Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[tonyrey]

Not identifying myself as part of that group,
but wanting to exercise my mind and
in the process reinforce and build up my neural connections,
I thought I’d try to put together some thoughts on the matter of matter.

Who is thinking, is the person. He/she utilizes his brain in doing so.

I’m a fan of seeing all this as a unity, which can be understood in accordiance to different structural frameworks:
On the one hand, we have what is currently described as matter: electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, proteins, nucleic acids, mitochondria, cellular membranes, cells, organs, organisms, species, life, the universe.
On the other, sensations, feelings, thoughts, memories, desires, relationships, families, societies, politics, economics, entertainment, humanity.
I ran out of hands, but we also have our very being and its connection to all else that is and the Source of all that is. Associated with this realm are the manifestations of this relational reality - truth, wisdom, knowledge, the appreciation of beauty and goodness.

For some reason there are people who cannot seem to get beyond a particular framework. Everything is translated into that metaphor. But, to say that all there is is physical activity is equally bizarre to suggesting that this is all mystical illusion.

If we choose to focus our attention to these words, we may wish to contemplate their physical reality:

• as pixels,
• as photons travelling though the space between the monitor and the eye,
• as chemical reactions occurring within the rods and cones of the retina,
• and those within the neurons which interconnect
• and form the basic signal that travels down the optic cord
• onward to the thalamus and other brain centres,
• to the the occiput where visual perceptions are processed as such,
• and temporal areas where words “exist” ( for want of a better way to describe it)
• including all the prefrontal and other attentional areas of the brain that are involved.
  All this and more is what is happening physically within the experience that we are having.

Note however, the untiy of the experience.

At the same time, it can be directed by the will,
to this element and that
through the direction transmitted by these words
and by one’s own choosing.

This free-flowing attention/being can focus in on itself or be vaguely dispersed, unaware as in deep sleep.
It is who one is at the surface and in one’s depths,
having no dimensions, temporal or spatial;
it just is and contains all there is within the length and breadth of one’s existence.
And, Who contains me? From Whom do I spring in every moment, self-aware or otherwise?

This post is way too long. For those who stuck through it, I hope the trip was worth the price.

It’s worth every cent, penny, euro or whatever our currency is… The one thing lacking in the atomists’ scheme of things is synthesis. They analyse everything until it becomes meaningless. They don’t see the forest for the trees or the desert for the sand or the man for his organs. Their world is composed of bits and pieces which somehow manage to cling together and somehow produce integrated units which somehow manage to produce more integrated units which somehow manage to produce more integrated units which become purposeful - or at least seem purposeful - although there’s no guarantee they really are purposeful! In fact there’s no guarantee of anything at all apart from the fact that there is no guarantee that there is no guarantee… :coolinoff:… Shaken to its core?

 

[tonyrey]

It’s worth every cent, penny, euro or whatever our currency is… The one thing lacking in the atomists’ scheme of things is synthesis. They analyse everything until it becomes meaningless. They don’t see the forest for the trees or the desert for the sand or the man for his organs. Their world is composed of bits and pieces which somehow manage to cling together and somehow produce integrated units which somehow manage to produce more integrated units which somehow manage to produce more integrated units which become purposeful - or at least seem purposeful - although there’s no guarantee they really are purposeful! In fact there’s no guarantee of anything at all apart from the fact that there is no guarantee that there is no guarantee… :coolinoff:… Shaken to its core?

Scepticism is self-destructive because it gets nowhere. It begins with doubt and ends with doubt. There is no logical halt on the descent from meaning to absurdity. We finish up by questioning everything and finding nothing. Yet it is logically impossible to reject everything because we need a reason to do so and that implies belief in the value of reasoning, **not **physical objects - and reasoning exists at a higher level than neural impulses. Things don’t produce thoughts!

