Is this a miracle?

[carlosMM]

So you dont classify atheism as a belief?

No. Definately not.

A belief is
a) (religious belief) the conviction that something is true despite the existence of evidence to the contrary or a total absence of evidence of existence.
b) an opinion based on a lack of data (e.g.: I believe something is true even though I know that the evidence I have for it is not sufficient for proof).


Atheism, thus, is not a belief. It is nothing but the application of the neutral state of assumption on existance to religion. It is an opinion based on solid evidence (total lack of evidence for the existence of any god, despite numerous opportunities for all possible gods to bring evidence for their existence.


Do you believe in the pink flying spaghetti monster? No?

WHY????????

As for the book, I will go with the Websters right here on my desk:

Atheism (from the Greek aetheos, godless/without and theos, god): 1. The belief that there is no God or denial that God exists. 2. Godlessness.

Sounds about right to me.

Depends on how you define belief. I understood it, in your post, in the sense of a religious belief.
If you step outside the religious context, thus use beleif in the meaning of opinion, then we have to have the entire conversation again.

 

[Mr Moron]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/03/D8IKQCEO0.html



How exactly do nerves regrow? I didn think they could. So, would this unexplainable medical phenomena qualify as a "miracle"?

Depends how you define miracle.

If you define it as just something that a positive event that is extremly unlikely and goes against what you'd expect to happen, than yes it is.

If you dfine it as something that has to do with the intervtion of some kind of external supernatural force it isn't.

It certainly is a "unexplainable medical phenomena" it has an explination, we just haven't found it yet.

 

[MobBoss]

No. Definately not.

A belief is
a) (religious belief) the conviction that something is true despite the existence of evidence to the contrary or a total absence of evidence of existence.
b) an opinion based on a lack of data (e.g.: I believe something is true even though I know that the evidence I have for it is not sufficient for proof).

From websters: Belief: 1. The state of believing, conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real. 2. Faith, esp religious faith. 3. Trust or confidence. 4. Anything believed or accepted as true (creed, doctrine, tenet). 5. An opinion, expectation, judgement.

I do think your feelings of atheism meet one or more of those qualities. Thus, I think websters is correct, where you are incorrect. But...you can argue semantics all day.../shrug.

Atheism, thus, is not a belief.

Wrong. But you knew that.

It is opinion

Even websters says that....but opinion is also part of belief.

Atheism is a belief. I have no idea why that tears you up so much.

How about we get back OT as opposed to arguing semantics. I will go with websters instead of the CarlosMM definition however.

 

[IglooDame]

No, if it was a miracle you'd be able to see the image of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in the fellow's post-recovery MRI scan.

 

[Masquerouge]

Man, it's not a miracle, it's... A MUTATION!
THAT GUY IS A X-MAN!

 

[MobBoss]

Well, lets take the discussion a step further then. If this is not a miracle, ok. However, are there such things as miracles? Do miracles happen?

Personally, I think they do. But thats me. Is this one of those things that would be split pretty much down along atheist/religionist lines? Atheist: There are no such things as miracles with Religionists: there are?

 

[carlosMM]

I will go with websters instead of the CarlosMM definition however.

That's totally fine with me, as long as you quit insinuating, as you have done a few times on CFC, that it is a belief in a religious sense. It is not. Or is your opinion that I am an atheist a religious belief, too?

Now go back to your post where you claimed it is a belief - quite clearly, you mean a religious belief. Ergo, false.

 

[carlosMM]

Personally, I think they do.

Can you bring any proof of any mircale? That'd be really interesting!

 

[Masquerouge]

Personally, I think they do. But thats me. Is this one of those things that would be split pretty much down along atheist/religionist lines? Atheist: There are no such things as miracles with Religionists: there are?

Pretty much. Acknowledging a miracle would be saying "yes, there is a god". I think that when facing an unexplainable event, a majority of atheists, including myself, would say "we don't have the explanation yet".

My personal opinion is that trying to find God behind everything you do not understand is logically wrong. As someone pointed out, people once believed that thunder was caused by a god.

 

[MobBoss]

That's totally fine with me, as long as you quit insinuating, as you have done a few times on CFC, that it is a belief in a religious sense. It is not. Or is your opinion that I am an atheist a religious belief, too?

I will insinuate all I wish, just as you insinuate about religion all you wish. Its a belief, and I think even the large majority of atheists wouldnt have a problem with that label. And I do believe the athiest belief to have religious qualities as well.

Now go back to your post where you claimed it is a belief - quite clearly, you mean a religious belief. Ergo, false.

Sorry, but it is a religious belief. How any anything related to god or gods and/or belief or denial of same be anything but a religious belief?

 

[MobBoss]

My personal opinion is that trying to find God behind everything you do not understand is logically wrong. As someone pointed out, people once believed that thunder was caused by a god.

Well, to me, that just depends on how deep the arguement can go. So you know how thunder is caused because of the physics/science behind it. But thinking further, why cant God be responsible for creating the physics/science behind how thunder is created as well? Who made the rules of the universe (physics)?

