A question for atheists...

trapsagenius

Genuinely not trying to be smart,I was just wondering what do atheists think of occurrences like NDEs, Lourdes, Fatima, the "miracle of the sun" and so on, given that many theists take them as belief of divine intervention.

I personally don't really know what to think about them-that's why I'd be interested to hear atheist feedback.

P.S-I am starting a similar thread in the christian forum.

legspin

Primarily mass hysteria with large dollops of delusion and ignorance throw in for good measure.

Blackhorse Slim

I find NDEs fascinating, but they most likely have a neurological explanation which is not yet fully understood.

The other "miracles" you listed are just evidence of the gullibility of those who "want to believe".

:cool:

o1s1n

The last time I stared at the sun I saw multi coloured spots.

The only miracle is the fact that I didn't go blind.

trapsagenius

Fair enough, but what about all the eye witnesses for the "miracle of the sun", who claimed they saw that whole thing with the sun?Can they all have been deluded?

Not saying I believe it happened, just think its interesting.

BTW, when i saw "miracle", its not because I believe it was a miracle but because that's just what people call it.

o1s1n

The sun is an extremely powerful source of light. If you stare at it for any length of time your vision is going to be distorted and you will see odd things.

Couple this with ignorance, stupidity and a huge urge to want to see something supernatural and you are left with these 'miracles'.

It's Interesting to see how a group of gullable people react when together staring at the sun..but that's about it!

Ickle Magoo

The short answer is: I think the human brain is an amazing piece of kit...but it does some pretty strange things from time to time.

I would imagine the range of things my brain would do if I was near death, baring in mind I can fall out bed mid-dream because I think I'm flying or hold a conversation when I am fast asleep, wouldn't preclude tunnels of light or imagining myself hovering over said situation.

In all these kinds of things I think the most plausible answer is the one that requires the least imagination. Apparitions appearing in economically deprived areas which suddenly benefit from a booming trade in vials of magic water and accommodation and eateries only too willing to take the money from the desperate and afflicted. Altogether, there seems to be plenty of non-superstitious reasons and motives to explain such things, without having to consider the supernatural.

I mean, the very fact hundreds of these people required medical attention would suggest between the damage to their retinas and their desperation to see something, I would have been more surprised if people had said they saw nothing.

Gregor Samsa

trapsagenius wrote: »

Fair enough, but what about all the eye witnesses for the "miracle of the sun", who claimed they saw that whole thing with the sun?Can they all have been deluded?

Which is more reasonable to believe:

1. A star, with a mass of about 1989,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, over 149.6 million kilometers away from us, the source of all natural light and most heat on the surface of our planet, the very object that keeps us from hurtling off into the depths of interstellar space, is miraculously moved about in a violent fashion for a short period of time - but there is absolutely no gravitational effect felt in the solar system or on Earth, and this incident of unimaginably gigantic proportions is only witnessed by a relatively small group of people located in one place.

or

2. The sun did not move outside of it's normal rotation, and said group of people were were deluded by the ocular effects of unwisely staring at one of the brightest sources of light available to us, and the effects of mass hysteria, both of which are well documented.

Dades

trapsagenius wrote: »

Fair enough, but what about all the eye witnesses for the "miracle of the sun", who claimed they saw that whole thing with the sun?Can they all have been deluded?

Those who saw "something" saw what they hoped/wanted/wished to see, or at least convinced themselves they did with the help of staring at the sun.

Xluna

trapsagenius wrote: »

Genuinely not trying to be smart,I was just wondering what do atheists think of occurrences like NDEs, Lourdes, Fatima, the "miracle of the sun" and so on, given that many theists take them as belief of divine intervention.

I personally don't really know what to think about them-that's why I'd be interested to hear atheist feedback.

P.S-I am starting a similar thread in the christian forum.

All religions have their own various miracles,they can't all be true. So the most likely cause is neurological/psychological reaction to self delusion and mass hysteria.

Antbert

Show me a miracle, then I'll think about it and get back to you with an answer.

me_right_one

What about people who were cured of various ailments at different holy places, did they just "will" themselves better? Did mass hysteria will them to get better? Google a few of them!

Science will never explain the supernatural. The very word supernatural says it all, "super" meaning greater than, or beyond, and "natural" referring to natural science.

Xluna

me_right_one wrote: »

What about people who were cured of various ailments at different holy places, did they just "will" themselves better? Did mass hysteria will them to get better? Google a few of them!