 

[Lost_but_Found]

Many people believe what is printed in the National Enquirer. There is a market for such stories. Observe, how many people believe that wrestling is “for real”. And that there are alien abductions. And that the Moon landing was just a fabrication of the media. Einstein said: “There are two things which are infinite… the universe and human stupidity… and I am not sure about the universe”.

Why insult so much? I haven’t read the article but if I believe there is something very unusual about it am I “gullible” as well? If the acting up of a radio can be so simply explained away why don’t you and Shermer replicate it? I have worked with electronics (consumer grade to large front-of-house P.A.s) my entire life thus far and why hasn’t any piece ever turned itself on? No one I know has had an experience like that unless they’re not talking!

If you are at all evangelizing/casting out your net to lure in potential aetheists would it not be more reasoned to come across as a person happy in your own skin and slightly humble? Insults and name-calling give the perception of being miserable and angry with everyone who does not think like them. I know a lot of aetheists and most of them are unhappy. A small handful are more or less happy and not one person has the joy many Christians have. If I only had two choices I would MUCH rather be fat, dumb and happy than thin, intellectual and sad.

It has to be frustrating when it seems you are so much more logical than the rest of us. The truth is, I think aetheists feel we are fools and the opposite holds true as well. You can believe in whatever you like, of course. God will not be put to the test as He wrote millenia ago. He is not a puppy dog jumping through hoops and being subjected to your criteria for proof or evidence. You are my enemy but also His child and He loves all of us and commanded we love each other. Aside from that we (if I may speak for other Christians) do not have to keep trying to make you believe. As you are a thinking adult and being you have been exposed to Him along the way that is where our duty technically ends. You are then free to accept or reject God. That is how it has always been. If your heart is closed, as mine was, then fine. I love you, all the power to you and I hope you have a wonderfully happy life. If you are open to the possibility of unusual things, evidence, and testimony from good people then that is great as well.

There may be a time someday when you have to trust people’s word because that is all you have. I used to think. "Well, it must have been easy to believe in God back in Jesus’ time because He was right there. Then I read about Fatima in the 20th century…17000 people (including socialist government folks who had everything to gain by determining it was a hoax) saw some extremely bizarre things. Were they all gullible, stupid or swept up? I spoke to someone who was there and another whose aunt was there. I believe them…they had nothing to gain, really, by lying. Were the skeptics perhaps not skeptical enough? I am getting very skeptical of what I would call extreme-skepticism. Of course there were skeptics in Jesus’ time as well. If they didn’t see things with their own eyes it didn’t work for them. He had Doubting Thomas’ demanding Miracles from Him by their rules and on demand. Of course those who wanted to disbelieve could decide for themselves. We are not His robots, puppets or playthings but have free will. Those whose hearts have turned to stone do not have to open their eyes to Him nor their hearts nor minds.

I suspect that even you, my Brother, have had a moment in your conscience where you said, “Nah…that couldn’t have just happened…impossible…coincidence!” Of course some odd occurrence does not at all in itself constitute evidence of God, but if you can say you have read through the Bible once and felt completely the same afterward and if you can choose one day where when you get up you say, “I am going to try what that ‘Lost but Found’ jerk on Catholic Answers said and go through the whole day assuming there are no coincidences to see where it guides me” what do you have to lose?

I have no problem believing the 17,000 folks in Portugal. Testimony is not foolproof, but it is admissable in court even in this day and age where our word is not worth as much as it was and so many people have agendas and spin everything. That many people CANNOT have the same hallucination. Years ago I was on your side…now I am glad to have Him on mine. This side is infinitely better than the other.

I do not know of the argument you use as a signature, but perhaps not all love is good, ie. physical love.

The other person who uses a quote from the Lisa Simpson CHARACTER…really, you use a cartoon quote to insult all Believers?

Sent from my iPhone

 

[Lost_but_Found]

This “coercive” stuff only exists in your imagination. A miracle is either convincing despite one’s prior beliefs or not. Even the most convincing miracle does not take away our freedom to live our life as we want to. Only a full brainwashing would do that.

