How Do Atheists Handle World Events: Scenario 2 Miracles

[Searching1981]

I'm back. OK, so I've read all of the comments and many are very thoughtful some are very reactionary. Hmmm...how do I proceed since I can't response to everyone.

What I gather from the people responding is while at this point only one questioned the media and none questioned the government, the consensus here is that Science would save the day. There is unwavering Faith in Science for that I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution.

There was one poster who I did reply to who could do the thought exercise safely and he had a brilliant response; that being true whatever is out there is not God as in Godly so I would question Him/Her further (I'm adding but that is what I suspect this person would do, question not rely on science as I suspect that person is confident).

As for the rest, you really have to have exposure to the rest of America and the World outside of a message board. Isolation isn't the best way to gain knowledge, even meditation requires us to explore life and come back and think. If you encounter a miracle and think you lost your mind, chances are Science has put you through the ringer.

Time to eat! Cheers!

 

[leibowde84]

I'm back. OK, so I've read all of the comments and many are very thoughtful some are very reactionary. Hmmm...how do I proceed since I can't response to everyone.

What I gather from the people responding is while at this point only one questioned the media and none questioned the government, the consensus here is that Science would save the day. There is unwavering Faith in Science for that I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution.

There was one poster who I did reply to who could do the thought exercise safely and he had a brilliant response; that being true whatever is out there is not God as in Godly so I would question Him/Her further (I'm adding but that is what I suspect this person would do, question not rely on science as I suspect that person is confident).

As for the rest, you really have to have exposure to the rest of America and the World outside of a message board. Isolation isn't the best way to gain knowledge, even meditation requires us to explore life and come back and think. If you encounter a miracle and think you lost your mind, chances are Science has put you through the ringer.

Time to eat! Cheers!

It is dangerous to believe things without verifiable evidence. The scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the universe we are in. Believing claims in youtube videos and the like is a good way to be misled by false claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm back. OK, so I've read all of the comments and many are very thoughtful some are very reactionary. Hmmm...how do I proceed since I can't response to everyone.

What I gather from the people responding is while at this point only one questioned the media and none questioned the government, the consensus here is that Science would save the day. There is unwavering Faith in Science for that I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution.

There was one poster who I did reply to who could do the thought exercise safely and he had a brilliant response; that being true whatever is out there is not God as in Godly so I would question Him/Her further (I'm adding but that is what I suspect this person would do, question not rely on science as I suspect that person is confident).

As for the rest, you really have to have exposure to the rest of America and the World outside of a message board. Isolation isn't the best way to gain knowledge, even meditation requires us to explore life and come back and think. If you encounter a miracle and think you lost your mind, chances are Science has put you through the ringer.

Time to eat! Cheers!

Not a very coherent response. If I encounter what appears to be a miracle, first I reflect on the reality from the fallible human perspective that appearances can be deceiving. Science is not the ringer, and it has an outstanding filter for comprehending reality from the fallible human perspective. Second, most important here is you have failed to justify the existence of miracles other than the rumors, and murmurs.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Both theist and atheist are welcome to reply. Have Fun! Cheers!

Suppose you live in a world where you hear murmurs of miracles. Maybe you have seen something or maybe not, but what is true is you have heard things.

These things include people creating videos all over Youtube called, "Man argues with Dog," or any other animal. There is not just one but plenty. To the outsiders, these videos are just cute but to the insiders you can see they are showing miracles i.e. they are literally talking to animals but only other people who can talk to animals hear it.
This then leads to other miracles, like telepathy. To outsiders people making ruffling noises or tapping on objects or making noise in public places is annoying, to the insiders they are using what is called the tapping system. In the tapping system each tap is a syllable and people communicate with it. But that's not all, there is direct telepathy where people spend the evening communicating with people all over the world through telepathy.

