This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I don't seem to recall that lady from the evangelical site having cancer. I don't remember it saying what she had at all.
She had leukaemia, if I'm not mistaken. I believe that Mary MacKillop's other miracle relates to a lung cancer patient, though I can't recall precisely.
On 19 December 2009, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints issued papal decree recognising a second miracle, the complete and permanent cure of an Australian woman of lung and secondary brain cancer.
Slightly more details on the first woman:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/the-miracles-that-put-mary-mackillop-on-the-path-to-sainthood/story-e6frf7l6-1225812199236
Interview with the second woman:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2789958.htm
So yes, a cold virus, something very well known to be both treatable and recoverable from without treatment, isn't a very good analogy at all.
I subscribe to the belief that there was a totally rational explanation that we haven't figured out yet.
What makes a divine being an irrational explanation? If it could be proven that God doesn't exist, then it would be irrational. If it's unknown whether God exists, then it's a legitimate theory in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The lasagna has no potential, contrivable, causal link to the cancer cure. The placing of the relic against the breast area does.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but we don't know everything. There are still discoveries being made. Yes, even in medicine and biology. Just because we don't understand something now does not mean that it's God.
Of course. But just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean that it's not God either.
Edit:
Link from the official page of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney (as suggested by Google):
http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/news/latest_news/2010/2010113_587.shtml
For the next few years, Kathleen and Barry and their family endured rigorous scrutiny as the second miracle attributed to Mary MacKillop was investigated by doctors, medical and theological experts in Australia and then by the teams of scientists, theologians, medical specialists and
non-believers
in Rome on behalf of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
And for reference, the terms of inquiry that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has to follow:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html
Post by
Skreeran
What makes a divine being an irrational explanation? If it could be proven that God doesn't exist, then it would be irrational. If it's unknown whether God exists, then it's a legitimate theory in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The lasagna has no potential, contrivable, causal link to the cancer cure. The placing of the relic against the breast area does.By definition, an act of god is supernatural. Either "God" is working within the boundaries of nature (laws of physics, natural biology, etc.), in which case he's not necessary for the explanation (you could just say "well here's how it happened, the cause is totally visible and in accordance with biology."), or he's breaking his own laws, "miraculously" healing her, in which case it is not a natural explanation.
Basically, if it was done through natural means (her hypothalmus began producing more chemical X, which helped her immune system combat the cancer), then it can be explained without God. If it was done supernaturally (the cancer just disappeared! Magically!), then it is an irrational explanation by our current understanding of the universe. Things don't just disappear magically.
I believe that everything has a scientific, logical explanation that isn't just "a wizard did it."
Of course. But just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean that it's not God either.My point is that God has just as good of a chance as the lasagna and cancer-eating elves.
Edit:
Studies show
that the
Ultimate Zapper
can cure cancer, Multiple Sclerosis and Chron's disease. Do I believe it? No.
Post by
Squishalot
By definition, an act of god is supernatural.
I've responded to this point before. By definition, if God exists, he is not supernatural. Acting outside the 'laws' of physics (which themselves are fairly shaky) is not the definition of supernatural. According to you, it's just 'unexplainable', and according to religious people, it's explained by God.
"miraculously" healing her, in which case it is not a natural explanation
It's a natural explanation, God just did it. Poof, it's gone. If you don't have a 'natural' explanation (i.e. one that's bounded by the laws of physics and natural biology), then again, to you it's unexplainable, to religious people, it's explained by God.
Basically, if it was done through natural means (her hypothalmus began producing more chemical X, which helped her immune system combat the cancer), then it can be explained without God.
And it would have been detected by the doctors who examined her, and not credited to faith-based healing.
If it was done supernaturally (the cancer just disappeared! Magically!), then it is an irrational explanation by
our
current understanding of the universe.
Things don't just disappear magically
.
By an atheist's current understanding of the universe, which isn't your understanding, nor is it my understanding. Unless, in the last couple of weeks, you've become a strong atheist, in which case, I'll ask you to declare that now, and I'll tailor my explanations / arguments to your new mindset.
Again, for religious people, God exists in their understanding, and it's a rational explanation. By not rejecting the existence of God outright, by definition, it is a possible theory that cannot be considered 'irrational' in the absence of any other reasonable theories.
Studies show that the Ultimate Zapper can cure cancer, Multiple Sclerosis and Chron's disease. Do I believe it? No.
Why not? If properly executed studies showed that it actually worked, why wouldn't you believe it? If the same setup was run, similar to the canonisation claims, and the Ultimate Zapper appeared to work for a person or two, I'd say that it's unreliable, but I'd have to concede that it worked in those one or two situations.
