What is a miracle?

[Ghel]

Believing in something that isn't true is like taking your eyes off the road when you're driving. You might get away with it a few times, but eventually you're going to crash.

[Ipecac Drano]

Believing in something that isn't true is like taking your eyes off the road when you're driving. You might get away with it a few times, but eventually you're going to crash.

I'm gonna steal that one from you!

[Ghel]

I'm gonna steal that one from you!

That's ok. I stole it from someone else!

[Hyena Dandy]

What people who say that fail to see is that once the Flying Purple Elephant believer realizes that there are no Flying Purple Elephants they will come down pretty hard. Not to mention that if it is a cornerstone of their beliefs, they have to alter other parts of reality in order to accommodate those Elephants.

Say for example, in order to make such accommodation they have to believe that 2 + 2 = 3. They have to develop an new set of rules in order to keep their precious Elephants. The person would have a tough time getting through life, especially school, since their beliefs hinge on their going against proven methods.

I still don't care. If going against what can be proven makes you happy, and satisfied, and at peace, then go against what is proven. AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE ELSE. And this is a wide range of 'hurt' anyone else. I don't believe creationism should be taught in public schools (in fact, I'm Catholic, we don't believe in creationism period. A Catholic who says they do needs to read their catechism) because public schools are run by the state, and I believe in separation of church and state. The state should be agnostic. At the same time, my definition of hurting anyone else is also pretty broad. If what you believe requires you to hurt yourself, then I'm fine if you hurt yourself. Just not anyone else.

Believing in something that isn't true is like taking your eyes off the road when you're driving. You might get away with it a few times, but eventually you're going to crash.

Its a fun quote, isn't it? But now I'm confused. Aren't I the one who's saying its fine to believe untrue things? Because as fun as that quote is, and as comforting as it sounds to the truly rational, it really isn't true.

[Ipecac Drano]

I still don't care. If going against what can be proven makes you happy, and satisfied, and at peace, then go against what is proven. AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE ELSE.

Thank you for repeating that; I had aready addressed it by explaining that it has great potential for affecting other people.

And this is a wide range of 'hurt' anyone else. I don't believe creationism should be taught in public schools (in fact, I'm Catholic, we don't believe in creationism period. A Catholic who says they do needs to read their catechism) because public schools are run by the state, and I believe in separation of church and state.

That's nice of the Catholics, but it's the Baptists and some other Protestant sects that are behind it.

The state should be agnostic. At the same time, my definition of hurting anyone else is also pretty broad. If what you believe requires you to hurt yourself, then I'm fine if you hurt yourself. Just not anyone else.

That's why I used the more accurate term "affects".

Its a fun quote, isn't it? But now I'm confused. Aren't I the one who's saying its fine to believe untrue things? Because as fun as that quote is, and as comforting as it sounds to the truly rational, it really isn't true.

Then you should appreciate it. It may not be true in a literal sense, but it is in a metaphorical one.

[Andara Bledin]

That's not what I was asking. Andara made a statement that sounded like she thought that reality actually changed based on what people believe (even if it only changes for that one person).

That's not quite what I was trying to say.

It's more that their beliefs affect reality around them. However if two people held opposite and equal belief systems, then the net effect would be effectively nothing. Also, apathy has a negative effect on all belief powered shifts, which is why the earth didn't become flat because people thought it was. Sure, there were some who were willing to fight to the death to defend that belief, but the vast majority of humanity couldn't care less.

This, of course, is a massive oversimplification, but I don't have the words to really do the concept justice.

And, before you get into it (again), don't try to find fault with the belief system because of my inadequacy to explain it to your satisfaction.

If we can learn from other people's mistakes, isn't that better than having to learn everything from direct experience?

That is a pretty big if, particularly when dealing with issues of life experience.

Also, I do wonder who voted the scientific atheists as guardians of society? Honestly, your attempt to convert people to the ideology that science is the only answer is really just as bad as any other evangelical trying to convert the unbelievers.

Well to basically answer your question, I don't give a damn whether reality changes or not, but I believe she was talking about a more inner, spiritual truth.

No, I was also speaking of outer, physical effects.

Remember, faith can move mountains. But most of us have far too much personal skepticism and have to work against too much influence from others who either don't believe the same way, or are too apathetic to even define what they do believe, so any measurable effects would likely just be dismissed as random chance.

Believing in something that isn't true is like taking your eyes off the road when you're driving. You might get away with it a few times, but eventually you're going to crash.

When you can prove that the belief in any god is demonstrably untrue, then this statement will have meaning. Until then, however, it's based upon a theory.

But that's fine. If the idea that there are no gods and we're all jut a collection of elements and electrical impulses with no real meaning behind them makes you happy, then more power to you.

But it would be nice if you'd stop preaching at those who have other faiths who took the time to try to answer a question that you brought to the table and that is specifically grounded in the faiths you don't actually believe in.

As I stated earlier, the answer to your original question, for you, is that they don't exist. Because science will always, eventually, be able to explain every event, and you seem to have declared that only the truly inexplicable can be considered a miracle by your standards, then you will never witness one.

And, on that note, if this thread continues to just be about science evangelicals trying to browbeat people who aren't atheistic into no longer believing in anything other than science, I will bow out.

[edit to add]
Oh, and this thought occurred to me this morning before I left for work, today. Some of the overtones to some of the posts here have the feeling of someone who is questioning their faith trying to assuage their own doubts by trying to convince others of their own correctness. I reserve the right to be completely off base with that, but it is the impression I have gotten.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

It's more that their beliefs affect reality around them. However if two people held opposite and equal belief systems, then the net effect would be effectively nothing. Also, apathy has a negative effect on all belief powered shifts, which is why the earth didn't become flat because people thought it was. Sure, there were some who were willing to fight to the death to defend that belief, but the vast majority of humanity couldn't care less.

Talk about magical thinking. You've just defined something that can't be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're right, however. It just means there's no way of knowing if you're right or wrong, and thus no reason anyone should believe you.

And, before you get into it (again), don't try to find fault with the belief system because of my inadequacy to explain it to your satisfaction.

Actually, you've explained yourself very well. It's just that the ideas you're portraying have no basis in reality.

When you can prove that the belief in any god is demonstrably untrue, then this statement will have meaning. Until then, however, it's based upon a theory.

You're shifting the burden of proof. The person who makes the claim that a god exists has the burden of proving that claim. Until they do, we are justified in labeling the claim "false."

If the idea that there are no gods and we're all jut a collection of elements and electrical impulses with no real meaning behind them makes you happy, then more power to you.

Thank you. This is it exactly. There is no meaning behind our existence. The only meaning to life is the meaning we each give it. That meaning becomes significantly more important when we realize that this is the only chance we get at life.

As I stated earlier, the answer to your original question, for you, is that they don't exist. Because science will always, eventually, be able to explain every event, and you seem to have declared that only the truly inexplicable can be considered a miracle by your standards, then you will never witness one.

This all depends on where the word "supernatural" fits in. If there are events that run counter to the known laws of nature, they could be supernatural and they could be miracles. However, once those events are studied, either they will be explained by our current knowledge of the laws of nature OR we will alter our knowledge of the laws of nature to include the supernatural events. So, yes, in that sense, there will never be a miracle to my way of thinking.

Don't take this to mean that this thread was a joke. It wasn't. I was trying to make an informal survey to see how much needed to happen before people would call it a miracle. Those few who responded seemed to think that a man surviving his attempted suicide would be a miracle, even if he remained brain dead. I don't see how any empathetic person could call that a miracle.