Science will never explain the supernatural. The very word supernatural says it all, "super" meaning greater than, or beyond, and "natural" referring to natural science.

Science has a pretty good track record of explaining away superstitious/supernatural beliefs.

pts

me_right_one wrote: »

What about people who were cured of various ailments at different holy places, did they just "will" themselves better? Did mass hysteria will them to get better? Google a few of them!

Science will never explain the supernatural. The very word supernatural says it all, "super" meaning greater than, or beyond, and "natural" referring to natural science.

What about all the people who don't get better when they pray to their sky daddy? Why doesn't god heal amputees?

Dont be at yourself

trapsagenius wrote: »

Genuinely not trying to be smart,I was just wondering what do atheists think of occurrences like NDEs, Lourdes, Fatima, the "miracle of the sun" and so on, given that many theists take them as belief of divine intervention.

I personally don't really know what to think about them-that's why I'd be interested to hear atheist feedback.

P.S-I am starting a similar thread in the christian forum.

What do you think of occurrences like NDEs experienced by those of other religious persuasions and what do you think of the contents of this page:

http://www.miraclesofislam.com/

Hokum. Just like the ones reported by Christians.

Antbert

me_right_one wrote: »

What about people who were cured of various ailments at different holy places, did they just "will" themselves better? Did mass hysteria will them to get better? Google a few of them!

As pts said, what about the people that didn't get healed? As for the ones that do, let's divide them up into two categories: The people you know first hand who were healed, and all the rest. I'll disregard all the rest. So, for the people you personally know I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science for an excellent indepth discussion of the placebo effect. You might then revise your next statement:

Science will never explain the supernatural. The very word supernatural says it all, "super" meaning greater than, or beyond, and "natural" referring to natural science.

As Xluna said (damn everyone getting in before me), science usually explains "the supernatural".

strobe

trapsagenius wrote: »

Genuinely not trying to be smart,I was just wondering what do atheists think of occurrences like NDEs, Lourdes, Fatima, the "miracle of the sun" and so on, given that many theists take them as belief of divine intervention.

I personally don't really know what to think about them-that's why I'd be interested to hear atheist feedback.

P.S-I am starting a similar thread in the christian forum.

Short answer: Wishfull thinking

Long answer: N/A

me_right_one

Antbert wrote: »

As pts said, what about the people that didn't get healed? As for the ones that do, let's divide them up into two categories: The people you know first hand who were healed, and all the rest. I'll disregard all the rest. So, for the people you personally know I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science for an excellent indepth discussion of the placebo effect. You might then revise your next statement

To be honest Antbert, your comparason could be summed up as follows:
Did man land on the moon? There's footage, recordings, etc. all of which could be faked. Then there's astronauts who say they actually walked on the moon. Let's divide them up into two categories: The people you know first hand who walked on it, and all the rest. I'll disregard all the rest. So, for the people you personally............ See?


Ok. Let me see now, who do I know first hand that got healed..... Hmmmm.... Oh I know one, ME actually! I had permanent scarring on my face from a skin disease when I was a child, no doctor or no surgery could get rid of it. My mother brought me to a well known healer, no wobbly sun stuff here. I didnt know at the time who he was or what he was supposed to be doing, so there's the placebo effect discounted. The very next day, THE NEXT DAY, my face was back to normal. I dont know how it works, or why some people dont get healed. All I know is I'm still scar-free, and the disease never came back. Judge for yourselves.

Canis Lupus

me_right_one wrote: »

To be honest Antbert, your comparason could be summed up as follows:
Did man land on the moon? There's footage, recordings, etc. all of which could be faked. Then there's astronauts who say they actually walked on the moon. Let's divide them up into two categories: The people you know first hand who walked on it, and all the rest. I'll disregard all the rest. So, for the people you personally............ See?


Ok. Let me see now, who do I know first hand that got healed..... Hmmmm.... Oh I know one, ME actually! I had permanent scarring on my face from a skin disease when I was a child, no doctor or no surgery could get rid of it. My mother brought me to a well known healer, no wobbly sun stuff here. I didnt know at the time who he was or what he was supposed to be doing, so there's the placebo effect discounted. The very next day, THE NEXT DAY, my face was back to normal. I dont know how it works, or why some people dont get healed. All I know is I'm still scar-free, and the disease never came back. Judge for yourselves.

pics or gtfo

Antbert

me_right_one wrote: »

To be honest Antbert, your comparason could be summed up as follows:
Did man land on the moon? There's footage, recordings, etc. all of which could be faked. Then there's astronauts who say they actually walked on the moon. Let's divide them up into two categories: The people you know first hand who walked on it, and all the rest. I'll disregard all the rest. So, for the people you personally............ See?

