Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
icamhif said:
Please don’t speak for all Christians 🙂
Click to expand...
Perish the thought! I was referring to Charlie and tony and some of their cohorts. Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. After all they are not representative of “all” Christians, no matter how strongly they might assert it. Let me add a heartfelt: “Thank God!”.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Perish the thought! I was referring to Charlie and tony and some of their cohorts. Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. After all they are not representative of “all” Christians, no matter how strongly they might assert it. Let me add a heartfelt: “Thank God!”.
Click to expand...
No problem.

For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that making very hostile attacks on another’s religion is a fruitful endeavor. Christians and Atheists can holler at each other: “You worship a cruel God” and “You have no real purpose in life,” until they’re blue in the face, but it will get neither of them anywhere (much less, change anyone’s mind).
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Since Bradski has already pointed out your error…

… and you keep repeating it, what else is there to say? By the way, atheists do not say that “something comes from nothing”.

Now, to your question about the miraculous healings. If we would discover that a limb spontaneously grew back, that might not be sufficient to declare a “miracle”. It would be astonishing, and worthy of research, but nothing more. If, however, all the amputees who were sent to Lourdes would have their missing limbs regrow, but none of the others would… then that would be a “miracle” of the first class.

Just like the “pie” in the sky in the form of quotes from the Bible. You asked for some examples what would convince skeptics that God is real, and now you have two of them. And as I predicted, someone immediately started to spew the nonsense about losing our free will, if God had introduced such a miracle. Aren’t you surprised?
Click to expand...
Uhm, but this has already happened, not recently but is has been recorded.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

…
 
JerryZ said:
Uhm, but this has already happened, not recently but is has been recorded.
Click to expand...
Recorded you say. Well, don’t I feel stupid. There’s us atheists asking for something to prove that God exists (well, some atheists, and only if they are asked what would convince them and there’s this guy in, where was it, Spain, with a brand new leg.

I mean, who wouldn’t believe that. I take it you do, do you?
 
Bradski said:
Recorded you say. Well, don’t I feel stupid. There’s us atheists asking for something to prove that God exists (well, some atheists, and only if they are asked what would convince them and there’s this guy in, where was it, Spain, with a brand new leg.

I mean, who wouldn’t believe that. I take it you do, do you?
Click to expand...
At some point, I believe you will discover the proof that has always been there.

As to the sort of proof that fits your criteria, it will always be too ridiculous to believed.
What you are asking for is ridiculous. While there are miracles, their “objective” expression is merely the surface. Even if believed such extraordinary events would not do much more than reinforce the same limited relationship with Reality, perhaps with a twist of magic. None of it would reveal God as He is.

God is Love. The giving Relationality, through which everything comes into existence. This universe is a glorious manifestation of His love. He wants us to return that love to Him and to each other. To love one another is to engage in the eternal act of being that is the trinity, and the whereby the universe comes into and is maintained in existence each moment. In addition to His being Goodness, He is Beauty, the living Truth in the Being that is Himself.

To search for proof of regrown limbs will not lift the cognitive veil that presents the world as fundamentally sterile and meaningless. Atheist? At least be a Humanist! Witness our greatness and promote, at least, a caring for one another, if you do not wish to pursue its Ground.
 
Personally, Al, I have zero interest in having anyone regrow a limb or seeing stars dancing about the sky. They have as much relevance to me as probably Russell’s celestial teapot does.

Belief in a personal God is personal. There are no proofs.
 
Bradski said:
Personally, Al, I have zero interest in having anyone regrow a limb or seeing stars dancing about the sky. They have as much relevance to me as probably Russell’s celestial teapot does.

Belief in a personal God is personal. There are no proofs.
Click to expand...
Then what, to you, would count as sufficient evidence that an alleged miracle may in fact be a miracle?
 
Bradski said:
Personally, Al, I have zero interest in having anyone regrow a limb or seeing stars dancing about the sky. They have as much relevance to me as probably Russell’s celestial teapot does.

Belief in a personal God is personal. There are no proofs.
Click to expand...
You are correct, luv. There are no “proofs”.

But there is evidence.

And there arguments for His existence which are tenable, logical, and reasonable.
 
PRmerger said:
You are correct, luv. There are no “proofs”.

But there is evidence.

And there arguments for His existence which are tenable, logical, and reasonable.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I will also add that thoughtful atheists interpret those same “evidence” within a scientific (or otherwise secular) framework, and consider them as equally (if not more) “tenable, logical, and reasonable.”
 
icamhif said:
Amen.

I will also add that thoughtful atheists interpret those same “evidence” within a scientific (or otherwise secular) framework, and consider them as equally (if not more) “tenable, logical, and reasonable.”
Click to expand...
But they are not scientific arguments. They are philosophical arguments.

And reason alone can be used to digest these argument and come to the conclusion: it is more reasonable than not to believe in God’s existence.
 
icamhif said:
Amen.