You are not qualified to make guesses of the “intent” of the miracle provider. Of course all this is idle spinning of our wheels. God does not provide “miracles”, convincing or otherwise.

You are playing with the words. Based upon the track record of science we have a reasonable expectation - not some blind faith that science might be able to answer meaningful questions… not ALL questions.

How many limbs were regrown on humans, not on planaria?

Your close-mindedness is beginning to reveal itself as happens eventually with all aetheists. Miracles can be small or huge. “Brainwashing” betrays your motives. You are not qualified nor is anyone to create a parlor-trick-in-the-sky miracle for God to faithfully obey. Your custom made-to-order miracle may (or may not) convince you if it actually transpired but many more would STILL not believe it. It is called “Belief” for a reason; not because it is untrue but because YOU can choose to explore it or not. Are you really here to see another point of view? I have seen things from both sides; would that aetheists here have done the same.

Can I assume that if we are being enlightened with your concepts you are also doing the same with other faiths like Hinduism and Islam? God does not provide miracles? That’s it, then?

If you are humble you may get into Heaven. If you are not the chances are probably not good at all. When you keep challenging someone to “put your money where your mouth is” do you feel someone should try to make themselves some quick cash on the back of our Creator? Do you think Miracles are about money? It is not for you to boss my Father around and personally don’t care for the way you are trying to quash a discussion by implying that one of the faithful here is shooting off their mouth. There are many, many other sites for aetheistic compliance.

 

[Bradski]

I have no problem believing the 17,000 folks in Portugal. Testimony is not foolproof, but it is admissable in court even in this day and age where our word is not worth as much as it was and so many people have agendas and spin everything. That many people CANNOT have the same hallucination.

Too easy to use Fatima. It can’t be disproved so it’s easy to claim the high ground. ‘Lots of people saw it! They can’t all be wrong’.

So try Zeitoun for size. Not just thousands seeing a miracle here, Lost, but millions. Not a one-off event, but dozens. Not just for a few seconds, but for hours at a time. Not just for a day or so, but for three years. Not over a century ago, but in living memory. Not just described, but investigated, filmed and photographed. Not seen by just by the local villagers, but by heads of state, reporters, police, church officials (church officials! No spin there. No agenda with those guys. Well, unless you think they wanted it to be true…).

If you have no problem in believing in Fatima, then you are cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it going to believe without any shadow of doubt whatsoever that Mary made regular appearances on some roof in Egypt. Could you confirm that? Can you confirm your acceptance of the testimony of not just thousands, but millions?

If you do, then perhaps we can look at some evidence for this event. Which, seeing as it was so recent, should be of biblical proportions and incontrovertible. Then we can check to see how it stacks up against Fatima and your cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it belief in that event.

 

[GodMadeMe]

Too easy to use Fatima. It can’t be disproved so it’s easy to claim the high ground. ‘Lots of people saw it! They can’t all be wrong’.

So try Zeitoun for size. Not just thousands seeing a miracle here, Lost, but millions. Not a one-off event, but dozens. Not just for a few seconds, but for hours at a time. Not just for a day or so, but for three years. Not over a century ago, but in living memory. Not just described, but investigated, filmed and photographed. Not seen by just by the local villagers, but by heads of state, reporters, police, church officials (church officials! No spin there. No agenda with those guys. Well, unless you think they wanted it to be true…).

If you have no problem in believing in Fatima, then you are cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it going to believe without any shadow of doubt whatsoever that Mary made regular appearances on some roof in Egypt. Could you confirm that? Can you confirm your acceptance of the testimony of not just thousands, but millions?

If you do, then perhaps we can look at some evidence for this event. Which, seeing as it was so recent, should be of biblical proportions and incontrovertible. Then we can check to see how it stacks up against Fatima and your cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it belief in that event.