Yup you could definitely say that. I can't see anything that bizarre from my (albeit limited scientific-wise) point of view about a moon landing though. It's not miraculous. The moon is there. I see it at night. Looks pretty sturdy.

...Healer
I didnt know at the time who he was or what he was supposed to be doing, so there's the placebo effect discounted.

That doesn't discount the placebo effect.

The very next day, THE NEXT DAY, my face was back to normal. I dont know how it works, or why some people dont get healed. All I know is I'm still scar-free, and the disease never came back. Judge for yourselves.

Lots of explanations. The disease could actually have coincidentally disappeared on its own, it could've been in the process of being healed and the placebo effect could have helped. You could have taken extra care (or your mother could have) in treating it yourself after seeing the healer. You could be exaggerating to us. You could be exaggerating to yourself. You could be lying outright. The healer could have healed you.

I can't possibly judged based on a very short internet account of your experience, but it certainly wouldn't convert me.

me_right_one

Antbert wrote: »

Yup you could definitely say that. I can't see anything that bizarre from my (albeit limited scientific-wise) point of view about a moon landing though. It's not miraculous. The moon is there. I see it at night. Looks pretty sturdy.

The moon is indeed there. So do you know anybody first-hand who walked on it?

Antbert wrote: »

That doesn't discount the placebo effect.

Yes it does. The whole point of the placebo effect is that you think x event will happen, then it happens, because you psychologically "tricked" yourself. Sympathetic pregnancies are an example. I didnt even know what was going on, so therefore I didnt trick myself.

Antbert wrote: »

Lots of explanations. The disease could actually have coincidentally disappeared on its own, it could've been in the process of being healed and the placebo effect could have helped. You could have taken extra care (or your mother could have) in treating it yourself after seeing the healer. You could be exaggerating. You could be lying. The healer could have healed you.

All true. There could be a God, he could have done it. 100 years ago people believed man would never fly, just as firmly as you believe there is no miracles. Now could you imagine a world without aeroplanes?

Antbert wrote: »

I can't possibly judged based on a very short internet account of your experience, but it certainly wouldn't convert me.

Not trying to. Just adding my 2 cents to the debate. Its YOUR soul;)

me_right_one

Canis Lupus wrote: »

pics or gtfo

http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/dress-up/masks/horror/overhead-burns.jpg

to

http://www.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/handsome-patrick.jpg

Antbert

me_right_one wrote: »

The moon is indeed there. So do you know anybody first-hand who walked on it?

I said your logic does apply, just with a difference. I can't see anything that inexplicable about walking on the moon. I DO see it as inexplicable that people have the power to "channel mystical energy" or whatever to heal somebody.

Yes it does. The whole point of the placebo effect is that you think x event will happen, then it happens, because you psychologically "tricked" yourself. Sympathetic pregnancies are an example. I didnt even know what was going on, so therefore I didnt trick myself.

The placebo effect goes a lot deeper than that. What did the healer actually do to you?

All true. There could be a God, he could have done it. 100 years ago people believed man would never fly, just as firmly as you believe there is no miracles. Now could you imagine a world without aeroplanes?

I don't see your point.

Not trying to. Just adding my 2 cents to the debate. Its YOUR soul;)

Fair enough.

me_right_one

Antbert wrote: »

I said your logic does apply, just with a difference. I can't see anything that inexplicable about walking on the moon. I DO see it as inexplicable that people have the power to "channel mystical energy" or whatever to heal somebody.

You dont see anything inexplicable about flying humans to another planet in a time when you'd be lucky to get your morris minor started? During the cold war, full of propaganda? You just believe it unconditionally? So do I actually. I also believe in the supernatural because I have personal, tangible evidence of such.

Antbert wrote: »

The placebo effect goes a lot deeper than that. What did the healer actually do to you?

Dont remember now. It may go deeper, but thats the backbone of how it works. Without that, no placebo effect.

Antbert wrote: »

I don't see your point.

I'm making the exact same point as you, ie. its a possibility.

strobe

me_right_one wrote: »

I'm making the exact same point as you, ie. its a possibility.

