn’t exactly be a fixed frame of reference. As it goes down, it would pitch, roll, yaw and accelerate in ways that make objects appear to behave differently than they would when the frame of reference is at rest. Is there “black box” data (or does a submarine even have a “black box”?) or maybe SONAR data from nearby ships that can be used to determine what the magnitude and direction of the sub’s linear and rotational acceleration was at the moment when the door was closed?

 

[gearhead]

A person who has decided in an *a priori *manner, against the actual evidence, that miracles cannot occur – is not open to the information that is provided at places like Lourdes. For example, when certified medical personnel state that “there is no scientific explanation” for the cure – it means that the cure does not fall into an explicable pattern.

Sure, but is the reason for that deviation from the pattern supernatural intervention through a French shrine?

Also, though I don’t think it’s necessarily matters to the truth or falsehood of a miracle claim, if miracles are real, then they have interesting theological implications. Take Lourdes: if we accept your suggestion that God does heal some of the people who visit there, He still doesn’t heal the rest. Apparently, He could’ve done so but didn’t. So… why? Were they not faithful enough? Did they not pray hard enough? Does God simply not like them?

So… the sailor prayed to God, and God saved most of the crew of the Pacocha. But God didn’t save any of the crew of the Kursk. Why? It’s not because God can’t save sailors on sinking submarines - you just pointed out that He can. Apparently, God could’ve saved the men on the Kursk but chose not to. Did God want those men to die?

Also, going back to the Pacocha, wouldn’t the greater miracle have been to prevent the collision that sunk the sub in the first place? From what I just read, apparently four men died in the incident.

But again, the data on miracles from a Catholic perspective alone is vast. If you’re looking to learn something about this, and you’re open to the information – you should spend some serious time reading and researching Catholic sources on this information.

I’ve read a bit about some saints and some miracles, but I recognize that the Church has a vested interest in propagating the idea that God actively performs miracles, so I don’t think it’s necessarily an unbiased source… but in most cases, the Catholic Church is the only source of information on the claims involved.

If you’re closed to the evidence (and most atheists are), then you’re not seeking to learn.

Just because nothing has convinced me yet doesn’t mean I’m closed to the evidence.

I think it would be worth your time to look at some of the miracles that have occurred where there is not a slim chance that the thing could happen naturally.

Okay. Such as?

You mentioned closing the door on the sinking submarine, but I don’t think that counts. There’s at least a slim chance that as the ship pitches and rolls as it sinks, things on the ship (e.g. doors) would be flung around in unexpected ways.

Then, when we see a person saying, simultaneously, that they believe a miracle occured (God made His presence known), it’s important to be open minded about this.

From what little I know of neurotheology, there’s a very good chance that when “God makes His presence known”, it happened naturally.

I understand that there are some people who have, basically, a hatred of God.

Not me. I don’t believe in God. The idea of hating God makes about as much sense to me as hating unicorns.

That’s something we might learn about the nature of God. Knowing about God, and more importantly, knowing God through communication with him requires different skills than we would use when learning about other academic disciplines.

Is it fair to say that this is your way of saying that God is not subject to rational inquiry?

But also, importantly, you’re claiming that the restoration of an amputated limb could “never” happen naturally (so, if it did – you would be immediately converted to a theistic position, right? )

Not necessarily theistic; a re-grown limb could be considered evidence of the supernatural generally; by itself, it could point just as easily to pixies as it could to a monotheistic creator-god.

Which itself poses another problem for citing miracles as evidence. Even if every single purported miracle that supports Christianity were true, this isn’t necessarily support for Christianity. For example, they could all be the work of the trickster-god Loki as part of his campaign to lead people away from worship of the true gods of Norse mythology.

And how can you reject this possibility once you’ve opened the door to supernatural explanations?

… From experience we know that if an amputated limb did grow back, our atheist friends would be able to find a vast number of reasons to find that event unremarkable. They would do as you’re doing now – look for more spectacular tricks for God to perform, they would claim that the new limb is not a big deal, they would claim that nobody ever said that “it could never happen”, and “we know more about science now”, etc.

The Gospel says exactly the same thing … “they wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead”.

Yes, I know it says this, and it’s convenient: when someone isn’t convinced of your position, it’s because of a flaw in their character and not because of one in the evidence or your argument.

But on a related topic, I just searched Google on “new bone growth” and there are many links. I know a man who had his leg lengthened with new bone growth miraculously. There’s no need to reply by asking me to “prove it”. Your view of my statement here (and of me) must be that I am deluded or lying.

