On a visit to the shrine, seeing the discarded canes and crutches, he exclaimed, “What, what, no wooden legs???”
Some of the most famous miracles of modern times, or so it’s claimed, are the miracles caused by the healing waters at the Grotto of Lourdes, in France. Pilgrimages by the faithful are a constant source of tourism dollars miracle claims, and apparently, since 1858, millions of 
believers have visited the Grotto, seeking a cure for whatever ails them, always hoping for a miracle. It’s reported that on one day, alone, over 55,000 showed up. Special baths are set up for people to immerse themselves in the miracle waters. Even if you can’t go there, you can send away for your own bottle of the supernatural H2O.
Yet despite the fact that millions of people have visited the grotto for a century and a half, the church has only recognized 67 actual miracles. In reviewing the medical conditions of the good folks who believed they were cured via a miracle, I find myself wishing I was a doctor, so I could determine whether these were the type of diseases or conditions that would have persisted but for a divine intervention, or whether they were the types of conditions that in a statistical sample of people, would have spontaneously regressed or remitted. Google, while helpful, is not adequate to the task. I can’t tell without medical expertise whether these anomalies were the type that could easily be cured, statistically cured themselves, or were not as serious as they were reported to be. Most medical experts will acknowledge that miracles can often be ascribed to the “possibility that the altered states of prayer, religious faith, and meditation may allow the process of self-repair greater freedom to operate”, so the claims have to be approached with some skepticism. I will note, though, that on the list, there is not one spontaneous regrowth of an amputated limb, nor, for that matter, any men cured of baldness.
If you remember the story, Bernadette Soubirous, who was 14 at the time, reported that she 
had visions of the Virgin Mary, who told her to scratch the dirt in the grotto, after which water came bubbling out. Ironically, Bernadette suffered from severe asthma her entire life, was bedridden for the last years, and died at the ripe old age of thirty five.
Yep. Apparently the miracle cures of Lourdes didn’t work on Bernadette.
The Church had originally set up a committee to investigate the miracle claims (which resulted in the certified cures listed above) but recently the panel of independent physicians charged with assessing miracle claims has decided that they will no longer do so. Prior to that, they had weakened the definitions of miracles, due to the medical community’s reluctance to say that any medical condition was “incurable”.
So what we have here is the inexorable progress of human knowledge taking over those places where religion previously filled in the gaps that ignorance used to create. There was a time when certain diseases were deemed “incurable”. Entire facilities, such as tuberculosis sanatoriums, were set up to isolate incurable and contagious diseases. Science and medicine, however, have reached the point where it’s not prudent, or even reasonable, to say that a disease is incurable. The history of medicine has shown that once incurable diseases are not incurable. Greater understanding of the biochemical, physiological and systemic processes of the human body give us greater confidence in our ability to combat disease. Imagine what we would have done with HIV 200 years ago? Today, we have a massive effort directed at finding a cure. Even cancer is not deemed hopeless.
So what does this do to the miracle business? For one thing, as shown above, theists have to be careful about what they consider incurable diseases. If nothing is incurable, miracles lose all their punch.
More important, if people become more educated about medicine and science, they stop expecting their church to cure them, and instead rely on their doctors. Secular miracles become more realistic than divine ones. Religion has always relied on the magical side of their theology to rope in the masses. As long as they believed in things that transcended their normal lives, they stuck with their churches. This is why Jesus performs so many miracles in the Gospels, at a considerably greater rate as the Gospels were written from Mark, through Matthew, Luke, then John. If he simply preached his gospel, without the performance art, he would have been no different than any of the other itinerant preachers that wandered through the area at that time. The writers had to make him special, or there would be nothing on which to base their religion. Without the magic, religion is nothing.
The concession by the church that they can’t proclaim miracles like they used to is a good sign that religion will eventually go the way of all flesh.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
It’s estimated that 200 million people have visited Lourdes since 1860. In all those times at bat, so to speak, God has only gotten 67 hits. That’s an incredibly lame 0.000000335 batting average. I imagine he can’t even get into the Deities T-Ball League with an average like that.
Considering the fact that, given his omnipotence, he could be batting 1.000, yeah, that’s pretty piss poor.
You’re forgetting that He’s also ineffable. Yup. He’s a complete mystery…up to the point that “the gays” want to get hitched. Then He’s crystal clear.
MO:
It’s funny how convenient God’s ineffability is. Believers pull it out of the closet when they can’t answer a question and don’t have the integrity to say, “I don’t know.” At those times, their position is, “It’s a mystery – but ya gotta believe.”
But, when believers have definite
opinionsprejudices about something, they’re quick to say, we know this is the case because God said it clearly, right here in the Bible.Ah, but his reasons for picking just those 67 are a divine mystery, one our puny mortal minds can’t fathom.
Again, this is why “why doesn’t god…” arguments are just silly, as silly as miracle claims and the apologetics that go with them.
Nice post. That was very informative!! I hadn’t heard all of that before, so I don’t really know what to say lol. Anyway, I like your site a lot. I’ve been skimming around, and I like what I see. Nice layout too. 😉
“why doesn’t god…” arguments are just silly
I agree. I know you said it a post or two back and SI agreed with you then. I just didn’t bother adding my two cents to that post, so I’m adding them here. Consider your account two cents richer – unless they go into SI’s account, since it’s his blog.
Why doesn’t god just show himself to Philly?
While it would require a great deal more research about the individual cases, as a board certified internist with over 20 years of practice, allow me to generally (VERY generally) say, “meh.”
Many of the “diagnoses” were in an era in which such would be based wholly on an opinion since there were few reliable tests. Even the more recent cases often involve diagnoses for which alternatives (what we call the differential diagnoses) include many benign conditions which may spontaneously resolve.
Given that even today I see people who have carried a “diagnosis” of multiple sclerosis for years (and still insist that they have it) where, in fact, all tests and subsequent expert opinions have rejected the initial claim. Such patients would be able to be “cured” the same way many psychosomatic illnesses are “cured.”
I was actually initially impressed by all the tuberculosis cases, so I went to my own copy of Osler’s Practice of Medicine (1895) and was pleasantly surprised to read his reports of spontaneous cure as well as his noting that others in the past had noted this, similarly. He mentions that bone involvement (Pott’s disease, which appears more than once on the list) is particularly prone to spontaneous resolution. Lymph node involvement (a common cause for draining sites in the skin, i.e. a fistula) has a similar tendency.
The most recent addition is a bit of a puzzle since it lists both mitral stenosis (a very serious medical condition) AND mitral regurgitation (a condition which is sometimes intentionally created by the treating physicians to easily treat mitral stenosis).
The most recent CASE is one of the multiple sclerosis cases and is from1987. This would have been just at the time that MRI was beginning to be used to help with the diagnosis. Even today, as I noted, it is a difficult disease to diagnose and is readily mimicked by various psychosomatic conditions.
Overall, not overwhelming.
As I suspected. Thanks, Newbie. 🙂
Hey See-El. Is Newbie’s analysis evidence for the possibility that all or even most of the certified miracles at Lourdes are, at a minimum, suspect, and at a maximum, bogus?
No need to answer. We’ll call it a rhetorical question.
newbie atheist,
I have a close friend who was misdiagnosed with MS when it appears he is actually up against Lyme’s Disease from a tick bite several years ago. The guy was an amazing skateboarder, and one day he began to remark that he just “didn’t feel right.” We all just thought whatever most of us think when somebody says stuff like that: “You’ll get over,” or “You’re fine, you’re just imagining things,” that sort of stuff. Then a few years passed and we actually began to see our friend’s difficulties, but before that, there wasn’t any empirical evidence at all, so we doubted him. We considered his claim imagination when it wasn’t, and this is just another of many reasons why I have a hard time with the dogmatic “reject all claims without empirical evidence as imagination” position I see more and more today.
Anyways, good comments. My buddy’s blog is here for you or anyone else who’s interested. Through modest but focused efforts, together we’ve helped raise tens of thousands of dollars to help him pay for everything. He’s currently in India where his response to stem cell therapy looks promising.
cl – excuse me but that seems a terrible analogy to skepticism about god – on a number of levels. We have empirical and real world knowledge for the multiplicity and obscure nature of diseases. Even experts misdiagnose or simply don’t know they are facing a new disease.
But the fact that you and your skateboarding pals couldn’t see it as for what is was is even less startling. If someone is hurting, we can believe it, even if we can’t identify it. The x-rays for my back show nothing, but my doctor has no doubt about my pain. Probably if I underwent an expensive battery of tests, we’d know its nature.
As has been said a million times “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. What’s so difficult about perceiving why a rational person would doubt god claims when it requires abandoning what we have come to recognize as the best tool for getting at truth (science), in order to discover the god(s)?
For you, the evidence of “personal experience” is enough. Fine. It’s not for me and for many others. I’m fine with your NOMA. Just as long as you don’t make claims of factual knowledge. Do you?
SI,
According to who’s standard? Yours? Then I don’t know. To my knowledge, you never made the necessary emendations to your criteria after conceding that you were conflating evidence with proof. Generally, I define evidence as “data consistent with what we would expect were a given proposition correct.”
I can’t reasonably answer your questions as to what does and does not constitute evidence without the necessary emendations. You say such is needless parsing. I don’t enjoy talking past people, and until the emendations come, what you’re doing is tantamount to telling me to find the guy with the hat at the baseball game: you can always just say, “No, not that guy with the hat, that other guy with the hat.”
I’ve seen what newbie atheist describes here first-hand. That physicians misdiagnosis people and that a certain subset of SR claims were misdiagnosed is true beyond all reasonable doubt, and I do not deny newbie atheist’s premise. Problem is, newbie atheist’s premise does not support your (implied) conclusion that “all or even most of the certified miracles at Lourdes are, at a minimum, suspect, and at a maximum, bogus.” newbie atheist’s premise is fine, but not evidence for your conclusion. The argument you’ve crafted from it simply isn’t cogent.
Evo,
Who is the arbiter of the extraordinary? You?
I’m not surprised you’d think that. You said exactly what I thought you’d say, even earlier than predicted.
First, nobody said anything about pain. Our friend remarked of little more than a vague, sporadic and esoteric, “not feeling right.” Still, and although we doubted our friend, I agree with you: I’ve been arguing that your position as originally stated was irreverent of critical thinking for weeks now. Here, it appears you agree that not all claims without empirical evidence should be considered imagination.
I know it might seem odd, but not everybody shares John Evo’s opinion that God claims require us to abandon science or scientifically-based approaches to the question.
First, where did I say that? That’s a very crude paraphrasing of my epistemological standards. Second, if “personal experience” isn’t enough, why do so many atheists claim they’d rethink their position if they personally experienced limb regeneration?
Thanks. I’ll certainly sleep better tonight knowing that John Evo “approves of my NOMA,” even though I’ve clearly expressed that I was not necessarily making the argument.
I’ve already pointed to a post of mine that briefly summarizes my position on the distinction between truth claims and beliefs. I can’t make you read it.
SI,
This is unrelated to everything but I like your new header much better than the old one. It’s much more artistic and interesting to look at. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t really have a problem with naked-cross-lady, either.
cl – abandoning SI’s previous post?
“I can’t make you read it.”
That’s true. And I can’t make you answer a question *here* that would require a one word answer, such as (but far from limited to): “do you believe Jesus Christ died for your sins?” (at the end of the discussion on SI’s previous post) or “Do you?” (here. Where you quote and respond to many other things I say).
Good luck, NOMAn
cl “Second, if ‘personal experience’ isn’t enough, why do so many atheists claim they’d rethink their position if they personally experienced limb regeneration?”
I love you, cl, you know that, but to conflate “I feel, deep down in the core of my cockles…” with “Holy shit, my leg grew back!” is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve seen all week.
The Lyme disease story is a terrible analogy. It is, though, a perfect example of why, in humanity’s earlier days, woo beliefs were much easier to accept. In light of such overwhelming ignorance and little to no understanding of how to even go about remedying that, I think it would have been far easier to accept fanciful ideas.
My father kept what we later found was esophageal cancer to himself as best he could until he couldn’t anymore. Of course by then it was far too late. I don’t know if he honestly believed he just had acid reflux or if that was a front for us. Anyway, the lesson I’ve learned from that is I go to the doctor whenever something isn’t right. I even did this when I had no health insurance. It’s nice to simply believe you’re ok and whatever’s not right will just go away, but that’s faith, and faith gets you nowhere.
When there’s a curiosity, it begs for investigation. You can’t know shit about it without investigation, regardless of what you think, what you want, or what just feels right. Cl’s friend made the mistake my father made, only without as dire an outcome. His personal knowledge that he “didn’t feel right” was his empirical evidence, evidence that could have been investigated and apparently was and the curiosity got resolved. Rather than seeing cl’s story as an analogy for atheists dismissing god claims, I see it as analogous to theists ignoring evidence, probability, and the actual means for resolution of curiosities for they went with the belief that they wanted to be true, that he was fine, instead of encouraging him to go see a doctor.
On the face of it, that sounds like nothing to object to, but then consider this – if your “given proposition” is that a being created life on this planet, then life on this planet would be evidence for that being since it’s “data consistent with what we would expect” if there was such a being. It’s circular logic, or a deductive fallacy due to the the “given proposition” being unwarranted. That cl’s friend looked fine was evidence that he was fine because that was data consistent with his proposition that he was fine, but the proposition was unwarranted since that’s not how you investigate a patient’s claim.
So the endless quibbling over what’s evidence or not is really a red herring, as is the subsequent “closed-mindedness” claims, for everything is evidence for something, but for what is the issue, and some propositions for what that something is are more warranted than others.
Oh, and the Taco Bell poo color combined with the green trim doesn’t sit well with me, nor does the experimental, Dali inspired Poser image with similar craptastic color tones. Interesting font choice though for the title.
“Oh, and the Taco Bell poo color combined with the green trim doesn’t sit well with me, nor does the experimental, Dali inspired Poser image with similar craptastic color tones. Interesting font choice though for the title.”
Oh good, someone else who hates the new setup and wants the old one back.
:p
“Our friend remarked of little more than a vague, sporadic and esoteric, “not feeling right.” Still, and although we doubted our friend…”
I dunno, I think maybe you’re just a jerk who doesn’t know when to be skeptical and when not to be. When my friends say they don’t feel right, I *gasp* believe them.
“Second, if ‘personal experience’ isn’t enough, why do so many atheists claim they’d rethink their position if they personally experienced limb regeneration?”
Uh, dude? There’s a pretty big difference between “witnessing” something only I can see (I can tell you right now, if I start seeing or hearing things that nobody else can perceive, I’m heading straight to a mental hospital) and a limb I’ve been missing reappearing for all to witness, an effect that no human effort can reproduce.
I wholeheartedly agree.
And now See-El wants “emendations” and clarification of “standards” and delineation of who’s the “arbiter of the extraordinary”, before he’ll deal with the substance of anything.
I feel as if I’m in a greased pig contest.
What do you expect from a color blind blogger? 8)
I’ll keep that in mind when I finally settle on the new one.
Are you referring to the naked women, or the black and white color scheme?
OK. Everybody happy now?
“OK. Everybody happy now?”
Yes ❤
Thank you Lord……The Titties are back. 😉
There truly are miracles lol.
Well hind titties at least.
It appears that it was neither the black and white color scheme, nor the scintillating dialogue, that brings people back.
Now the next issue to be resolved is, where did these little ratings thingies come from, and how do I get rid of them?
The title is in the way.
I woke up to a ton of comments here, in my email. I figure cl had a least attempted responses. Instead it all about SI’s nudes. WTF?
By the way, I agree with Philly. Get your name off the fucking banner.
Modusoperandi,
I love you too, Modus, but I’m not conflating the two. If your leg grew back, would it be a personal experience?
I’m going to now start playing your game, See-El.
Shouldn’t your question be “If your leg grew back, would it be an objectively confirmable personal experience?
“If your leg grew back, would it be a personal experience?”
Are you insane? If your leg grows back, OTHER PEOPLE CAN SEE THAT IT’S GROWN BACK. How is that in any way the same as “this one time I heard God talk to me only not really cause he didn’t use a voice he just used feelings but I know it was him” ?
A theoretical possibility. The odds are increasing with every comment into the realm of probability.
Damn, SI! With that header, I don’t dare look at your blog from work.
Chappy – the nude being crucified was fine?
I got very little objection to the previous headers. Perhaps it wasn’t so obvious, or “in your face” as this one is, but surely this one is far less provactive from a religious point of view.
This one seems to meet the approval of my male readers.
Now I just need to figure out how to rationalize the header with the “Spanish Inquisitor” 8)
SI…….Im just curious, why do you guys actually try and debate/discuss things with cl? You guys do know the definition of insanity? 😉
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? 😉
Seriously, though, I said when I started this blog, that I write to test my thinking. If See-El would only try to do that, rather than test my writing skills, we might have an intelligent conversation. He gets so far into analyzing the words, that he misses the forest because he keeps bumping into the trees.