Besides, the claimed studies show that it can 'kill' cancer, not 'cure' it. There's a fairly decent difference. "Dr. Thiel's study shows zapping can kill parasites, bacteria and viruses and studies show it can
kill cancer
." There's nothing there about a recovery.
Post by
Cambo
Here's the drop Skreeran.
God is righteous, He knows what He is doing.
You are obviously desperate (or extremely interested) in believing Him - you acknowledge that He is there. You even give him a capital G.
I believe that God gives every single person a 'tap on the shoulder' some time in their life.
It may be a huge encounter, it may be something simple (I know a guy who ended up believing after taking a leak in the garden at night. He suddenly became aware of the beauty of creation). This 'tap on the shoulder' will awaken some kind of consciousness, which you cannot ignore. This is that awakens the interest in God, and it leaves you responsible for your end destination. It will be personal, and tailored specifically for you. It may happen when you are young, it may happen on your death-bed.
I have had my tap on the shoulder. I cannot deny it, nor can I deny Him. I am being rebellious at the moment, but I secretly hold some hope that He can help restore me to a place of being more happy in my life.
Post by
Squishalot
You are obviously desperate (or extremely interested) in believing Him - you acknowledge that He is there. You even give him a capital G.
Not all God-believers are Christian (which you sound like, especially since you place emphasis on the capital H). You don't know anything about Skreeran, and as a result, your conclusion is flawed.
Some of us use a capital G for the sake of giving respect to a concept that may or may not exist. Like referring to Thrall. He doesn't exist, but as a concept, you refer to him with a capital letter. Also, it makes it easier to communicate with people who do use a capital G.
Post by
Cambo
You are obviously desperate (or extremely interested) in believing Him - you acknowledge that He is there. You even give him a capital G.
Not all God-believers are Christian (which you sound like, especially since you place emphasis on the capital H). You don't know anything about Skreeran, and as a result, your conclusion is flawed.
Some of us use a capital G for the sake of giving respect to a concept that may or may not exist. Like referring to Thrall. He doesn't exist, but as a concept, you refer to him with a capital letter. Also, it makes it easier to communicate with people who do use a capital G.
I don't mean to offend Skreeran, nor any non-God believers.
I read some of his posts as containing personal frustration at God Himself, not so much against the
concept
of monotheistic belief.
But I suggest any Atheists be careful when referring to entities that they do not believe in. I feel it would lend authenticity to the beliefs they hold if they were more general. It doesn't necessarily display disrespect, but it makes their point of view less confusing for us trying to understand.
Thrall is a name, so it follows proper capitalization rules. God is more of a title, so capitalisation is up to the writer. I think the word more personally associated to God is Yahweh or YHWH.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
God is more of a title, so capitalisation is up to the writer. I think the word more personally associated to God is Yahweh or YHWH.
I tend to use "God" because most Christians draw a blank when I mention the Judeo-Christian god as Yahweh.
Lol. I tell ya, most Christians have no clue about basic doctrine. Compare the teachings of John Wesley and George Whitfield with mainstream churches, and there is a huge difference. Heck, maybe even an indifference. I feel alot of them will end up in the thread topic.
Post by
Squishalot
But I suggest any Atheists be careful when referring to entities that they do not believe in. I feel it would lend authenticity to the beliefs they hold if they were more general. It doesn't necessarily display disrespect, but it makes their point of view less confusing for us trying to understand.
Thrall is a name, so it follows proper capitalization rules. God is more of a title, so capitalisation is up to the writer. I think the word more personally associated to God is Yahweh or YHWH.
If you were referring to a queen, you would use a lower case 'q'. If you're referring to the head of the British Empire, you would refer to the Queen and use a capital Q, despite the fact that it's a title. Americans would follow exactly the same capitalisation rules - 'the queen' refers to the position, 'the Queen' refers to the queen of the particular country that you're talking about. (I probably should have used a title instead, perhaps, Highlord Tirion. You refer to the Highlord, not the highlord, irrespective of whether you belong to the Argent Dawn / Argent Crusade or otherwise.)
In the same way, I am very careful about my capitalisation. I use 'God' when I'm referring to a specific god, and I used 'god' or 'gods' when I'm referring to generic deities. So in fact, when I refer to God in a discussion about Catholic Saints and the canonisation process, it should be clear that the god that I am referring to is the Christian God, and not a generic 'god'.
Post by
Orranis
Just a note on the Ultimate Zapper argument, it requires more than just a statistical study for me to back something 99.9% (note I did not say 100%). There needs to be a what I consider valid explanation, otherwise it can be easily called a placebo effect. I could easily go up to a ten year old and say, let's just pretend this was true, "88 out of a hundred elven year old's (people who know more than him) got this answer when faced with this problem: "62 X 63 = 186." Because he had near to no knowledge of exponents, he would use logic, and probably agree with it. Now, if I explained how exponents worked and showed him the math on paper, he would find that it is 65. Statistics did not get him the correct answer, an explanation of how it worked did.