Then music, which has largely been repressed passed the nineties, you find from the insiders uses the tapping system on the guitar or piano or drums to communicate beyond the lyrics. Songs like, "Uptown Funk," have a hidden message, "Don't believe me just fight," are things the songs says. Or you find on a good sound quality track like Outcasts Hey Yah, the Background Singers are threatening Andre 3000. Or in Echosmith the Cool Kids Song the singer says, "F The Cool Kids they always seem to die." All these songs take on a new meaning with telepathy. You find this goes back to the Rolling Stones and the Beatles and Blues Greats like Robert Johnson and T Bone Walker. It's present in Reggae in Bob Marley Hits.

You hear these murmurs of miracles and telepathy. Then it gets strangers, even stranger. Murmurs of people who have been healed by random people. Lost arms returning, mental disability fixed, facial disabilities fixed, Cancer and Aids cured just by simple telepathy and motions of the hand. So much so, there are groups of people who find our health care system primitive.

The media knows about it but doesn't report. The government knows about it but tries to suppress it. It seems the majority of people know about it, but you are only hearing murmurs. Scientist know about it but because there is no scientific explanation for it and it defies all their theories they suppress.

How, would you, an Atheist handle this?

The same way I handle other wild claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

It's a sort of combination of mockery and an honest curiosity.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

* Blind Post; I read only the first few posts *

First, to believe that there is "ample evidence" for the scenarios you described in the OP shows a wide gulf (at least between you and I) on what constitutes "evidence"; let alone what constitutes "good evidence". I see no "good evidence" of any of the scenarios you have described.

Second, if there were "ample evidence" for telepathy, miraculous healing, etc. then the logical conclusion is that telepathy and miraculous healing are true facets of our world. However, telepathy and other psychic "powers" are not reproducible in labs; thus we must view such claims with great skepticism; and there certainly has not been one ... not ONE .... claim of miraculous healing that passes scrutiny.

A friend of mine once claimed that he was "healed" of AIDS. He went in for his test (this was in the 80's) and it came back positive. He prayed, anointed his head with oil, etc. He went in for his 2nd test. It came back negative. He concluded, then, that God had healed him of AIDS. Truth be known, however, that false positives for HIV are not uncommon; which is why a second test is performed to confirm the result.

 

[columbus]

As for the rest, you really have to have exposure to the rest of America and the World outside of a message board. Isolation isn't the best way to gain knowledge,

Even for a religionist, the prideful condescension of your post is remarkable.
My experience with miracles and the people who believe in them goes back to before there was an internet. Heck, before there was cable TV.

One of the first threads I ever started on a religious forum* was titled "A truly useful Miracle ". The premise was asking why God cannot deliver a Message that told us what we should know, instead of giving the Message to fallible humans and expecting us to pick the right prophet and interpretation.
But you ignored the posts mentioning that.
Tom
* That forum, long since defunct, was run by a Catholic YEC guy. It was so old it's webaddress was just "apologetic.org"

 

[HonestJoe]

What I gather from the people responding is while at this point only one questioned the media and none questioned the government, the consensus here is that Science would save the day. There is unwavering Faith in Science for that I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution.

What do you think “science” actually is or more to the point, what are you talking about when you say “Science”, especially with the capital letter?

You see, I don’t think anybody questioning the assertions in your OP is expressing “unwavering faith” in anything. Even those of us who consider scientific process as the best (though not flawless, largely due to our own limitations) method by which to understand the world around us aren’t putting “faith” in anything.

If you encounter a miracle and think you lost your mind, chances are Science has put you through the ringer.

I’ve never encountered a miracle. I’ve encountered phenomena that I couldn’t explain, though sometimes an rational explanation became apparent later. The rest simply remain unexplained. They can’t be miraculous because they actually happened, even if the explanation for them happening is “It was done by an all-powerful being from outside existence”.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Though if miracles are valid, they would be beyond the scope of natural laws of our physical existence, which makes it difficult with the absence of a power beyond our physical existence. Even though I am a Theist I have to conclude that any claim of the miraculous is natural, not at present understood in terms of our perspective of natural law.

