tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7213956641866336942..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Pretty crappy for a miracle, I'd sayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45231641236485160172011-01-04T07:22:13.169-06:002011-01-04T07:22:13.169-06:00Hello!
I lived in Hiroshima for about a year and ...Hello!<br /><br />I lived in Hiroshima for about a year and went to the Hiroshima Memorial Museum on more than one occasion. No where in the museum does it tell a story of a group of Catholic missionaries that survived without a scratch.MidnightPariahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00409668633284963093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30059096828789729182011-01-02T02:59:04.180-06:002011-01-02T02:59:04.180-06:00@Daemon6
Oops. Need to give credit where it's ...@Daemon6<br />Oops. Need to give credit where it's due. Thanks for the correction.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11795494836971019392011-01-01T19:09:40.918-06:002011-01-01T19:09:40.918-06:00@rrpostal
I agree with what you said in your last ...@rrpostal<br />I agree with what you said in your last post but have one nit-pick...<br /><br />It was Tracie, and the jar was full of dice :P.<br /><br />(My personal favorite episode)Daemon6https://www.blogger.com/profile/06379313038024703056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56964991146567104192011-01-01T15:27:35.756-06:002011-01-01T15:27:35.756-06:00The thing about miracles is that they just seem to...The thing about miracles is that they just seem to be the 'argument from ignorance' writ large.<br /><br />Something that I can't explain happens therefore any old shit explanation will suffice.<br /><br />When you see a magician cut a woman in half and restore her back to life, you do not leave the theatre convinced that a miraculous event has occurred. You have seen a skilful artist deceive you in a mutually agreed situation.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35652446074154066742010-12-31T05:43:41.190-06:002010-12-31T05:43:41.190-06:00[We can't see gravity but we believe in it]
H...[We can't see gravity but we believe in it]<br /><br />Honestly, when I read this I think of the ICP song that hurts my ears. Someone who does not understand why we believe in gravity, who does not understand how gravity can be scientific because "we can not see it", will not be able to bridge the philosophical gap we are hoping for in a fortnight (I love using that word). Although I think we are all capable with sufficient effort.<br /><br />I don't mean the following about Sam, necessarily. But some people are so far removed and so baffled by what the scientific process is and does, that it is indistinguishable from their religious faith. It's like the concept that a being so advanced would be indistinguishable from a god, except that it's not a hypothetical and the gap is about the process, not the technology. Some people simply don't get it. <br /><br />It's why Jen's jar of marbles concept seems so obvious to many of us, but others don't get it at all. It's why it's even more important we separate science from religion at the earliest level possible and keep religion out of science classes always.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51232448245219237082010-12-30T09:28:44.017-06:002010-12-30T09:28:44.017-06:00It's too bad the ghost of Mr. Twain couldn'...It's too bad the ghost of Mr. Twain couldn't continue the conversation. We could have had a clear and constructive investigation of a well defined concept of miracles as they adhere to standards of epistemological procedure.<br /><br />It would have been nice to depart the forest of conceptual obfuscation.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68815510815166519462010-12-30T06:42:33.559-06:002010-12-30T06:42:33.559-06:00Nagasaki was centre of Roman Catholic culture in J...Nagasaki was centre of Roman Catholic culture in Japan. There were THOUSANDS of Japanese Catholics living there at the time the atomic bomb was dropped there. Kokura was the prime target that day, but clouds obscured it, so the plane flew on to the secondardy target, Nagasaki. If there's a God, and a Christian God, and a CATHOLIC Christian God, why did he see to it Kokura was spared, but the one city in Japan where his most devout believers dwelt was incinerated? Eight missionaries. Martin's right; if this guy exists, he's an asshole.Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78961355145176300852010-12-30T02:09:05.320-06:002010-12-30T02:09:05.320-06:00Thanks for the clarification Martin.Thanks for the clarification Martin.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00162778256627689136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70880408949687655772010-12-29T22:59:06.847-06:002010-12-29T22:59:06.847-06:00I suspect he is not the real Mark Twain, no.I suspect he is not the real Mark Twain, no.