All that can really be said about those events is that something out of the ordinary, possibly supernatural, occurred and it is being interpreted according to peoples religious convictions. While it certainly isn’t proof of any religious belief, the claim that it was all just a giant group hallucination is also an interpretation based on the “belief” that metaphysical naturalism is true and therefore there is no valid basis to consider other possibilities. Which is fine if you believe that… It could be a group hallucination, but that explanation seems like an adhoc interpretation in light of the current trend to reduce all possible experiences to natural explanations. Its a secular argument and doesn’t seem to be testable either.

 

[Bradski]

All that can really be said about those events is that something out of the ordinary, possibly supernatural, occurred and it is being interpreted according to peoples religious convictions.

Sorry, was that Fatima or Zeitoun? Either way, yes, I’d agree. People see what they want to see and interpret it in their own way.

While it certainly isn’t proof of any religious belief, the claim that it was all just a giant group hallucination is also an interpretation based on the “belief” that metaphysical naturalism is true and therefore there is no valid basis to consider other possibilities.

What? You have to ‘believe’ that naturalism is true? Are you saying that you have to ‘believe’ that natural events occur to be able to include them in the list of possibilities? And you are partly contradicting yourself saying that it might have bene a mass hallucination. A hallucination is a different matter to people interpreting things differently. An hallucination is people seeing a light when that light is not there. If there is a light there and people see different things when they look at it, that’s interpretation. Which is catching: ‘Look, it’s a spaceship/shooting star/balloon’ – ‘Oh, yes, I see it too’. That’s especially prevalent if you are specifically looking for something or expect to see something.

Which is fine if you believe that… It could be a group hallucination, but that explanation seems like an adhoc interpretation in light of the current trend to reduce all possible experiences to natural explanations. Its a secular argument and doesn’t seem to be testable either.

Oh no, it’s not just secular and it’s most definitely testable. It can be specifically proved to have occurred (or not) or on the balance of probabilities can be said to have occurred (or not). The Church investigates many claims and accepts the evidence or rejects it. As do secular organisations.

And cogitate on this: With zero concrete evidence, apart from reports from eye witnesses, they have accepted Fatima (as do the majority of Christians). With a gargantuan amount of potential evidence for a quite recent miracle, eclipsing Fatima on all accounts, they have not accepted it (although the Coptic church did). The problem is…the evidence. When there is the opportunity to obtain hard evidence, as it is with Zeitoun, the argument that it is a bona fide miracle hasn’t a leg to stand on. As opposed to Fatima when it is impossible to disprove it, if you examined what people bring forward as evidence for Zeitoun, your gullibility would have to be off the scale for you to accept it.

You can claim to believe Fatima with no risk of looking foolish. Try that with Zeitoun. Scepticism seems to be the order of the day when there is hard evidence but sadly lacking when there isn’t. But millions can’t be wrong, surely…

 

[Lost_but_Found]

Too easy to use Fatima. It can’t be disproved so it’s easy to claim the high ground. ‘Lots of people saw it! They can’t all be wrong’. So try Zeitoun for size. Not just thousands seeing a miracle here, Lost, but millions. Not a one-off event, but dozens. Not just for a few seconds, but for hours at a time. Not just for a day or so, but for three years. Not over a century ago, but in living memory.

I am not trying to claim any high ground nor trying to take an easy approach. How can either of them be proved or disproved? What is your reason for putting so much weight on this Zeitoun? Correct me if I am wrong, people, but it is my understanding Catholics are not required to believe in any or all Miracles. I look at the ones I know about that seem to have no scientific explanation as “Icing on the cake”. I only heard of the second one from you on this post so I did a quick wiki check…their article suggests as many as 250,000 to millions of people may have seen apparitions

Not just described, but investigated, filmed and photographed. Not seen by just by the local villagers, but by heads of state, reporters, police, church officials (church officials! No spin there. No agenda with those guys. Well, unless you think they wanted it to be true…).