I suspect he gets his jollies over grammar, syntax and definitional mistakes. Who needs a sex like centered around that?
Let’s also not forget that he comes here with his conclusion already set in stone. I think his sole purpose in his form of debate is to confuse. Since the truth is already “known” to him, playing games with the atheists is the goal. Of course, he doesn’t see exactly how stupid he appears, because his goals are so transparent to anyone with half a brain.
The world is full of others, and you have to figure out how best to deal with them.
I asked cl this over at “his” blog. I still am waiting for an answer.
Ok if we’re to believe that the G-d of the Bible is reasonable and rational, how do you explain the existence of light and darkness, and that of day and night on day one if the sun and moon arent created until day 4?
Seems pretty easy dont you think, lol.
Ah but just to throw I wrench in the mix, I still believe we have a creator of sorts. 🙂
TitforTat…can I call you Tit? Okay, then, Mr Tat: You totally have to take those passages as metaphor. God didn’t tell Moses exactly how He did it, as that wasn’t the purpose of the early part of Genesis. What He did was pass on why He did it (that Man is bad and He is Good and any errors can’t possibly be His fault), and also why He did it (because He can), and also why it’s kind of messed up (because it’s Man’s fault, you see, for wanting to be like dad. Infinite everything ain’t got nothin’ on free will) and also why He did it (because we’re so darn special and made in His image by Him for His own purposes and He’ll protect us and no He won’t and yes He will and no you shut up and no, you!) and also why He did it (because He’s sovereign and He made us and He owns us and we’re His toys and we should bow down because we’re so grateful). This is because He’s good. Also, He’s kind of an asshole.
This also explains why people (made in His image) are good, sometimes. It also explains why they’re assholes, too. Yeah, I said it. You’re an asshole, sometimes. Would it kill you to check your blind spot before changing lanes, once in a while? Jerk!
Good luck with that, Tit.
That question alone should generate at least three posts and 10,000 words. 8)
Thats right, Its Mr. Tat, and its the Wife’s Tit. 🙂
And their newborn, Nipples.
I should note that I like Gen1&2. It’s a poetic, pre-scientific attempt to model the universe. And obsolete model, sure, but the text (at least the KJV version) just flows, man. Reading it, I get this picture in my head of the tribe gathering around the elders by the fire. Then, in the story, one of the kids sees a talking snake and the story loses it. Was that a spoiler? Sorry.
PhillyChief,
I don’t know if your father espoused that attitude or not. My friend certainly didn’t. To the contrary, Gavin proceeded on “faith” (of sorts) that things weren’t okay, and if he hadn’t it might have been too late.
I disagree. You say your father withheld his own information as long as possible and made (potential) diversions to avoid explaining his case. My friend freely gave all information and never once sought to shroud his true condition in mystery, so what is the support for your claim here?
Gavin was encouraged to see doctors and they told him similar things, precisely because there was no empirical evidence. Doctors make this mistake with patients frequently, and nobody can deny that sans ignorance or dishonesty.
More like, when somebody remarks vaguely that they don’t feel well, most people reassure them it’s probably just a passing fluke, and tell them to see a doctor if things get worse or persist.
Philly, try – just try – to nuance your thinking a little bit. Circular logic is more like, “The Bible is true because the Bible says so.” There’s nothing wrong with my definition of evidence, and there’s nothing wrong with a request for good evidence – of course, provided we’re willing to precisely define what good evidence might reasonably be. This is where SI and I left off. I’m not going to provide data point after data point only to have them handwaved and dismissed. That’s why I want SI to cement his goalpost.
I disagree that convergence on what is and is not evidence is a red herring. Until such convergence is reached, SI (or anyone) can simply say, “Oh, that’s not evidence,” and that’s exactly what’s been going on here for weeks now, despite Evo’s trite assertion that the “atheists here don’t refuse evidence.”
Since personal attacks and opinions are the norm here, my personal opinion on “ThatOtherGuy” is that he’s still bitter over me exposing some of the patently ignorant claims he’s made on DD’s blog. He implies that I’m an idiot or “making shit up,” because “Joseph Smith never claimed revelation from God,” or because there is no difference whatsoever between microevolution and macroevolution, or because of his own inability to familiarize himself with the fact concerning spontaneous remission of cancers.
ThatOtherGuy,
Have you no shame?
Of course you do. It fits right along with most everything else you’ve ever offered as a response to me or something I’ve said – never a cogent argument, always something derogatory about me. Pretty much just like Philly, only Philly crushes you in the sometimes-cogent department and his wit could slice yours like a Tesla beam.
I’ll get to the “regenerated limb” thing later today. Gotta run.
despite Evo’s trite assertion that the “atheists here don’t refuse
evidence.”
It’s hardly “trite”. You simply can’t figure out what constitutes evidence. Stop begging SI to define it for you. It’s all a huge game for you, isn’t it, Goalposts? Instead of quibbling over the definitions of evidence re: prayer or miracles, why don’t you simply announce your true beliefs?
“do you believe Jesus Christ died for your sins?”
Now go away and ignore the question – for the 40th time.
You’re wasting your time, See-El. We don’t refuse evidence. We may ultimately reject it as inadequate for it intended use, (as we did in the Kayla nonsense) but we don’t refuse it. If I refused it, I’d delete the comment that contained it. That’s been your problem all along. You don’t understand the distinction.
We just want to see what it is you base your beliefs on, in black and white, because you are SO elusive about that. You, on the other hand, want us to pre-approve the evidence, or distill the criteria, or provide emendations. When you keep coming up with reasons why you won’t give us your evidence, we can only conclude it’s becuase you don’t have any, and are afraid to disclose that. So you keep us at bay by claiming we treat you unfairly, by not pre-approving the evidence, or distilling the criteria, or providing emendations. That’s why we are going around in circles.
I have an idea.
List all the evidence you would have listed had we pre-approved it, and take your lumps. If you think we reject it unfairly after the fact, then argue vigorously why we are wrong. That’s the way it works in real life.
Until then, what you have to say to us is totally meaningless. At least if you told us what your evidence was, what the basis for your beliefs were, we’d admire you for your honesty.
Right now we don’t.
SI,
Yet for once, you followed this with a valid question, so I’ll take that as a compliment. The answer to your question is yes, such would be an objectively confirmable personal experience.
ThatOtherGuy,
Really, you should just stop. You’re so “out to get me” or whatever that you’re not even reading the thread it appears. Modusoperandi just asked the same question and it was answered. No, I’m not conflating the two.
SI,
SI, that’s a cheapshot and I believe you know it. For one, when I dropped out of this conversation for a day, even John Evo noticed that it descended quickly into titties and graphic design talk, so lob that “lack of intelligent conversation” remark right back at your boys. For two, you say all I do is analyze words, yet other atheists have agreed that what I asked you for was reasonable, and you yourself conceded my argument was correct (that you conflated evidence with proof. For three, I’ve asked you several questions and presented several arguments that do not focus on writing or the meaning of a particular word at all. You have not answered all of them, either. Don’t you think as rationalists we should tell the whole story?
The truth isn’t already “known” to me. I’m not the one going around presenting my own opinion as if it is truth. You are, and I’ve cited plenty of examples. Playing games is not the goal. When I want to have fun, I go skate, or go for a bike ride, hang out with friends and family, or drink too many beers.
Note, SI, that your entire comment here was void of anything relating to this discussion whatsoever. Instead, you follow along with the flock in berating me as opposed to the arguments.
TitforTat,
I answered you once and figured you’d get the hint: your questions don’t relate a single scintilla to our discussion over evidence. Your question would be pertinent in a discussion about the perceived conflicts between scripture and current understandings of science, however. The short answer would be that your question assumes the Sun is the only possible source of light.
Evo,
Really man, you should just cool off. My personal beliefs don’t have anything to do with this, and I’m not going to discuss religion with the most disrespectful and distempered people I’ve ever met.
It’s not that, John. I’m the only one here who’s offered a definition of evidence. Philly criticized it baselessly, and of course failed to offer his own definition. SI admitted I was correct that he conflated evidence and proof.
Seriously man, think this out for just a second and stop being so bent against me: SI is asking for evidence that would support God claims. I’ve been down this road a thousand times: The atheists asks for evidence, the believer offers some, the atheist then says, “Oh, that’s not evidence” to whatever is presented. Such is exactly what happened here. No wonder SI feels like a greased pig! You guys want evidence? Well then, tell me, what constitutes acceptable evidence? Until you tell me, we’re bound to repeat the Kayla episode for hundreds of more comments.
You can keep saying that’s unreasonable – as you, Philly and SI are – yet other atheists have agreed with me on this point – that my request for SI to cement his goalposts was “reasonable.” You can always respond to the posts I wrote on my own blog, too. Otherwise, I guess you’ll just have to keep huffing and puffing.
SI,
Really, this is laughable:
Ah, I see. You don’t refuse is, you reject it. Who’s arguing over semantics and definitions of words?
Are you senile or dishonest? It is you who keep coming up with reasons not to look, and your latest reason is that you don’t want to go to my blog. What a weak reason! I’ve given you four examples. You’ve addressed one. Instead of run around in circles for another few hundred comments, I ask you to get specific on your criteria. SI, if criteria aren’t necessary, why did you feel the need to at least try to present some reasonable criteria in your OP on “The Existence of God?”
Yeah, right! In general, it’s strewn all over my blog, and in particular, I wrote an entire post for you and none of you will even look!
How stupid is that idea? I have no way of knowing what I would have listed because you never explained the types of evidence you’re willing to accept. The plain fact, SI, is that you attempted to define your criteria in “The Existence of God.” If you really thought the idea of cementing the goalposts was worthless as you now claim, why would you have attempted to establish any solid criteria at all? Think about it – we could have avoided hundreds of comments had you just said up front that miracle claims weren’t good enough even if they were “proven.”
You started off on the right foot and just stumbled a little by conflating evidence with proof. Well, pick up and let’s keep walking. For example, did you ever answer me when I asked you if ANY miracle claim could EVER be considered evidence for God? This is certainly an important question that affects the rest of the discussion.
that it descended quickly into titties and graphic design talk(cl)
Blasphemy, dont you be denigrating titties now. Afterall they are our lifeblood. 😉
cl
I want to get to know your friend God. So, I would appreciate a little more information on him. He is a him right? How tall is he, how much does he weigh? Is he a blond, brunette, or redhead. Does he have brown eyes or blue? Is he a talkative kind of guy or is he the type to give you the silent treatment? Where does he like to hang out? There is so much I dont know about your friend God, could you help me out? I need some more information if I am to consider his ability to perform miracles, surely you can understand my curiosity.
Fuck me. Gideon on Saturday, Sunday; cl on Wednesday… can a good heathen get a break?
cl said: I’m not the one going around presenting my own opinion as if it is truth.
There’s a fucking understatement for you! Hey, cl? What is your opinion?
cl also said: I’ve been down this road a thousand times: The atheists asks for evidence, the believer offers some, the atheist then says, “Oh, that’s not evidence” to whatever is presented. Such is exactly what happened here.
After a thousand times (which is obviously an exaggeration, but also obvious that you’ve talked to a lot of atheists besides SI, Philly, Evo, et al) you really should have come to a better conclusion than repeating the experiment here over and over. Either we are hopeless (every one of us, apparently), there is something terribly wrong with what you think evidence is, or you’re just playing your game.
If it’s the first – you’ll go away if you’re sane, if it’s the second – you’ll concede the point, if it’s the third – this will all continue; on this post and many others.
Hmmmm…. any bets?
cl – “do you think Jesus Christ died for your sins” is *extremely* important to this, and almost every other, discussion we have. I “suspect” you want to claim some sort of NOMA exemption. If you are a deist, I’m happy to grant it to you. It would also solve problems like this specific topic, as we wouldn’t expect any evidence of miracles and would be completely agnostic as to them ever happening or why they ever happen.
But it’s clear, even though you attempt to obscure the fact, that you don’t take this position. Why else make statements like “what I’d expect to see if it were a miracle”? If you think your god is interacting in the material world, then it can be looked at scientifically – so fuck NOMA. I’m asking you a highly relevant question, because it clarifies, not only what we are arguing about, but even if we need argue at all. So stop being a pussy and answer the question.
Do you think Jesus Christ died for your sins?
Of course he does. He’d tell you if he didn’t. His silence is affirmation.
What I want to know is, if he doesn’t expect that we’ll accept any of his evidence, what is he doing here? He knows we want evidence. He has none to offer so why bother with us?
Evo’s presbyopia must be acting up. I don’t see any titties up there.
I know he does, SI. I just find it nearly startling that believer in Christ would even come this close to “denying” him. 🙂
And was it not once said:
Many individual adherents of the various faiths either do not, can not, or will not defend most or even any of their beliefs. Contrast this to Peter who admonishes believers to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15) Or the more obscure New Testament writer Jude: “Be merciful to those who doubt.” (Jude 1:22) Not everyone can say their pastor or church conforms to these requirements, but these are requirements the Bible plainly states.
Remind, me cl, you are better at things like that than me, who said that?
“I love you too, Modus…”
*swoon*
“…but I’m not conflating the two.”
Quote: “Second, if ‘personal experience’ isn’t enough, why do so many atheists claim they’d rethink their position if they personally experienced limb regeneration?” Unquote.
To me, that looks like conflation (more equivocation, probably, but I couldn’t remember that word at the time).
“If your leg grew back, would it be a personal experience?”
Are we playing Semantics: The Fun-with-Language Game? “I feel…” as a personal experience is a far different “personal experience” than having a leg grow back. Others can’t verify what I feel (subjective), but they can verify that there are two legs where once there was one (objective).
He doesn’t seem to understand this, Modus. He’s conflating a spiritual experience with a physical experience. Sure, they’re personal experiences, but miles wide in confirmability. Notice when I rephrased his question, he said
Now ask him if his “deep down in his cockles” feelings are objectively confirmable.
10 bucks says he’ll sidestep it.
Evo,
Geez, so hostile! Is that what I have to look forward to in my fifties?
I’m not a deist, John, and as I’ve told you again and again, your questions about Jesus are irrelevant to our discussion about what constitutes good evidence for God. You opine that your question is relevant because such would remove the NOMA argument you think I’m making. Am I saying science can’t “prove” God the way it “proves” natural phenomena? Certainly. Does this mean I’m arguing the NOMA defense, or that I’m trying to protect my beliefs from the scrutiny of science because I’m scared, or that I “don’t have any evidence” as you childishly taunt? By no means. That one can’t “prove” God doesn’t mean one can’t approach the God question in a way that is scientifically grounded. Re-read Ubiquitous Che’s excellent comment – third one down on “The Existence of God.”
Again – remember that you define yourself by what you disbelieve – so you must allow me the same liberty: I disbelieve atheism. If you find this frustrating, perhaps you should state your own beliefs positively.
Not at all. Ubiquitous Che thought my concerns were reasonable, and he responded with an intelligent response as opposed to more anger, slander and vitriol. If you would but suspend your judgment and dislike of me, maybe you could see the value in my request. I’ve elaborated on it here – but you “atheists who don’t refuse evidence” refuse to read my blog or the evidence on it.
How so, John, and what does it mean that something is able to be “looked at” scientifically?
Modusoperandi,
You’re missing the point, and I like you, so please, don’t follow along with the flock in the “What cl is currently saying seems strange so he must be a complete idiot” routine. Else we’ll probably just end up on bad terms when the last thing the world needs is more division between people over differences in beliefs.
Many atheists say that believer’s personal experiences (I’m talking specifically in the context of healings and purported miracles here) are anecdotal, hence unacceptable as evidence for God. Agree or disagree with whatever emendations you require, and I’ll continue..
SI,
What “spiritual experience?” Where have I said anything about that?
I’m trying to make a point, but I can’t make it until you answer the following question I’ve now asked five times: Could any miracle claim – even if fully substantiated to your heart’s content – ever be accepted as evidence for the God of the Bible? Why or why not? If yes, what sort of claim? If no, why not?
cl said to Evo, you define yourself by what you disbelieve – so you must allow me the same liberty: I disbelieve atheism. If you find this frustrating, perhaps you should state your own beliefs positively.
Evo has done this on several of SI’s recent posts: he’s said, “There is no god.” That is a positive claim.
cl “Many atheists say that believer’s personal experiences (I’m talking specifically in the context of healings and purported miracles here) are anecdotal, hence unacceptable as evidence for God.”
Yes, mostly. Anedcotes are not evidence. This is because anecdotally everything is true (even the things that contradict other things).
The Argument from Personal Experience is quite powerful…personally. It’s bad at convincing skeptics because they aren’t in your head.
The Argument from Miracality (note: not a word) is poor at winning over skeptics because of the reasonable probability of knowing fraud/pious fraud/selection bias/muddy documentation etc. Most miracles are documented poorly (like various apparitions of Mary), have other unmentioned/forgotten details (prayer healed X [after/during medical treatment]), are easy to fake (…the likelyhood that the statue beside the church is actually crying blood…), easy to “read in” wanted details by the credulous (see: “Mary” on dirty window).