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12406979343385860872010-12-29T22:55:01.376-06:002010-12-29T22:55:01.376-06:00Is this "Samuel_Clemons" for real? Pleas...Is this "Samuel_Clemons" for real? Please note that his handle evokes satirist and atheist Mark Twain.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32104824268894748212010-12-29T12:47:15.705-06:002010-12-29T12:47:15.705-06:00This reminds me of an incident I blogged about sev...This reminds me of an incident I blogged about several years ago.<br /><br />A town in Peru was hit by an earthquake while church services were being held. About 30 people inside the church were killed but it was a miracle because the Jesus statue was unharmed.<br /><br />I was like "For f--k's sake! I would rather the Jesus statue be destroyed and the 30 people live!"Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88682475380173977122010-12-29T08:12:29.082-06:002010-12-29T08:12:29.082-06:00I'm waiting for Mr. Clemons to bring the mirac...I'm waiting for Mr. Clemons to bring the miracles and definitions.sans_Dieuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437040905394792018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24554823205016543192010-12-28T21:35:20.211-06:002010-12-28T21:35:20.211-06:00You've chosen to use a religious example of mi...<b>You've chosen to use a religious example of miracles<br />...<br />you have faith, I have faith, we all do</b><br /><br />Define 'miracle'<br />Define 'faith'<br /><br />Until you do, I don't see any way to have a productive discussion.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61693039038905440942010-12-28T21:03:22.390-06:002010-12-28T21:03:22.390-06:00The reason that ‘faith’ is such an objectional and...The reason that ‘faith’ is such an objectional and useless word is because it is so often abused as a moving target. It is easy to equivocate (is that even a verb?) the word ‘faith’ a hundred different ways to get around objections to it. You tried to do this yourself when you tried to compare it to the confidence a person has that a chair won’t fall to pieces when they sit on it. That confidence is not blind faith, it is a judgment based on countless experiences of successfully sitting in chairs and our knowledge of how solid surfaces and support a bodies weight.<br /><br /><b> Faith. The invisible force that allows man to accept that which he cannot see. A scientific force you cannot deny exists, even an Atheist has faith. Why is that? We can't see love, but we believe in it. We can't see gravity but we believe in it, indeed depend on it, and have faith in it.</b><br /><br />This is just poetic gobbly-gook. Faith isn’t a scientific force in any sense of the word. That entire second sentence reads like one of those phrases only constructed to create a false sense of equivalency between the two. As Martin explained we believe in those unseen forces because we can observe and measure their effects but just willy-nilly for no-reason at all faith. I can guarantee you that if you took away the lust and affection our brains experience, the endorphins and brain states and so on that the entire concept of love would be unknown. Without those real world effects what we call love would cease to exist, that should be your first clue that it isn’t something that is taken on faith.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69499414266596445532010-12-28T21:02:52.655-06:002010-12-28T21:02:52.655-06:00Why not pursue more modern examples of miracles th...<b> Why not pursue more modern examples of miracles that have supposedly occured recently? </b><br /><br />Such as? Give us the miracle and I am sure we would be happy to consider it.<br /><br /><b> You've chosen to use a religious example of miracles</b><br /><br />What other kind of miracles are there? My Merriam-Webster gives the definition of a miracle as:<br /><br />1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs <br />2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment<br />I don’t see how definition #1 could be anything but religious and that is the type of miracle clearly addressed in the post. I don’t think anyone here would argue with miracles of #2 definition occurring but that is clearly not the definition in question here.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24813454644218614742010-12-28T17:13:24.948-06:002010-12-28T17:13:24.948-06:00A few months ago i did some research of this Hiros...A few months ago i did some research of this Hiroshima miracle - just to reply some believer. Besides, what you've already pointed out in the post, there are some interesting facts about this story.