Interesting religious occurrence today, thoughts? [Archive]

thylacine

02-23-2007, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My friend just told me a story today, and I wanted to know how you guys (particularly atheists) would explain it. Let me preface by saying I do not believe that this proves the existence of God. However, many atheists on here claim there is no God because they come up with scenarios that Christians ignore/can't explain, but not too many discuss it the other way around. Here it goes...

A friend from my church was at lunch with her friend. She saw a girl sitting at another table, and felt like God wanted her to go talk to the girl. She ignored it at first, thinking it was her own thoughts, but then the girl kept looking at her, and her friend asked her if she knew the girl, so she finally decided she should go talk to her. (Keep in mind, it is not normal for my friend to just start talking to strangers based on God telling her to) She said, "You might think I'm crazy, but God told me to come talk to you, and to tell you that I know something horrible happened in your past, but that if you don't stop looking in your rearview mirror, you're going to crash." The girl responded by saying, "When I was 19, I had a baby and gave her up for adoption, and I've regretted it ever since, and today is her birthday."

I just want to know what you guys think about this, and why things like this happen every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just an hour ago I was thinking ``god does not exist so I am going to step sideways right now''. Just after I did, a sopersonic flying cabbage zoomed through the air just where my head had been!

My anecdote/urban myth beats your anecdote/urban myth. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

_brady_

02-23-2007, 12:53 AM

The girl who gave up her kid was obviously dwelling on it, and probably looked down. Christian girl saw this, and felt like being nice to a stranger and talking to her. Since she's Christian it was obviously God telling her to do so.

What if the girl at the table said something along the lines of "Uh...I'm just fine, but thanks anyway"? I'd be willing to bet that this story was never shared with anyone. Christians are always harping on and on about these "great" things that happen through the will of God or whatever, but what about the all the times when things don't happen that way?

Think of the thousands of Mormons that roam neighborhoods going door to door talking about their church. They probably get a hundred doors slammed in their faces, but if they "get through" to one person it totally explains that it was God's will that they talk to this person. It's simple probability. For the thousands of people they talk to it's pretty obvious they will find some people who will genuinely listen to what they are saying. You just won't ever hear about the many more people who slam the door in their face.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, but my point is that atheists say things that Christians ignore/can't explain, and atheists believe this helps prove Christianity is false. I'm just asking that atheists explain these occurrences instead of ignoring them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put much stock in proving Christianity is false. The burden of proof is on the Christians, not me.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, but my point is that atheists say things that Christians ignore/can't explain, and atheists believe this helps prove Christianity is false. I'm just asking that atheists explain these occurrences instead of ignoring them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put much stock in proving Christianity is false. The burden of proof is on the Christians, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, this story only proves one thing: the immutable power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is exactly his style.

coltrainSTL

02-23-2007, 12:59 AM

So your friend saw a girl sitting by herself looking sad, and she thought "maybe I should go talk to this girl and tell her about Jesus and then she will be all happy and everthing, because that is what the bible says I should do".
So she does and finds out about this girls sad story and decides "ZOMG Jesus spoke to me and told me to talk to this girl"!?

I don't see how this means anything.

BTW I am not an atheist, I'm 'still searching for the answers' as it were.

MaxWeiss

02-23-2007, 01:03 AM

Your friend saw a girl looking sad, and decided to talk to her, telling her that something bad had happened to her??.....

WHOA!!!!!!! It's got to be God or a magic trick... I mean nothing else can explain that right????

(And BTW, you would be going ape [censored] if that review mirror thing had actually meant something to the girl, wouldn't you??? When you remember the hits, don't forget the misses...)

stormstarter28

02-23-2007, 02:11 AM

Okay guys, I said I was just curious about your explanations, the sarcasm isn't necessary. Just because you believe things like this are coincidences doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. What about this one: my friend's parents both had cancer, and were both miraculously healed after prayer. The doctors couldn't explain it. That seems almost too unlikely to be blown off by coincidence, don't you think?

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 02:15 AM

alphatmw

02-23-2007, 02:18 AM

OP if you're going to make up stories, at least make them good.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OP if you're going to make up stories, at least make them good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prayed to God for a million bucks today. The trick is, I asked for it to be distributed to me over the course of the next several years, in the guise of a salary. Wish me luck!

flipdeadshot22

02-23-2007, 02:24 AM

Guys, if you're going to make gimmick accounts, try to at least make them create plausible posts.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, if you're going to make gimmick accounts, try to at least make them create plausible posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

While funny, I really hope that isn't whats going on. If we are that low on material, in the SMP forum, we should seriously consider killing ourselves.

Mickey Brausch

02-23-2007, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
She said, "You might think I'm crazy, but God told me to come talk to you, and to tell you that I know something horrible happened in your past, but that if you don't stop looking in your rearview mirror, you're going to crash." The girl responded by saying, "When I was 19, I had a baby and gave her up for adoption, and I've regretted it ever since, and today is her birthday."

[/ QUOTE ] Being an atheist or an agnostic should not mean also being a crass materialist. Because this humble matter out of which we too are made is capable of many miraculous achievements.

A sudden premonition not to cross the street, while no car is coming; meeting a person for the first time and taking an instant dislike on him/her; waking up in the middle of the night "for no reason"; these are manifestations of what people call "instinct" but instinct is, in fact, thr result of the accumulation of experience, subconscious processes in our brain and sensory perceptions that work under the radar of our immediate understanding.

My dog lies next to my chair and I realize that it was Fido who must have destroyed my important book in the study, while playing with it (or something like that). I get very angry at Fido and before I move a muscle, the dog gets up and walks out of the room. What happened? On another occasion, I'm sitting at an outside coffee house and a stray dog approaches; and out of all the sitting people there, comes directly to me. I didn't so much as looked at him, yet he homes in on the person most likely to pet him and possibly give him some food among the crowd. I happen to own five dogs and really love animals, but how was the dog supposed to know this from afar? What happened here?

No example from the above (all are fictitious) proves the existence of God. All they show is that we, like all animals, possess abilities that extend beyond the mundane and the trivial; most other animals use those abilities all the time, because they depend on them for survival, getting food or doing battle. But we humans have taken to rely on our constructs (cars, phones, etc) for such endeavors, so we neglect them, even though they're there --still. And we are surprised when we realize that we can act on "instinct".

Then a charismatic talker comes along and amplifies them for us and makes us pay attention to them. We proclaim him a Holy Man and start throiwng money at 'im.

Mickey Brausch

stormstarter28

02-23-2007, 02:41 AM

First of all, I didn't make the story up. I know you don't believe me, that's fine. Assume for argument's sake that it is true. I didn't say it proved God's existence, nor that any single act proved the existence or non-existence of God...you are all misunderstanding me. I just wanted to know how you explain things like this, and all I got in return was sarcasm. If these people really did get healed from cancer (which they did, believe it or not) then why did it happen if it wasn't God?