That said, a leg growing back is, well, it’s a leg growing back. That’s the best kind of miracle (because it’s clear that there wasn’t, then there was), it’s the kind of thing that never naturally occurs (at least for our species)…and it’s also the kind of miracle that doesn’t happen.
“Agree or disagree with whatever emendations you require, and I’ll continue…”
Yes and no (as above).
Chaplain,
Please, unless of course you’ll accept, “There is no metaphysical naturalism” as my positive belief and call it a draw.
[Blinks, raises both hands palms up, shrugs, purses lips, shakes head, turns, exits]
Modusoperandi,
I’m guessing you’ve not read my Recapitation examples, else you and I would be way ahead of the pack here: As with an hypothetical Recapitation, I agree the regeneration of a limb would show “something where something was not.”
Are you saying that such would be acceptable as evidence for God and/or the supernatural? Why or why not?
cl “I’m guessing you’ve not read my Recapitation examples, else you and I would be way ahead of the pack here: As with an hypothetical Recapitation, I agree the regeneration of a limb would show “something where something was not.””
Did you notice the “hypothetical” there. I sure did. I don’t miss nuffin’! I gots eagle eyes, I does!
“Are you saying that such would be acceptable as evidence for God and/or the supernatural?”
Sure. Not absolutely sure (there is still the potential for, say, fraud, as in flipping the “before” and “after” pics), and I’m not absolutely sure about anything, even that thing that I said in between the commas. I just blew my own mind.
Of course, there could just be a gap in the model which we never noticed because the aberration occurs so rarely. [emoticon of evil wink]
“Why or why not?”
Because, like flying pigs, it’s something that doesn’t happen. I don’t even know of any anecdotes (“I had a roommate whose friend had a leg grow back…”) of it occuring.
“It fits right along with most everything else you’ve ever offered as a response to me or something I’ve said – never a cogent argument, always something derogatory about me.”
Yawn. Insults are about all I feel might reach you, seeing as other people’s well thought out arguments bounce right off of you and you continue spouting inanity. I’m sure one of these days the quibbling will stop, but it will be because you stopped posting.
“Again – remember that you define yourself by what you disbelieve – so you must allow me the same liberty: I disbelieve atheism.”
There, uh… isn’t really such a thing as disbelieving in a lack of belief… that’s like saying that you’re dying your hair bald. Atheism isn’t a positive assertion, it’s just the lack of one. There’s nothing TO disbelieve because atheism in itself involves no claims.
“I’m not a deist, John, and as I’ve told you again and again, your questions about Jesus are irrelevant to our discussion about what constitutes good evidence for God. You opine that your question is relevant because such would remove the NOMA argument you think I’m making. Am I saying science can’t ‘prove’ God the way it ‘proves’ natural phenomena? Certainly. Does this mean I’m arguing the NOMA defense, or that I’m trying to protect my beliefs from the scrutiny of science because I’m scared, or that I ‘don’t have any evidence’ as you childishly taunt? By no means. That one can’t ‘prove’ God doesn’t mean one can’t approach the God question in a way that is scientifically grounded. Re-read Ubiquitous Che’s excellent comment – third one down on ‘The Existence of God.’ ”
I’d just like to point out, for the record, that cl STILL did not answer the question.
He’s almost so much of a caricature to begin with that caricaturing him is nigh impossible.
Modusoperandi:
Your points are well taken here, for all the reasons you’ve offered. I can honestly say a spontaneously generated limb would convince me that either-
1. Some exotic, otherworldly technology was at work, or
2. Some supernatural agency was the causal factor.
Granted, we’re dealing with only a single data point here, but what a data point! Of course, attributing such a ‘miracle’ to a specific, traditional deity would take more evidence to be convincing. But until such a miracle actually occurs, it seems to me that challenges based on parsing something which hasn’t even happened amount to nothing more than pointless handwaving, aimed at distraction. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- show me the money, and THEN we can argue about the denominations.
Meanwhile, theists are dickering over prices with empty pockets.
There are lots of other convincing theoretical examples of God at work in the world, things that should be happening all over the place for all to see if, indeed, an omnipotent, compassionate God existed. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, considering His apparently cranky attitude), the ‘evidence’ is about as far away from ‘proof’ as up is to down. Two explanations for this-
1. We live in a Bizarro world where apologetic convolution actually makes sense, or
2. There is no God.
Modusoperandi,
So, something that normally doesn’t happen happens, and that equals evidence for God in your eyes?
ThatOtherGuy,
Why, because your own factual errors and non-existent arguments fail to do the trick? Who are you? You don’t even have a blog of your own, nor do you offer your own arguments against mine. You just show up and run your mouth, degrading the person vs. the arguments, and trying to copy PhillyChief (stylistically) when you’re not even 10% as witty or intelligent. This whole thing would be better off if you either changed your tune or beat it. Let’s see if you can formulate an argument that doesn’t involve insults, or the letters “cl,” or pronouns referencing them.
Tell that to the chaplain. She’s the one who just asserted “There is no God” is a positive claim.
cl “So, something that normally doesn’t happen happens, and that equals evidence for God in your eyes?”
I realize that I have trouble arguing in good faith, and I might be a bit paranoid, but you took what I said and added “normally”. There are tons of things that don’t “normally” happen.
Miracles aren’t things that don’t normally happen. They’re things that can’t happen. SE-82’s half-life of 130,000,000,000,000,000,000 years means that finding it decay is something that doesn’t normally happen. That doesn’t make it miraculous.
Could any miracle claim – even if fully substantiated to your heart’s content – ever be accepted as evidence for the God of the Bible? Why or why not? If yes, what sort of claim? If no, why not?
If you cannot substantiate what God is, then how can you make any sort of claim that a miracle was done by him/her? Also, wouldnt it be more logical and practical to try and find the mechanism behind the so called miracle first?
Well Jim, I think you need to back up a tad. For instance, the regeneration of a limb should convince you of nothing other than the phenomenon requires further investigation. Also, arguments and thought experiments which start with “if there was a god, then…” are pure mental masturbation in light of the questionable existence of the subject you’re pondering details about. Do we debate whether Bigfoot would prefer traditional or modern china patterns? Maybe some do, but I find that a pretty silly expenditure of time and brain power.
In the comments for SI’s last post I mentioned what you’re saying, TitforTat…
First the belief in something would need a warrant, then the belief that something can and would perform miracles, and then a miracle could be considered evidence for the effect of something. To try and claim that the miracle is in any way the warrant for the something beliefs has it ass backwards.
You truly are an idiot. (That’s not an ad hominem, it’s an observation.)
Semantics, obfuscation and game playing. It’s all you do, and I swear you have a Ph.D in it.
Atheism IS NOT a positive assertion.
“There is no God” IS a positive assertion.
They are not the same thing.
They were asserted by two different people, Evo and Chappie.
I, frankly, am insulted that you think we are that stupid.
I’m done. Check your designation on your ass up there.
Philly
Sorry about that, Im a little late in the fray. 🙂
“You don’t even have a blog of your own…”
I fail to see the relevance of this.
“…nor do you offer your own arguments against mine.”
I’ve TRIED that before, and you ignored them consistently. Besides, you’ve gotten even more ridiculous since last I tried to reason with you. How do you offer cogent arguments to five-year-olds who stick their fingers in their ears and yell “I’M NOT LISTENING” every time you try to talk to them?
“…and trying to copy PhillyChief (stylistically) when you’re not even 10% as witty or intelligent.”
I guess that’s meant to be an insult? Honestly, I only even so much as READ PhillyChief’s posts because they ream you so hard, I could care less about “trying to copy him.” Besides, you’re not even 4.37% as witty or intelligent as him, so there!
“This whole thing would be better off if you either changed your tune or beat it.”
OMFG, the irony, it burns.
“Tell that to the chaplain. She’s the one who just asserted ‘There is no God’ is a positive claim.”
What’s your point? “There is no God” is a positive claim, but it’s not atheism.
Philly:
“Well Jim, I think you need to back up a tad. For instance, the regeneration of a limb should convince you of nothing other than the phenomenon requires further investigation.”
I disagree. If a guy’s arm spontaneously generated in front of my eyes (naturally, we’re assuming it actually happened, and isn’t the result of trickery or some kind of perception problem on my part), I would be at least tentatively convinced of more than the simple fact that ‘hm, this warrants more investigation’. Though certainly it WOULD also warrant more investigation!
“Also, arguments and thought experiments which start with “if there was a god, then…” are pure mental masturbation in light of the questionable existence of the subject you’re pondering details about.”
Not really. This is a common approach in investigating questionable claims. Person A makes a claim, then person B considers what the reasonable consequences might be IF the claim were true. This is actually a pretty common approach in countering apologetical claims, btw.
The fact that you’d leap to a conclusion doesn’t make it right, and the fact that the process of countering apologetics claims by out mentally masturbating them doesn’t make mental masturbation a warranted exercise, especially when the exercise can be rendered moot by first asking why one should entertain the idea that this god thing exists in the first place.
Philly:
“The fact that you’d leap to a conclusion doesn’t make it right…”
You’re correct, but it doesn’t make it wrong, either. However, we make reasonable, inductive inferences all the time which fall short of deductive certainty.
“…and the fact that the process of countering apologetics claims by out mentally masturbating them doesn’t make mental masturbation a warranted exercise…”
Philly, most of what goes on in these kinds of conversations could be classed as ‘mental masturbation’; or dueling penises, as the case may be 🙂 Whether it’s warranted our not depends on who’s issuing the warrants, I’d suppose.
“…especially when the exercise can be rendered moot by first asking why one should entertain the idea that this god thing exists in the first place.”
We live in a world of truth-claims, Philly. One of the ways we separate the wheat from the chaff (perhaps the MAIN way) is by exploring the logical ramifications of any given claim by using the formula:
IF this claim is true, then
THIS, THIS and THIS should logically follow.
This is why theistic religion falls on its face, by the way. The evidence just doesn’t back up the claims.
Not exactly. Leaping to conclusions that have little or no warrant is irrational, and that doesn’t magically make it right if it ends up that the conclusion is later proven correct, for that would be an example of ‘ends justify the means’, which is wrong.
I agree with the formula for examining truth claims, but you’re directing it at the wrong place. Think of it in terms of a meal. The existence of god is the meat claim, and indulging in the “if there’s a god who is like this, then this should follow” is the pudding, and you can’t have any pudding if you don’t first eat your meat. 😉
Philly:
When you say that the existence of god is a ‘meat’ claim, surely you’ll agree that we have to tie in the given attributes of said god from the get-go. Otherwise, ‘god’ is merely an empty term; a verbal noise indicating nothing. Once you’ve established the supposed attributes, you go on to test those attributes by positing ‘if-then’. To deny the existence of an wholly undefined god is to deny the existence of *&^%^ e.g. meaningless.
Back to the original example, if my buddy Armless Joe suddenly sprouted wings, do you really contend that coming to one of my two conclusions is unreasonable (again, accepting the fact of the matter instead of it being some delusion on my part)? If so, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
None of this is to say that traditionally defined gods actually exist, of course. And if a limb did ‘magically’ regenerate, I’d be much more inclined to suspect some kind of advanced technology, depending on the circumstances. Even if arms started sprouting back all over the world, and only at the instigation of verified Christian prayer, there are still possibilities other than the actual existence of the Christian God. But the parameters of the investigation would be getting narrower, and I’m sure you can carry the though experiment on through by yourself.
However, the original point to all this, instigated by Modus, is that spontaneous regeneration doesn’t happen. By my reasoning, and according to the overall demeanor of God as set forth in scripture, it should be happening. In fact, lots of stuff should be happening, and just doesn’t, which is very good evidence to my eyes that God is a mythological construct.
Ugh, I’ve gotta drop out now…writing of a different sort to do. Thanks for the convo.
But what’s the warrant for accepting the attributes in the first place for the sake of testing, and what’s the warrant, should you accept them, that that’s evidence for the thing with the attributes.
Example: An attribute of god is the ability to create life. If there’s a god, there must be life. There is life.
Now what? Should we conclude then that there’s a god?
I’ll just have to say this again, first the belief in something would need a warrant, then the belief that something can and would perform miracles, and then a miracle could be considered evidence for the effect of something. To try and claim that the miracle is in any way the warrant for the something beliefs has it ass backwards.
I don’t know how much plainer I can put it. Perhaps an analogy:
Claim: Needles with an electric current applied are better than using needles without a current applied in the application of acupuncture to repair the flow of chi which, when flowing correctly, makes you feel better.
Should you apply charged needles and you feel better afterwards, it’s unwarranted to leap to the conclusion that there must be chi, just as if you don’t feel better with either needles it’s unwarranted to leap to the conclusion that there is no chi. Sure, the results of the needles may be evidence for either conclusion about chi, but where’s the warrant for considering the results as evidence? On what basis is this characteristic of chi coming from by which we can even consider the results of the needle tests as evidence? How do we know this evidence is in fact evidence for a completely different fact?
Regarding the regenerating limb, it would depend on the context. If I saw an amputee, and then another person touched the amputee and cried out “In the name of Jesus Christ, I pray that this limb be restored!” and then the limb regenerated, then I would have to consider that a genuine religious miracle had occurred. But if an amputee woke up one morning to find a missing leg or arm had regenerated, then it would be a phenomenon whose cause needs to be investigated without religion coming into play.
Philly:
Ok, one more round, and then I REALLY gotta go (famous last words…chuckle)…
“But what’s the warrant for accepting the attributes in the first place for the sake of testing, and what’s the warrant, should you accept them, that that’s evidence for the thing with the attributes.”
We’re not talking about blindly accepting attributes. We’re talking about testing claims. If the logical extrapolations concerning those claims don’t pan out, then we are justified in rejecting the original premise. It’s the reason I reject theism, btw. It simply doesn’t pan out; except, perhaps, within the mindscape of the N.O.
“Example: An attribute of god is the ability to create life. If there’s a god, there must be life. There is life.
Now what? Should we conclude then that there’s a god?”
Your example is misapplied. We can’t test for the claimed god’s ability to create life. However, we can ask ‘DID God create life?’ Of course, we’d have to weigh any evidence we think we might have against alternative explanations that might better fit the picture. Even then, the parameters are so broad here that I doubt anything could be accomplished, especially since theists can always posit that God works through natural processes. Same goes for your other example. But this is all a far cry from the spontaneous regeneration of a limb out of thin air, right in front of your face. There are absolutely no prosaic, naturalistic alternatives for such a thing other than something akin to completely unknown technology, alien or otherwise. Or, of course, some explanation akin to the supernatural (and PLEASE don’t parse ‘supernatural’ through an overly fine, sophistic sieve…I’ve already been through that stuff with cl…LOL!) I think you’re being a little overly convenient with your examples. Let me posit one of my own…
A man claims he has invented matter teleportation….
1st scenario: He tells you to turn your back and count to 100. When you turn back, he’s gone. Later he calls you on the phone and tells you he teleported to Japan.
In this case, your ‘leaping’ to the conclusion that teleportation is real would be misplaced, as there are other naturalistic, familiar alternatives to explain the man’s absence.
2nd scenario: The man simply blinks out of existence in front of you. A moment later you get a call on your cell from Japan. The origin is verified by the phone company, and by trusted witnesses in Japan. Further investigation reveals no hoax. The man literally teleported!
Do you now conclude that teleportation in all likelihood exists? I do.
Now, back to the guy with the spontaneously regrown arm. You see it simply appear out of thin air, right in front of you. You watch the guy flex it, move the fingers. You touch it. It exists. Now, how do you explain it? To my mind, there exist only one of two explanations, which are the two I originally posited. Now obviously the conclusions are SOMEWHAT tentative, as all conclusions ultimately are. But at some point, the alternatives (or simply defiant silence, as the case may be) become so far fetched as to become more unbelievable than the conclusion staring you in the face, distasteful as that conclusion might be.
Of course, all this is academic; call it ‘mental masturbation’ if you will (though like I noted before, I’m not sure how you’d differentiate this from pretty much everything that goes on on these sorts of blogs, including my own blog). The way I see it, miracles simply do not occur, neither is there any credible evidence of alien technology IMO, so I guess the question is moot, as you say. However, I do believe the basic attitude behind the testing of claims is a sound one.
I never said it wasn’t, only that it’s silly to do so before first examining the underlying claim on which the claim you’re testing rests on (ie – how can you have any pudding before you eat your meat?)
You said: I can honestly say a spontaneously generated limb would convince me that either-
1. Some exotic, otherworldly technology was at work, or
2. Some supernatural agency was the causal factor.
Again, those convictions are unwarranted, even if “the conclusions are SOMEWHAT tentative”. In lieu of an answer, “I don’t know” is the suitable conviction. Certainly those other two options could be explored, but again the question arises, what warrants considering them in the first place?
On to more important matters:
Which is everybody’s favorite butt? My choice is the one on the far left, though the one 2nd from the right has its charms.
Far left. SI stuck *my* avatar on the worst of the bunch. Bastard.