Personally, it matters little to me if say, God indeed brought down a pillar of fire that blocked Pharoahs men from catching and killing the fleeing hebrews OR if God caused a volcanic eruption that put lava between the two forces. While one is explainable by science and one isnt, both would be a miracle in my book.

This is one of the reasons I dont get torn up in the creationism vs evolution arguements. In my opinion, God is big enough to have been capable of either.

In my opinion, coincedence only goes so far. Then there comes a point where its just not coincedence any more.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, to me, that just depends on how deep the arguement can go. So you know how thunder is caused because of the physics/science behind it. But thinking further, why cant God be responsible for creating the physics/science behind how thunder is created as well? Who made the rules of the universe (physics)?

I think that's because you're trying to put a purpose behind these rules, when there is none.

In my opinion, coincedence only goes so far. Then there comes a point where its just not coincedence any more.

What coincidences are you referring to? The fact that everything in the Universe seems perfectly set so that we appeared?

 

[MobBoss]

I think that's because you're trying to put a purpose behind these rules, when there is none.

There is no purpose behind physics? How do you know?

 

[IglooDame]

Well, the same God that protects fleeing Hebrews from the Pharoah's army also allows 20,000 people to die in a mudslide in Chile, allows bin Laden to remain at large, and leaves a decent-sized chunk of the world's population living in hunger and squalor. For every "that person survived what should have been certain death, it's a miracle" there's a "the odds against that person being killed by so-and-so are astronomical, how unlucky they were."

So if you want to believe that coincidences or high odds coming through are divine, feel free, but I have nothing but contempt for people that delude themselves into thinking good improbable events are the hand of God at work while bad improbable events are just bad luck.

 

[Masquerouge]

There is no purpose behind physics? How do you know?

Well I think we need to make sure that we refer to the same thing when we say "purpose".

If by "purpose" we understand: actively looking to achieve a goal, then no, there is no purpose behind physics. Physics just is.

 

[Masquerouge]

So if you want to believe that coincidences or high odds coming through are divine, feel free, but I have nothing but contempt for people that delude themselves into thinking good improbable events are the hand of God at work while bad improbable events are just bad luck.

Very good point I heartily concur

 

[warpus]

So you dont classify atheism as a belief? What would you classify it as?

It can be a belief, but it doesn't have to be one.

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.

I would put myself in atheist category B; it would be incorrect to say that I have a belief regarding God.

 

[MrCynical]

Then by all means, strike christianity and just say "religionists". Same difference to an atheist as yourself.

MobBoss, read what I have actually posted. I have not "struck" at "religionists", or Christianity specifically. I have commented that a hypothetical God that would give miracles of this type would be of dubious morality, and hence unworthy of worship. It is not an attack on any religion and I am sick of you putting words into my mouth to say that it is. Not all discussion of religion is a specific attack on your beliefs MobBoss.

Wrong. I didnt assume anything. You said you were an atheist in this poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/poll.p...s&pollid=13693 Were you lieing? So you say here you are not an athiest? But do elsewhere? Which is it?

Yeah, I think someones assuming, but it sure isnt me. You perhaps?

Depends on the definition of atheist. In the wiki's definition in the above post I would fall into the category of one who makes no claim as to whether God exists of not. I will however debate ssues concerning hypothetical gods. In the poll in question there weren't any options for agnostic, so I went for atheists as I do at least fit some definitions of it. I wouldn't however really fit the definition you give in post 60.

Some might call me an atheist, but I don't think I'm an atheist by your definitions since I have no belief in whether God exists or not, and neither deny nor state that he exists.

 

[Sidhe]

There is no purpose behind physics? How do you know?

Oddly enough there are plenty of physicists who believe in God too, more so than biologists and chemists, 'tis true, maybe there's something about looking at the fundementals of all creation that makes you feel spiritual As for the gang the fact is they really don't know at all, that's what bothers them. That's why they became physicists, to look at the unseeable, if everything is revealed and known, how boring would that be anyway. Wow I'm learning dead science. Hopefuly there'll never come a time when we know it all, that would be a tragedy IMO.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, the same God that protects fleeing Hebrews from the Pharoah's army also allows 20,000 people to die in a mudslide in Chile, allows bin Laden to remain at large, and leaves a decent-sized chunk of the world's population living in hunger and squalor. For every "that person survived what should have been certain death, it's a miracle" there's a "the odds against that person being killed by so-and-so are astronomical, how unlucky they were."

Once more, I dont claim to personally know that the fire that protected the hebrews was either natural or unnatural. Thus, in turn, I have no idea if God ordered 20k people to die in a mudslide in Chile. Neither do I propose to know the "Why's and wherefor" of how God works and acts. All I can say is that it is in his character to save his people like he did, but it is not in his character to wipe out 20k people without a reason to do so.

So if you want to believe that coincidences or high odds coming through are divine, feel free, but I have nothing but contempt for people that delude themselves into thinking good improbable events are the hand of God at work while bad improbable events are just bad luck.

I care very little for your contempt. So /shrug. I am not a big believer in luck either way.