If I could just jump in at this point......So you accept that there are other reasonable possibilities and the supernatural could have had nothing to do with it whatsoever?

Sam Vimes

People often come onto this forum and give us a fantastical story and say "well can you explain it?". No of course we can't explain it, we weren't there. All we have is your version of events, we have no idea what you're leaving out, what you may have missed, what else may have been going on that neither you nor the healer knew about. All we have here is a story that is told in such a way as to confirm a claim of the supernatural. We don't even know if any of this happened. Had we been there with laboratory equipment studying the events our answer to the question might well be very different but with the information you're giving us there's no way we can explain what happened. One question I'd have is why this guy is not a millionaire, what with the James Randi foundation offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under laboratory conditions (a prize that has yet to be won btw)

Antbert

me_right_one wrote: »

You dont see anything inexplicable about flying humans to another planet in a time when you'd be lucky to get your morris minor started? During the cold war, full of propaganda? You just believe it unconditionally? So do I actually. I also believe in the supernatural because I have personal, tangible evidence of such.

I actually don't see it as that inexplicable...

Dont remember now. It may go deeper, but thats the backbone of how it works. Without that, no placebo effect.

OK, so you can't even remember the experience. That makes your story even less reliable. I would imagine the healer did some fancy 'healing' things. And you say you didn't know what was going on. What age were you? Did this not scare the **** out of you? Your mother puts you in a room with some weird bloke who starts chanting at you and you have absolutely no idea why?

I'm making the exact same point as you, ie. its a possibility.

See Strobe's point.

Antbert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People often come onto this forum and give us and fantastical story and say "well can you explain it?". No of course we can't explain it, we weren't there. All we have is your version of events, we have no idea what you're leaving out, what you may have missed, what else may have been going on that neither you nor the healer knew about. All we have here is a story that is told in such a way as to confirm a claim of the supernatural. We don't even know if any of this happened. Had we been there with laboratory equipment studying the events our answer to the question might well be very different but with the information you're giving us there's no way we can explain what happened. One question I'd have is why this guy is not a millionaire, what with the James Randi foundation offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under laboratory conditions (a prize that has yet to be won btw)

I have wiled away many hours watching James Randi clips on YouTube. An excellent way to spend a day (far superior than going for a walk or something).

johno2

The "miracle" healing stuff at Lourdes can be explained by simple statistics. There have been 60-70 miracles reported out of the 10's of millions of people who have visited there. AFAIK the chances of being cured in Lourdes is about 1/1,000,000. It's actually worse odds than the chances of someone just getting better if they stayed at home. For example, the rate of spontaneous cancer remission is about 1/30,000.

As for the apparitions and NDEs, I've had hallucinations too. Hallucinations happen, I believe in them.

And the Sun thing that happened in Knock... I'd like to know who is the original person who decided that the Sun was wobbling because God was making it happen. And how that person could be so sure that it was God making it happen. And where that person got the information from. And why it didn't wobble until you stared at it for a certain amount of time, even though the person standing next to you started staring 5 minutes before you and could already see the wobble. It's a perfect example of how mass hallucination happens, and it's very easy to poke holes in the whole story.

johno

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One question I'd have is why this guy is not a millionaire, what with the James Randi foundation offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under laboratory conditions (a prize that has yet to be won btw)

The Log Of Applicants is full of epic fails.

mehfesto

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People often come onto this forum and give us a fantastical story and say "well can you explain it?". No of course we can't explain it, we weren't there. All we have is your version of events, we have no idea what you're leaving out, what you may have missed, what else may have been going on that neither you nor the healer knew about. All we have here is a story that is told in such a way as to confirm a claim of the supernatural. We don't even know if any of this happened. Had we been there with laboratory equipment studying the events our answer to the question might well be very different but with the information you're giving us there's no way we can explain what happened. One question I'd have is why this guy is not a millionaire, what with the James Randi foundation offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under laboratory conditions (a prize that has yet to be won btw)

If this doesn't answer your question, nothing will.
Just logged in to say that!

Galvasean

liamw wrote: »

The Log Of Applicants is full of epic fails.

First thing I see is 'X-ray eyes". A high calibre already :cool:

Gordon

o1s1n wrote: »

The last time I stared at the sun I saw multi coloured spots.

The only miracle is the fact that I didn't go blind.