Yup, I think I got prime placement. 🙂
That’s because you suck-up to SI all the time. You guys and your little atheist clique.
Modusoperandi,
That’s because you used doesn’t. By definition, something that doesn’t happen does not happen, so some degree of guess-work was necessary. I took liberty with you out of trust that you wouldn’t fly of the handle with cusswords and insults about it. And I was right.
Anyways, you previously said that “Sure,” the limb-regeneration would be evidence for God because “it doesn’t happen.” So, is anything that “doesn’t” happen acceptable as evidence for God? Surely you can see that if we were to really apprehend this, such criteria are insufficient as currently stated, right?
ThatOtherGuy,
If I ignored your “arguments,” how could I have shown so many of them to be false? That “Joseph Smith never claimed to have received revelation from God,” that “there is no difference between Mi and Ma,” and that “cl is making shit up” because you obviously haven’t researched spontaneous remission of cancer enough are not reasoned arguments. I didn’t ignore them, I exposed many of them as false, then you got butthurt and developed a personal vendetta about it that continues to this day. Get over it.
SI,
Gee, never heard that one before, and it always seems forthcoming when cogency is not. Correct me if I’ve missed them, but you’re still not defending some of your arguments I’ve challenged, still leaving unanswered questions, still refusing to look at any evidence not on your own blog, and still refusing to refine your criteria after I exposed the conflation between evidence and proof.
Now here you are, arguing semantics about what is and isn’t a positive assertion. In my world, a positive assertion or a positive claim means we’ve asserted or claimed that something exists or occurs (or existed or occurred, or will exist or occur). A negative assertion means we’ve asserted something does not exist or occur (or did not exist or occur, or will not exist or occur). “There is no God” is not a positive assertion; all it does is describe what there is not – God. “There is a God,” on the other hand, is a positive assertion. Really, the whole point is a silly side distraction and relates nothing to evidence for God. So, SI, prove that you’re actually about “the evidence” by dropping the semantic side arguments, returning to the topics and answering the questions instead of focusing on me.
Would a regenerated limb be acceptable evidence for a particular God? Why or why not, to what degree or under what conditions?
Can ANY miracle claim EVER be considered evidence for a particular God? Why or why not, to what degree or under what conditions?
Tommykey,
Why? I’ve tried this approach before (to see what atheists would say) and been met with resistance – of course, not by all of them. For example, jim here is more open to regeneration arguments than other atheists. But why would a regeneration seal the deal for you?
PhillyChief,
Incorrect. As jim was trying to explain, what you criticize here is often exactly how science proceeds. Science frequently evaluates the potential existence of things by supposing the conditions that would or would not exist accordingly, IOW, something like: “If X does exist or is true, what conditions would we reasonably expect? Conversely, what conditions would we reasonably expect if X does not exist, or is not true?”
Key word: Hypothesis. You don’t accept the attributes, you hypothesize them in order to conduct your evaluation. If you don’t, no evaluation can be conducted.
If you wish to induct hastily by resting on a single data point, sure. I don’t, so I’d suggest further investigation.
The fact that so far as we know, mammalian limbs never spontaneously regenerate naturally. Such is warrant for considering that something != natural might be going on.
jim,
Couldn’t there also be some hitherto undiscovered natural explanation for a limb regeneration? I noticed you listed “supernatural agency” and “otherworld technology” as the only two explanations you could think of. Remember when DD posited “SMERF’s” (Sudden Magnetic Entropy Reversal Fields) in response to my Recapitated Man example? Did you think such was entirely reasonable? Why or why not?
Damn, I must ask good questions because it seems that CL doesnt respond to me on this site or even his own. Either that or he is just ignoring me. Wow, just like highschool, I feel rejected. 😦
Far left. SI stuck *my* avatar on the worst of the bunch. Bastard.(John Evo)
I would concur.
cl:
Certainly there might be some ‘hitherto undiscovered natural explanation’, but then we have to ask ourselves ‘why hasn’t it happened until now?’ Then of course you have the rather murky job of isolating supernatural in the midst of natural. But it really isn’t that difficult in the case of a spontaneously generated limb. Consider the particulars: Instantaneous generation of mass. All the musculature, bone structure, and circulatory systems delivered whole and grafted seamlessly onto the body. To posit a prosaic natural explanation for such an occurrence without even considering the alternatives would be, in my opinion, a pathetic attempt to hold onto a worldview at any cost. Of course, we can theorize in any direction we choose, but would such a theory hold any more weight than postulating a supernatural or otherworldly origin? I think not.
Naturally, such a tentative conclusion might later be overturned by more evidence. But that doesn’t mean we simply lock ourselves into an ‘I don’t know’ mode, especially since it seems that the two alternatives I’ve offered are pretty much the only ones reason allows (excepting some ultra-exotic feature of existence that we just aren’t privy too; which, btw, would overturn pretty much all we think we’ve gleaned about the physical world thus far. Could happen, but it’s a real stretch).
TitforTat,
That you don’t see the answer you want when you want to see it doesn’t mean anyone is “not answering” you. There’s always the possibility that you missed or forgot about their answer, or that they’re taking their time thinking about things. Don’t jump to conclusions. Just restate the question next time. I answered the question you asked me on my blog, here. So stop saying I didn’t answer you.
As for the other question you asked, I actually saw it, then forgot about it in the fray. Perhaps it wasn’t as good as you fancy!
You didn’t even answer my question, and here you are complaining that I’m not answering yours! Answer mine, and I’ll answer yours: Could any miracle claim – even if fully substantiated to your heart’s content – ever be accepted as evidence for the God of the Bible? Why or why not? If yes, what sort of claim? If no, why not?
I have no further interest in cl’s “miracle quest” – again, what a rube. Still, the topic at hand (Ha!) of limb regeneration interests and I’d like to toss in my dos centavos.
The whole miracle aspect is utterly silly on so many levels, including the one that would study “regeneration” as a miracle. Study that would be off the charts impossible – the instantaneous apparition of a limb that had been amputated. I’m quite content to leave cl searching for that dragon.
So, what I’m talking about would be the, still incredible, regeneration of a severed limb.
I forgot the species of reptile (something like the Komodo Dragon – calm down cl. Investigate over in the other corner while the grownups talk), that was absolutely never known to reproduce asexually – until about a year ago when the first confirmed case came to light.
A number of organisms, as you all know, reproduce this way. But not this reptile. There have been other cases of species unknown to reproduce asexually, doing so.
There are species that can regenerate limbs. To speculate that the genetic mechanism for doing so lies somewhere, untapped, in our genome is not necessarily the stuff of science fiction. And, if I were a scientist, as soon a limb started regenerating I would be all over this person’s DNA, comparing it to samples from the population and comparing it to the DNA of one or more species known to regenerate limbs.
I’d be doing that long before I started looking for alien technologies (though I’d certain want a complete list of his medical treatments!). I don’t think I’d be alone. It would be one of the most fascinating cases in medical history.
John Evo:
I hope I’ve been clear in how I’m interpreting the hypothetical. I also considered lizard tail regrowth, but that’s a far cry from instantaneous regeneration, and I would judge each accordingly. One might be a biological anomaly. The other would be much, much more. A categorically different sort of occurrence.
But aside from all this, the real question is, has it ever happened? No, it has not.
jim,
Perhaps, but that’s not a hard question at all. Think of how long this all this stuff’s supposedly been here. Many phenomena operate with extremely long-range cyclicity, for example the procession of the Zodiac. Perhaps every so many thousands of years, DD’s “SMERF’s” manifest? Or, perhaps we’re witnessing the dawning of some new evolutionary adaptation?
Indeed. How might one go about doing such? Is such even possible?
I’d be impressed, too, but… generation is a bit of a leap, no? Couldn’t the mass have simply been transmuted, or something similar? IOW, spontaneous limb generation doesn’t necessarily have to entail violation of the laws of conservation of mass and energy, right?
I fully agree with you. That’s what I thought when DD offered “SMERF’s.” OTOH, I also agree that when something is unexplained, attributing explanations entails superstition and speculation. So – I suppose we can say something like, “Well, the limb regeneration doesn’t prove God, and can’t be evidence for any particular deity, and remains unexplained, but a deity and/or supernatural explanation (or otherworldly technology) seems more parsimonious to me.” Is that a reasonable apprehension of your position?
Well, yes and no. As far as making truth-claims goes, I think we should lock ourselves into “I don’t know” mode, because it’s honest – we don’t know! But being in “I don’t know” mode doesn’t mean we can just dismiss the importance of the phenomena in our evaluation. To me, that’s the difference between you, Philly and myself – I think we all agree that we shouldn’t say we know when we don’t, but it seems Philly wants to say the unknown is useless in the evaluation. I disagree. You?
cl:
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that truly ‘spontaneous’ regeneration of a limb would overturn all our previous knowledge of biology, and even physics. Note, I’m making a distinction between spontaneous, and something akin to the slow regrowth of a lizards tail, like John Evo remarked on. As far as this:
““Well, the limb regeneration doesn’t prove God, and can’t be evidence for any particular deity, and remains unexplained, but a deity and/or supernatural explanation (or otherworldly technology) seems more parsimonious to me.” Is that a reasonable apprehension of your position?”
I agree. I’d also say that conclusions hold relative degrees of certainty. For instance, an isolated case wouldn’t hold as much weight as, say, spontaneous regenerations every time, but only when prayed for under the aegis of such-and-such a religion (I’m using the two extremes to demonstrate my point here).
Again, all conclusions are to some degree tentative. There’s a threshold of belief, probably different for each of us, a place we come to where we accept things as more or less factual. Many ‘facts’ are by and large universal, in that everybody accepts them as true. Others aren’t. Was Oswald acting alone? I accept that he was as a fact. Others disagree. However, my ‘conclusion’ doesn’t rise nearly to the level of absolute certainty. Must I then remain in the agnostic camp? Not in my opinion.
Whoops! Paragraphs 3 and 4 are switched around, and I have NO IDEA WHY!
[fixed: God]
cl “That’s because you used doesn’t.”
I did. I do that all the time. My vanity plates say “doesnt”. True story.
“By definition, something that doesn’t happen does not happen, so some degree of guess-work was necessary.”
I realize that language can be vague (that’s why people point), but the last part of that sentence does not follow.
“Anyways, you previously said that “Sure,” the limb-regeneration would be evidence for God because “it doesn’t happen.” So, is anything that “doesn’t” happen acceptable as evidence for God?”
I didn’t think of it at the time (and it has been brought up since then), but some sufficiently advanced technology (“…indestinguishable from magic”) would also fit. In any event, it’s something that doesn’t happen.
“Surely you can see that if we were to really apprehend this, such criteria are insufficient as currently stated, right?”
I can’t really apprehend this. Pictures in my head are always fuzzy. This is because it’s hypothetical, rather than a actualical (note: not a word).
cl……… oops my bad, I missed your response.
Could any miracle claim – even if fully substantiated to your heart’s content – ever be accepted as evidence for the God of the Bible?(cl)
Now as far as your question goes I will have to say no, any miracle claim is not evidence for the God of the bible because it is still not proven whether the god of the bible exists. If you wish to quantify the possibility of a creator creating the miracle, I may possibly concur. Just dont try to convince any one of us that it could be the God/Gods of the bible. Afterall, the Old Testament and the New Testament have very different renditions of what that God may be.
John Evo,
“You truly are an idiot.” (SI)
“If Satan came up and tried to butt-fuck you and Jesus saved your virgin ass,” (John Evo)
“..being a douche… ..douchery… …he is desperate to spread his message of “Douche Equivalence”… He knows he is a douche… “ (John Evo)
“I’d pick up a rock and brain you with it.” (PhillyChief)
“I dunno, I think maybe you’re just a jerk..” (ThatOtherGuy)
“I woke up to a ton of comments here, in my email… all about SI’s nudes. WTF?” (John Evo)
“Fuck me. …There’s a fucking understatement for you!” (John Evo)
“Thank you Lord……The Titties are back.” (TitforTat)
“..stop being a pussy and answer the question.” (John Evo)
“Right, I’ll put you down for option “douche” then. “ (PhillyChief)
“The fuck you will. You’ll attempt to support the claim that there are flaws, redact the claim, or do neither and thus add to the mountain of evidence that shows you exhibit douchey tactics.” (PhillyChief, to a claim I supported here and he sidestepped 6 comments later)
“I swear to my lord and savior, bloody Jesus on a cross.” (John Evo)
“..how fucked up is my life that I’d waste all that time to prove some guy on the internet is a douche?” (PhillyChief)
“There once was a man named See-El, Whose beliefs in heaven and hell, He claimed were quite sensible, Tho’ clearly irrational, Resulting in a terrible smell.” (SI)
Is that how grown-ups conduct intelligent conversations, John?
jim,
I agree.
Cool. I think the same way.
Of course. That’s how science works.
Modusoperandi,
It did though. Knowing that you didn’t mean “things that don’t happen,” I reasonably assumed you meant things that don’t normally happened. Really, you probably mean something more like, “Things that rarely ever happen, or have never been known to happen.” Do you consider things in that category acceptable evidence for God? If so, what are some other examples of things in this category that you find persuasive, besides a limb regeneration?
cl “It did though. Knowing that you didn’t mean “things that don’t happen,” I reasonably assumed you meant things that don’t normally happened.”
Oh, language. Sweet, delicious language. “Doesn’t” means “does not”. Full stop. “Doesn’t normally” means “rarely”-to-“very rarely”.
“Do you consider things in that category acceptable evidence for God?”
Evidence for something. Evidence, again, that doesn’t happen, putting hyperadvanced alien doctors visiting Earth and a 3-O’d, omnibenevolent God on the same page. The one at the back. That isn’t there.
“If so, what are some other examples of things in this category that you find persuasive, besides a limb regeneration?”
So you would like other examples of things that don’t happen that would or should if He is? If you’re making a list to send to the Lord, keep in mind that the postage is crazy expensive. Plus, He won’t read it. Just in case, ask Him to get me my hair back. I miss my hair. My thick, full, rich head of manly, masculine, virile hair…
I want to thank everyone for their insightful comments on my post about the miraculous waters of Lourdes. 😉
For my next post, I’m going to ask the age old question: How many angels can dance on the head of the pin.
I will posit that we can never know.
Evo will claim that the physical qualities of the pin-head (no, not you See-El) (well, maybe) will not be able to accommodate more than three or four angels, at best. Probably only two.
Philly will refuse to acknowledge the existence of angels because of the assumption that they exist, as stated in the query, which will not be warranted.
See-El will insist that I re-phrase the question, then go off to his blog to write three posts (Parts I, II and III) on what an idiotic question it was, because I haven’t, a priori, shown any evidence, much less proof, that angels can even dance. He will also point out that I’m unkind to panhandlers, therefore he won the argument. So there.
Modusoperandi will point out the flaws in See-El’s comments, concluding that they most likely arose sometime in See-El’s formative years, between the ages of 3 and 5.
Jim will switch paragraphs in all of his comments, and still make more sense than See-El.
Tommykey will note, for the record, that he’s an atheist, and doesn’t like See-El sucking up to him any more than anyone else here, and then will note that I didn’t clarify whether it’s a safety pin, or a straight pin. Oh, wait, that last wasn’t Tommy, that was See-El, again.
TitforTat will remark that he finds See-El’s verbiage about as flabby as the ass, third from the right (or second from the left , depending on whether you are a Christian or an atheist).
Did I miss anybody? If so, please add your prognostication on my next post.
S.I.:
I don’t believe in pins.
“Just in case, ask Him to get me my hair back. I miss my hair. My thick, full, rich head of manly, masculine, virile hair…”
Aha! At long last I now know why Modus is an atheist. I knew it wasn’t that silly problem of evil thing:)
Naw. I’m an atheist because faith and prayer and many goat sacrifices didn’t bring it back. Stupid supernatural…
To my fellow readers of SI’s wonderful blog:
I stand by everything I’ve said here. I hope some things were brilliant. Others were comedic (I have to leave it to the reader to decide if it worked), a few times it was vulgar (usually with comedic intent).
Sophistication is not a prerequisite of an adult conversation. Not whining about it – is. So is not whining about the rules. So is not willfully forcing the conversation into tangential issues. Those – are all notable for being for the kids, or those who act like them. I have no interest in talking to either.
I look forward to commenting on SI’s next post. But don’t expect me to say what SI predicted! Not surprisingly, I’ll probably have to side with my fellow Red A Teammate, Philly. 🙂
And the PoE isn’t really evidence against the existence of God. It’s evidence against the existence of thekindofgodpeoplewant. I haven’t seen a monotheist theology yet that makes their God a perfect douche (omni-doucherence), although some brands of Calvinism come close. Most just blame the bad shit on Satan (who a perfect God made), Man (who a perfect God made) or they knock an “omni” or two down a notch (“Sure, He’s omniscient, but He’s not omniscient. That would mean that I’d have to rethink a bunch of things, and it’s taken me ages to make non-omniscience omniscience and to fit God into a place where He’s absent.”, like WLC’s “God has a library of all knowledge, but He chooses not to read some of the books.”, if memory serves. On a side note, his defense of the Canaan genocide still gives me nightmares. It takes a special kind of smart to make bad good).