New bone growth isn’t exactly a whole limb.

But again, you’d make that judgement without knowing anything about my credibility or what I actually experienced. You’d conclude that something like a miracle could not possibly occur without actually falsifying the claim yourself.

BTW - if it happened to someone you know, why did you have to Google it?

For an atheist, a path toward Ganesh is a path towards God, and thus an indirect path towards Christ. That is how conversions happen many times – a person finds God, then seeks a path to worship Him. Then, that path is corrected and purified and many become Catholic.

But the vast majority of people who would follow a path to Ganesh are already Hindu. They already believe in their gods, and any reinforcement of those beliefs convinces them even more that they’re correct and competing beliefs, e.g. Christianity, are incorrect.

 

[gearhead]

I would suggest that you read the biography of Padre Pio by Carty.

I’ll try to track it down, but I don’t think I’ll have time to read it for at least a few weeks.

I’m talking about the miracles of Padre Pio – all of them.
How do you plan on investigating these? By reading atheist websites?

Don’t know yet. Once I know what the specific claims are about him, I’ll see what information’s available.

Right now, all I know about him is that early in his life as a priest, he had stigmata. Then, he took to wearing gloves but still claimed he had stigmata… but didn’t show them to people. Finally, when he died, his gloves were removed and the stigmata were “healed”.

The first explanation that comes to mind for all this is that he could’ve simply created the stigmata himself, then started wearing gloves when he decided to stop gouging his palms up. The wounds healed over time, until there wasn’t anything left to see by the time he died as an old man.

BTW - on stigmata generally, something was told out to me that I found interesting, and I’d like to hear your response:

Traditionally, stigmatics’ wounds would be on their palms. However, in the 60s, Pierre Barbet published his work that claimed that the palms weren’t strong enough to take the forces of crucifixion, so the Romans must have driven the nails into their victims’ forearms. This story was repeated in the popular press, and almost immediately, when new stigmatics came forward, their wounds were on their forearms. Then, years later, other researchers tried to confirm Barbet’s results and decided that he was wrong - the hand was strong enough, and Barbet had failed to account for the contribution that the legs would provide in supporting the body. As their findings were published and repeated in the press, suddenly stigmatics started showing up with wounds in their palms again.

To an outside observer like me, it almost seems like Jesus couldn’t remember how he was crucified.

To investigate the topic and learn something about it, you have to approach it without bias. If you’re not capable of doing that, then there’s no sense in discussing the matter.

Everyone has bias. The trick is in being prepared to throw away that bias if it’s not valid.

Anyone can claim skepticism about any matter at all. That is merely insincerity and sophistry.

No, it’s merely common sense. What’s the alternative? To accept every claim you hear until it’s proven false?

If you want to study the topic, you need to be prepared to make the case that the defenders of Padre Pio’s miracles (through his whole life) make. You have to investigate the sympathetic sources and not merely dismiss them with an off-handed comment but find some reason why hundreds of people experienced his miraculous powers.

Well, like I said, I’ll look into it, but it might take a while.

That is the fundamental problem. You’ve concluded, out of hand, that every person in human history who has ever experienced the supernatural power of the grace of God in their lives (virtually every person who prays to God experiences this) is wrong (deluded, ignorant, mislead).

No, I’ve just failed to accept that they necessarily were right.

We see that a lot here on CAF. Atheists who come on this site with really nothing to contribute to the topic at all. Then they claim that they’re really not searching for anything about God, but they’re just “amused” by Catholicism. They don’t want to learn about the Catholic Faith, they take no effort to study it – instead, we get some childish ridicule, as if that has any value at all.

Thus, we see those kinds of atheists as shallow and lacking an ability to reflect on the religious experiences of people who have faith in God. Again, there is a hatred of God and religion is something that they want to attack.

I detect that is the case with you. I hear some stock arguments that can be found on any atheist’s blog. For me, that’s not a discussion it’s just mud throwing.

I’m not “amused” by Catholicism, personally. If anything, I find it somewhat off-putting. As I’ve explained a few times now in different threads, I’m here mainly to decide what my attitude should be toward the religion that my wife has promised to raise my children in. Should it be something that I should encourage, or something where I insist that she not go any further than the bare minimum of what’s necessary for her to keep her word?

As for this thread, it’s titled “Questions for Atheists”. Well, I’m an atheist, so hopefully my responses here will help other people gain some understanding into a viewpoint that they don’t share.