What is a miracle?

[Hobbs]

<snip>

Now that's simply not true at all. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints routinely disproves miracles using scientific methods. Exorcisms are no longer performed since most of "demonic" possession can be explained away as psychological disorders. Believing miracles exist doesn't mean you ignore science and reasoning.

Similarly, from a previous example I gave about the show Ghost Hunters, the group that investigates hauntings disprove about 95% of all the "ghostly" phenomena by way of explaining pipe systems, reflections, drafts, etc. And these are people who genuinely believe in ghosts.

I don't see why it has to be either/or with athiests concerning science and religion.

[Hobbs]

Sorry, but the whole "God isn't evil because he created cancer" thing doesn't wash with me. If God is truly intervening in our lives, then he is responsible for everything both good and bad.

And, IMO, the God that allows children to die from leukemia and etc. can go fuck himself.

This is all I'm gonna say

[Rapscallion]

And, IMO, the God that allows children to die from leukemia and etc. can go fuck himself.

If you believe the literal truth of the religious texts, it's causing, not allowing.

Now that's simply not true at all. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints routinely disproves miracles using scientific methods. Exorcisms are no longer performed since most of "demonic" possession can be explained away as psychological disorders. Believing miracles exist doesn't mean you ignore science and reasoning.

The ones they can't disprove, though...

"Hey, I can't explain it so it has to be magic! Woo! Score one for my team!"

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

So...when I say something anecdotal it's wrong to mention it, but when you do, it's justified because it's anti-thiest?

<sigh>

1. I don't expect anybody to agree with me.
2. I used anecdotal evidence to show that it happens at least some of the time.
3. Where, exactly, did I ever say anything was justified because it was anti-theist? Please provide a link.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I did maybe five seconds on google to find that.

Your point? I've got pretty reliable evidence that Freud never said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Which is why I said, pick another one if you don't want to tackle this one. This is a miracle which has been researched and investigated (Yes by the Church, but the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints disproves "miracles" on a yearly basis).

I'd be perfectly willing to tackle this one, if you could provide some evidence that it actually is a miracle. Evidence is required. Otherwise it didn't happen.

So find a verified miracle and disprove it. That's all I'm asking.

No, you tell me of a miracle that you have been convinced by. The burden of proof is on YOU. If you were wrong about this one, you should admit it and find a different one. It's easy. Just say something like this:

"I was wrong. After further investigation, I find that the miracle of Consiglia de Martino is not nearly as convincing as I first thought. Please accept my apology for wasting your time with it.

However, I have found another miracle which I think will convince you. Here are links to the testimony of the person healed, their family, and their doctors. Here's the scan of their medical records. Here's before and after pictures of the wound [a regenerated amputee would be good here] with timestamps so that you can see that the whole thing happened in less than five minutes. Here's the review by the Catholic Church, and here's an independent review by a group of doctors."

If you can't do that, then you are wasting our time.

... the "ebil Christians" you hate so much.

Please stop misquoting me. I have never said that Christians are evil (or ebil). The Catholic Church, yes, and I'll continue to back that up. However, the average Christian is no more good nor evil than the average person. And for a religion that claims to make people moral, that's just another nail in the coffin.

Belief in a god also causes people to stop looking for answers. Replacing "god did it" with "I don't know" would be much more honest.

[Ghel]

We have to look at what a Miracle actually is however. A miracle is something that can not be reasonably explained currently, that is 1) something GOOD 2) saves the life of, heals a person of, or otherwise prevents harm to a person or persons.

I would agree that this is a good addition to the definition of miracle discussed previously on this thread, but it is not enough by itself.

[Hobbs]

Your point? I've got pretty reliable evidence that Freud never said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

<sigh>

When did I say Freud said that? Please provide a link.

No, you tell me of a miracle that you have been convinced by. The burden of proof is on YOU. If you were wrong about this one, you should admit it and find a different one. If you can't do that, then you are wasting our time.

I've asked you to disprove a miracle, which you say science can prove indefinitely. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to disprove a miracle. Stop wasting our time by arguing silly crap. Either prove it, or just concede that you don't want to/can't.

Please stop misquoting me. Belief in a god also causes people to stop looking for answers. Replacing "god did it" with "I don't know" would be much more honest.

I'm not misquoting you. Please stop making assumptions about religious people. There are religious doctors and scientists. Or do you believe that one can only be in these professions if he/she renounces faith? I've never stopped looking for answers but, oh noes! I'm de ebil Catholic How do you explain that one? IF I believe, but look for answers, aren't I a contradiction in your "perfect" little world?

[Ghel]

I'm not misquoting you.

How ironic that you respond to my request that you stop misquoting me by misquoting me yet again. Here's what I actually said:

Please stop misquoting me. I have never said that Christians are evil (or ebil). The Catholic Church, yes, and I'll continue to back that up. However, the average Christian is no more good nor evil than the average person.