<br /><br />First of all, I found a lot of versions of it, which differed in details. Often important details. For example, how many missionaries actually survived? Some say 8, some say 4. They differ in the number of buildings still standing after the blast (2, 3, 4?). They differ in number of people that died directly in the blast, from 80K to 500K. <br /><br />Next thing. We have a claim that 8 Jesuits miraculously survived and they were thoroughly examined many times by the doctors who couldnt believe that they did not die of radiation poisoning. Yet somehow, we know only 4 out of those 8 names - Schiffer, Cieslik, LaSalle and Kleinsorge.<br /><br />But the best thing for the finish. There is a written eyewitness account of what actually happened to those missionaries. Another Jesuit - Siemes - who were staying outside of Hiroshima when the bomb exploded went to rescue his wounded friends (he got word that they survived it). He found 4 Jesuits, 2 of them seriously wounded - LaSalle and Schiffer. All four made it to the park but were too tired to go on. LaSalle was bleeding badly and Schiffer had a serious head wound after a wall fell on him. While they were making their way thru the city, with the assistance of Siems - they were helping other people burried under the rubble - they clearly weren't the only survivors. In his diary, Siemes also describes that other two Jesuits (Cieslik and Kleinsorge) got symptoms of radiation poisoning. Other sources describe in detail death of Kleinsorge as a consequence of that.<br /><br />So in summary:<br /> - this story is not entirely made up<br /> - the miracle part IS made up<br /><br />Now for the sources:<br /> - diary entry of Seimes: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp25.asp<br /> - long article by a believer (!), debunking this story: http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/mary25.htmUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519330141788264046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89630661028821504592010-12-28T15:25:07.734-06:002010-12-28T15:25:07.734-06:00Samuel, I think you're missing the point by a ...Samuel, I think you're missing the point by a wide margin. We're not discussing the <i>credibility</i> of this supposed miracle. After all, it's similar to so many other reported miracles based on unverifyable first- or second-hand accounts.<br /><br />It doesn't really matter how weak or strong the case is for this event to have occured. The issue at hand is the <i>implications</i> that a miracle of this nature has, as it shows a callous and indifferent god that would choose to spare eight people but let a hundred thousand die, many of them in undescribable suffering over a long time.<br /><br />Not to mention that someone presenting this as a miracle is practically pissing on the graves of all the dead. I don't think the Catholic church would win many converts in Japan with this miracle.<br /><br />All in all: it's a crappy miracle.trjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16306932855907832727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81525954200490639172010-12-28T14:53:14.464-06:002010-12-28T14:53:14.464-06:00(after post revision)
I apologize to Mr. Clemons ...(after post revision)<br /><br />I apologize to Mr. Clemons for the accidental misspelling of his name. I hope wrongly referring to him as "Mr. Clemens" does not deviate anyone's attention from the content of my previous posts.Ignaciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16793297795570194955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83925829302501424572010-12-28T14:50:05.088-06:002010-12-28T14:50:05.088-06:00@Samuel_Clemons wrote:
"Then why is this for...@Samuel_Clemons wrote:<br /><br />"Then why is this forum even discussing this crazy Nagazaki 8?"<br /><br />You seem to have missed the part in the first paragraph where Martin explained that. A reader sent us this as an example. We don't have time to go hunting for the worst examples of "miracles" to refute on the blog.<br /><br />If you have some modern day events that you think qualify as "miracles," feel free to present them for examination. Please adhere to the three criteria JT outlined above. Otherwise, we'll likely just dismiss your claims as unsubstantiated nonsense.Rational Jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122282788630579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41385756266958172862010-12-28T14:49:09.524-06:002010-12-28T14:49:09.524-06:00(continued from previous post)