I stared at the sun for a long time once and I actually had a really interesting experience. Disclaimer: I do not recommend looking at the sun. I also once put a screwdriver in an electric socket when I was young and came out absolutely fine but again sticking things in electrical sockets can kill you, don't do it.

After I stared at the sun I was blinded for a while and then shortly afterwards my sight returned, a great deal better than it was before. I felt as if I burned the top layer of my retina off, as if I sunburned my eyes so badly the skin came off the inner eye and it was sensitive. I felt like I could not only see things clearly, but I could touch them with my eyes, I was hypersensitive visually and it was a new visual experience. So I can see how people staring at the sun, with a mixture of spiritual subtext can lead to a spiritual/religious experience.

But it's just sunburn on your retinas, and EXTREMELY dangerous if it happens to you, as you say, the only miracle is if you aren't permanently blinded (oops, we experienced miracles..)

Galvasean

Heck I sometimes see 'apparitions' (ie: all manner of funky looking yellow dots and blobs - some even appear to be bouncing around) when I turn on teh lights in a dark room or glance past a halogen lamp. I dread to think of what mad crap you'd see if you stared into the sun for 5 minutes. Who needs hallucinogenic drugs huh? I feel sorry for the kids though. Poor things, being told to look at it by their wackjob parents. Shame on them. Unintentional though it may be, that has to be some form of child abuse.

Shenshen

trapsagenius wrote: »

Genuinely not trying to be smart,I was just wondering what do atheists think of occurrences like NDEs, Lourdes, Fatima, the "miracle of the sun" and so on, given that many theists take them as belief of divine intervention.

I personally don't really know what to think about them-that's why I'd be interested to hear atheist feedback.

P.S-I am starting a similar thread in the christian forum.

I don't know. There could be a multitude of reasons.
I think jumping to the "It's a miracle!!!" conclusion is just plain lazy, though. I would find it very interesting to have scientists investigate these occurences, and I will be very keen to read or hear what they'll conclude.

magicbastarder

re lourdes - i think what puts lourdes into perspective is that the number of accredited miracles at lourdes is estimated to be one third the number of fatalities from traffic accidents of people travelling there.

i.e. a trip to lourdes is three times more likely to see you killed in a car or bus crash than it is going to cure you.

miracle cures is one of the points i've used the few times i've been properly questioned on my lack of faith. it's not the sign of an all-loving god that the requirement for healing is travel of several hundreds or thousands of miles (which obviously, for terminally ill or profoundly handicapped people, is not an easy task) when location obviously should not be an issue for a being able to intervene in the manner claimed.

i assume the catholic church refuses to acknowledge miracles attributed to a non-catholic figure? i just wonder how they would square that up with the idea of a god who refuses to cure someone simply because they had the bad luck (term used advisedly) to be born into another religion.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

re lourdes - i think what puts lourdes into perspective is that the number of accredited miracles at lourdes is estimated to be one third the number of fatalities from traffic accidents of people travelling there.

+1

I love that, but I know if I ever repeated it I would be asked for a source, any idea where that statistic comes from?

magicbastarder

i *think* it was this book i read it in - and i've loaned it to a friend, so i'm not in a position right now to confirm, unfortunately:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tiger-That-Isnt-Through-Numbers/dp/1861978391

i think was part to a discussion about how the switch from air travel to road travel in the wake of the sept 11th attacks led to deaths arguably attributable to the attacks, which are usually not counted.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

re lourdes - i think what puts lourdes into perspective is that the number of accredited miracles at lourdes is estimated to be one third the number of fatalities from traffic accidents of people travelling there.

Should be able to work this out without too much effort, if the stats for tourism, travel method, distances etc were available.

But, given the hundreds of millions of people who've made the journey to Lourdes, I'd have said that the ratio of three dead to each cure -- there have been only around 70 since ~1860 -- is almost certainly an underestimate.

BTW, the faithful don't just have to deal with dangerous transport, but lethal diseases too. In 2008, four dutch pensioners died after a viral outbreak, subsequently traced back to Lourdes.

The Mad Hatter

me_right_one wrote: »

The whole point of the placebo effect is that you think x event will happen, then it happens, because you psychologically "tricked" yourself. Sympathetic pregnancies are an example. I didnt even know what was going on, so therefore I didnt trick myself.

You didn't know or even suspect that this "healer" was attempting to remove the scarring?

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

+1

I love that, but I know if I ever repeated it I would be asked for a source, any idea where that statistic comes from?