The next word after 'miracle' in most dictionaries is 'mirage.'

I think a miracle would have to be something that was unexplained by science.

If miracles really existed then we could probably find out the mechanisms for it and study it.

If miracles where supernatural in nature then yes dualism would probably be necessary to explain it.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Baha'i view of miracles is as follows:

Miracles in the Baha'i Faith

"Bahá’í Writings teach us that if we wish to discover whether any one of the Messengers was in reality a Prophet of God, we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history. The "…first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an Educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a Prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs. We do not need to mention miracles, saying that out of rock water gushed forth, for such miracles and statements may be denied and refused by those who hear them."1


"The miracles of Bahá’u’lláh may not be mentioned for the above reasons. Also they may be described by some as traditions that are liable to both truth and error. Though if we wish to mention the supernatural acts of Bahá’u’lláh, they are numerous. Many Bahá’ís, after the way of Islam, have also related the great miracles that they had, with their own eyes, seen Bahá’u’lláh perform, and the marvels they had heard.2 They "…are acknowledged in the Orient, and even by some non-Bahá’ís. But these narratives are not decisive proofs and evidences to all; the hearer might perhaps say that this account may not be in accordance with what occurred, for it is known that other sects recount miracles performed by their founders. For instance, the followers of Brahmanism relate miracles. From what evidence may we know that those are false and that these are true? If these are fables, the others also are fables; if these are generally accepted, so also the others are generally accepted. Consequently, these accounts are not satisfactory proofs. Yes, miracles are proofs for the eyewitness only, and even he may regard them not as a miracle but as an enchantment."3 Further, extraordinary feats have also been related of some conjurers.

The purpose is not to deny such miracles; but to point out that they do not constitute decisive proofs, and that they have an inner significance. The miracles of Bahá’u’lláh will be acknowledged if there is fairness in the world; but there are some people who, even if all the proof in the world be adduced before them, still will not judge justly!"

The bottom line is any claim of miracles as a witness or proof of anything is suspect.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

How would you know IFF REAL miracles occure? Unless of course you don't understand the phenomena and ASSUME it's miraculous.

How do you differentiate a real miracle from anything you just don't happen to understand or can't process?

As I said.

A miracle would be an event which we currently cannot explain with science.

Once we explained it or knew we could then I do not think it would be a miracle.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I think a miracle would have to be something that was unexplained by science.

I disagree.

I would tentatively define "miracle" as "something that can not and never can be explained by science"; in other words, an event that defies how the material world works.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think a miracle would have to be something that was unexplained by science.

If miracles really existed then we could probably find out the mechanisms for it and study it.

If miracles where supernatural in nature then yes dualism would probably be necessary to explain it.

Agreed. I do not much care for Author Clarke's quote: (paraphrased from memory)

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

The problem is? Once you realize that there are non-magical mechanisms that explain what was previously not-explained?

Including some of the most Amazing! Stupendous! Marvelous! things on Earth, like rainbows, lightning and hurricanes?

One is no longer satisfied with "It's Magic! You can't explain Magic"

The difference being, "It's Magic" is then the end of further inquiry.

Whereas, "It is not magic" means that, "If I live long enough, I may--if I try-- discover the non-magical explanation for what I just witnessed."

We now know that we never need to passively accept "It's Magic" as an "answer"...

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

As I said.

A miracle would be an event which we currently cannot explain with science.

Once we explained it or knew we could then I do not think it would be a miracle.

Very unsatisfying. By your definitioin fire was once a miracle to everyone, and still is to most people. Do you suppose that even 10% of the Earth's population can actually explain what fire is and how it works?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I disagree.

I would tentatively define "miracle" as "something that can not and never can be explained by science"; in other words, an event that defies how the material world works.

But we would never be able to know for certain what could be a miracle then.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Very unsatisfying. By your definitioin fire was once a miracle to everyone, and still is to most people. Do you suppose that even 10% of the Earth's population can actually explain what fire is and how it works?