Mr Clemens states ...(continued from previous post)<br /><br />Mr Clemens states we should "Go out and do some real work, and then prove your case beyond a doubt". We are not proving a case. We are stating a specific presented case does not meet the burden of proof. Case closed unless better evidence is available or a new case is presented.<br /><br />However, If Mr Clemens' only point is that this specific case is a weak one... I agree with him. The Hirosima anecdote is indeed a weak candidate as proof for the existence of miracles. It is so weak, in fact, that it becomes the topic of a blog post that points out specifically how weak a case it is.<br /><br />Maybe Mr Clemens has a further point, and affirms there are better events that qualify as miracles, and that would make a better case than the Hiroshima anecdote... If this is the case, we are avidly waiting to hear of such cases from Mr. Clemens, to evaluate them as valid or invalid evidence for the existence of miracles.<br /><br />Before Mr. Clemens tries to put the burden of seeking the evidence in me, I must state I am not making any claims and thus I am not interested in looking for any evidence of miracles, even if I had the specific definition of "miracle" he has failed to provide thus far. <br /><br />I consider it a waste of time to look for something still undefined, and invariably poorly supported when defined, when there is so much real solid knowledge to spend my time acquiring.<br /><br />I don't run seeking the end of the rainbow every time it rains, unless someone presents solid evidence that there may be a pot of gold there, worth running for.<br /><br />Is there any evidence of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Is there even a definition of where the end of the rainbow is? So far, I don't see either.Ignaciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16793297795570194955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21876887665188412612010-12-28T14:48:42.884-06:002010-12-28T14:48:42.884-06:00I hear the noise of goalposts being moved every ti...I hear the noise of goalposts being moved every time Samuel_Clemons makes a post.<br /><br />Even if Mr Clemens is trying to be honest, he keeps evading the key of the problem, maybe unconsciously... or perhaps we are misreading the point he is trying to make.<br /><br />I believe the question can be easily broken down in a few steps, all based on the statements made previously:<br /><br />Mr Clemens apparently claims miracles exist. Thus, he needs to provide the working and specific definition of "miracle" that he is making the statement about, so we can begin to evaluate the claim.<br /><br />Mr Clemens seems to indicate we should pursue more modern miracles. He should, thus, provide one or more examples of the aforementioned modern miracles. As the one making the claim for their existence, he is the one who has to state his case and provide the events he labels as "miraculous" for others to examine them.<br /><br />(continues in next post)Ignaciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16793297795570194955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63959493815260681142010-12-28T14:47:41.855-06:002010-12-28T14:47:41.855-06:00I hear the noise of goalposts being moved every ti...I hear the noise of goalposts being moved every time Samuel_Clemons makes a post.<br /><br />Even if Mr Clemens is trying to be honest, he keeps evading the key of the problem, maybe unconsciously... or perhaps we are misreading the point he is trying to make.<br /><br />I believe the question can be easily broken down in a few steps, all based on the statements made previously:<br /><br />Mr Clemens apparently claims miracles exist. Thus, he needs to provide the working and specific definition of "miracle" that he is making the statement about, so we can begin to evaluate the claim.<br /><br />Mr Clemens seems to indicate we should pursue more modern miracles. He should, thus, provide one or more examples of the aforementioned modern miracles. As the one making the claim for their existence, he is the one who has to state his case and provide the events he labels as "miraculous" for others to examine them.<br /><br />Mr Clemens states we should "Go out and do some real work, and then prove your case beyond a doubt". We are not proving a case. We are stating a specific presented case does not meet the burden of proof. Case closed unless better evidence is available or a new case is presented.<br /><br />However, If Mr Clemens' only point is that this specific case is a weak one... I agree with him. The Hirosima anecdote is indeed a weak candidate as proof for the existence of miracles. It is so weak, in fact, that it becomes the topic of a blog post that points out specifically how weak a case it is.<br /><br />Maybe Mr Clemens has a further point, and affirms there are better events that qualify as miracles, and that would make a better case than the Hiroshima anecdote... If this is the case, we are avidly waiting to hear of such cases from Mr. Clemens, to evaluate them as valid or invalid evidence for the existence of miracles.