Phil153

02-23-2007, 02:43 AM

Possibilities:

She looked at the girl and subconsciously sensed from her body language that she might be unhappy, creating a basic urge to help/comfort. Her conscious brain didn't register this fact, but her unexplained desire was rationalized through her belief system as an urge that God wanted her to help. It's similar to the feelings some women get with love. Their pussy is craving a particular guy's [censored], but they can't rationalize that with their belief that they're a "nice girl", so they get the feeling/rationalization of being in love.

Another possibility is that your friend filled in (or left out) certain parts of the story after the event. People do it all the time.

A third possibility (since we're talking supernatural possibilities) is that your friend was psychic and picked up a subconscious message from the girl, which she rationalized as coming from God.

Phil153

02-23-2007, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If these people really did get healed from cancer (which they did, believe it or not) then why did it happen if it wasn't God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google "homeopathy cancer cure testimonial" or similar. Read the thousands of testimonials - most of them genuine - with the knowledge that homeopathy is nothing but water.

ChrisV

02-23-2007, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay guys, I said I was just curious about your explanations, the sarcasm isn't necessary. Just because you believe things like this are coincidences doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. What about this one: my friend's parents both had cancer, and were both miraculously healed after prayer. The doctors couldn't explain it. That seems almost too unlikely to be blown off by coincidence, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a country like America, there is an extremely high probability, close to 100%, that anyone who experiences spontaneous remission has someone praying for them. It's a very Christian country. The number of people who are prayed for and then die of cancer is therefore very high, obviously.

If prayer worked, we should be able to tell that from epidemiological studies. Precisely this has been attempted in the recent past. Over to you, Richard Dawkins:

[ QUOTE ]
An amusing, if rather pathetic, case study in miracles is the Great Prayer Experiment: does praying for patients help them recover? Prayers are commonly offered for sick people, both privately and in formal places of worship. Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the first to analyse scientifically whether praying for people is efficacious. He noted that every Sunday, in churches throughout Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the health of the royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and dearest? Galton looked into it, and found no statistical difference. His intention may, in any case, have been satirical, as also when he prayed over randomized plots of land to see if the plants would grow any faster (they didn't).

Valiantly shouldering aside all mockery, the team of researchers [from the Templeton Foundation] soldiered on, spending $2.4 million of Templeton money under the leadership of Dr Herbert Benson, a cardiologist at the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston. [...] Dr Benson and his team monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals, all of whom received coronary bypass surgery. [...] Prayers were delivered by the congregations of three churches, one in Minnesota, one in Massachusetts and one in Missouri. [...] The results, reported in the American Heart Journal of April 2006, were clear-cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results were:

Group 1: Received prayers, but were not told about them. This tests if prayers helped them recover more than normal patients. Their recovery was average.

Group 2: Received no prayers, and were not told so. This tested if there was something about the experiment that was affecting the results. Their recovery was also average.

Group 3: Received prayers and were told so. This tested the psychosomatic effects of knowing that one is being prayed for. This group "suffered significantly more complications".

Dawkins again:

[ QUOTE ]
Was God doing a bit of smiting, to show his disapproval of the whole barmy enterprise? It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: [...] Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, 'It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?' In today's litigious society [will they] put together a class action lawsuit against the Templeton Foundation?

[/ QUOTE ]

ChrisV

02-23-2007, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't make the story up. I know you don't believe me, that's fine. Assume for argument's sake that it is true. I didn't say it proved God's existence, nor that any single act proved the existence or non-existence of God...you are all misunderstanding me. I just wanted to know how you explain things like this, and all I got in return was sarcasm. If these people really did get healed from cancer (which they did, believe it or not) then why did it happen if it wasn't God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spontaneous remission? Pretty rare, but it does happen, to Christians and non-Christians alike. Of course it would be pretty improbable for it to happen to a husband and wife simultaneously. But we only have your description of what happened. There could be a million explanations. Perhaps cancer was misdiagnosed in the first place. Perhaps the forms of cancer they had were not very virulent. A friend of mine once observed that it was odd that ghosts only seem to appear to hippies and new age types. It's equally odd the number of miracles that occur only in the presence of those who are keen to witness them.

stormstarter28

02-23-2007, 02:57 AM

Thank you guys, I at least understand where you're coming from now. I appreciate the straightforward answers.

luckyme

02-23-2007, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If these people really did get healed from cancer (which they did, believe it or not) then why did it happen if it wasn't God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be dejected just because you fall for the 'god of the gap' argument. Bright and informed minds can be even more beguiled by it, after all, "I'm so smart and even I can't solve it therefore it must be caused by something truly amazing".

Newton didn't rely on god to explain water running downhill but planetary orbits baffled him, so he credited god keeping his hand in there.

The first clue for you should be that Gappers never credit other gods, just the one of their cultural conditioning. Tibetans don't credit the christian god, christians don't credit a Hindu god, etc.

You have good company on here, DS has a modern gap argument that he uses ( but he never credits a hindu god either).

luckyme

madnak

02-23-2007, 08:49 AM

The reason we're being sarcastic is that we've had dozens of posts like this. It's hard to keep making the effort to respond clearly, especially since the thread usually devolves quickly, regardless.

With respect to your point, I don't see any dilemma here.

This is a post about psychic/paranormal phenomena. I don't believe in such phenomena. I also (due to a respect for scientific rigor and the tendency of many people to be "fooled by randomness") only respect concrete and well-documented findings. This is especially true of second-hand sources - while I'm not implying that you're lying, or even that most of those with such stories are lying, I have heard so many such rumors from so many sources (some even documented on Snopes or other sites) that it would be absurd for me to believe them all. I think many people do tend to exaggerate (talking about themselves in a story when it really happened to a friend of a friend of a friend...), and some spin tales because they want their view to be accepted and feel that it's more powerful to tell a personal story than to describe a "what if" scenario. Finally, many people give incomplete information - a person may say his family member was "healed by prayer" and that the doctors were bewildered, but when the facts come in the doctors say it was the intensive treatment that brought the cancer into remission. Many of the Christians here have claimed to have close, personal family members whose cancers went into remission. The problem is that spontaneous remission is pretty well-documented, and we know for a fact that it happens very rarely. Either there has been a coincidence more massive than the ones you're referencing, and a huge proportion of those linked to such remissions have found this message board, or somebody isn't telling the whole truth (not necessarily you, but someone).

It is for these and many more reasons that science uses particular standards to determine what constitutes a valid empirical analysis. In some cases observation is enough to raise serious questions - but to answer those question, experimental verification of a scientist's predictions is necessary.

Imagine, for example, that a scientist observes a huge, hairy creature stumbling through the woods. An ordinary person might say "it must have been Bigfoot," but this is a scientist. So he moves on to the next step in the scientific method - he generates some reasonable hypotheses that will sufficiently explain his observation. Maybe it's Bigfoot. Maybe he's hallucinating. Maybe he saw a deer or moose, and misperceived it. Maybe someone was wearing a "Bigfoot suit." The scientist considers which hypothesis seems most likely - he knows that many Bigfoot sightings have come from the area, and there are no deer, moose, or bear populations, so he decides the most likely hypothesis is that a man in a Bigfoot suit is tricking him.