Post by
Squishalot
There needs to be a what I consider valid explanation, otherwise it can be easily called a placebo effect.
If the placebo effect results in all of the users of the treatment either maintaining their condition or getting better, you wouldn't still use it to help people?
If drinking sugared water was just a placebo, but it worked, wouldn't that be sufficient?
Post by
Orranis
There needs to be a what I consider valid explanation, otherwise it can be easily called a placebo effect.
If the placebo effect results in all of the users of the treatment either maintaining their condition or getting better, you wouldn't still use it to help people?
If drinking sugared water was just a placebo, but it worked, wouldn't that be sufficient?
It would be sufficient for that person, but say you find another person who has it in a worse condition, you're going to want to know the cure.
But in terms of Religion, yes. I recognize that some people think they require spirituality as part of their life, and I can't say whether they do or they don't, but as long as it doesn't affect me or any third parties, I don't care either way.
Post by
Skreeran
By an atheist's current understanding of the universe, which isn't your understanding, nor is it my understanding. Unless, in the last couple of weeks, you've become a strong atheist, in which case, I'll ask you to declare that now, and I'll tailor my explanations / arguments to your new mindset.I am an atheist. I do not consider myself "agnostic," because I give very little credence to the idea of a god. It's not that I believe that there are no gods, simply that I believe in god no more than I believe in unicorns, elves, or faeries. I consider myself an atheist and I consider myself to be in a godless universe.
Again, for religious people, God exists in their understanding, and it's a rational explanation. By not rejecting the existence of God outright, by definition, it is a possible theory that cannot be considered 'irrational' in the absence of any other reasonable theories.So, if I ask Santa Claus for my grandma to get better and she spontaneously does, I am supposed to believe that it was actually Satna Claus that did it?
God is righteous, He knows what He is doing.
You are obviously desperate (or extremely interested) in believing Him - you acknowledge that He is there. You even give him a capital G.I appreciate the interest, but I must correct you. I do not believe in gods. I use the capital as a name of sorts. There are gods, and then there is "God" which is in referral to the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god. Yeah, his name is technically YHWH, or Jehovah, or whatever you want to call him, but most people simply refer to him as "God."
I don't believe in him, but as a storybook character, I refer to him in the same manner most people I know do. I know very few people who call him "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."
I believe that God gives every single person a 'tap on the shoulder' some time in their life.
It may be a huge encounter, it may be something simple (I know a guy who ended up believing after taking a leak in the garden at night. He suddenly became aware of the beauty of creation). This 'tap on the shoulder' will awaken some kind of consciousness, which you cannot ignore. This is that awakens the interest in God, and it leaves you responsible for your end destination. It will be personal, and tailored specifically for you. It may happen when you are young, it may happen on your death-bed.
I have had my tap on the shoulder. I cannot deny it, nor can I deny Him. I am being rebellious at the moment, but I secretly hold some hope that He can help restore me to a place of being more happy in my life.I have had the opposite. I used to be a devout christian. My whole family is christian.
One day, I just suddenly realized that I was praying to nothing. I heard no answer. I realized that I had never heard answer. That tiny voice that I had heard was my own thoughts. I could make it say anything I wanted.
Suddenly, it dawned on me that, had I been born in Pakistan, I would believe in Allah and that Muhammed was the one true prophet of God. I would believe just as hard, or harder, than I did in Jesus and the American god.
So which one was right?
Well, to find out, I did the only thing I could: I looked at the evidence. And the evidence pointed to a universe that was operating just fine, independent of our beliefs.
I read some of his posts as containing personal frustration at God Himself, not so much against the concept of monotheistic belief.While it might sound that way, I am more frusterated with the idea that billions of people believe there is an invisible man in the sky that created and controls everything, and they would kill for him.
Have
killed for him. Not only are they wrong, in my eyes, but they also refuse to change their minds, and have killed and tortured people, innocent people, because of it. That makes me angry.
Post by
Monday
Yeah, his name is technically YHWH, or Jehovah, or whatever you want to call him, but most people simply refer to him as "God."
Depends. If you are referring to Jesus it is Jehovah, if it is God then it is Elohim.
While it might sound that way, I am more frusterated with the idea that billions of people believe there is an invisible man in the sky that created and controls everything, and they would kill for him. Have killed for him. Not only are they wrong, in my eyes, but they also refuse to change their minds, and have killed and tortured people, innocent people, because of it. That makes me angry.
And the same has been done to believers. I'm angry that people are so desperate to put down religion that they kill those who practice it.
