Your miracle

[nobspeople]

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?!?)?

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

I contend, that when coupled with your implying those who disagree ain't objective, there's some insult tosssed in amongst it.

It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.

Alas, we often observe those promoters of such a violent, slanderous god, well, there we go.

It's a good thing you're not the type to do any besmirching

Do you consider my past bad behavior as an excuse for your own current bad behavior?

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Do atheists have any strict definition of what a "miracle" should be?

Pretty thing going shopping, then not carrying on about how her spending a thousands bucks just saved us two dollars and a quarter.

[Mithrae]

It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.

And 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 other

[brunumb]

If divine intervention is the best available explanation in any particular case there's not a lot of point in dancing around that fact by pointing out that maybe some better explanation will become available one day.

Divine 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.

[AgnosticBoy]

My point here is to have the -ahem- objective observer understand that besmirching others is an unreliable means of getting at the truth.

I 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.

Besmirching should be wrong, and hopefully called out, no matter which side is engaging in it.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's kinda common knowledge that arguments stand on their merits, and not on the besmirching of others.

And 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 other

Agreed. 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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

My point here is to have the -ahem- objective observer understand that besmirching others is an unreliable means of getting at the truth.

I 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.

Besmirching should be wrong, and hopefully called out, no matter which side is engaging in it.

Yep. And I gotta fess to having done me some of it myself.

Hopefully I'm getting better at the not.

[JoeyKnothead]

And 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 other

Actually 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

If a debater doesn't like what's said, then they should present a counter-argument.

I did.

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.

[Mithrae]

If divine intervention is the best available explanation in any particular case there's not a lot of point in dancing around that fact by pointing out that maybe some better explanation will become available one day.

Divine 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.

Sure, 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.