Fatima was described, investigated, and I believe there is a film of it somewhere but how something of that vintage shot in the dark would look today does not inspire confidence. What do you mean by “(church officials! No spin there. No agenda with those guys.”? Are you here for the right reasons? Looking for a “gotcha” moment? The Miracle at Fatima was seen by socialist government reps and media whose agenda was to disprove it and it didn’t work at all. The faith of those children and how they became pint-sized fearless community leaders was the beginning of the end for socialism in Portugal. For any who feel socialism is a good option talk to someone who actually went through it or, even worse, communism. Great in theory but…

If you have no problem in believing in Fatima, then you are cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it going to believe without any shadow of doubt whatsoever that Mary made regular appearances on some roof in Egypt. Could you confirm that?

Brad, you assume too much. I only just heard of Zeitoun from you this aft. If the church has made an investigation and feels officially it happened then I would be open to the idea, no more and no less. Initially it is somewhat intriguing…how common are these tectonic electromagnetic events? If common why would they draw so much attention? Why so regularly and predictably? Why directly in front of the church? Did this phenomena occur in other parts of the Cairo area? Were there healings occurring simultaneously? Did the church release any of their findings? Was there unusual socio-political events there at that time?

If you do, then perhaps we can look at some evidence for this event. Which, seeing as it was so recent, should be of biblical proportions and incontrovertible. Then we can check to see how it stacks up against Fatima and your cast iron, rock solid, no-doubt-about-it belief in that event

People can be smacked in the face with something and still not believe it, so no Miracle will ever be deemed incontrovertible. I believe it would be too easy to have a Miracle that is close to perfectly inarguable. Perhaps we’re meant to dig and delve as part of a treasure hunt…make our own discoveries, observations and opinions in our own way. Again, Miracles are icing on the cake for me. I have an affinity for the one at Fatima being we have been there and spoke to persons very close to the events on either side of the pond. Medjugorge (spelling?) may prove interesting in the long run. I have spoken with someone who experienced something unusual there and certainly have a few close friends who have their own stories of extremely irregular life-changing (and in once case lifesaving) happenings closer to home. The cast-iron, etc. verbiage is not my own but I have no problem believing it could have happened.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

People see what they want to see and interpret it in their own way.

Of course this works both ways.

People don’t see what they don’t want to see. And if he saw a miracle, I have no doubt that a rabid atheist would convince himself that he hadn’t seen one, that he was hallucinating, that someone had played a trick on him, or that science would someday find a way to explain the event. Discussing miracles with atheists is a zero sum effort.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

 

[Bradski]

How can either of them be proved or disproved? What is your reason for putting so much weight on this Zeitoun? I only heard of the second one from you on this post so I did a quick wiki check…their article suggests as many as 250,000 to millions of people may have seen apparitions

Funny, isn’t it. You’ve heard about Fatima with a few thousand people seeing something early last century but not of Zeitoun. In recent memory and seen by millions. You believe Fatima without any problem at all:

I have no problem believing the 17,000 folks in Portugal.

I’d guess that you’d heard about Fatima on perhaps this forum. Someone brought it up as a good example of a miracle (because it can’t be disproved!). And 17,000 people saw it! Yet you won’t find hardly any mention of Zeitoun. Even though MILLIONS saw it. Can’t you work out why?

Brad, you assume too much. I only just heard of Zeitoun from you this aft. If the church has made an investigation and feels officially it happened then I would be open to the idea, no more and no less.

So 17,000 people see something and ‘I have no problem in believing it’. A few million see something and you are ‘open to the idea, no more and no less’. Hey, this is the mother of Jesus we are talking about. You should have spent the last few hours searching anything and everything about it. Surely. How big does a miracle have to be before you give it more than a cursory read on a Wiki page?

Tell me you see the problem here. Tell me you see how weak is the argument for one if there is no argument for the other.

 

[Bradski]

Of course this works both ways.

People don’t see what they don’t want to see.