But that is just the beginning of his inquiry. He has a hypothesis that he thinks is most likely, but he keeps the others in mind - his goal now is to falsify his original hypothesis. If he can't do that, then he may conclude that his hypothesis is probably true. So his goal is to prove his idea false - to disprove himself, basically. How can he do that? Well, there is one method that is used in almost all cases that is very effective. The scientist decides which results his hypothesis would predict. For example, if it's really Bigfoot, then he expects to see large footprints in the area of the sighting. If it's another animal, he expects that the animal is nearby. And if it's a man in a suit, then the man (and the suit) must likewise be nearby.

It's problematic because he has no way to control the situation and make sure he can isolate variables, but he is a scientist so he'll do the best he can to try and test his predictions. He predicts there will be a man and a suit nearby, so he attempts to prove otherwise with a thorough search of the area. Before long, he comes across a cabin. Through the window, he sees a disheveled man eating lunch. He continues to search, and behind the cabin, under some wood, he discovers a Bigfoot costume. He has failed to falsify his hypothesis, which means he has succeeded in strengthening it.

But this still doesn't mean that he saw a man in a bear suit. It's possible he saw the real Bigfoot, and the man coincidentally happens to have a Bigfoot costume (perhaps from an earlier Halloween). The scientist has to make a judgment call about whether to draw a conclusion from the evidence he has found or whether to gather more evidence. He sees that the costume is hidden in a strange place and has seen recent use, and decides he has enough evidence to conclude with a high degree of likelihood that "Bigfoot" sightings are actually just the man in his costume. This may sound like a big, complicated process - but it's the best way we've found to determine what is true and what isn't. Unfortunately there are always alternative hypotheses - science can never prove anything - but if we work hard enough to verify our predictions, then we can achieve a level of accuracy higher than most people ever feel they need. Back to the initial question.

The big issue here is that psychic phenomena are no threat to my atheism. In fact, I would be delighted to learn that they really happen. Let's imagine that these events happened exactly as you believe they did - one of your friends felt a message from God that turned out to be a premonition, and another saw both his parents contract cancer at the same time and, purely through the power of his prayers, go into remission simultaneously. There are many reasons throughout the thread why these seem to be unlikely scenarios, but I'll give them to you for the sake of argument.

Now what? Do I believe in God? No, in fact God doesn't even occur to me at first. My perspective is very different from yours on the matter, so the hypothesis that I find most likely (that the human mind has special powers) is not the same as the hypothesis that you find most likely (presumably that the Christian God intervened on your friends' behalves). What's important is that there are literally thousands of reasonable hypotheses in this case. Maybe other versions of God (or gods) are responsible, maybe there's a mystical sort of collective among humans, maybe belief affects reality, maybe there's a Buddhist mechanic... These things are not an indication of the Christian God until you predict results that would separate that hypothesis from the heap, and those results are accurate.

I know this is something of a recap of what's already been said, but if you want to understand our perspective I think this viewpoint is important. Many atheists try to approach everything in life (especially observable phenomena) from a scientific perspective. Which is why, if Christians make a prediction and that prediction doesn't come true, it's a big deal. And why, if Christians make an observation, it's not.

ChrisV

02-23-2007, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the Christians here have claimed to have close, personal family members whose cancers went into remission. The problem is that spontaneous remission is pretty well-documented, and we know for a fact that it happens very rarely. Either there has been a coincidence more massive than the ones you're referencing, and a huge proportion of those linked to such remissions have found this message board, or somebody isn't telling the whole truth (not necessarily you, but someone).

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the six degrees of separation effect. Even in the case OP is citing, there are two degrees of separation ("my friend's parents"). Most people here have probably repeated a story that happened to someone they know distantly as if it happened to them or a close friend; I know I have. It's just easier - "the friend of this guy my sister's husband met one time..." becomes "my friend...". I'm sure this would account for a few tales - you only need one case of spontaneous remission and immediately thousands of people are telling the story.

ChrisV

02-23-2007, 09:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's imagine that these events happened exactly as you believe they did - one of your friends felt a message from God that turned out to be a premonition, and another saw both his parents contract cancer at the same time and, purely through the power of his prayers, go into remission simultaneously. There are many reasons throughout the thread why these seem to be unlikely scenarios, but I'll give them to you for the sake of argument.

Now what? Do I believe in God? No, in fact God doesn't even occur to me at first. My perspective is very different from yours on the matter, so the hypothesis that I find most likely (that the human mind has special powers) is not the same as the hypothesis that you find most likely (presumably that the Christian God intervened on your friends' behalves). What's important is that there are literally thousands of reasonable hypotheses in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's one thing I forgot to point out earlier. Assume the most miraculous interpretation of OP's cancer case - i.e. that they both had incurable cancer that was inexplicably cured. There is one hypothesis that stands out from the rest and that is that there is some dietary or environmental factor responsible. If they are husband and wife, these factors will be the same for both of them.

Wubbie075

02-23-2007, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about this one: my friend's parents both had cancer, and were both miraculously healed after prayer. The doctors couldn't explain it. That seems almost too unlikely to be blown off by coincidence, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

My sister had cancer... tons of ppl prayed for her... she died

My aunt had cancer... tons of ppl prayed for her... she died

My dad had cancer... he had a bone marrow transplant... he's still alive

Ralph Wiggum

02-23-2007, 11:56 AM

Apparently an atheist tends to be also be a sarcastic prick.

OP: The girl is religious, so I'd guess she tends to give God a lot of credit for her subconscious & intuition. We all have moments where we can sense something. Sometimes we're right & seem clairvoyant & sometimes not. I'd imagine when your friend is wrong, she forgets it. When she's right, it's God.

When I call my Mom, she occasionally says I knew it was you calling (she doesn't have caller ID) & she claims it's her mother's instinct. However whenever her phones rings she assumes it's me calling. When it's not me, she forgets it. When it is me, it reinforces her belief. She knows this & it's just something she says makes her feel good. Maybe your friend is less aware of her thought process.

Brenner Hayes

02-23-2007, 12:21 PM

I won't repeat what many of the other responders have written, although I agree with most of them and those would have been my first points.