Didja ever notice how much of apologetics is the attempt to make “not/doesn’t” “is/does” or to make words mean what they don’t mean?
Atheism, even if it turns out to be wrong, is so much simpler. Shit happens, sometimes. That’s the atheist answer to the PoE (at least the “natural evil” part. The “people evil” part involves things like courts and police and jail and brain shrinks, in a clumsy attempt to actually get justice).
But I’ve probably drifted off-topic. That happens, sometimes.
Evil doesn’t exist. Evil is a label we put on things that really suck and cause trouble, like douchey blog commenters, pedophiles and cable news.
Hey speaking of pedophiles, here’s a joke – The pedophile was walking with a little child into the dark woods when the child looked up and said, “Mister, I’m scared.” “You think you’re scared?” asked the pedophile. “Later, I’ll be walking back by myself.” Ba-DUM Crash!
I’m here all week, don’t forget to tip your Inquisitor, and you’ve gotta try the veal. 🙂
“Evil doesn’t exist. Evil is a label we put on things that really suck and cause trouble, like douchey blog commenters, pedophiles and cable news.”
You forgot to add “Kansas City sports franchises” to your list of things that suck, Philly.
You forgot the “and cause trouble” part, dick.
SI:
I’d be more interested in the angels’ batting averages than whether they can tango. If they bat above 0.0000500, the Washington Nationals need them.
Modusoperandi,
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
John Evo,
It is kinda hard to make your “adult” argument juxtaposed against all that vitriol, eh?
John, I’m the one trying to stay on task here. You, OTOH, whined about me not wanting to discuss religion with you. You and SI whine, whine, whine about how all you think I do is challenge semantics. You and Chaplain introduce tangential issues, then blame me for it. Seriously. Re-read these things. Whine, whine, whine, then call cl a douche. Face reality!
SI,
Re-reading the OP, here’s another example of your fallacious logic:
Go ahead and justify that claim.
But why would a regeneration seal the deal for you?
Simply because of the immediacy of it in the context of the example I used.
Tommykey,
See, when I tried that example, the atheist I was talking to replied that no causal connection can be verified, and this is true. How would you respond to that?
cl “Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.”
I no, rite?! Lol!
“You forgot the “and cause trouble” part, dick.”
Yeah, Philly, I deserved that, but MO was being way too serious in response to the MOsignal. And, I have to admit your logic is spot on, given that none of the KC teams are causing any of the other teams trouble…
Actually, all those last minute losses last year caused me a lot of agida, so maybe you were right the first time. 😉
Trying to figure out what agida means, I came up with this. Can’t imagine that’s it…
I thought it was just a typo for agita…since I had some chiefs on my fantasy football, I shared it with Philly.
What’s with the right girl’s cheek? That seems awfully petty, if you ask me. Which you didn’t, or I’d have told you that it seems awfully petty.
That’s See-Els’s cheek. She’s unhappy with him.
I vote you award that cheek to Mo. Or, better yet, give him mine and move me all the way to the right!
Naw. I have a face for radio. Sadly, I have a voice for mime. True story.
I oughta start selling cheekspace.
How would you respond to that?
Oh, good grief! It would be causally connected enough to satisfy me. I mean, it’s not like people are sprouting new limbs all the time and it could be chalked up to coincidence. I mean, if in the middle of a thunderstorm, some preacher declared “In the name of Jesus Christ, let there be lightning!” and then second later, there was a bolt of lightning in the sky, that wouldn’t impress me, because lightning is to be expected. I trust this concludes the matter.
I oughta start selling cheekspace.
Or even better, anywhere on Kim Kardashian’s body.
Doubtful, but one can hope.
GOD help us…………Oops.
Matters conclude easily when all participants are willing.
Tommykey,
That’s 100% fine in my book, and I wouldn’t be persuaded much by the lightning, either. I tend to agree with you, but many atheists I encounter online seem to induct slothfully, saying believers can’t use such an instance to justify their beliefs. You stand out amongst them as reasonable. jim, too – at least in this regard. Although, I really wish either of you (or anyone) could expound a bit on why a limb regeneration would do the trick. Articulated well enough, such would be a useful criteria in these types of discussions. Would it be just because it’s so rare, and happened to occur after prayer?
cl:
“Matters conclude easily when all participants are willing.”
Indeed (can you intuit the sarcasm?)
Coincidentally, I’m planning to post something addressing this, as well as your most recent posting on your own blog. I’ll try to have the first part up tonight, if I can manage it. As part of the content, I plan on deconstructing what you’ve written (maybe a part two?). No promises, though…I’m easily sidetracked, and I want to do the subject SOME justice, anyway.
BTW, I am ALWAYS reasonable! *stamps foot*
“…but many atheists I encounter online seem to induct slothfully, saying believers can’t use such an instance to justify their beliefs.”
They’re correct; you can’t. It is more likely that are aliens conducting anthropological studies on human religion with sufficiently advanced technology that they can effect a “miraculous” limb regeneration at any time than it is that a deity exists that defies all the laws of physics as we know them. The aliens with crazy technology (please don’t try to make it seem like I’m actually postulating any), while incredible and nearly inconceivable, are still accountable to the laws of the universe and are completely natural, while the deity is still essentially impossible to reconcile with what we already know.
“You stand out amongst them as reasonable. jim, too – at least in this regard.”
Read: “You agree with me, and so are reasonable, because as everyone knows I am a paragon of reason.” Give it a rest, cl, the only one taking you seriously anymore here is you.
Why, because “ThatOtherGuy” on the internet says so? Where’s the evidence for your claim? If you chide believers for taking the words of the preacher on faith, why do you expect me to take your unjustified claim on faith?
How does that relate to the discussion about evidence?
jim,
Cool, I’ll keep an eye out, but now that you censor me at your blog, don’t expect me to respond.
“Why, because ‘ThatOtherGuy’ on the internet says so? Where’s the evidence for your claim? If you chide believers for taking the words of the preacher on faith, why do you expect me to take your unjustified claim on faith?”
No, you putz, it’s because the alien claim is natural and falsifiable; the deity claim is supernatural and unfalsifiable. This means, speaking scientifically, that the aliens win every time.
“How does that relate to the discussion about evidence?”
Clearly you haven’t heard of changes of subject. I was chiding you for giving pats on the back (as if anyone cared for a pat on the back from you) to someone just for agreeing with you on a tangential issue. It’s embarrassing.
cl:
No probs; looks like it won’t be ready right away, anywho. I’m brain dead tonight. As for being censored, you might recall this:
“Ok, I think we’ve gone about as far as we’re gonna go here. If you post something that actually interests me, I’ll put it through.”
Ball’s in your court. No biggie, either way. I mostly just wanted to let you know I was gonna tackle the ‘miracles’ thing a little bit, and thought your post was pertinent to the discussion. I’m sort of picking up this vibe, like you have kind of a rep on this blog, as well. Maybe it’s just me:) (However, the butt you’re on is really kind of sweet. I’m thinking a Kansas girl, come to the coast looking to make it as a star. She falls in with a guitar player she meets on the bus. They’re forced to panhandle for sustenance, she turns tricks once in a while to make ends meet. Eventually they break up, things go from bad to worse, and eventually she winds up in Huntington Beach, planning to end it all by jumping off the end of the pier. But, as she’s leaning over the railing and contemplating her last few moments of life, a hand comes from behind, touches her on the shoulder, and lo and behold! It’s a member of the Christian Swedish bikini team, on tour and spreading the Gospel to every beach town from Zuma to San Diego, and YOUR GAL is the ONLY one who fits the g-string formally worn by a member horribly disfigured in a Chick Tract warehouse fire. One day on the bus, she happened upon your blog on the communal laptop, became immediately enamored of your sexy apologetical stylings, and had your moniker tattooed on her buttcheek. Unfortunately, ‘cl’ also happened to be the initials of a notorious anti-recycler in Laguna, and several of the locals, after having their way with her, defaced her love-brand with one of those little circle with a slash thingies. She got over it, eventually, but now any time she sees your initials, she is reminded of that horrible night, though she has Jesus to assuage her fears, which is sumpin’, after all).
That claim A is more likely than claim B because claim A is falsifiable is seriously ridiculous, even for you.
Actually, agreeing with Tommykey is nothing to be embarrassed about. I’d be much more worried if I was running around the internet making factually inerrant claims like “Joseph Smith never claimed to have received revelation from God” and “there’s no difference between Ma and Mi” while calling the person making the correct versions of these claims (cl) bad names. That, to me, would be embarrassing, which is why I frequently ask if you have no shame.
jim,
Yes, I read that today when I went to your blog. It sounded to me like you were saying you’d be screening comments: If I post something that interests you, you’ll put it through. The assumption I made was if not, you won’t. That, my friend, is censorship – if that’s in fact the modus operandi you’ve adopted. Either way, still looking forward to reading your piece, as the ‘miracles’ thing could always use more tackling, and I’ve always thought your contributions were pertinent to the discussion. On that note, it’s too bad you misunderstood my initial subjective complaint at DD’s and got all pissed off; from the sound of the title, it sounds like that might be part of what your post will address. Anyways, lets cast it all temporarily aside and talk miracles.
cl:
That’s the way I usually run my blogs, for a couple of reasons. So far, I’ve only ever had to moderate out:
A white supremacist with a boring patter
A hacker, using various guises, and posting hijack links
You
That’s in a couple years of blogging. I don’t tout my blogs as ‘free speech zones’, btw. There’s plenty of room for trolls and various other nutjobs on the other five million blogs…LOL! Hey, shoot me! I’m choicy.
Censor away.
[lengthy pause]
Hey, guys, would you consider things that don’t happen happening to be evidence that there’s something we don’t know?
If we wouldn’t know how they happened, at least initially, because they haven’t happened before then yes, that would be evidence that there’s something we don’t know. All the contention here is what happens next. Do you:
a) call it a miracle (or curse or divine retribution should it be a bad thing)?
b) credit some other unfalsifiable source like magic pixies, crystals, etc.?
c) credit a potentially falsifiable, yet unwarranted source like aliens?
d) form no conclusion until the results of investigation warrant one?
It would appear that most here would choose d), at least one would choose a), and at least one would be convinced it was one of the first 3 (although how he’d pick, I’m not sure).
What’s seriously ridiculous is that you typed that, and more to the point, that you apparently believe it. Here, on a thread dealing with scientific evidence for miracles. Or any evidence, for that matter.
Unless of course your conclusion – that the supernatural world exists – is presupposed. But that’s putting the cart before the horse, right?
More specifically, the idea that a natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a supernatural explanation is just good logic, given what we know.
“I’d be much more worried if I was running around the internet making factually inerrant claims like ‘Joseph Smith never claimed to have received revelation from God’ and ‘there’s no difference between Ma and Mi’ while calling the person making the correct versions of these claims (cl) bad names.”
It was embarrassing I guess, for about ten minutes. People are wrong sometimes. I got over it, though. You never seemed to.
“That claim A is more likely than claim B because claim A is falsifiable is seriously ridiculous, even for you.”
Bah, SI got to that already.
Hey SI, what’s the code for a quote block like that? I’ve tried a couple things that haven’t worked and don’t want to do any more experimenting 😐
ThatOtherGuy,
Of course they are. We all are. You still don’t seem to understand why I remind you of it. You join the crowd in heaping insults, yet I must be doing something right if I’m mopping up the messes you make – among others.
SI,
Your response lacks scope, and doesn’t justify That Other Guy’s claim:
When apprehending natural phenomena, a natural explanation is exactly what we should expect. That’s because we exist and observe things in the natural world. The whole world is pink through rose-colored glasses, and stating the obvious doesn’t justify the claim.
cl:
If everybody started mopping up the messes you make in the form of misstatements, misapprehensions, and all-around miscreantisms, the world couldn’t hold the mops. Face it, you’re just running TOG’s inconsequential factual misstep into the ground because you can, and because this is all about scoring debating points with you. Everybody sees it but you.
For anyone else (cl as well, if he can mind himself), I jumped ahead and posted something here, as I didn’t want to take the convo too far off SI’s O.P. I disabled moderation for now, as I’m off to work, and in case anybody wanted to hash it around. Take care, all; even you, cl, you disputatious little pissant, you 🙂
jim, feel free to provide the evidence for this claim anytime. I’d love to discuss it. I could actually provide evidence for my claims against you, and I’m more than willing should you ask, but I don’t see that it would have any positive effect.
Of course that’s how you’d see it. You have a personal agenda against me, too, made all the more evident by your closing sentiments and accusations without evidence. For the record, it’s not about scoring points with me. It’s about basic respect and civility, and I think the person who blunders as TOG did – then turns around and insults the person who was actually correct – needs a lesson in both. I know that when I make not one but 3 or 4 factually incorrect claims, the last thing I’m going to do is run my mouth and insult the person who corrected me wherever and whenever I see them online thereafter. That’s just childish, and also very much in accord with what we’d expect from a wounded ego.
Oh cl cl cl. I’d been insulting your equivocating and quibbling tendencies for quite some time before I made any sort of missteps, as it was put. You were just thrilled to get SOMETHING you could use as ammunition to try to strike back.
Trust me when I say this, I would go vociferously after anyone who postulated such nonsense as you; my scorn is only increased because you do this CONSTANTLY, not because my “ego is wounded” or whatever it is you’re asserting. I could not care less about your attempts to distract people away from your ridiculous statements by trying to deflect attention to me. This is about you and your failure to produce a single cogent statement despite being repeatedly asked.
cl:
We agree to disagree, then?
Cool, then quit bitching about it, because if you haven’t noticed, other people get sick of it. Trust me, I have no desire to deflect attention towards you. Unless you wish to change your attitude towards me, it would be best for everybody if you just ignored me from here on out. Just keep your opinions about me to yourself, as they don’t relate to the arguments. Unless it’s in good faith, leave me be and move along. I’ll gladly do the same.
Yet, people like Senator say things like, “..cl made some sensible points above that have not been close to rebutted.”
Yet, Ubiquitous Che agreed that my initial request was reasonable (i.e. cogent).
Yet, after being challenged four times, on the fifth, SI finally conceded that my criticism of his criteria as stated in “The Existence of God” was cogent.
So, are you being ignorant when you make the above claim that I’ve “not once produced a single cogent statement”? Or, are you being dishonest and just using another rhetorical device to smear me? Or, can you explain how each of these three arguments weren’t cogent?
jim,
Re what? Lots of arguments have been made.
Of course that’s how you’d see it. You have a personal agenda against me, too,
Et tu, Lifeguard? Et tu, Jim? They.are.all.out.to.get.me.
(*PSYCHOTIC BREAK ALERT!!*)
I know that when I make not one but 3 or 4 factually incorrect claims, the last thing I’m going to do is run my mouth and insult the person who corrected me wherever and whenever I see them online thereafter.
So, if someone you run into online has certain areas of knowledge greater than your own, and yet they are utter douches, you would not insult them? To me, it’s either that, or ignore them. I find myself in such a dilemma at the moment, coincidentally.
Try cogent arguments.
Is there such a fallacy as a reverse ad hominem?
Not me. Speak for yourself.
“…if you haven’t noticed, other people get sick of it.”
GOT’S to be in the top 10 ironic observations in the multi-verse! And I’m counting the Irony Planet, Ironica IV, located at the center of the Ironian Galaxy!!!
“More specifically, the idea that a natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a supernatural explanation is just good logic, given what we know.”
SI,
What is meant here by “given what we know” and is this claim restricted to purported miracles?
I hate trying to remember what I meant after the fact. 😉
It looks like a throw off phrase, a figure of speech, a redundancy, if you will, now that I look back. A concession that we don’t know everything, but given what we know now, the state of knowledge demands that conclusion. Probably an unnecessary phrase.
Interesting concession. What’s the difference between the natural and the supernatural, anyways?
The supernatural is a figment of your imagination. The natural is not.
..and your non-snarkastic answer?
I’m sorry. That was my non-snarkastic answer. The supernatural is a figment of your (or anyone else that believes it) imagination. The natural is not.
I’m looking for a distinction that’s veridically useful. Can you provide one?
Useful to who?
The natural is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away; a la Philip K. Dick.
SI,
Can you offer a distinction that is useful in allowing us to create a reason-based methodology we can use to evaluate miracle claims?
I think I already did. If it’s a claim of a supernatural miracle it must be based on one’s imagination.
“I think I already did. If it’s a claim of a supernatural miracle it must be based on one’s imagination.”
It’s sort of like presuming the universal model of mathematics. If somebody comes to you with the proposition that 3+3=7, you can feel free to reject it without a second look. In the same way, if the presumption is naturalism, then any supernatural claims can be rejected out of hand. Yet another reason apologists would like to erase, or at least lessen, the distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Ultimately they would like to have you see the natural infused with the supernatural, so they can point to God anywhere they look.