It may be unsatisfying at first glance.

But, let's look at your fire example. In the earliest days of human existence, fire was a discovery, not unlike finding gold in a streambed-- people saw fire burning, and would grab up a "piece" of it-- by observation, they could carry fire around with burnable materials.

And indeed, many anthropologists presume this is how people handled fire: they found some, or they traded for it from those who had some fire going.

It was likely a sacred duty-- until some very clever person figured out how to make it.

Once the knowledge of how to make fire entered the Human Experience, it was no longer a "Miracle From The Gods"-- but we mere mortal humans could create it on demand, with mundane (not magical-- in no way "holy") tools.

And that, is as much explanation of what fire is as you need-- if you can recreate it with simple tools? It's not a miracle.

But what is it? Oh, that's easy too: a super-heated plasma of a chemical reaction to oxygen and carbon-based gas molecules (typically). The majority of fire is gaseous reaction. But there are "solid" fires too-- smoldering wood fire coals being the most common.

Alas, my explanation is beyond the education of some folk, being ignorant of what "plasma" is, or combustion or even chemical reaction for that matter.

What I find amusing, is that many folk who do understand fire-- do not realize that it's gas combustion, not liquid or solid as they think. Take your candle-- is that a solid burning? Or a liquid? Gas? What? It's a gas-- the heat of the candle's flame melts the wax into a liquid, which is drawn up by capillary action along the wick, which brings it to the flame-- where it's vaporized by the heat, which then burns.

Or take a typical wood fire--- that's solid wood burning, right? Not really. The dancing mesmerizing flames are gasses that heat is driving out of the wood, mostly methane and other combustible gasses. There is some solid combustion, but it's coals at the bottom.

Well... gasoline is flaming liquid, right? No-- gaseous combustion again.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It may be unsatisfying at first glance.

But, let's look at your fire example. In the earliest days of human existence, fire was a discovery, not unlike finding gold in a streambed-- people saw fire burning, and would grab up a "piece" of it-- by observation, they could carry fire around with burnable materials.

And indeed, many anthropologists presume this is how people handled fire: they found some, or they traded for it from those who had some fire going.

It was likely a sacred duty-- until some very clever person figured out how to make it.

Once the knowledge of how to make fire entered the Human Experience, it was no longer a "Miracle From The Gods"-- but we mere mortal humans could create it on demand, with mundane (not magical-- in no way "holy") tools.

And that, is as much explanation of what fire is as you need-- if you can recreate it with simple tools? It's not a miracle.

But what is it? Oh, that's easy too: a super-heated plasma of a chemical reaction to oxygen and carbon-based gas molecules (typically). The majority of fire is gaseous reaction. But there are "solid" fires too-- smoldering wood fire coals being the most common.

Alas, my explanation is beyond the education of some folk, being ignorant of what "plasma" is, or combustion or even chemical reaction for that matter.

What I find amusing, is that many folk who do understand fire-- do not realize that it's gas combustion, not liquid or solid as they think. Take your candle-- is that a solid burning? Or a liquid? Gas? What? It's a gas-- the heat of the candle's flame melts the wax into a liquid, which is drawn up by capillary action along the wick, which brings it to the flame-- where it's vaporized by the heat, which then burns.

Or take a typical wood fire--- that's solid wood burning, right? Not really. The dancing mesmerizing flames are gasses that heat is driving out of the wood, mostly methane and other combustible gasses. There is some solid combustion, but it's coals at the bottom.

Well... gasoline is flaming liquid, right? No-- gaseous combustion again.

Yes I understand why people believe in miracles. They are ignorant! It's a question of semantics. Miracles exist only if we define them as ignorance of the workings of a thing. That is not what, imo, most people mean when they use the word.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Now we're going to play semantics, it seems. Here are definitions of "miracle":

• a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
• a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.
  "it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured"
• an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
  "a machine which was a miracle of design"

I do believe that as we are speaking about religion and we're talking about how atheists handle "miracles", the first definition i the correct definition within context.