About prayer and cancer, there may very well be something to it, but not for the reasons you say. Science is now showing us what a profound mind-body connection there is. Psychological stress can increase your chances of a heart attack as a well known example. So to put this in its simplest terms, negative thoughts can cause negative health consequences. Conversely, positive thoughts can cause health benefits. The optimistic live longer and recover faster from surgeries. What may be happening is that this positive thinking might unleash our most optimized immune systems. So your parents prayers might have had a profound affect on their brains which had a profound affect on their immune systems. I don't think any of this if this were the case would be divine. Expert mediation techniques might have produced similar results. Notice that when people are praying for others (particularly at a distance) as in the royal family and Templeton examples, such "magical" effects never happen. Also notice that GOD NEVER HEALS AMPUTEES. This is a HUGE piece of evidence in contradiction to the possibility of an intervening god. It may very well be that we have natural immune system chemicals (more powerful than chemotherapy) that can sometimes rise up to work in what appears to be miraculous ways. They aren't really miracles, they are just rare. They may be able to be triggered by our brains through our directed thoughts. Prayer could POSSIBLY work as such a trigger. And who knows, maybe we will discover that only certain people have a certain gene that makes this mind over body capability more potent? Maybe your parents both had the gene. All of this could even make an argument for encouraging patients to pick a fairy tale god and then pray to it for best cancer recovery results, just as one could argue that giving a placebo pill to a patient might be a good thing to do. It still doesn't mean that the particular god is true or that the placebo pill is anything but sugar candy.

I think if you take god out of the equation though, we will more quickly focus our research on what is really going on here and soon find ways to medicinally trigger any kind of chemical triggers that are now possibly occassionally being triggered (in practical effect) by prayer.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The reason we're being sarcastic is that we've had dozens of posts like this. It's hard to keep making the effort to respond clearly, especially since the thread usually devolves quickly, regardless.

With respect to your point, I don't see any dilemma here.

This is a post about psychic/paranormal phenomena. I don't believe in such phenomena. I also (due to a respect for scientific rigor and the tendency of many people to be "fooled by randomness") only respect concrete and well-documented findings. This is especially true of second-hand sources - while I'm not implying that you're lying, or even that most of those with such stories are lying, I have heard so many such rumors from so many sources (some even documented on Snopes or other sites) that it would be absurd for me to believe them all. I think many people do tend to exaggerate (talking about themselves in a story when it really happened to a friend of a friend of a friend...), and some spin tales because they want their view to be accepted and feel that it's more powerful to tell a personal story than to describe a "what if" scenario. Finally, many people give incomplete information - a person may say his family member was "healed by prayer" and that the doctors were bewildered, but when the facts come in the doctors say it was the intensive treatment that brought the cancer into remission. Many of the Christians here have claimed to have close, personal family members whose cancers went into remission. The problem is that spontaneous remission is pretty well-documented, and we know for a fact that it happens very rarely. Either there has been a coincidence more massive than the ones you're referencing, and a huge proportion of those linked to such remissions have found this message board, or somebody isn't telling the whole truth (not necessarily you, but someone).

It is for these and many more reasons that science uses particular standards to determine what constitutes a valid empirical analysis. In some cases observation is enough to raise serious questions - but to answer those question, experimental verification of a scientist's predictions is necessary.

Imagine, for example, that a scientist observes a huge, hairy creature stumbling through the woods. An ordinary person might say "it must have been Bigfoot," but this is a scientist. So he moves on to the next step in the scientific method - he generates some reasonable hypotheses that will sufficiently explain his observation. Maybe it's Bigfoot. Maybe he's hallucinating. Maybe he saw a deer or moose, and misperceived it. Maybe someone was wearing a "Bigfoot suit." The scientist considers which hypothesis seems most likely - he knows that many Bigfoot sightings have come from the area, and there are no deer, moose, or bear populations, so he decides the most likely hypothesis is that a man in a Bigfoot suit is tricking him.

But that is just the beginning of his inquiry. He has a hypothesis that he thinks is most likely, but he keeps the others in mind - his goal now is to falsify his original hypothesis. If he can't do that, then he may conclude that his hypothesis is probably true. So his goal is to prove his idea false - to disprove himself, basically. How can he do that? Well, there is one method that is used in almost all cases that is very effective. The scientist decides which results his hypothesis would predict. For example, if it's really Bigfoot, then he expects to see large footprints in the area of the sighting. If it's another animal, he expects that the animal is nearby. And if it's a man in a suit, then the man (and the suit) must likewise be nearby.

It's problematic because he has no way to control the situation and make sure he can isolate variables, but he is a scientist so he'll do the best he can to try and test his predictions. He predicts there will be a man and a suit nearby, so he attempts to prove otherwise with a thorough search of the area. Before long, he comes across a cabin. Through the window, he sees a disheveled man eating lunch. He continues to search, and behind the cabin, under some wood, he discovers a Bigfoot costume. He has failed to falsify his hypothesis, which means he has succeeded in strengthening it.

But this still doesn't mean that he saw a man in a bear suit. It's possible he saw the real Bigfoot, and the man coincidentally happens to have a Bigfoot costume (perhaps from an earlier Halloween). The scientist has to make a judgment call about whether to draw a conclusion from the evidence he has found or whether to gather more evidence. He sees that the costume is hidden in a strange place and has seen recent use, and decides he has enough evidence to conclude with a high degree of likelihood that "Bigfoot" sightings are actually just the man in his costume. This may sound like a big, complicated process - but it's the best way we've found to determine what is true and what isn't. Unfortunately there are always alternative hypotheses - science can never prove anything - but if we work hard enough to verify our predictions, then we can achieve a level of accuracy higher than most people ever feel they need. Back to the initial question.

The big issue here is that psychic phenomena are no threat to my atheism. In fact, I would be delighted to learn that they really happen. Let's imagine that these events happened exactly as you believe they did - one of your friends felt a message from God that turned out to be a premonition, and another saw both his parents contract cancer at the same time and, purely through the power of his prayers, go into remission simultaneously. There are many reasons throughout the thread why these seem to be unlikely scenarios, but I'll give them to you for the sake of argument.

Now what? Do I believe in God? No, in fact God doesn't even occur to me at first. My perspective is very different from yours on the matter, so the hypothesis that I find most likely (that the human mind has special powers) is not the same as the hypothesis that you find most likely (presumably that the Christian God intervened on your friends' behalves). What's important is that there are literally thousands of reasonable hypotheses in this case. Maybe other versions of God (or gods) are responsible, maybe there's a mystical sort of collective among humans, maybe belief affects reality, maybe there's a Buddhist mechanic... These things are not an indication of the Christian God until you predict results that would separate that hypothesis from the heap, and those results are accurate.

I know this is something of a recap of what's already been said, but if you want to understand our perspective I think this viewpoint is important. Many atheists try to approach everything in life (especially observable phenomena) from a scientific perspective. Which is why, if Christians make a prediction and that prediction doesn't come true, it's a big deal. And why, if Christians make an observation, it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was lying. I've never known anyone who had cancer, prayed to God, and died.

vhawk01

02-23-2007, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently an atheist tends to be also be a sarcastic prick.

OP: The girl is religious, so I'd guess she tends to give God a lot of credit for her subconscious & intuition. We all have moments where we can sense something. Sometimes we're right & seem clairvoyant & sometimes not. I'd imagine when your friend is wrong, she forgets it. When she's right, it's God.