That’s not quite accurate. If there’s a noise in the back yard and I see something move, I may end up thinking it could be any number of things. A cat, a burglar, a possum. But I won’t think it was a fairy or a goblin or my brother (who lives overseas). I won’t think it was any of those because I wouldn’t expect to see any of those in my garden.

If someone says a light on a church roof looks like Mary it’s not that I wouldn’t want it to be Mary. It’s just that I wouldn’t expect her to make an appearance on a roof so it probably wouldn’t look like Mary to me. That’s not prejudging a potential miracle. That’s just my expectations of what normally happens around me. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t agree that it did indeed look like Mary.

However, someone who is devoutly religious may see the similarity and hope that it is indeed a vision. It would make them extraordinarily happy if it was.

There was a case of Mary making an appearance a few years ago, literally down the road from me. Someone pointed out that a fence post, at a certain angle, at a certain time of day, looked like an image of Mary in prayer. smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804464591.html

Well, I can imagine that you will guess that there were any number of gullible Catholics there for quite some time after claiming that Mary was amongst us. They even built a shrine for heaven’s sake: youtube.com/watch?v=ma_rwUtX47k

Everyone else was rolling their eyes and thinking: ‘Gee, it’s just a bloody wooden post’. But there were a lot of people there who wanted it to be Mary. None of the relatively sane locals wanted it not to be Mary. They just saw it as it was.

I’m sure you appreciate the difference.

 

[Lost_but_Found]

Funny, isn’t it. You’ve heard about Fatima with a few thousand people seeing something early last century but not of Zeitoun. In recent memory and seen by millions. You believe Fatima without any problem at all:

I’d guess that you’d heard about Fatima on perhaps this forum. Someone brought it up as a good example of a miracle (because it can’t be disproved!). And 17,000 people saw it! Yet you won’t find hardly any mention of Zeitoun. Even though MILLIONS saw it. Can’t you work out why?

So 17,000 people see something and ‘I have no problem in believing it’. A few million see something and you are ‘open to the idea, no more and no less’. Hey, this is the mother of Jesus we are talking about. You should have spent the last few hours searching anything and everything about it. Surely. How big does a miracle have to be before you give it more than a cursory read on a Wiki page?

Tell me you see the problem here. Tell me you see how weak is the argument for one if there is no argument for the other.

It is very innaccurate to say I believe in Fatima with no problem at all but as a Christian, why would I not be open to the idea that 17,000 (70,000?) of my brothers and sisters are telling the truth on a date that was predetermined? I did not hear about Fatima from this forum but as a part of the Rosary from my folks.

You have not answered this…why push so hard on Zeitoun if you are an aetheist? I do not have time to dig into this phenomenon for hours tonight…again, Miracles are a small part ot the big picture. The church doesn’t willy-nilly accept or reject this or that Miracle any more than it grants an anulment without extensive and thorough research. It would not have treated Zeitoun lightly or offhandedly brushed it off. This leads me to something very important; what were the reasons the church decided it was not of God?

 

[Bradski]

It is very innaccurate to say I believe in Fatima with no problem at all…

No it’s not. You said it yourself:

I have no problem believing the 17,000 folks in Portugal.

That seems quite clear.

You have not answered this…why push so hard on Zeitoun if you are an aetheist?

Oh, come ON. It’s not that difficult to see, surely. You have, in your own words, no problem in believing in a miracle with 17,000 witnesses. So let’s see how you go with a few million. Using your own criteria, Zeitoun should be a shoe in.

And AGAIN, I emphasise the fact that only miracles which cannot be proven not to have happened are touted as being valid. If there is, bizarrely, TOO much evidence, everyone steers clear.

The church doesn’t willy-nilly accept or reject this or that Miracle any more than it grants an anulment without extensive and thorough research. It would not have treated Zeitoun lightly or offhandedly brushed it off. This leads me to something very important; what were the reasons the church decided it was not of God?