Let's not play the goal shifting game.

 

[Searching1981]

The same way I handle other wild claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

It's a sort of combination of mockery and an honest curiosity.

Not a very coherent response. If I encounter what appears to be a miracle, first I reflect on the reality from the fallible human perspective that appearances can be deceiving. Science is not the ringer, and it has an outstanding filter for comprehending reality from the fallible human perspective. Second, most important here is you have failed to justify the existence of miracles other than the rumors, and murmurs.

Not coherent? What more do you want, you don't see miracles and I cannot see miracles for you.

This thread lead to other threads and other thoughts realizing the only way I can get you (universal you) to think is if I work with your loop instead of trying to take you out of your loop. What more can I do? Imagination is tough for atheists. I say let us do a thought exercise and you say, "think?" I just can't do anything more with this thread but it lead to greater things.

Why don't you respond to the Totalitarianism thread...oh, because this is my weakest argument and the weak prey on the weak. True to form, atheists do as atheists will.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes I understand why people believe in miracles. They are ignorant! It's a question of semantics. Miracles exist only if we define them as ignorance of the workings of a thing. That is not what, imo, most people mean when they use the word.

Agreed. I also have to admit, that the vast majority of folk, exist in a kind of cotton-candy, fuzzy cocoon that is several layers removed from actual reality.

To these people? Cars (for example) magically transform a magical liquid (gasoline) into motion-- the exact how this happens, is utterly and completely beyond them--

-- but the worst part? They simply do not care!

I cannot fathom not knowing how something works-- I was asking questions of things-- cars, for example-- from before I could read. I wanted to understand how the moving image got into the TV set. I was curious how National Geographic collected its incredible photographs....

.. I was never content with "goddidit"-- I wanted to know how... how did god do it?

( I got a lot of flack from Sunday School teachers, when I was a wee laddie )

 

[Milton Platt]

Both theist and atheist are welcome to reply. Have Fun! Cheers!

Suppose you live in a world where you hear murmurs of miracles. Maybe you have seen something or maybe not, but what is true is you have heard things.

These things include people creating videos all over Youtube called, "Man argues with Dog," or any other animal. There is not just one but plenty. To the outsiders, these videos are just cute but to the insiders you can see they are showing miracles i.e. they are literally talking to animals but only other people who can talk to animals hear it.
This then leads to other miracles, like telepathy. To outsiders people making ruffling noises or tapping on objects or making noise in public places is annoying, to the insiders they are using what is called the tapping system. In the tapping system each tap is a syllable and people communicate with it. But that's not all, there is direct telepathy where people spend the evening communicating with people all over the world through telepathy.

Then music, which has largely been repressed passed the nineties, you find from the insiders uses the tapping system on the guitar or piano or drums to communicate beyond the lyrics. Songs like, "Uptown Funk," have a hidden message, "Don't believe me just fight," are things the songs says. Or you find on a good sound quality track like Outcasts Hey Yah, the Background Singers are threatening Andre 3000. Or in Echosmith the Cool Kids Song the singer says, "F The Cool Kids they always seem to die." All these songs take on a new meaning with telepathy. You find this goes back to the Rolling Stones and the Beatles and Blues Greats like Robert Johnson and T Bone Walker. It's present in Reggae in Bob Marley Hits.

You hear these murmurs of miracles and telepathy. Then it gets strangers, even stranger. Murmurs of people who have been healed by random people. Lost arms returning, mental disability fixed, facial disabilities fixed, Cancer and Aids cured just by simple telepathy and motions of the hand. So much so, there are groups of people who find our health care system primitive.

The media knows about it but doesn't report. The government knows about it but tries to suppress it. It seems the majority of people know about it, but you are only hearing murmurs. Scientist know about it but because there is no scientific explanation for it and it defies all their theories they suppress.

How, would you, an Atheist handle this?

Why did you use the lead about world events and then use fictitious events instead of actual world events????