When I call my Mom, she occasionally says I knew it was you calling (she doesn't have caller ID) & she claims it's her mother's instinct. However whenever her phones rings she assumes it's me calling. When it's not me, she forgets it. When it is me, it reinforces her belief. She knows this & it's just something she says makes her feel good. Maybe your friend is less aware of her thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the only people responding sarcastically in this thread are atheists? Or does being a theist make you a judgmental prick?

Wubbie075

02-23-2007, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was lying. I've never known anyone who had cancer, prayed to God, and died.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not lying. My sister and aunt both died of cancer despite prayer. I guess everyone just did not pray hard enough.

I did, however, have an experience during my lunch hour very similar to OP's friend. I was walking down the street, and I saw a woman standing there, kinda looking around and something told me to speak to her. Here's the part that blows my mind.. SHE NEEDED DIRECTIONS!!! I am now led to the inescapable conclusion that God put me on that street in order to help this woman... amazing, huh??

kurto

02-23-2007, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was lying. I've never known anyone who had cancer, prayed to God, and died.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not lying. My sister and aunt both died of cancer despite prayer. I guess everyone just did not pray hard enough.

I did, however, have an experience during my lunch hour very similar to OP's friend. I was walking down the street, and I saw a woman standing there, kinda looking around and something told me to speak to her. Here's the part that blows my mind.. SHE NEEDED DIRECTIONS!!! I am now led to the inescapable conclusion that God put me on that street in order to help this woman... amazing, huh??

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a similar story. Someone gave me a look and I maintained eye contact too long. They smiled and told me how they really needed a cigarette and could I help them out.

Its like a supernatural being gave me the power to recognize that this guy needed something.

Unfortunately I quit smoking months ago and couldn't help the guy out. So subtract a point for the supernatural being.

SitNHit

02-23-2007, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i predict big things for this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me start it off with a bang:

Occurances like this are far more terrifying for Christians than for atheists. If there is proof that God exists, your whole life is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe in humans who have spoke and saw God. Darn, life is meaningless!

God could tell someone through feeling, notice he never said God spoke to her so that doesnt mean she heard words(which doesn't discredit her story), just means that feeling told her to do that.

I don't think I am qualified to make a determination to whether this is true or not, and either do any of you.

BTW, your spaghetti monster comments are way beneath you, I truly think your better then that sir.

Mike.

Duke

02-24-2007, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you believe things like this are coincidences doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much different to prove something incorrect than correct. Positive proof is difficult to come by, and is always vulnerable to any counterexample. Negative proof is pretty easy, since you only have to "break" the idea once. I do not have to be right about anything for you to be wrong, as I merely need to point out a critical flaw or counterexample.

Prodigy54321

02-24-2007, 09:07 AM

I don't know why there's all this hate for this post...

I do not believe that your story is true..either that it never happened or that it didn't happen the way that you described it...it seems pretty unbelievable...and I hope you don't blame me for being skeptical here..maybe it did happen, but unless I saw it myself, I'm not being too sure that it actually happened.

If it did happen, I actually think that it is somewhat remarkable...the most remarkable thing being that your friend would not have done that unless absolutely compelled to by an outside force..this, however, is a leap that I cannot afford, as I do not know this person...as much as it would amaze me that some people I know would do this, it would not amaze me for others (few though I might add..this is especially peculiar)..

the rest of this does fall under the..what of the failed attempts?..type questions, etc.

consider this possible explanation.

she saw a woman who looked as though she was hiding some pain at that moment...she identified this, as most humans can, because our senses are very sensitive to subtle things that show peoples emotions...as a religious person, she construed this as a sign from God to approach this woman...this I think is important because believing that God is telling you to do something is certianly powerful enough of a motivation to make a person who is typically unlikely to do something, do it anyway...and, as her senses predicted, the woman had been suffering internally .

the truth is, however, that even if this story occurred, it offers no evidence that a god was involved, it only offers evidence that this girl believed that a god was involved.

what is a real shame if a god exists and does things like this and expects them to be taken as reason to believe in him...is that he lacks respect for humans in that he doesn't give us something that can be evaluated rationally and logically...he must know that thinking logically helps us to not come to false conclusions...it is not enough to say that it is because he wants us to have faith in him..there is no aim of faith, you cannot just use faith to believe in him, but not have faith in other incorrect conclusion, faith does not work that way.

DonkBluffer

02-24-2007, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i predict big things for this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me start it off with a bang:

Occurances like this are far more terrifying for Christians than for atheists. If there is proof that God exists, your whole life is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe in humans who have spoke and saw God. Darn, life is meaningless!

God could tell someone through feeling, notice he never said God spoke to her so that doesnt mean she heard words(which doesn't discredit her story), just means that feeling told her to do that.

I don't think I am qualified to make a determination to whether this is true or not, and either do any of you.

BTW, your spaghetti monster comments are way beneath you, I truly think your better then that sir.

Mike.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think superstitious beliefs like this can only exist because of ignorance. For example, you say god could tell her by giving her a feeling. A feeling is certain activity in the brain/body. It's very complicated, with billions of neurons and inhibitors and exhibitors and hormones, etc. involved. Now, how would god affect someone's feeling? Add a little serotonin? Activate some neurons?

Prodigy54321

02-24-2007, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Christians believe in humans who have spoke and saw God. Darn, life is meaningless!

[/ QUOTE ]

this sarcastic response shows that you didn't understand his post..perhaps you should ask him what he was referring to...

[ QUOTE ]
God could tell someone through feeling, notice he never said God spoke to her so that doesnt mean she heard words(which doesn't discredit her story), just means that feeling told her to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

they are the same thing for our purposes

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, your spaghetti monster comments are way beneath you, I truly think your better then that sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

you keep dismissing people's comparisons to the FSB, yet you never give reasons why you don't think that it is valid.

unless you can show that this occurrence could take place if god exists, but not if the FSB exists, you have no right to make a determination as to which (if either) this experience indicates.

for a comparison that may sit better with you..

a christian claims that god told them that the earth was created 100 million years ago.

a muslim claims that god told them that the earth was created 200 million years ago.

what conclusions can we come to based on this information?

is it still likely that the christian is telling the truth?

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i predict big things for this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me start it off with a bang:

Occurances like this are far more terrifying for Christians than for atheists. If there is proof that God exists, your whole life is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe in humans who have spoke and saw God. Darn, life is meaningless!

God could tell someone through feeling, notice he never said God spoke to her so that doesnt mean she heard words(which doesn't discredit her story), just means that feeling told her to do that.

I don't think I am qualified to make a determination to whether this is true or not, and either do any of you.

BTW, your spaghetti monster comments are way beneath you, I truly think your better then that sir.

Mike.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think superstitious beliefs like this can only exist because of ignorance. For example, you say god could tell her by giving her a feeling. A feeling is certain activity in the brain/body. It's very complicated, with billions of neurons and inhibitors and exhibitors and hormones, etc. involved. Now, how would god affect someone's feeling? Add a little serotonin? Activate some neurons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well your choosing believe that there is no God so the only feelings we have are natural are with our brains and body.