With this in mind, your sarcastic response about being an "ebil Catholic" is absurd to the point of hilarity. Nor have I ever said that doctors and scientists can't be religious (though they tend to be less religious, on average, than the general population).

I see no point in trying to continue discussing this with you if you're going to engage in this sort of dishonest quote editing and deliberate misrepresentation of my position.

[Hobbs]

I see no point in trying to continue discussing this with you if you're going to engage in this sort of dishonest quote editing and deliberate misrepresentation of my position.

Ok, go ahead and ignore me then. That's enlightened.

You said "belief in a god also causes people to stop looking for answers." That's a direct quote. I said that scientists and doctors (who search for answers) can be religious too. Your last comment has come close to conceding that point, though you still retain "are less religious than others."

My mention about being an evil Catholic is not unfounded. You said Catholicism is evil. As a Catholic and supporter of the Holy See, I must be evil, according to your worldview.

[Talon]

Hobbs,
How on earth did you see this:

belief in a god also causes people to stop looking for answers.

... and take that to mean this:

You said Catholicism is evil.

???

[Ghel]

Ah, thank you, Hobbs, for asking for clarification. If you look back, you will see that I said the Catholic Church was evil, not its members. I suppose you'll want some examples. I could give many examples of past atrocities, but I prefer to stick with current events. The Church refuses to acknowledge that women deserve equal status with men. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should lead celibate lives. The Church opposes the use of condoms, the single most successful tool for the prevention of STDs, including HIV. The Church opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

Any one of these things would be enough to show that the Catholic Church (along with any other church that follows the same doctrine) is evil. All together, it stacks up to a skyscraper of evil that I will gladly attempt to direct people away from.


BTW, I suppose you could say that I conceded the point about some doctors and scientists being religious, but since I never claimed they weren't, I haven't conceded anything.

[Hobbs]

The Church refuses to acknowledge that women deserve equal status with men.

That's news to me. I've never heard a single instance of the Church talking about denying equal rights to women.

The Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should lead celibate lives.

No it doesn't. The Church has declared that being homosexual isn't a sin.

The Church opposes the use of condoms, the single most successful tool for the prevention of STDs, including HIV.

That does not make one evil. The Church is the single-largest care provider to people with HIV/AIDS in the world.

The Church opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

So do millions of Americans. That doesn't make them evil (unless they propose illegal actions to stop abortions).

Any one of these things would be enough to show that the Catholic Church (along with any other church that follows the same doctrine) is evil. All together, it stacks up to a skyscraper of evil that I will gladly attempt to direct people away from.

No, all it shows is that the Catholic Church has different political and social beliefs than you do. This doesn't just happen in religion, but politics in general. I hate how people immediately label those that differ in their worldview as "evil." In fact, the Church wants the same thing everyone else wants, for people to live good lives and be prosperous. However, you simply differ in how to go about that. Disagreeing doesn't make one evil.

Towards the Catholic Church, you're intensively ethno-centric (definition: the belief that one’s culture is higher than another’s and measure other cultures by their own standard). If you were truly open to other cultures (which the Church is) you might be a little more relativist (definition: open to trying to understand different cultures within the context of that particular culture).

For instance. You might think I'm excessively ethno-centric towards athiests. To a point that's true, as I cannot accept it as a culture I would like to be a part of. However, as a relativist, I do see the positive qualities of the athiest culture, and accept that social and cultural influences have created it (the athiest culture).

[Rapscallion]

That's news to me. I've never heard a single instance of the Church talking about denying equal rights to women.

Anyone heard of a female Catholic priest? Unlikely, as it's against church policy to allow a woman the same rights to the chance to serve as a man has.

No it doesn't. The Church has declared that being homosexual isn't a sin.

Ah, but acting on it is a sin. Right? In that case, all you need to do is replace 'homosexual' with 'heterosexual' and see where that gets you in church teachings. You can be straight if you want, but you can't shag someone of the opposite gender, then you can see how the position actually affects people.

That does not make one evil. The Church is the single-largest care provider to people with HIV/AIDS in the world.

Teaching people not to use condoms, something actively pursued by the church, causes sexually transmitted diseases to be spread further, so it's only decent to clean up after yourself, right?

No, all it shows is that the Catholic Church has different political and social beliefs than you do. This doesn't just happen in religion, but politics in general. I hate how people immediately label those that differ in their worldview as "evil." In fact, the Church wants the same thing everyone else wants, for people to live good lives and be prosperous.

Define 'good'. The definition for that is different for different people.

Person A - you like members of the opposite sex, and it is good for you to get your jollies if we sanction it via marriage, something we like to control.

Person B - you like members of your own sex, but you can't have your jollies because we think it's icky.

I cannot see the stance towards person B as 'good'.