<br /><br />Before Mr. Clemens tries to put the burden of seeking the evidence in me, I must state I am not making any claims and thus I am not interested in looking for any evidence of miracles, even if I had the specific definition of "miracle" he has failed to provide thus far. <br /><br />I consider it a waste of time to look for something still undefined, and invariably poorly supported when defined, when there is so much real solid knowledge to spend my time acquiring.<br /><br />I don't run seeking the end of the rainbow every time it rains, unless someone presents solid evidence that there may be a pot of gold there, worth running for.<br /><br />Is there any evidence of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Is there even a definition of where the end of the rainbow is? So far, I don't see either.Ignaciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16793297795570194955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16161766619273874222010-12-28T12:58:24.835-06:002010-12-28T12:58:24.835-06:00From Me: Well, the modern "miracles" are...From Me: <i>Well, the modern "miracles" are either mundane occurrences (thing that can happen just by pure statistics), or haven't been demonstrated to actually have happened.</i><br /><br />On an additional note, in regards to the burden of proof, the evidence must be easily accessible as well. Sure, I hate to say it, but the majority of us are probably lazy investigators, and that's normal for humans.<br /><br />The requirement for accessibility, however, helps eliminate the possibility that the claimant could simply keep asserting that the reviewers are just "unwilling to investigate", no matter how hard they actually are trying.<br /><br />It's similar to Ray Comfort's "drop to your knees and genuinely ask God to reveal himself to you, and he will!". No matter how genuinely you try to do this, if it fails, he can just move the goalposts to "Well, you weren't genuine enough." - therefore, you can never refute his claim.<br /><br />Falsifiability is incredibly important in science, because, often, it's much easier to falsify something than proving it - especially when you have 999 crackpots making crackpot claims per 1 person with a genuinely real claim.<br /><br />Sorry, rambling a bit. I just think the process is important. You wouldn't want a sloppy surgical process, either.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65768190112366854112010-12-28T12:34:03.892-06:002010-12-28T12:34:03.892-06:00C. Establishing the veracity of the Nagasaki 8 sto...<i>C. Establishing the veracity of the Nagasaki 8 story at all or in part does neither: 1. prove miracles exist or 2. disprove miracles exist <br /><br />D. The use of spurious facts to prove scientifically that miracles do not occur is no more convincing than people accepting that miracles occur out of superstition or faith</i><br /><br />You can't prove a negative, and we fully understand that. If someone makes a claim, and we can find refuting evidence for that claim, then the individual claim is refuted.<br /><br />You seem to have some confusion as to the burden of proof. It's always on the person making the claim. You, for instance, are claiming that miracles exist.<br /><br />The burden on you is to:<br />1) Define what a miracle is, and why it's important.<br />2) Define some tests to substantiate the claim.<br />3) Present that evidence<br /><br />If the person making the claim cannot meet this burden, no one is required to accept it, nor are we required to refute it.<br /><br />The majority of the problem here is #1, so far.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21689573185125561182010-12-28T12:27:26.481-06:002010-12-28T12:27:26.481-06:00@Sam
JT so you accept only things you can see?
O...@Sam<br /><br /><i>JT so you accept only things you can see?</i><br /><br />Of course not. That'd be silly.<br />I accept things that have enough repeated empirical evidence to demonstrate their truth.<br /><br />The big problem here isn't the evidence of miracles, as much as the question "What is a miracle?" I don't even know the answer to that question, but I must think there's more to it than mere coincidence.<br /><br />You could say that a miracle is an even that has less than a 1:10,000,000 chance of occurring, for instance, and that'd be fine, except, it really has nothing to do with god, religion, faith, or anything. It just means "unlikely event".<br /><br /><br /><i>Why not pursue more modern examples of miracles that have supposedly occured recently?</i><br /><br />Well, the modern "miracles" are either mundane occurrences (thing that can happen just by pure statistics), or haven't been demonstrated to actually have happened.<br /><br /><i>This is an honest question, since I have typed it, now this is the third time, we'll see if it shows up or get's deleted.</i><br /><br />Blogger has a quirk that it seems to remove posts that are too long, even if they were initially posted. Or something like that. Smaller, additional, posts I think can help with this.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com