Those who believe in God think he can give us special feelings and inspiration as reward for choosing right things in regards to faith in him and his works. So if you don't understand by now that we believe in things more then science and math can just prove, you will just be robotic in how you discuss this in the future.

I find it to be pure ignorance to think that you feel feelings only cause of brain/body and that you don't think even if there even is a God he wouldn't guide us through feeling. I think that's a very ignorant position.

When you might a right decision, you feel a certain way, and wrong you feel a certain way, you just don't feel the way most of the time. If that decision is because you believe in God, isn't that a feeling inspired by him, guided by his works and believed presence? And If there is a God, and you are really a spiritual, don't you think he would guide you through some hard times like he said in the Bible by maybe giving a little feeling, etc and seeing if we follow it and if we choose to follow it, that's known as a blessing.

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 03:56 PM

If you search, ponder and pray about the teachings of the bible and you believe them then yes. I think if you read the Koran, you will see it's not the same thing or spiritual message. I feel a real special feeling when I read the Bible or BOM or D&C and I choose to believe that feeling is telling me it's true, its not a random feeling, its one that is distinguisable.

Ive studied the beliefs of the Johova's Witness, Islam, Catholics, Christians, Restored Gosepl through Joseph Smith, a little into buddism.. I guess the only major ones I have not are hinduism, chinese traditional, then there are a alot of others but I didn't need to go on cause I knew when I found the truth. Albeit, I was raised as one thing while studying and searching but what I was raised wasn't yet true in my heart, was just something like most others just go along with it.

I feel that I can speak as someone who just isn't ignorant of all other possiblities but I also will not be someone who denies what they know to be true, what would be the point of going outside and living if you denied your strongest feelings you ever had for something(the bible), etc and these are not weak feelings like drugs or alchohol, one who relates those two is obviously ignorant.

Take Care.

madnak

02-24-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it to be pure ignorance to think that you feel feelings only cause of brain/body and that you don't think even if there even is a God he wouldn't guide us through feeling. I think that's a very ignorant position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It's pretty obvious - over 95% of neurophysiologists agree with you.

(He really is getting better - he doesn't know what "ignorant" means because in Utah it's used like "dumb" rather than the actual definition of "lacking education or information," but he really seems to be working on his spelling and grammar.)

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 04:37 PM

I think ignorant means not willing to look outside the first idea that was presnted to you just cause your comfortable with what that first thing was.

When you say education, I guess everybody is ignorant in many aspects, same with information.

Isn't there a common ground of education and information though, basically that common ground it what is available to you. For example, we have schience, math, the universe and many religions all in front of you, that is something everybody can embrace and most of us grasp to one.

Now I feel science and math fanaticals kind of view there way as most christians. They kind are going with whats in front of them but don't have that strong feeling that anything is truly right.

I think not liking black people cause they are black is ignorant cause why not try. I think not believing in God cause there is no proof is ignorant cause why not try.

Havent all inventors and philosophers in history made their discoveries/breakthroughs/opinions/beliefs through trial and error? Not just one trial and then never trying again?

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 04:46 PM

sry, wanted to add something but quoted.

madnak

02-24-2007, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think ignorant means not willing to look outside the first idea that was presnted to you just cause your comfortable with what that first thing was.

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem is that what a word means doesn't depend on what you think (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant).

But the bigger problem is that your statement truly is ignorant. Most of the atheists here have been religious at some point during our lives, some of us during our adult lives. We also typically have read at least a reasonable amount of material about religious philosophy and religious practices. Therefore, calling us ignorant of religion (in any sense) is going a bit far.

The further irony is that it's clear you are a perpetrator of the very crime you're accusing us of. I think not believing in Buddhism because you've never studied it is "ignernt," - why not try. See, you've experienced just one thing - Mormonism. And you're here claiming to know more than I do about the subject of religion and God. I've experienced Mormonism, non-denominational Christianity, new-age mysticism, Buddhism, atheism, and agnosticism. My father is a Mormon scholar and Bishop, and I spent much of my childhood discussing these very questions with him (as well as various other bishops and even a stake president).

But you're telling me I'm foolish because I'm unwilling to try new things. Hey, if you do half of what I've done in your explorations, and try half as many things, then I will literally commit to going to church and paying tithes consistently, and I will even fast and give testimony every month as an attempt to "fake it until I make it" for an entire year. Finally, I will read at least 10 pages from the Book of Mormon every night for the entire year, and be sure to complete the entire thing (including the D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and other documents) at least twice in that time. Also I'll pray every night and morning, and put effort into really reaching out, and pray at each meal (but without so much effort).

Considering that I did similar things back when I was Mormon, for oh...fourteen years...I'm pretty confident that at the end, when I go back and evaluate my beliefs, I will decide to remain as I am (more or less). But I'll go through it and even keep you updated with documentation of it, including a "report card" from my Bishop - just as long as you practice Buddhism for one year with the same rigor, read the works of Thich Nhat Han and the Dalai Lama, meditate for one hour daily, etc. And at the end, if you keep up your side, I'll lay you even odds that you'll have a different perspective on Buddhism, and a different perspective on Mormonism (not that your beliefs will necessarily change, but that you'll gain valuable insights from the Buddhist teachings).

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think ignorant means not willing to look outside the first idea that was presnted to you just cause your comfortable with what that first thing was.

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem is that what a word means doesn't depend on what you think (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant).

But the bigger problem is that your statement truly is ignorant. Most of the atheists here have been religious at some point during our lives, some of us during our adult lives. We also typically have read at least a reasonable amount of material about religious philosophy and religious practices. Therefore, calling us ignorant of religion (in any sense) is going a bit far.

The further irony is that it's clear you are a perpetrator of the very crime you're accusing us of. I think not believing in Buddhism because you've never studied it is "ignernt," - why not try. See, you've experienced just one thing - Mormonism. And you're here claiming to know more than I do about the subject of religion and God. I've experienced Mormonism, non-denominational Christianity, new-age mysticism, Buddhism, atheism, and agnosticism. My father is a Mormon scholar and Bishop, and I spent much of my childhood discussing these very questions with him (as well as various other bishops and even a stake president).

But you're telling me I'm foolish because I'm unwilling to try new things. Hey, if you do half of what I've done in your explorations, and try half as many things, then I will literally commit to going to church and paying tithes consistently, and I will even fast and give testimony every month as an attempt to "fake it until I make it" for an entire year. Finally, I will read at least 10 pages from the Book of Mormon every night for the entire year, and be sure to complete the entire thing (including the D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and other documents) at least twice in that time. Also I'll pray every night and morning, and put effort into really reaching out, and pray at each meal (but without so much effort).