Towards the Catholic Church, you're intensively ethno-centric (definition: the belief that one’s culture is higher than another’s and measure other cultures by their own standard). If you were truly open to other cultures (which the Church is) you might be a little more relativist (definition: open to trying to understand different cultures within the context of that particular culture).

How open is the church? I'd say not at all - it's simply there to tell others how to live. That's what it does.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

Excellent reply, Raps. But you missed one.

[regarding opposing abortions]
So do millions of Americans. That doesn't make them evil (unless they propose illegal actions to stop abortions).

If a parents prevent their child from getting an abortion after she's been raped, they're evil. Any person who tries to get legislation enacted that prevents abortions in cases of rape and incest is evil. Likewise, the Catholic Church is evil for preventing its followers from getting abortions.

[Edited to Add:] I just remembered another evil the Catholic Church has committed. (I'm smacking myself for forgetting it.) The Catholic Church has routinely protected pedophile priests by not reporting their crimes to the local police and shuffling them around to different parishes where they could re-offend. Then, when the news broke, the Church blamed the victims for the negative publicity.

[Hobbs]

Anyone heard of a female Catholic priest? Unlikely, as it's against church policy to allow a woman the same rights to the chance to serve as a man has.

There's no inherant[sic] right for anyone to become a priest. I see it like military service; the Church has a right to choose who they want as a priest. In no way does that infringe on a woman's equal rights under the law.

Ah, but acting on it is a sin. Right? In that case, all you need to do is replace 'homosexual' with 'heterosexual' and see where that gets you in church teachings. You can be straight if you want, but you can't shag someone of the opposite gender, then you can see how the position actually affects people.

Actually, no. Like Ghel, you have old misconceptions concerning the Catholic Church.

Teaching people not to use condoms, something actively pursued by the church, causes sexually transmitted diseases to be spread further, so it's only decent to clean up after yourself, right?

People having sex, getting AIDS and then thinking the cure is sex with a virgin is how STDs are transmitted. Cultural and political policies within those nations need to be changed, and the Church saying "no" to condoms won't stop that.

Define 'good'. The definition for that is different for different people.

Person A - you like members of the opposite sex, and it is good for you to get your jollies if we sanction it via marriage, something we like to control.

Person B - you like members of your own sex, but you can't have your jollies because we think it's icky.

I cannot see the stance towards person B as 'good'.

What does that have to do with anything?

How open is the church? I'd say not at all - it's simply there to tell others how to live. That's what it does.

Rapscallion

The Church is very open, actually. It merely has policies and rules that differ from your own cultural background. Being different isn't wrong. Neither is it right. It merely is.

If a parents prevent their child from getting an abortion after she's been raped, they're evil. Any person who tries to get legislation enacted that prevents abortions in cases of rape and incest is evil. Likewise, the Catholic Church is evil for preventing its followers from getting abortions.

How is that evil? You say it is, but saying it doesn't make it so. For example, the people you hate (Catholics) think that killing a fetus is evil and that life begins at conception. Therefore, in their world view, you're the evil one.

[Edited to Add:] I just remembered another evil the Catholic Church has committed. (I'm smacking myself for forgetting it.) The Catholic Church has routinely protected pedophile priests by not reporting their crimes to the local police and shuffling them around to different parishes where they could re-offend. Then, when the news broke, the Church blamed the victims for the negative publicity.

That has happened, and it is a shame the Church will have to endure for generations. That said, evil things have been done in every culture at every point in history. Do I think those priests should be persecuted? Yes. Do I think they deserve jail time? Yes. Do I think they should be excommunicated? Yes. But does this make me denounce my faith, which has less to do with the Church and more to do with my own personal relationship with God? No.

[Rapscallion]

There's no inherant[sic] right for anyone to become a priest. I see it like military service; the Church has a right to choose who they want as a priest. In no way does that infringe on a woman's equal rights under the law.

Ah, protected discrimination. Only in religion are equal right in employment cast aside.

Actually, no. Like Ghel, you have old misconceptions concerning the Catholic Church.

I've heard 'love the sinner, hate the sin' often enough from many sides, including catholics.

People having sex, getting AIDS and then thinking the cure is sex with a virgin is how STDs are transmitted. Cultural and political policies within those nations need to be changed, and the Church saying "no" to condoms won't stop that.

One group's mistakes excuse your groups? They're worse than us so we're ok?

Saying 'yes' to condoms will stop some deaths. That said, I think it's gone too far by now and there are going to be generations dead over there in a decade or two.

What does that have to do with anything?

Depends where your definition of 'good' comes from.

The Church is very open, actually. It merely has policies and rules that differ from your own cultural background. Being different isn't wrong. Neither is it right. It merely is.

Er, no. It's not open enough to say we accept everyone whatever they do. People have to conform to the church regulations, or they cannot get anywhere in there. (Short on time here, so hurried response). I'm not saying that this is wrong of them, but more that you're wrong to claim they're open.

Rapscallion