I will also add that thoughtful atheists interpret those same “evidence” within a scientific (or otherwise secular) framework, and consider them as equally (if not more) “tenable, logical, and reasonable.”
Click to expand...
I have seen all the proposed “evidence”, and found all of them wanting. What kind of evidence is offered?
  1. Hearsay evidence about events that allegedly happened thousands of years ago.
  2. There is not one shred of hard evidence about the alleged miracles performed by Jesus. And if Jesus did not perform those “miracles”, then he did not have a divine nature.
  3. Other unsubstantiated “miracles” that happened hundreds of years ago.
  4. Personal, anecdotal “evidence”.
  5. Philosophical arguments with holes so wide in them that you can drive a truck through them.
And these are countered by:
  1. The silence of God.
  2. The non-interference by God.
  3. The problem of “evil”.
  4. And, of course the incoherent definition of “God”. The usage of meaningless words and phrases.
There was a time when people were “happy” to just believe in God. Then some philosophers wanted to get rid of the “blind faith”, and wanted to fabricate “proofs” for God. And that was the time when the proverbial substance hit the fan. People started to doubt… and doubt is the gravedigger to bury mythology.

The Bible clearly says that “faith” is a virtue, that “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. So what is this obsession with providing evidence? If there would be real, hard evidence then there would be no realm for faith. 🤷
 
Pallas_Athene said:
The Bible clearly says that “faith” is a virtue, that “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. So what is this obsession with providing evidence? If there would be real, hard evidence then there would be no realm for faith. 🤷
Click to expand...
You seem to be unaware of the fact that,at that time,faith meant royalty to the party that earns it.In this case to God.

And that royalty was based on evidence as well.
 
NormalBeliever said:
You seem to be unaware of the fact that,at that time,faith meant royalty to the party that earns it.In this case to God.

And that royalty was based on evidence as well.
Click to expand...
What is this “royalty”? Did you mean “loyalty”?
 
Pallas_Athene said:
I have seen all the proposed “evidence”, and found all of them wanting. What kind of evidence is offered?
  1. Hearsay evidence about events that allegedly happened thousands of years ago.
  2. There is not one shred of hard evidence about the alleged miracles performed by Jesus. And if Jesus did not perform those “miracles”, then he did not have a divine nature.
  3. Other unsubstantiated “miracles” that happened hundreds of years ago.
  4. Personal, anecdotal “evidence”.
  5. Philosophical arguments with holes so wide in them that you can drive a truck through them.
And these are countered by:
  1. The silence of God.
  2. The non-interference by God.
  3. The problem of “evil”.
  4. And, of course the incoherent definition of “God”. The usage of meaningless words and phrases.
There was a time when people were “happy” to just believe in God. Then some philosophers wanted to get rid of the “blind faith”, and wanted to fabricate “proofs” for God. And that was the time when the proverbial substance hit the fan. People started to doubt… and doubt is the gravedigger to bury mythology.

The Bible clearly says that “faith” is a virtue, that “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. So what is this obsession with providing evidence? If there would be real, hard evidence then there would be no realm for faith. 🤷
Click to expand...
If by “hard evidence”, you mean incontrovertible evidence that cannot be explained away, then yes, I don’t think we need that, or else faith would not be a virtue.
 
icamhif said:
If by “hard evidence”, you mean incontrovertible evidence that cannot be explained away, then yes, I don’t think we need that, or else faith would not be a virtue.
Click to expand...
Indeed. So there is no hard evidence. As far as I am concerned, this kind of “faith” is not a virtue. God is supposed to have given us the ability to reason. I would say that employing that reason would be a virtue. To deliberately discard reason for unsubstantiated, blind faith is not a virtue, it is an iniquity. Why would God give us the ability to reason, and then demand that we suspend this reason for blind faith?

But, again this is my subjective opinion. Other people might disagree.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Then some philosophers wanted to get rid of the “blind faith”, and wanted to fabricate “proofs” for God.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Those philosophers started in the Old Testament (Isaiah, for one) and were affirmed by the philosophers in the New Testament (Paul for another).

Blind faith has always been rejected by the Church.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
First, these are not “doctrines” - atheism has no “doctrines”. Second, that is what atheism is all about: “the lack of belief in anything called supernatural”. But that is all. Being an atheist has no predictive value on one’s general disposition, on being kind or cruel, on being helpful or selfish on being cheerful or depressed, smart or stupid. No predictive value whatsoever!
Click to expand...
And that is why it is not only a false philosophy but a useless one.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

He has only fooled himself and revels in his folly.

The atheist has to invent an entire philosophy to support his atheism.

Joy is the hardest part of the invention, because what is there to be joyful about?

Easter morning has to be a worse than dull moment for atheists when they see how much Christians are filled with joy at the prospect of their resurrection.

I wish you could be as honest with your atheism as Sartre and Camus were. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top