Considering that I did similar things back when I was Mormon, for oh...fourteen years...I'm pretty confident that at the end, when I go back and evaluate my beliefs, I will decide to remain as I am (more or less). But I'll go through it and even keep you updated with documentation of it, including a "report card" from my Bishop - just as long as you practice Buddhism for one year with the same rigor, read the works of Thich Nhat Han and the Dalai Lama, meditate for one hour daily, etc. And at the end, if you keep up your side, I'll lay you even odds that you'll have a different perspective on Buddhism, and a different perspective on Mormonism (not that your beliefs will necessarily change, but that you'll gain valuable insights from the Buddhist teachings).

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize if you got that from what I said, lol....

Can it be safe to assume that we state things in majorities, specially matters of most opinion.

I agree, there is something in buddism that I could most likely apply to my life and it would be beneficial, that is a very smart statement. It would be hard though so to into that whole idea of belief and disregard what I already believe. Remember I don't think most truly believe, I think to most it's just a saying. Kind of like when someone says they are smart, most are not smart, and why is that, cause truly smart people know what smart is, those who are not have an idea of what it is and it makes them feel good so say it.

Well, if someone truly thinks they know something to be truthful. I won't say they should not believe it. I have to resepct their belief and wish them the best.

Before venturting into these forums, I make it a policy of mine to not discuss my beliefs unless that person would like to hear them, either in a form of teaching or just discussion.

I have a question, and it's not to like look down on you, just pure curiousity. Why did you leave the church? Were you ex-communicated? And this isn't stating something as fact just an observation of opinion, you believed in the Devil I assume when you were in the church, but once you left you don't believe he exist? I am sure you get where I am going with that. I think the enemies best shot to win a war is to attack them when they think they are not being attacked and when they accomplish there goal make it seem like there is no enemy in the first place.

Anyways just curious.

SitNHit

02-24-2007, 05:40 PM

Something to add. If you did anything for year, it would obv change you in some ways. If I for one year straight and truly studied satanic material and did everything and applied everything it said, I think I could be changed. The point is not to make those choices that put you in danger, not saying that buddism will, but I don't feel I need it, most don't have my comfort and strong beliefs and with that I feel that I can move on and live life with the benefit of knowing what I know.

I think people do things in goals of experience or in search of truth. How you approach things determines most likely what you get out of them.

I think your a part of a certain group, a person who has been everything, I don't know the answers as to why you believe or choose what you do or have done what you done.

All I can say is my feeling is real and with it comes a view on things that you don't have.

All I can do is love one another and hope that they have as much happiness as possible, and if they want to hear what believe, well I can show them where to start.

Taraz

02-24-2007, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you search, ponder and pray about the teachings of the bible and you believe them then yes. I think if you read the Koran, you will see it's not the same thing or spiritual message. I feel a real special feeling when I read the Bible or BOM or D&C and I choose to believe that feeling is telling me it's true, its not a random feeling, its one that is distinguisable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I don't understand is why you think that since you get that "real special feeling" only from the Bible, BOM, and D&C that those are the only ways that anybody else can get those feelings. Why can it not be the case that a Muslim gets the same feeling you feel from the Koran and not the Bible? I'm sure that they would describe the feeling they get the same way you describe the spirituality you get from your faith.

I've come to a realization very recently that everyone gets these "special feelings" from vastly different things. We use religion/spirituality/etc to describe this feeling. It seems arrogant to claim that since you get it from one thing that that is the only way for anyone to get it.

tame_deuces

02-24-2007, 07:52 PM

The 'probability for miracles' is a fairly common argument amongst atheists such a myself. It's really just saying that sometimes, something spectacular will happen.

And we're all pokerplayers here, we should know by now not to take patterns we see 'for granted', but acknowledge the probability that they are random occurences.

If a religious believer choses to do otherwise I can't say he is wrong, but I can say he doesn't have a strong case either.

vhawk01

02-24-2007, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Something to add. If you did anything for year, it would obv change you in some ways. If I for one year straight and truly studied satanic material and did everything and applied everything it said, I think I could be changed. The point is not to make those choices that put you in danger, not saying that buddism will, but I don't feel I need it, most don't have my comfort and strong beliefs and with that I feel that I can move on and live life with the benefit of knowing what I know.

I think people do things in goals of experience or in search of truth. How you approach things determines most likely what you get out of them.

I think your a part of a certain group, a person who has been everything, I don't know the answers as to why you believe or choose what you do or have done what you done.

All I can say is my feeling is real and with it comes a view on things that you don't have.

All I can do is love one another and hope that they have as much happiness as possible, and if they want to hear what believe, well I can show them where to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fantastic example of the anti-extinction mechanisms built into religious memes.

Ralph Wiggum

02-24-2007, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently an atheist tends to be also be a sarcastic prick.

OP: The girl is religious, so I'd guess she tends to give God a lot of credit for her subconscious & intuition. We all have moments where we can sense something. Sometimes we're right & seem clairvoyant & sometimes not. I'd imagine when your friend is wrong, she forgets it. When she's right, it's God.

When I call my Mom, she occasionally says I knew it was you calling (she doesn't have caller ID) & she claims it's her mother's instinct. However whenever her phones rings she assumes it's me calling. When it's not me, she forgets it. When it is me, it reinforces her belief. She knows this & it's just something she says makes her feel good. Maybe your friend is less aware of her thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the only people responding sarcastically in this thread are atheists? Or does being a theist make you a judgmental prick?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, obviously sarcasm isn't something that atheists have a monopoly on. I'm not sure how to go about answering the second question. You call me a theist (huh? cuz I answered him sincerely?), then a judgemental prick (that's a first). I apologize, but I don't see the point in answering this guy's question (& pretty much every genuine question I've seen in this forum) with a snide answer. Using snide & not-as-clever-as-you-think remarks to turn every thread into a flame war the only way to get your point across? If decency & sincerity isn't something religion deserves credit for, so why not showcase that?

vhawk01

02-24-2007, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently an atheist tends to be also be a sarcastic prick.

OP: The girl is religious, so I'd guess she tends to give God a lot of credit for her subconscious & intuition. We all have moments where we can sense something. Sometimes we're right & seem clairvoyant & sometimes not. I'd imagine when your friend is wrong, she forgets it. When she's right, it's God.

When I call my Mom, she occasionally says I knew it was you calling (she doesn't have caller ID) & she claims it's her mother's instinct. However whenever her phones rings she assumes it's me calling. When it's not me, she forgets it. When it is me, it reinforces her belief. She knows this & it's just something she says makes her feel good. Maybe your friend is less aware of her thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the only people responding sarcastically in this thread are atheists? Or does being a theist make you a judgmental prick?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, obviously sarcasm isn't something that atheists have a monopoly on. I'm not sure how to go about answering the second question. You call me a theist (huh? cuz I answered him sincerely?), then a judgemental prick (that's a first). I apologize, but I don't see the point in answering this guy's question (& pretty much every genuine question I've seen in this forum) with a snide answer. Using snide & not-as-clever-as-you-think remarks to turn every thread into a flame war the only way to get your point across? If decency & sincerity isn't something religion deserves credit for, so why not showcase that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see a point in assuming that its atheism that makes people sarcastic? Do you see a point in analogies? Do you see a point in using the word judgmental to describe someone who decided that a slew of sarcastic responses to a miracle report gave him insight into the damage atheism does to a person's character?

Ralph Wiggum

02-24-2007, 10:19 PM

Do you now see whether or not I'm a theist or an atheist? This is something you ignored in your response.

Since I wasn't being sarcastic, it was very hard for you to tell. That highlights my point.

vhawk01

02-24-2007, 10:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you now see whether or not I'm a theist or an atheist? This is something you ignored in your response.

Since I wasn't being sarcastic, it was very hard for you to tell. That highlights my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea whether you are a theist or an atheist and it makes absolutely no difference to my point. I could have just as well said Democrat or cigar-smoker.

vhawk01

02-24-2007, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you now see whether or not I'm a theist or an atheist? This is something you ignored in your response.

Since I wasn't being sarcastic, it was very hard for you to tell. That highlights my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea whether you are a theist or an atheist and it makes absolutely no difference to my point. I could have just as well said Democrat or cigar-smoker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, this thread isn't about theism and atheism. Its about miracles (and related phenomena), which are not solely the province of theists, nor do all theists shout miracle at every opportunity.

Ralph Wiggum

02-24-2007, 10:44 PM

But you didn't. You called me a judgemental theist, but you classified me as being both judgemental & a theist, not b/c they were a random choice.

As for your point, no I don't think every atheist is a sarcastic prick, I was also making a point about all the sarcastic replies in the thread.

I've made my point a couple of times, and if you'd like you can respond and have the final say. I doubt this discussion will lead to anything useful & worthwhile.

vhawk01

02-24-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But you didn't. You called me a judgemental theist, but you classified me as being both judgemental & a theist, not b/c they were a random choice.

As for your point, no I don't think every atheist is a sarcastic prick, I was also making a point about all the sarcastic replies in the thread.

I've made my point a couple of times, and if you'd like you can respond and have the final say. I doubt this discussion will lead to anything useful & worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really call you a theist or a judgmental prick. I asked a question, and the (obvious to me) purpose behind it was to make the analogy between your comment about 'sarcastic atheists,' which was meaningless. Some of us are sarcastic, some of us are atheists, some of us are white and some of us like baseball. The fact that we are being sarcastic in this thread has nothing to do with our atheism, so it comes off as a weak shot at atheism. If that isn't the way you meant it, fine, although I can't think of any other way you could have meant it.

You are right, it was a non-random decision to 'call you a theist,' but in hindsight my point would have been made even better had I used a random choice instead.

madnak

02-25-2007, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Can it be safe to assume that we state things in majorities, specially matters of most opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that you're well-informed about the atheist majority. I don't know any statistics on the subject, but I would imagine most adult atheists have studied religions to some degree.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question, and it's not to like look down on you, just pure curiousity. Why did you leave the church? Were you ex-communicated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, I didn't leave. That's why I'd be able to jump right back in. I don't like burning bridges, even though I think that might be one to burn. Still, I like to have the option of going back, "just in case." I think it's partly because I'm afraid to completely close the door on the beliefs I grew up with, even though I recognize they hurt me.

As for why I stopped being Mormon, I know exactly how to describe that to a psychologist. Explaining it to a Mormon is hard, though, because I feel that any response I give will immediately be viewed in a negative light, or as a mistake.

To put it briefly, I became crippled with guilt and fear, and was unable to function. I got out of it by applying reason to the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
And this isn't stating something as fact just an observation of opinion, you believed in the Devil I assume when you were in the church, but once you left you don't believe he exist? I am sure you get where I am going with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The best trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist," eh?

My beliefs about the Devil weren't exactly comforting. By the time I was 15 I had occasional delusional episodes in which I believed I was the Devil (Antichrist, actually). The further I got into the LDS doctrine, the more convinced I was that I was just hopelessly evil (for various reasons - primarily the same extreme libido yukon described). I'd rather not go into detail.

[ QUOTE ]
Something to add. If you did anything for year, it would obv change you in some ways. If I for one year straight and truly studied satanic material and did everything and applied everything it said, I think I could be changed. The point is not to make those choices that put you in danger, not saying that buddism will, but I don't feel I need it

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't feel you need it, and that's a justification for ignoring it? I don't feel like I need Mormonism - in fact, a vast majority do not. If that is a valid reason to avoid it, then they have a valid reason. If it's not, then you don't have a valid reason.

Furthermore, you can't just say "some things are dangerous, avoid them." It's impossible to avoid them unless there's some way to know whether they're dangerous. You claim to know that Mormonism isn't dangerous, but you yourself said it's ignorant not to look at the alternatives. As for me, following the LDS teachings got me fear and depression, guilt and shame, and psychotic symptoms. Following Buddhism brought compassion and perspective, discipline and self-control, and peace. So if an evil force is behind one of these religions, which should I think is the evil one and why?

A final note on the Devil - if my judgment has been clouded, that is still no big deal. Think of it in poker terms. If you're right and the Devil gets me, I go to heaven anyhow. If I'm right and Mormonism is the destructive path, I could be in big trouble.

furyshade

02-25-2007, 02:52 AM

this is a rather long thread so forgive me if this has already been stated, but isn't there a distinct mathematical probability that the majority of people who have reached adulthood have had some traumatic experiences in their life that bother them? and it increases based on your friends ability to read this persons body language, this also sounds a lot like that south park episode about John Edward where he made broad general statements which would be true for almost anyone and was regarded as a psychic

MidGe

02-25-2007, 04:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My friend just told me a story today, and I wanted to know how you guys (particularly atheists) would explain it. Let me preface by saying I do not believe that this proves the existence of God. However, many atheists on here claim there is no God because they come up with scenarios that Christians ignore/can't explain, but not too many discuss it the other way around. Here it goes...

A friend from my church was at lunch with her friend. She saw a girl sitting at another table, and felt like God wanted her to go talk to the girl. She ignored it at first, thinking it was her own thoughts, but then the girl kept looking at her, and her friend asked her if she knew the girl, so she finally decided she should go talk to her. (Keep in mind, it is not normal for my friend to just start talking to strangers based on God telling her to) She said, "You might think I'm crazy, but God told me to come talk to you, and to tell you that I know something horrible happened in your past, but that if you don't stop looking in your rearview mirror, you're going to crash." The girl responded by saying, "When I was 19, I had a baby and gave her up for adoption, and I've regretted it ever since, and today is her birthday."

I just want to know what you guys think about this, and why things like this happen every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply a coincidence. Those happen often, amongst believers in different god or gods or even atheists. that is why we even have a word for it: "coincidences".

In reality it is our own misunderstanding of probabilities, or our own circumstances/views, that make something appear, coincidental, or remarkable.