Post by
Orranis
Yeah, his name is technically YHWH, or Jehovah, or whatever you want to call him, but most people simply refer to him as "God."
Depends. If you are referring to Jesus it is Jehovah, if it is God then it is Elohim.
Meh. There's Yahweh, Elohim, Adonoy, etc.
While it might sound that way, I am more frusterated with the idea that billions of people believe there is an invisible man in the sky that created and controls everything, and they would kill for him. Have killed for him. Not only are they wrong, in my eyes, but they also refuse to change their minds, and have killed and tortured people, innocent people, because of it. That makes me angry.
And the same has been done to believers. I'm angry that people are so desperate to put down religion that they kill those who practice it.
Just to play devils advocate, if they didn't believe, that wouldn't have been done to them. But I'm not sure what exactly your referring to, because I cannot recall atheists ever systematically murdering religious persons. Unless you're referring to religious people killing religious people, which doesn't exactly help your arguments.
Actually, the closest I've seen to persecution of religion by atheists was by Soviets, and even then you could hardly call it that, simply because it was not enforced.
Post by
Heckler
And the same has been done to believers. I'm angry that people are so desperate to put down religion that they kill those who practice it.
I can think of two people this charge could be levied against.. Stalin and Pol Pot (and those might be a stretch). I won't bother to try to list how many killings in the name of religion there have been, clearly more than two though.
So I'm not challenging that it's ever happened, but I'm curious when else Atheism has been the cause of violent action against non-atheism? Can you list a couple for my enlightenment?
Post by
Skreeran
Depends. If you are referring to Jesus it is Jehovah, if it is God then it is Elohim.To you, perhaps.
According to Wikipedia
, Jehovah is the proper name of God.
And the way I was taught, Jesus was named Yeshua, and God was named Eloheinu.
And the same has been done to believers. I'm angry that people are so desperate to put down religion that they kill those who practice it.I can almost guarantee that most of those killing were done by other religious people. Muslims kill Christians, Christians kill Muslims and Jews, Jews kill Canaanite pagans, etc.
The only real violent atheist leaders that I can think of were Stalin and Mao. Religion has killed far, far more.
Post by
Squishalot
I am an atheist. I do not consider myself "agnostic," because
I give very little credence to the idea of a god
. It's not that I believe that there are no gods, simply that I believe in god no more than I believe in unicorns, elves, or faeries. I consider myself an atheist and
I consider myself to be in a godless universe
.
If it was done supernaturally (the cancer just disappeared! Magically!), then it is an irrational explanation by our current understanding of the universe. Things don't just disappear magically.
It's not that "don't care" whether or not god exists. I'm not a fence sitter. I'm simply frusterated at the guys over on the other side of the fence because they fight about whether its leprechauns or elves that actually exist, and so I argue that neither does and that there is no evidence for either.
You previously stated that you don't believe that God exists, but that your primary issue in relation to that fact is that there is no evidence for his existence.
Fact of the matter is, if God did something 'supernatural' or 'magic' in front of you, you'd try to rationalise it in line with the laws of physics. You're refusing to admit that it could be God's actions, despite the fact that it's a suitable explanation for what has occured and matches the evidence, and that your understanding of the universe (sans God) cannot explain it. To me, that's pretty irrational in and of itself.
You claim to be open to the idea of a god existing, but everything you say, your attitude, your reaction to hypotheticals, your reaction to
actuals
, all screams out that it will take your death and subsequent appearance in an afterlife to prove to you that anything supernatural exists. And even then, you'll still probably be questioning whether or not your mind is just playing tricks on you, and whether you're actually still alive and buried in your coffin.
If you disagree with my statement, tell me what evidence it would take for you to believe in a god. Not any God in particular, if you don't want to. Just any supernatural being.
If you agree with my statement, then don't bother participating in any religious discussion threads any more.
Post by
Monday
OK, so in regards to me previous statement, no I can't think of any committed in the name of Atheism (outside of the Book of Mormon, but you obviously don't believe in it).
I am thinking about killings or repressings in the name of the Government, such as in Communist and Dictatorships e.g. Cuba after the revolution, China, and the USSR.
Post by
Squishalot
Religion has killed far, far more.
OK, so in regards to me previous statement, no I can't think of any committed in the name of Atheism (outside of the Book of Mormon, but you obviously don't believe in it).
I am thinking about killings or repressings in the name of the Government, such as in Communist and Dictatorships e.g. Cuba after the revolution, China, and the USSR.
Indeed, politics has killed many, many more people than religion. Even if you don't count 'religious politics' in the former. Yet somehow, I don't believe that it's a legitimate argument to suggest that we should all be apolitical.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.