Of course, none of this demonstrates the non-existence of the supernatural. Since the only evidence we have of it is an idea, the supernatural will constantly be invented by superstitious minds. On the other hand, bring me something that plainly goes against the natural order, such as a restored limb, and I’ll give it a second look.
Btw, why doesn’t God restore limbs? Why isn’t there one validated example, ever? I mean, God supposedly heals, right? Even in modern times, isn’t that right? And if you go with anecdotal testimony, He seems to be quite busy all over the world, healing people; unfortunately, it’s all the sort of healing that can be easily, reasonably interpreted in another, more mundane way. But a limb growing back! Or better yet, and more consistent with the idea of a healing God, limbs growing back all over the place, and usually under the auspices of Christian prayer! And yet, not one. Not ever. Never a verified claim, concerning a miracle that would be immediately obvious, and most difficult to refute. And yet…curious, isn’t it?
Jim: it’s because He doesn’t want to mess with your freewill. That’s what He told me, anyway.
Well you see, god is rather cheeky, and will only perform miracles that aren’t obviously miracles, because if they were obviously miracles, then where’s the fun in that? God is like one of the fat chicks on the new Fox show, More to Love. He wants you to dig him for his inner beauty. Sure, he could be a size 2 with a gravity defying rack, but then he’d never know if you really loved him for who he is. Of course, fat or not, plenty will sleep with him because he’s rich and he’s got that Heaven crib everyone wants to hang out in, so it’s all rather silly. He’s just gotta learn to love himself for who he is and stop fussing over whether or not humans love him. Sad, really. Pathetic sod that god. I just picture him crying over a box of bon bons reading atheist blogs while Jesus and Mary try and cheer him up making likenesses of themselves in Cheetos and moldy bread.
SI,
That’s certainly useful for setting up fabricated conditions where you can’t lose, but what kind of induction is that? What more evidence do we need that there never was an argument here, and that SI’s mind is not nearly as open as he’d have us believe? Even ‘ole “my blog’s not a free speech zone” jim above is at least willing to consider the supernatural as a logical possibility in the event of a limb regeneration.
So what sayest thou, SI? If a limb regeneration were to occur, you’ve already ruled out jim’s #1 before even considering evidence (which is another issue entirely). So, is it #2 by default? Alien technology? Or, perhaps you have some sort of hypothetical natural explanation they’d be willing to accept?
jim,
How do you define the words natural and supernatural? Presuming both exist, what would you posit as a methodologically useful line of demarcation?
That’s not true at all, and claims like that from SI are what started this whole mess. There is evidence for various supernatural claims; what we don’t have is anything akin to scientific proof.
I gave you something that confronted naturalism head-on, and you said nothing. Stacked video games don’t fall at 45-degree angles across a room, then land stacked, when we’re having a conversation about the supernatural. It’s no limb regeneration, but it plainly goes against the natural order, and I wasn’t the only one who experienced it. Run your logical paring down on that one: either, some supernatural force exists that possibly responded to our conversation; or some hitherto undiscovered but seriously strange natural phenomena is at work; or we all three experienced the same hallucination at the same time. Run Occam’s on that and tell me what you get.
cl:
You’ve asked this:
“How do you define the words natural and supernatural? Presuming both exist, what would you posit as a methodologically useful line of demarcation?”
To which you’ve been answered from a variety of angles by me and others, but I’ll try again. The supernatural is an aspect of existence that can act outside the boundaries of the natural order in some respect. Of course, then we enter into an endless round of quibbling over what the natural order is, how do we know something that might seemingly be supernatural isn’t actually an aspect of the natural that heretofore wasn’t recognized, etc. I told you that line of inquiry was a dead end a long time ago, and I think my point has been more than proven. This is why, when I first met you and you first started asking these questions, I offered concrete examples that I would tentatively accept as supernatural occurrences. This leapfrogs over the semantic obfuscation, and puts the ball squarely in your court.
I, James Crawford, will provisionally accept an instantaneously restored arm as supernatural i.e. a miracle (the proviso being that alien or likewise unknown technology is removed from the equation).
However, I now notice that you’ve acknowledged evidence for the supernatural:
“That’s not true at all, and claims like that from SI are what started this whole mess. There is evidence for various supernatural claims; what we don’t have is anything akin to scientific proof.”
Which means that you must have your own definition. Share it, please! Perhaps it lines up with mine, and this six months regarding this subject will have been a complete waste of time (as I always suspected it was…hell, I KNEW it was).
I also see you’re offering a personal example- video games falling over, and landing in a certain way. Bravo! That’s SOME progress, anyway. From a third party’s perspective, it’s hard to know what to make of such a story. Certainly not enough information to come to any firm conclusions, as there are questions of memory, biased perceptions and such to deal with, and I’m not really sure how those can be dealt with minus video tape of the event, or sumpin’ like that. But, hey! It’s potentially interesting as an anecdote, anyhow.
Anyway, show me a restored limb, or some levitation, or even something possibly natural but highly against the odds in the aggregate, like an entire children’s ward cleaned out in one miraculous swoop. These are things plain for everybody to see and examine. These are the things I’m looking for, things where the natural can’t easily be mitigated towards the natural, or vice versa. Again, show me the money. I don’t want to hear about how cool it would be if we had the money, or about all the stuff we could buy IF the money existed, or about how money is really just paper and that paper is everywhere so really the whole world is full of money ripe for the banking. Show me the actual money, cl. Find me that amputee! Go, boy, go!
Philly:
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
When you’re dealing with a religion where belief without evidence is the goal, you really can’t win, can you?
“I hate trying to remember what I meant after the fact.”
Yup. Get’s tougher every year, too.
“Probably an unnecessary phrase.”
I don’t think so. The preceding conclusion:“More specifically, the idea that a natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a supernatural explanation is just good logic,”
is illogical without “given what we know.”It seems to me, not to put words in your mouth, that the argument would proceed along these lines:
If naturalism (pick your ism) is overwhelmingly likely to be true, then a natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a supernatural explanation.
Naturalism is overwhelmingly likely to be true. (i.e. given what we know)
Therefore, a natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a supernatural explanation.
Or some such. Premiss two appears unjustifiable to me, not to mention that in religious historical contexts when natural causes are determined to be incapable of producing an event, supernatural explanations appear more plausible than natural ones.
cl:
I’m sorry, but I was re-reading your response, and have to give it another go. You said:
” On the other hand, bring me something that plainly goes against the natural order, such as a restored limb, and I’ll give it a second look.
I gave you something that confronted naturalism head-on, and you said nothing. Stacked video games don’t fall at 45-degree angles across a room, then land stacked, when we’re having a conversation about the supernatural.”
There are so many problems here I scarcely know where to begin. First of all, tapes falling and landing in a certain configuration is hardly against the natural order. Gravity exists. I can’t speak to the probabilities of the pattern they landed in, other than to say probability is a factor, as well as some perceptual and even confirmation bias; at least, the possibility is there.
“It’s no limb regeneration, but it plainly goes against the natural order, and I wasn’t the only one who experienced it. ”
No, it certainly is NOT a limb regeneration. It’s about as close to limb regeneration as a feather floating in the wind is to an elephant that flies under the power of its own farts.
“Run your logical paring down on that one: either, some supernatural force exists that possibly responded to our conversation; or some hitherto undiscovered but seriously strange natural phenomena is at work; or we all three experienced the same hallucination at the same time. Run Occam’s on that and tell me what you get.”
You should have logically pared this yourself before you typed it. Your three possibilities…
1. supernatural force
2. exotic phenomenon
3. hallucination
are far from the only possibilities here. In fact, 3 is the only one even in the ballpark of a reasonable explanation. You want me to run Occam’s for you? Here goes…
4. you were talking about the supernatural with your friends, perhaps somewhat passionately, some tapes fell over into a curious but by know means naturalistically impossible way, and you guys interpreted the event in light of your current conversation.
There you go.
MS:
“…not to mention that in religious historical contexts when natural causes are determined to be incapable of producing an event, supernatural explanations appear more plausible than natural ones.”
By ‘historical context’ I presume you mean historically ‘transmitted’ context, since our knowledge of history is contingent on the transmission of information. In that context, before one concludes that ‘supernatural explanations appear more plausible than natural ones’, one has to consider the nature of historical communication, including all the stuff that occludes factual transmission. You’ve got political, religious, and cultural biases to deal with. Superstition. Misinterpretation of both events and explanations. Egoistic exaggeration. Media errors. Etc. Supernatural explanations might indeed appear more plausible at first glance, but rarely if ever under a scrutinous eye. The job of an historian is to pick his way through all the obstacles to the meat of truth inside. Never an easy task, and perhaps ofttimes an impossible one. Still, I think you’ve made a gross overstatement.
cl:
Typo in that last paragraph…’by no means’, and not ‘by know means’. Even though, now you’ve got me thinking. Here we are, talking about how we might KNOW miracles are true, and how you pretty much KNOW that something other than the natural order was involved in your stack of video games falling over, and then, out of the blue, I type ‘know’ instead of ‘no’.
Remarkable. I think I’m starting to come around.
Your opportunity to test how open my mind is came and passed. I practically had to beg you for your evidence, but you chose to ignore it, and quibble over standards and emendations and criteria, and asked me to pre-judge the evidence I haven’t seen yet. So for you, you are now correct. My mind is closed. I know what your evidence amounts to and it’s a lot less than a bunch of video games lining up in alphabetical order all by themselves.
What’s the difference between the natural and the supernatural, anyways?
Natural: From 30 feet away, I shoot you in the ass with an arrow, whereupon you feel a sharp, stabbing pain in your ass.
Supernatural: I make a voodoo doll of you and stick it in the ass with a pin, and thousands of miles away in San Francisco, you feel a sharp, stabbing pain in your ass.
Yeah, I know, it’s sarcastic, but meant in good humor. But I think it does a good job of illustrating the difference between the natural and the supernatural.
But Tommy, he doesn’t want an illustration. We’ve been dickering over the human limb regeneration illustration for quite some time, on two different blogs. He wants a
Of course he already has one at hand, can probably elucidate a few others, and really doesn’t care what we offer, as long as it’s something he can pick apart, so as to deflect us from whatever the issue being addressed is.
“By ‘historical context’ I presume you mean historically ‘transmitted’ context, since our knowledge of history is contingent on the transmission of information.”
General agreement, jim, unless someone happened to observe it directly. Certainly, if I were not present in the historical context, it would require some medium of transmittal.
“Never an easy task, and perhaps ofttimes an impossible one. Still, I think you’ve made a gross overstatement.”
General agreement all the way through and to this last statement. and, yes, it’s a bit of an overstatement on my part, but it’s difficult not to in such short shrift of a complex issue. A bit of a summary perhaps…
“I also see you’re offering a personal example- video games falling over, and landing in a certain way.”
That’s the work of cl’s omnipotent deity? Color me unimpressed.
TOG:
Maybe it was the work of one of the lesser gods, or imps, or low level demons, or one of the fairies whose job it is to count the flower petals, on an off night, or…or…or…
I get the feeling from a few of his remarks that cl.’s supernatural dimension is sort of like the downtown farmer’s market at around 8 in the morning. Lots of traffic, lots of agendas. Maybe God doesn’t actually exist, but some of these lesser, sort of retarded entities do. That might explain the emphasis on magic tortillas, glowing images that sorta look like Mary if you squint real hard, and video games that fall over by themselves, while problems like cancer, depression, diabetes, earthquakes and famines go unresolved.
What a way to run a company!
SI,
Will you please stop with this? It’s simply untrue. The truth is that I gave it a perfunctory shot, and you refused every single bit of it. You asked for proof instead of evidence by your own admission, and it took me repeating that five times until you would concede that I was correct. Go ahead and try to deny that.
Further, you didn’t have to beg for a damn thing – I freely gave you four examples of evidence, each a little bit different than the next. We discussed one – Kayla – to which you’ve still left unanswered questions (how do we know the 4 Kayla’s weren’t prayed for, as one example), and you repeatedly refused to look at the other three examples, for no other reason than that they were on my blog instead of yours. Why be so stubborn about it? How can I have a decent conversation with you here with Evo, PhillyChief and now “my blog ain’t no free speech zone” jim jumping all in the mix? If you would come to my blog, you and I might be able to talk without all this side bullshit. That’s why I told you to beat it at jim’s blog – it wasn’t to be rude – but that I was there to try and have a friggen’ conversation with the guy – not all of you at once as usual.
Stop trying to hide behind that as a defense. I want to know what your willing to consider good evidence, but you repeatedly refuse to amend your criteria. What you do and decide is up to you, but if you’re serious about resolving the whole “evidence for God” discussion, then you really need to consider compromising a little by reconsidering, then restating your criteria. You admitted to me that they were inadequate as stated. I know you have enough pride that that has to bother you somewhere deep down inside. I’m not asking you to pre-judge or pre-approve evidence.
As far as what you said about me to Tommykey:
Why don’t you let me speak for myself? If you think I enjoy the way you folks treat me here, you’re out of your mind. If I had what I felt was a workable distinction between the “natural” and the “supernatural” I wouldn’t be wasting my time asking you people, who do almost nothing but belittle me. And I do care what you guys have to offer, or I wouldn’t be asking. OTOH, although I realize they are the bread and butter of your defense, I don’t particularly care for your opinions and slanderous comments about me. The last thing I want is to deflect from the issue. Deflecting from the issue happens when we start going on and on about people as opposed to arguments, and everyone here except Tommykey needs to be real with themselves as far as that goes. The bulk of what y’all say is just ranting and raving about me, not the arguments. Get over it, because eventually it’s gonna show.
Tommykey,
Sarcasm from you is always understood as in good humor, and your examples do a good job illustrating the difference, but I’m afraid SI’s spot-on when he took the liberty to speak for me this time: your illustrations, although helpful, ultimately aren’t what I’m looking for. I’m looking for definitions of natural and supernatural, and a reasonable articulation of the differences we would expect from each.
That Other Guy,
I’m afraid you’ve misinterpreted my claim.
I’m afraid you’ve misinterpreted my claim.
I’m afraid you don’t get the real joke behind his joke.
This is all silly, cl. Honestly. Go get Jim just one suddenly regenerated limb and we can make 200 legitimate comments about it. He also asked some very reasonable questions about why god sees fit to perform “miracles” by healing a little girls cancer and thousands of other like-claims, yet never once sees fit to restore a limb. You don’t want anything to do with that question, but you want a working definition for differentiating between “supernatural” and “natural”, when the reality is exactly what SI told you.
You say you really don’t enjoy the horrible way you are treated here but, goddamn son!, you have me fooled. You can whistle in the dark on the road to death all you want, thinking you have Jesus to bail you out and we don’t, and that our view of the picture is no more valid than your own – but deep down inside, you know it ain’t so. But you keep whistling, boy, don’t you?
No, believe me, I get the real joke just fine.
Evo,
Relax. I don’t mind that question at all: the answer is, I don’t know if a limb’s ever been regenerated. I know someone who claims to have witnessed one “regrow” an inch and a half, but I don’t have too much information on that one. You can go ahead and echo SI in your unwillingness to think outside the box, but you do so to your own detriment.
BTW –
Yet, the other day, when Philly rightly said that “why doesn’t God claims” are stupid, you all lapped up to him in agreement. Now, you’re that quick to abandon this position to get a gotcha on me. Way to go, Evo! Restate jim’s “why doesn’t God arguments” when you and I both know everyone agreed they were stupid.
Do you see what you are doing? Does it really escape you? Does it matter whether questions about “why god would” are meaningful or just jacking off? Does it matter that we largely agreed that it was? Does it change the equation re: miracles – at all? Or is it just another thing for you to whistle over?
Anyway, HERE. I’ll toss you a bone to chew while whistling.
You know, cl, Evo’s right. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, irrational, intellectual masturbation you keep wallowing in.
Let’s be straight.
When I originally posted that request for evidence of God’s existence, it really didn’t matter to me what you, or anyone (it wasn’t really directed at you specifically, just those of your mindset and beliefs) came back with. I don’t really care whether it’s evidence, proof or the Vulcan mind meld. I wanted something, anything that pointed to god. The post was rhetorical. It answered it’s own question. There is no evidence, there is no proof, there’s nothing. All there is is wishful thinking. Your failure to provide anything speaks volumes. And you can say “I gave you evidence and it wasn’t good enough”. You’re right, it wasn’t, and in all the examples you gave us, we told you why. But you never deal with the question of why it’s not good enough. You think that if you throw up a “miraculous ” cancer remission, or videotapes falling over, that should get we skeptics to perk up our ears and say “Hey! He’s on to something”, when in fact it’s the same old tiresome, wishful thinking you and others like you have been offering for years, to no avail.
So you’re right, your “evidence” will never be good enough, and you’ve proved it with every comment you’ve made so far. You cannot provide evidence of the supernatural, because the supernatural is a construct of the human mind. You cannot provide evidence of a miracle, because miracles are by definition supernatural, and again (repeat after me) “the supernatural is a construct of the human mind.” It’s all in your head.
This is why we moved past that, and gave you a perfectly acceptable, yet hypothetical bit of evidence we would accept. Your job, should you choose to accept it (cue Mission Impossible theme) is to provide us evidence of a spontaneous human limb regeneration. Or some equivalent.
If you want to believe your evidence for your god, go right ahead. There are billions of lemmings out there that’ll follow you right over the cliff. If it makes you feel good, if it gives your life meaning, have at it. I think it’s wonderful that people can invent beliefs in silly things that make them feel good, and in the process, sometimes make them actually be good. As long as they stay in their little bungalows or giant mansions, and don’t insist that I believe the same things, and don’t insist that the world should act as if their beliefs are true, I could care less.
But don’t try coming here and using reason and science to convince us that what you feel deep down in the cockles of your…cockles is evidence, much less proof, of anything.
You know, it’s funny (in a distorted, insane kind of way). The first post I ever saw of cl’s over at Duncan’s, I agreed with. It had to do with marriage or something, I think. But the very next thing I caught the guy saying was such a misapprehension that, frankly, I felt utterly baffled. However, everybody makes missteps here and there…no big deal.
I started dialoguing with him on his own blog, and the thing I noticed right away was that he would never acquiesce to a superior argument. Instead, each conversation was like a chase through hoops, y’know? He just kept rewording the same positions, then acting like you were avoiding the issues, as if you hadn’t already addressed them more than once.
Meanwhile, over at Duncan’s he was doing the same thing, but with increasing hostility. It usually works like this: cl joins a conversation, and almost immediately starts diverting the thread with the attitude that it’s actually HIS conversation. He wants the focus on what he has to say. Then he starts with the snark, using loaded language while still trying to maintain a show of civility. “Wow, that remark is really out in left field! Kinda stupid, really. Let’s get rational, now.” Naturally, this pisses folks off, and they often respond in kind. It escalates, gets nastier, and in the middle of it all, there’s cl- pointing fingers, making accusations of personal attacks while at the same time driving the whole thing along.
It’s as if I were to take a megaphone into the middle of the black community and start shouting, “Hey, you ni**ers! You all need to get your shit together, and learn to get along. Hey, why are you throwing bottles at me? I’m just here to promulgate the peace, my low IQ African brothers and sisters! Oh, now you’re calling me names? Very nice, you coons. I just come here to talk about race relations, and look how you all act. I guess it’s to be expected of your kind.” Etc.
Bottom line-cl has a severe personality defect. I’m not sure how much of it emerges from the need of an otherwise intelligent guy to logically justify an untenable position, and I guess we’ll never know. Several of you here have pointed out that this happens anywhere he goes on the net, but the obvious inference there just seems to fly over his head. I can just imagine him saying something like “oh, so now you know everywhere I go on the net? What, are you a mind reader? Are you omniscient?” LOLOL!
There are SO many other instances of cl’s gross hypocrisy in dealing with others, as well as with the issues. Philly pointed out somewhere that the temptation to dig all the stuff out is great, especially with cl’s constant demands to justify accusations in the face of what everybody already knows (not that those justifications would amount to anything to cl, anyway. He sees the world through cl colored glasses, I’m afraid). cl, if you don’t like the way you’re treated on these other blogs, then go away and tend to your own. You’re oft accusations of whining are just another example of your fundamentally hypocritical approach, as you are, BY FAR, the worst whiner I’ve ever seen on the net. If you remain true to form, all this will fly right by you; in fact, you’ve probably formulated your rebuttal already. Here’s my pre-packaged reply-
Get bent.
If you are serious about this, make the emendations, help me develop this criteria, and let’s try to do something useful. Otherwise, return to tits and sport talk, or go link another YouTube video nobody cares about in hopes to “lighten things up.”
Indeed, let’s:
Yes, and knowing that whether or not something “points to God” is entirely subjective and up to the person making the decision, I wanted something, anything we could use to objectively determine when something, anything points to God. That is what you refused to provide, and what you still refuse to provide. That is a truth that you cannot deny, and I can back it up with evidence.
That I “failed to provide anything” is false. We all know that. It’s also false that you told me why “all the examples” I gave weren’t good enough. The truth is, I provided “four things.” The truth is, you made a half-ass effort to tell me why Kayla’s case wasn’t good enough, and left unanswered questions. That is a truth that you cannot deny, and I can back it up with evidence. Tell the truth, SI.
SI – why something is or is not good enough is EXACTLY what I want to deal with – and exactly what you deny and decry as “pre-approving evidence,” even though other atheists agreed my request was reasonable. That is a truth that you cannot deny, and I can back it up with evidence.
Yes, exactly. Now – 200 comments later – it turns out Ubiquitous Che was right: my opening question in my very first comment was reasonable. Do you want to avoid the “same old tiresome, wishful thinking?” THEN FIX YOUR CRITERIA AND COOPERATE. I have documented quite a few miracle claims in my work over the years. The last thing I want to do is sit here and offer them one at a time, only for you to reject each one with reasons you make up on the spot.
Yet, you also claim the supernatural exists only in one’s mind, so how could showing you a limb regeneration possibly constitute evidence you’d accept? You’re contradicting yourself.
I know that I can’t convince you, because you’re not willing to be convinced, as you yourself admit, now…
See? You’re really not open-minded about this at all. Your mind is already made up, the same as a Fundamentalist’s. You should have just been honest about it in the first place. I wouldn’t have wasted our time. But really, even though it’s after the fact, thanks for finally being honest about it.
Sorry, the above comment was from me, cl.
* You cannot provide evidence of the supernatural, because the supernatural is a construct of the human mind.*
“See? You’re really not open-minded about this at all. Your mind is already made up, the same as a Fundamentalist’s. You should have just been honest about it in the first place. I wouldn’t have wasted our time. But really, even though it’s after the fact, thanks for finally being honest about it.”
See? ‘Kirk’ wins again. How? By isolating S.I.s statement from it’s contextual background, established through literally hundreds of posts. Posts that ‘Kirk’ is aware of, and has contributed to (I use the term ‘contributed loosely). More blatant dishonesty. More bad faith.
‘Kirk’…you are incurable.
“THEN FIX YOUR CRITERIA AND COOPERATE.”
‘Listen to me! This is my thread! This is MY CONVERSATION!’ This demonstrates the narcissistic need to be at the top of the hierarchy, pulling the strings, trying to get the other participants to dance to his tune. It’s like a child who refuses to have anything other than its own way. And if you don’t go along with the program, you’re the bad guy.
I have to admit, ‘Kirk’, you’re an interesting specimen.
Oh! Oh! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Could it possibly be???
Oh…My…God…that would just be too sweet to be true, wouldn’t it?
You figured it out?
I don’t believe it.
You’re really not open-minded about this at all. Your mind is already made
up, the same as a Fundamentalist’s.
There it is. The self-appointed job of cl – to invent an equivalence between atheism and Christian fundamentalism, so that he can feel better about his woo.
But, we all knew that… so what is it that Jim figured out?
John: Just a flight of exquisitely juicy fantasy. Probably doesn’t fit quite as well as a banana to a human hand 🙂
Ouch! Must be a growing pain 🙂
“Sorry, the above comment was from me, cl.”
I loved you in Fireproof.
“Oh! Oh! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Could it possibly be???
Oh…My…God…that would just be too sweet to be true, wouldn’t it?”
It can’t be. He’s using words way too big for Kirk. Though he quibbles and throws straw men and red herrings everywhere, cl is nowhere near as dense as Kirk Cameron.
No, but maybe he chose the screen name of a childhood hero. 😉
I suppose this would be a good time to ‘fess up…I’m Britney Spears.
Jim, I already had that one figured out.
“You think that if you throw up a ‘miraculous’ cancer remission, or videotapes falling over, that should get we skeptics to perk up our ears and say ‘Hey! He’s on to something’, when in fact it’s the same old tiresome, wishful thinking you and others like you have been offering for years, to no avail.”
It’s excessively funny if you think about it, really. There’s this infinite being that’s supposed to somehow be the embodiment of both love and dominating power, which is self-contradictory bizarre enough in its own right, but then the examples he gives to prove that this thing exists? Things that can happen anyway.
What the hell?
John:
How’d I give myself away? TeeHee.
The picture on your blog. It’s a good attempt at disguise, but you are so…. HOT!
That and, of course, things like “teehee”.
Yes. Yes, I am.
Science is at a complete loss to explain the uncanny abilities of Malaysia’s Liew Thow Lin. Am I justified in claiming Lin’s abilities result from either supernatural explanation or alien technology? Why or why not?
cl “Science is at a complete loss to explain the uncanny abilities of Malaysia’s Liew Thow Lin.”
Queue Randi.
You’ve got to love Randi and JREF. Did they investigate the Indian guy who claims he can live without food or water?
Why are these people always out in East Asscrack? No magnetic, levitating, living without food superhumans in say Manhattan. You know, it must be a side effect of aliens, since coincidentally, it’s those remote places where the aliens visit and abduct people. Again, no alien visitation in Manhattan, although there arguably appears to be plenty of beings who seem to be from outer space, like the Naked Cowboy.
“Science is at a complete loss to explain the uncanny abilities of Malaysia’s Liew Thow Lin.”\
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_7_58/ai_81110868/
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#7
Anything else you want to look like a fool over?
cl:
“Science is at a complete loss to explain the uncanny abilities of Malaysia’s Liew Thow Lin. Am I justified in claiming Lin’s abilities result from either supernatural explanation or alien technology? Why or why not?”
From what I’ve been reading, Liew Thow Lin seems not to be so much a human magnet, as a human sticky-ball. An interesting biological anomaly, probably made more pronounced in the stories told by people who automatically jump to the ‘magic’ conclusion. If he’s magnetic, or ‘maginetic’ as the case may be, don’t you consider it odd that the powers only operate when he’s bare skinned, unable to work their way through a cotton shirt, or polyester blend?
Video games falling over. Human suction cups. The supernatural realm is beginning to sound more and more like the mystery room at a really cheap carnival. All we need is a barker to bring in the rubes. Oh, yeah…never mind.
There’s a sucker born every minute.
Hi Modus,
I was already familiar with what the two scientists said in the link you provided – that Lin’s abilities “probably” result from some suction property in his skin that attracts metal. This is an initial hypothesis that needs testing. As it stands, science has no reasoned explanation for Lin’s abilities. What are we justified in concluding about them, then, and how does that relate to our discussion here, IYO? That’s what I’m getting at here.
Looks like maybe I was right to call CL a troll after all! LOL!
Interesting. Why does asking a question about Lin that’s relevant to our discussion here make me look like a fool?
hey chaplain,
Listen here Mrs. “I used to be religious only a year or two ago, but now I’m an oh-so-smart atheist and all the religious people are dummies…” I’m not a troll, I’m a human being trying to converse with other human beings. It’s funny to watch you sit there and run your flippant mouth, too, making little personal taunts from the sideline and of course not offering anything to the conversation.
And yes, let’s talk about trolls, Chaplain…. the very first time I visited your blog, you hypocritically denounced me as a troll, while the whole time your little Team Scarlet A was sending a real troll on me by the name of Trinity, and you said nothing. Ask yourself, what is that about?
I might be persistent, but persistence is not trolling, but grab a dictionary sweetheart, because you’ve got no right to lecture anyone about trolling. What does it say that one of your own readers actually emailed me to tell the truth of the games that were going on at your blog, and that they thought it was immature on your behalf, and that it made them want to distance themselves from the whole scene?
So save it.
jim,
I don’t think he’s magnetic.
“Why does asking a question about Lin that’s relevant to our discussion here make me look like a fool?”
This question also makes you look like a fool, because “Science is at a complete loss to explain the uncanny abilities of Malaysia’s Liew Thow Lin” is a statement, not a question. You said science was helpless to explain Lin. Not that it might be tough for science to comment, not that scientists weren’t investigating, but that scientists had already investigated but had thrown up their hands, baffled.
Which is, obviously, false.
I think he’s got you on that one, cl. Time to put on the fool costume.
“Time to put on the fool costume.”
I was unaware he’d taken it off. 😐
I said they were at a complete loss to explain his condition. Two scientists merely proffering their initial hypotheses amounts to, oh… next to nothing. Either way, in your glee to “get” me, you blundered right past the larger point, and I’m no fool for mentioning Lin.
WTF?? That’s the second time that’s happened now. I left the above comment, cl. Clear cookies maybe?
cl:
Curious, indeed.
“I said they were at a complete loss to explain his condition.”
Right… AND THEY WEREN’T. You’re just full of it these days, aren’t you?
ThatOtherGuy,
They’re not at a complete loss to offer initial hypotheses. They are at a complete loss to explain Lin’s condition. Really, can you not see the difference?
Again, stop missing the forest for the trees. The whole issue here is, when is something “so unexplainable” that we’re justified in chalking it up to either supernatural manifestation, or alien technology, as jim did with the limb generation? Contemplate that, and try to actually converse instead of belittle and insult. Let’s see what happens.
That Other Guy,
Yet, I said, “Am I justified in claiming Lin’s abilities result from either supernatural explanation or alien technology?”
Isn’t that a question, TOG?
Sure, when some foreign weirdo sticks pans to his chest, it’s “magical” and “special” and “whatnot”, but when I stick pasties to my dinnerplate sized man-nipples it’s “14 days in jail” and “100 hours community service”. Stupid world…
I know I shouldn’t do this – but I just have to…
cl – explain the screen name “sfatheist” please.
Does anybody else use “other” names? I’m Modusoperandi everywhere. Using multiple names is silly, I say.
Yeah, I agree! Other names are stupid!
LOL!!
I do use other names, but not for blogging purposes and it’s no secret. I’m John Evo on my blog and “here”, I’m Ancient Atheist on YouTube and I was Happy Hominid there before I started making some videos. But no, I don’t go to some Christian blogs and call myself, “LAChristian”, which, to me, would seem like a *very* deceptive screen name for me to be using. I’m just sayin’…..
Fuck it.
cl…. Answer the fucking question and you better have a really good excuse for using a screen name like “San Francisco Atheist”. And please don’t try anything like – “oh, it means ‘San Francisco Art Theist'” or some such bullshit. As much crap as we have put up with from you, we deserve an answer or get the fuck out and stay out.
Pot.Kettle.Black.
Looks like the shoe’s on the other foot now. How’s it feel to have a cl-ism thrown back at you?
Ok, so there was a comment on cl’s blog last night on his most recent post, from ‘sfatheist’, which has now mysteriously disappeared. In the post, sfatheist argued that a limb growing back would definitely make him a believer, but what I and everybody was saying is that limbs never grow back. In other words, sfatheist was sorta/kinda arguing with cl, but not really.
I’ll just come out and say it, then. It APPEARS that cl is running sock puppets. I’ve suspected him of it before, on another blog. If so, then this:
“cl permalink
WTF?? That’s the second time that’s happened now. I left the above comment, cl. Clear cookies maybe?”
is a blatant attempt at a cover-up. And a blatant lie.
An interesting turn of events, no?
At the risk of overgeneralizing, I’m not surprised. Anyone that tenacious, yet that thick, is not interested in honest debate. My impessions of theists – that they are largely dishonest and hypocritical – is again confirmed.
Well anyone not announcing their real name on their blog is a pussy. There, I said it. Oh no you didn’t! Yes, I did. 🙂
tee hee hee
“They are at a complete loss to explain Lin’s condition.”
…no, they aren’t. Did you even read the links I posted? They said that there was an increase to the friction between his skin and smooth objects due to his skin just being stickier. His kids have the same thing as well, so they know it must be genetic (ORMAYEB MAGIK RNUS IN TEHFAMLY LEWL).
So when you say they can’t “explain Lin’s condition,” you want them to say MORE than “he has a change in his genes somewhere that causes his skin to adhere to smooth objects more efficiently due to increased friction?” I got news, bud, “we have no idea what’s going on, it must be magic!” would be “at a complete loss.” The scientists are NOT at a complete loss, they did medical tests and have an explanation that accounts for all the known phenomena. You’re acting like they’re baffled, which is not the case AT ALL.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you were running sock puppets after this display of goalpost-moving and lying-through-your-teeth, you disingenuous assclown.
jim, SI, Evo,
I’d respond to you guys, but I’m currently busy laughing uproariously at your paranoia – rationalists!
PhillyChief,
LOL!!
That Other Guy,
First a quick quibble, before addressing the meat: When I asked you why you said I was a fool for asking a question about Lin, you claimed I didn’t ask a question about Lin, yet, I said, “Am I justified in claiming Lin’s abilities result from either supernatural explanation or alien technology?”
Isn’t that a question?
I had read the Randi one before you posted it, and I read the other one, too. What I’m saying is, scientists are at a complete loss to explain Lin’s condition – they are not at a complete loss when it comes to offering their initial hypotheses. You understand the difference between the two, right? Proffered hypotheses != scientific explanations. Didn’t you notice the word “probably” in the analysis?
Here’s what I want to know, from you or anyone: when is something “so unexplainable” that we’re justified in chalking it up to either supernatural manifestation, or alien technology, as jim did with the limb generation?