The Coptic church did accept it. That the Vatican didn’t is something you can take up with them yourself. But I think it’s safe to say that whatever the reason, the number of eyewitnesses doesn’t seem to carry much weight. A point you should remember when discussing other miracles.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone brought it up as a good example of a miracle (because it can’t be disproved!).

Actually, I brought it up not as a good example of a miracle but as a satisfaction for the criteria that PA claimed would be proof for God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Everyone else was rolling their eyes and thinking: ‘Gee, it’s just a bloody wooden post’. But there were a lot of people there who wanted it to be Mary. None of the relatively sane locals wanted it not to be Mary. They just saw it as it was.

I’m sure you appreciate the difference.

Not really. Among those who were devout believers, you could say there were some who doubted that it was Mary, others who doubted very strongly that it was Mary, and still others who were absolutely convinced it was not Mary.

But a devout atheist would be absolutely convinced it was not Mary before even looking at the post, and that would be because a devout atheist does not want to believe in Mary in the first place.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But a devout atheist would be absolutely convinced it was not Mary before even looking at the post, and that would be because a devout atheist does not want to believe in Mary in the first place.

Bertrand Russell gave as the reason that he would not take Aquinas seriously was that Aquinas already wanted to believe there is a God before he set out to prove there is a God.

But that’s exactly what Russell was also doing. He would not take Aquinas seriously because he already wanted to believe there is no God before he even bothered to examine the proofs of Aquinas.

 

[tonyrey]

You have not explained how we have the power to choose if we are biological computers. Are computers responsible for what they do?

Brad: If you don’t understand how the process works, or worse still, if you have a problem with it, then take it up with God. He designed it.
If you don’t understand how the process works, or worse still, if you have a problem with it don’t claim it has a **physical **explanation.Unsurprisingly there has been no response to this question from any of those who believe the mind is simply the activity of the brain. It suggests they may not be responsible for what they do, but why should they be exceptional in that respect? No response. Case dismissed - as usual.

Pallas Athene

It is tony’s standard “question” to avoid answers.
It is well known that people often accuse others of their own failings - to a third party who is on their side, of course… United they fall… :hug1:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But a devout atheist would be absolutely convinced it was not Mary before even looking at the post, and that would be because a devout atheist does not want to believe in Mary in the first place.

That is another insult. Atheists do not WANT to disbelieve anything. They simply see no evidence for the positive claims. To accuse them of not “wanting” to believe is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. But I guess such ad hominems are fine, when YOU are the one issuing them.

Now when you see an “apparition”, how do you “know” that it was Mary? Do you have a photograph or a hologram of Mary for comparison? Or does the “apparition” carry a caption: “This is the Virgin Mary”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is another insult. Atheists do not WANT to disbelieve anything. They simply see no evidence for the positive claims. To accuse them of not “wanting” to believe is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. But I guess such ad hominems are fine, when YOU are the one issuing them.

So how is the above not an ad hominem?

Do you even know what an *ad hominem *is?

When someone disagrees with what you day, are they automatically committing an *ad hominem *so far as you are concerned?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is another insult. Atheists do not WANT to disbelieve anything. They simply see no evidence for the positive claims. To accuse them of not “wanting” to believe is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

The person who does not want to believe in God is not being intellectually dishonest.

He is simply say what is in his heart, that he does not want to believe in God.

There are as many reasons why people do not want to believe in God as there are reasons why they do want to believe in God.

The person who does want to believe in God … is that person dishonest in your book because he does not require the same evidence you require … apparently a personal up- close meeting with the Deity or else there is no positive evidence?

What evidence would convince you that God exists if not a personal meeting with the Almighty?

I think none, for the reasons I mentioned above.

*People don’t see what they don’t want to see. And if he saw a miracle, I have no doubt that a rabid atheist would convince himself that he hadn’t seen one, that he was hallucinating, that someone had played a trick on him, or that science would someday find a way to explain the event. Discussing miracles with atheists is a zero sum effort.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas *