Some say miracles are real, while others say they're not. The naysayers often point out to limbs not growing back, other dead people not raising up and 'living their best life', no one since Mosses has interacted with a talking and burning bush that's not consumed, etc.
Yet believers do point out that Billy Bobchristian was 'healed' from his sin. Or Bobby Billchristian survived his 11th hour surgery that saved his life. And the like.
For discussion:
So, here's your chance, believers, once and for all. What miracle have you experienced that you KNOW was a miracle and that it was from god (if you're willing to have it, potentially, challenged - and why shouldn't you? You have faith it's real that's all that matter to you, right? Why not use this time to witness the power of your god?!?)?
Your miracle
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #41I contend, that when coupled with your implying those who disagree ain't objective, there's some insult tosssed in amongst it.Mithrae wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 6:49 pm A sycophant is "a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage" - a precise description (and one of the kindest available) for adherents of the demonstrably false 'name it and claim it' belief. Similarly, dismissing anything out of hand - let alone the formal sworn testimony of four different medical workers about an amputation they'd performed - by definition is an arbitrary and therefore not an objective approach. Seems to me that anyone who gets up in arms over someone saying "That approach is not an objective one" would have to be verging on tears every time someone confronts them with a personal accusation that "You are wrong in that claim." How would such a person exist on a debate forum at all? They might have to avoid debate entirely, for example by misguided nitpicking over pretend fallacies in a post as a pretext for dismissing it entirely, rather than addressing its actual substance.
It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.
Do you consider my past bad behavior as an excuse for your own current bad behavior?It's a good thing you're not the type to do any besmirchingJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:38 pm Alas, we often observe those promoters of such a violent, slanderous god, well, there we go.
Or'm I just being all sychophanty and non-objectivey?
I just don't understand why someone who can fuss em up such knowledgeable, intelligent fussings'd hafta use such dastardly tactics.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #42Pretty thing going shopping, then not carrying on about how her spending a thousands bucks just saved us two dollars and a quarter.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 190 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #43And yet you have spent post after post after post on feeble insistence that I might have said something mean, while failing miserably to address the actual merit of my arguments. No doubt your efforts have proven some point or otherJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:12 am It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #44Divine intervention isn't even on the table until it is established that the divine exists to intervene. Until then we have nature working in mysterious ways.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Your miracle
Post #45I highly doubt people follow your besmirching standard. It's more likely that some don't care about besmirching just as long as it's being used towards an opposing side. At least that's my observation based on other threads, especially the Ukraine v. Russia thread.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:38 pm My point here is to have the -ahem- objective observer understand that besmirching others is an unreliable means of getting at the truth.
Besmirching should be wrong, and hopefully called out, no matter which side is engaging in it.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Your miracle
Post #46Agreed. As an observer here, I'd rather see the actual merit of the argument addressed rather than watching someone complaining about what's said or how it's said.Mithrae wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:22 amAnd yet you have spent post after post after post on feeble insistence that I might have said something mean, while failing miserably to address the actual merit of my arguments. No doubt your efforts have proven some point or otherJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:12 am It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.
If a debater doesn't like what's said, then they should present a counter-argument. Unfortunately, this same pattern of conversation occurred in another thread regarding abortion, where the merits of an argument was ignored, and a bunch of distractions ensued.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #47Yep. And I gotta fess to having done me some of it myself.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:49 amI highly doubt people follow your besmirching standard. It's more likely that some don't care about besmirching just as long as it's being used towards an opposing side. At least that's my observation based on other threads, especially the Ukraine v. Russia thread.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:38 pm My point here is to have the -ahem- objective observer understand that besmirching others is an unreliable means of getting at the truth.
Besmirching should be wrong, and hopefully called out, no matter which side is engaging in it.
Hopefully I'm getting better at the not.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #48Actually I have addressed the merits of that part of your argument where ya called folks sychophants, and declared maybe they ain't being objective.
I point out such flawed argumentation so the less experienced who read these threads might understand that just calling folks names ain't putting no truth to no other, attendant claims.
That you consider my efforts "feeble" is, I contend, further evidence that at least some bible promoters will not treat those who disagree with respect.
As I further contend that lack of respect should be expected coming from folks who promote the virtues of a book so full of slander and threats for any and all who don't toe em the theocratic party line of the promoter in question.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #49I did.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:57 am If a debater doesn't like what's said, then they should present a counter-argument.
On how faulty it is to set in to the name calling just cause folks disagree. And how it draws into question any other claims that'n there might have to allow.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 190 times
Re: Your miracle
Post #50Sure, I've seen that argument before; we need miracles to know that a god exists and we need to know a god exists before we can acknowledge miracles. In a similar vein we might say that 'nature' or the 'laws of physics' are not a viable explanation for any observed phenomena until their reality is first established, and the mere observation of those phenomena does not constitute evidence for the reality of laws of physics. Ultimately therefore everything would be unexplained to this standard we are contemplating, and theism/miracles would be on at least equal footing with any other speculation.
Recognizing that high explanatory threshold is actually quite important, because when taken to extremes the 'god of the gaps' accusation is one which implies an established explanation of reality which hasn't actually been established: If reality were a pool table, say, we've 'explained' the motions of the blue and red balls by reference to the white ball, but until we've got a complete explanation of the entire situation it would seem a little hollow to mock as 'god of the gaps' those who suggest that external agency was the cause for the white ball's motion. However in more general terms, we don't actually use such a lofty (and borderline circular) standard of requiring something to be unequivocally proven before we contemplate it as an explanation for observed facts, not even in the sciences let alone in more mundane areas of knowledge.