SI,
Please, support your claim with evidence. You can say whatever you want about me, but it’s all just hot air without evidence. Point to specific links and offer testable claims, to which I can rebut. I’m willing to admit my error when somebody can demonstrate that I’ve erred.
For example, That Other Guy has claimed I’ve not offered a single cogent point, yet here and here, are two statements from atheists on this blog that argue otherwise, and further evidence can be found in your own concession that my original criticism of your criteria was cogent.
See? Not that hard. There’s three pieces of evidence that directly contradict TOG’s claim.
My irony meter just broke. Now I’m going to have to get a new one.
OK, I’ve been paranoid. There. I made a concession to you. I apologize. But as you can see, I’m perfectly calm and reasonable here. Thanks so much for correcting me. Sometimes we all need that.
Now, it’s still a concern that you use these various user names while posting on the topic of theism and atheism. So, can you respond to this concern by explaining the use of the screen name “sfatheist”? Thanks, cl.
So…. no evidence? Just another rhetorical device?
Evidence for what, this time? You’re unclear. Apparently the damn trees are getting in the way of the forest.
I wasn’t unclear at all. You make many statements about me, and I’m asking you to back them up with evidence. If I’ve done wrong, I need to know, else I can’t grow.
For example, That Other Guy claimed I’ve not made even one cogent argument in our exchange, which spans 5 posts now, but though he claims he’s a rationalist, TOG did not offer any evidence to support his claim.
To contrast, I responded to TOG by claiming I’ve made several cogent arguments here, and I led the way by providing evidence which I repeated here. All three bits of evidence are concessions from other atheists on this blog that contradict That Other Guy’s claim.
cl:
Why are you posted here as sfatheist, and why has the post from sfatheist on your blog disappeared?
Fuckin’ tree. I bumped into it again.
Huh….
Interesting conclusion to this never-ending thread… don’t you agree? One thing I’m sure of – no matter what the next topic is and no matter what blog it’s on, there will only be two things I want to know from him; if he shows his face.
And I know I’m only speaking for myself. I can think of at least one person who doesn’t want to know anything at all – and that’s a fair position at this point. I’m just setting my personal landscape in the event of a (likely inevitable) reappearance.
John:
What is there left to know? On with the tap-dancing!
On one hand, there may not be really anything that needs to be known. On the other hand, I’m still willing to listen to his explanation. But… that’s the *only* thing I’ll bother with. Unless he wants to tell me if he thinks Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world and rose from the dead. 🙂
Damn – this is the 277th comment. What was the OP about, again?
Chaplain:
I think it was ‘if an atheist sock-puppet spontaneously sprang out of a theist’s ass, would you believe that-
1. This was the work of exotic, alien technology.
2. This was a supernatural manifestation.
3. This was the result of a bad faith narcissist caught in yet more duplicity.
As far as “sfatheist” and “kirk c” are concerned, you again all met the predictions perfectly by demonstrating that it’s really not about evidence – which was the topic of the OP – but me. The conclusions being jumped are also quite amusing juxtaposed against clarion calls for rational inquiry. Get your terminology correct. From Wikipedia,
Clearly, not what I did.
Evo,
As I’ve said before, the onus is on you to explain how my personal beliefs matter in a discussion of evidence for theism. If you can convince me with argument as opposed to insult, perhaps I’ll comply.
No. It’s a long way from clear. But go ahead, tell us in your own words exactly what it is you did.
The conclusions being jumped are also quite amusing juxtaposed against clarion calls for rational inquiry.
Then, a Wiki-fucking-pedia definition of “sock puppet”.
Well, you said a lot. But you said nothing.
Why is it obvious these are not sock puppet accounts? Unless you would have us believe Jim is a liar, he saw “sfatheist” commenting at YOUR blog and the comment removed shortly after you accidentally revealed the account! That *seems* to fit pretty well with what Wiki-fucking-pedia says. At the very least, it is not “clear”.
There is no “onus” on me to do anything, cl. I asked you a reasonable question. You will either answer it, or you won’t. Either way – we learn *something*. Therefore, if you don’t answer, I’ll keep asking. Just to remind other readers that for some reason you are loathe to answer it.
Regardless of what you choose (and what I choose) I am much more interested that you clear up “sfatheist”. You came here and left a comment. It wasn’t a particularly short comment, so I assume you had time to clarify the situation. You can say that our concern over it is “irrational”, but that’s really not true. And the more you defer, the more rational it becomes as it would lead a reasonable person to think you have something to hide. If you don’t have anything to hide and are just withholding information in the hopes that we sound shrill in demanding the explanation – well, dude… if you can’t see how “douchey” that is, then you are really out of touch with the real world.
Like clockwork.
SI,
Well, I posted two comments under different names, then immediately took credit for both of them.
Evo,
jim/metamorphh was not lying. I’m not deceiving anybody. I’ve already conceded that I – cl – typed said comments. That’s not sockpuppetry.
Reasonable questions have import to the subject matter, for example, as Ubiquitous Che noted here. OTOH, your question has nothing to do with the subject matter, and is hence unreasonable. If you can make the case that your question is reasonable, perhaps I’ll comply.
I agree. Hypersensitive and/or paranoid might be better words.
If I had something to hide, why would I have immediately took responsibility for the comments? Doesn’t really fit your pre-canned hypothesis, does it?
Still not clear. That part was obvious.
WHY did you post under two different names? Do you post elsewhere, including your own blog, under two different names? Do you post elsewhere under one name different than cl? Where do you post under these other names. Give us sites. Do you post using different IP addresses?
Answer those questions, and things might start to get clearer.
“As far as “sfatheist” and “kirk c” are concerned, you again all met the predictions perfectly by demonstrating that it’s really not about evidence – which was the topic of the OP – but me.”
Yes, my atheist sociological experiment is going along just the way I planned. I’m not a sockpuppet and a liar…really! This is just all part of my grand scheme to show you rationalists what you’re made of. mwahahahahahaha!
“From Wikipedia…”
Next from Wikipedia, hairsplitting with bullshit from 50 yards.
“As I’ve said before, the onus is on you to explain how my personal beliefs matter in a discussion of evidence for theism.”
It’s sort of like hot potato, but with an onus.
“Like clockwork.”
Unfortunately, my clock’s been broken since 1982.
“Well, I posted two comments under different names, then immediately took credit for both of them.”
And it had nothing to do with the fact that they were obviously responses from me. Nope, not one bit!
“jim/metamorphh was not lying. I’m not deceiving anybody. I’ve already conceded that I – cl – typed said comments. That’s not sockpuppetry.”
Yes, notice that jim also has another screen name. Of course, as far as I know he doesn’t use it to talk to himself on his own blog, or to deceive others as to who he is, and it might appear a little less deceptive than an avowed theist going by the name ‘sfatheist’. But still, it’s all the same, isn’t it? I mean, it would be a little more equal if jim showed up as ‘kissmejesus’, but, hey! I’ll get what mileage I can out of it. Just remember- IT’S NOT SOCKPUPPETRY! IT’S NOT, IT’S NOT, IT’S NOT! Didn’t you read my Wiki? Oh, and notice I avoided the issue of the deletion? Pretty slick, huh?
“f I had something to hide, why would I have immediately took responsibility for the comments? Doesn’t really fit your pre-canned hypothesis, does it?”
Yes, because none of you would have EVER caught on that it was ME replying to comments directed to me, in my style, if I hadn’t later admitted it. You guys and your pre-cans! Rationalists…sheesh!
“WTF?? That’s the second time that’s happened now. I left the above comment, cl. Clear cookies maybe?”
Yeah, or maybe I just fucked up with the drop-down screen, the one that remembers the names I post under. Naw, it makes more sense that my computer picked up the cookies for that ‘sfatheist’ guy who commented on my blog, they haphazardly threw it into my log-on screen. Could be the work of Satan, even. Or some other answer that helps me side-step the issue. Anyway, I got so mad at that ‘sfatheist’ guy causing all this ruckus, that I immediately deleted his comment off my blog. That’ll show him. You won’t see him again! Maybe somebody will, but surely you won’t. I’m not running sockpuppets. I’m not! I’m not! I’m not! I’m not!
Or to put it more succinctly, why were you talking to yourself on your blog as ‘sfatheist’, and why did you delete said comment after you messed up here?
cl – how disingenuous do you intend on being? It is clear what the questions are and you’ve made no attempt to answer them. I don’t need to repeat Jim’s last comment – but *clearly* that’s what this is about and there was never any doubt about that, your claim of “I did it and I said at the time I did it” notwithstanding. Stop trying to win debating points and just answer the extremely reasonable questions.
By the way,
You can say that our concern over it is “irrational”, “hypersensitive” or “paranoid”, but all of them are really not true. 9 days of obfuscation and evasion confirm that they are not.
Keen observers might remember a comment Ex once made…
SI,
To test my hypothesis that it’s not really the arguments you guys are focused on, but me, and some three dozen comments later, still not one is about the OP.
Yes. Other than the two here and the “sfatheist” one on my own blog, I can only recall posting under two different names once: a single comment at DaylightAtheism, when I first started blogging. It was before I understood that sockpuppetry was frowned upon by bloggers, and I did it to roast an extremely obstinate theist. Oh – I also sometimes critique my own arguments on my own blog under the name “atheist cl,” but I don’t consider that sockpuppetry. Do you?
No.
Routinely. You could have figured that out pretty easily just by looking at my comments in your WordPress interface. Use a little elbow grease.
jim,
Congrats on your book.
I wasn’t deceiving anyone as to who I am. I took credit for the comments, before anybody said a single word. Of course, you are free to continue seeing what you want to see.
It was part of the experiment.
It served its purpose and was no longer necessary.
Evo,
Speaking of obfuscation and evasion, are everyone’s questions satisfactorily answered, and would anyone like to actually continue discussing the subject matter – which is evidence for God? Or, would everybody prefer to continue ignoring the arguments to focus morbidly on me while curiously continuing to claim I’m the narcissist?
sfatheist:
” ..why were you talking to yourself on your blog as ’sfatheist’,
It was part of the experiment.
..why did you delete said comment…?
It served its purpose and was no longer necessary. ”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! I really didn’t think even you would go this far. Here we’ve struck the root of all the bad faith you’re so often accused of. You’re simply a bald-faced, unashamed liar.
Your membership in the atheist club is hereby revoked. Go back to being a theist! If God will have you back.
Well, my dictionary says a liar is a person who tells lies, and it defines lies as false statements made with deliberate intent to deceive. You would actually have an argument if I didn’t immediately take credit for the comments here, and those comments have no bearing on previous accusations, so that’s poor logic on your behalf. Toying with predictable atheists who induct hastily is not lying.
Bullshit! This is such an insult to our intelligence. You must really think we are stupid.
And after 290 comments, it’s you who have not yet addressed the OP.
Uh huh. Do you have a bridge you’re selling too?
You do realize that you now have absolutely 0 (ZERO) credibility with me? You may even be in negative territory. You can comment all you want, but frankly it’ll be for entertainment purposes only.
A good laugh at best.
“A Mexican, a Canadian and cl walked into a bar…”
Rest In Pieces
Toying with predictable atheists who induct hastily is not lying.
You really aren’t just playing games here, are you cl? You’re doing experiments.
Speaking of which, what was your control group on that experiment about you, you, you?
What exactly made the comment no longer necessary at the very moment you were forced to reveal that “sfatheist” was you?
How precisely were you hoping to find information through this experiment?
Did you ever post at Pharyngula under the name “sfatheist”? Did you post any other places under “sfatheist”? If you did, was it part of an experiment?
So, I haven’t addressed miracles yet? You’re kidding, right? Or, do you honestly believe that? If the latter, weird, because I recall you admitting that I’d provided evidence for a miracle, but not God. So, then I presented three more data points. You ignored all of them. Then, I somehow got you to admit you didn’t quite realize the difference between evidence and proof, and you then refused to amend your criteria in a way that might actually allow them to be met. Aside from my little experiment, I’ve been focused on the OP this whole entire time. Best of all, I’ve backed up my claims with evidence, in this thread. Do you still claim I haven’t addressed the OP?
You can say whatever you want about me. It just reinforces my claim that it’s me you’re focused on, not freethought or intellectual exercise. If denigration entails victory, consider yourselves winners.
cl “It just reinforces my claim that it’s me you’re focused on, not freethought or intellectual exercise.”
Lies! This entire page has been focussed on my, frankly awesome, invention of the term “omni-doucherence”.
If that’s true, any focus we direct on you is brought about by you. Jim’s right. You’re a narcissist.
That’s got to end.
cl – honestly… you are going to dedicate an entire comment to a throw-away line by SI that in no way impacts the point that *everyone* here has expressed concern over. Quite frankly, I don’t care what the original post was about and, again frankly, it’s been *over* for quite some time.
So is it your intention to claim you have fully explained your usage of “sfatheist” and none of our questions are going to get answered? Will we find out next week?
Since you may have a week or more to decide what to do with this problem, let me add: Do you believe Jesus came to earth and died for the sins of mankind, was resurrected and then went to heaven?
Here, I’ll go first. NOPE. I’m not even convinced he lived. OK, your turn. You can keep it as short as I did. And please don’t ignore our little heathen, the “sfatheist”.
You seem…surprised, Evo. That’s what he does best. I doubt he even realizes it.
SI,
Hmmm.. so, I control you? I’d be worried about that, that your buttons are so easily pushed by somebody you attempt to belittle into irrelevance.
Cool! I love racial jokes; they’re not stereotypical or pathetic at all. [/sarcasm]
Evo,
I addressed SI’s “throwaway line” because it was a false statement, and it looks like I missed your questions under jim’s “rest in pieces” comment.
Because we were all on the same page by then. I told you, I often critique my own arguments on my own blog under an atheist handle. I normally use “atheist cl,” but on that one occasion, I used “sfatheist” and boy did that stir the pot!
Observing your reactions and comparing them to the predictions. That’s science, right?
No.
No, and I answered that when SI asked me. Slow down, and pay better attention.
That you’d rather discuss peripheral issues than actual arguments, noted – again.
What’s left to explain? I made my point, and had a little fun for once. Sue me. Besides your question about my personal beliefs, what question didn’t I answer?
Well hell John, thanks for stating the obvious. I had no idea you didn’t believe Jesus died for your sins. [/sarcasm] Listen – I told you the two things you had to do in order to get me to answer your question. You can keep trying to bully me all you want, but when you really want the answer, I believe you know how to get it.
You should start a punk band called Non-Sequitur: “my blog ain’t no free speech zone” jim could play guitar, and he’s already quite the poet which would lend well to songwriting; you could bang on the drums because it’s clearly what you do best; SI could thump on the bass where cogency is not required; PhillyChief could be the lead singer, because the best punk vocalists are always the angry ones who had trouble talking to girls in high school; chappie could be your groupie, well, because she’s the lone female on your team; and Modus could be your manager – because the smartest and least emotional guy always needs to be the manager. Of course, don’t forget the Scarlet A patches proudly emblazoned on your Johnny Thunder-esque garb – just like Fundies with their fish!
No comment. I just put it there so that I can bask in the irony.
“…and Modus could be your manager…”
I should note that I’m really good with money. I’ve got a line on a horse that’s a sure thing. Seriously!
One comment or many, it’s sock-puppetry. Your definition:
your claim:
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Hey, I can convey a pretense of intellectualism by typing Latin, too: Hypocrisis
For what it’s worth, I still often wonder whether Gideon is one of your squad, and I note that none of you seemed too concerned about Ex’s (?) trolling as “Trinity” which far surpasses our current soiree in terms intellectual repulsion. The message? Trolling and sockpuppetry are acceptable from atheists. Patético! (oops, that was Spanish, not Latin)
SI,
As a lawyer, you should know that intent is the issue. Deception is a prerequisite of sock-puppetry. I posted my comments, then willfully took credit for them – without anyone saying anything to prompt such. No deception. I told the truth, and I just wanted to enjoy myself watching you guys play keystone cops – since nobody wants to discuss the actual issues.
Personally, I think running around swearing at other people and calling them names is a much larger offense that speaks for itself, but that’s just my opinion.
If you’ll notice, cl STILL hasn’t answered the Jesus question.
BIG SHOCKER THERE GUYS.
You might also notice that we keep asking about sock-puppetry on his blog and others, and he keeps defending himself by telling us what he did here.
Of course, we’re really, really stupid atheists, and we don’t notice.
TOG said: If you’ll notice, cl STILL hasn’t answered the Jesus question.
cl – this is why I keep asking you, and why it’s worth it. I don’t think TOG and I have ever exchanged a comment, so it’s not like he’s a buddy and just supporting what I say. People *do* notice.
“You might also notice that we keep asking about sock-puppetry on his blog and others, and he keeps defending himself by telling us what he did here.
Of course, we’re really, really stupid atheists, and we don’t notice.”
Well it isn’t so much that as the fact that you’d have to have severe mental problems to believe the story he’s trying to feed us…