I was looking up Lourdes on skepdic.com and they attribute it to Belgian philosopher Etienne Vermeersch (no source for where he siad, or if he could prove it though).
What I found interesting (on the same site) though was this:

It is estimated that in recent years about 5 million pilgrims a year visit the shrine at Lourdes. Over the past 150 years, some 200 million people have made the pilgrimage.* For those who care, that's a success rate of .0000335% or 1 out of every 3 million. Furthermore, since 1947 anyone claiming a miraculous cure has to go before a medical board. "From 1947 to 1990, only 1,000 cures were claimed and only 56 were recognized in that time, averaging 1.3 cures a year, against 57 a year before 1914."* Since 1978, there have been only four recognized cures.* So, if you're thinking of going to Lourdes for a miracle cure, the odds are not very high in your favor.

Bduffman

How come miracles don't seem to happen any more? Is it something to do with the digital age I wonder?
Whether its the big mother miracles from the bible or apparitions - they are now non-existant. And they stopped just at a time in history when nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket to record such an event. If they happened now we could all be sitting at home watching all these miralcle on youtube. But there are none. Funny that.

iUseVi

Bduffman wrote: »

How come miracles don't seem to happen any more? Is it something to do with the digital age I wonder?
Whether its the big mother miracles from the bible or apparitions - they are now non-existant. And they stopped just at a time in history when nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket to record such an event. If they happened now we could all be sitting at home watching all these miralcle on youtube. But there are none. Funny that.

Too many people with those pesky camera devices. Going around recording what actually happens instead of being reliant on word of mouth. Sheesh the kids these days.

eoin5

Looking up definitions (as I do, probably too often) the first one I find is:

1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:

Laws of nature, now there's a flaky subject...

Stercus Accidit

I recently read a bit in the paranormal forum, and I have come to an opinion.

That today, surrounded by science and technology, people can invent and thoroughly believe in ghosts, spells, soul stones (I saw a place selling bound souls of griffins and trolls, and a forum of dedicated believers therein) and despite logical explanations and general total refutation of these phenomena, they still believe a ouija board spoke to them, the flit of dust in the camera lens is a dead little gurl, and that show 'most haunted' really finds haunted houses.

I realised that today in the educated age, that these things can be surrounded by belief, and dedicated canon, books and 'real' physics and palm readers.

That 2000 years ago in an era of darkness, disease, crime, general illiteracy, lack of education and camels, there is no wonder that religion gained such a profound grasp on humanity.


This lourdes stuff has 2000 years of ghost stories and so forth to back it up, uncontested. Today psychics and mediums, in the face of a modern world filled with sceptics, science, and rational explanation, still convince people to part with cash, what hope did the people of jesus' time have to rationally explain such wild anecdotes(with no modern science), which are now so thoroughly believed even today?


How do I explain these lourdes, NDE's and so forth? Utter rubbish, but rubbish that easily gets into peoples heads and spreads for the same reason that I can call 1850-555-ouija and learn my future.

A question for believers...
How do you explain the fact that no such supernatural phenomenon has ever been shown to exist in conditions that exclude delusion, cheating and the numerous psychological effects that confuse people's senses?

Undergod

me_right_one wrote: »

Science will never explain the supernatural. The very word supernatural says it all, "super" meaning greater than, or beyond, and "natural" referring to natural science.

There's no such thing as supernatural. If a thing exists, then it interacts with other things, can be observed, and is thus part of nature. If it does not interact or cannot be observed,then there is no meaningful sense in which it exists

I'm not arguing that there is no God, or that miracles do not happen, because I don't know. But the idea of a "supernatural" simply cannot be.

iUseVi

Undergod wrote: »

There's no such thing as supernatural. If a thing exists, then it interacts with other things, can be observed, and is thus part of nature. If it does not interact or cannot be observed,then there is no meaningful sense in which it exists

I'm not arguing that there is no God, or that miracles do not happen, because I don't know. But the idea of a "supernatural" simply cannot be.

Indeed, either things work according to rules or they don't. If they do follow rules, these can be observed and tested. Thus the behaviour of the thing (whatever it is) can be subsequently predicted.

To be beyond science is to be beyond this rule prediction, i.e. to be act in a random manner. So I hypothesise that anything supernatural (can't be described by science) would have to be a random event. Therefore if god exists he/she/it is random and chaotic. Any random entity could not be given stable properties such as being just or righteous or loving or vengeful. People ascribe these properties to god, therefore god is a man-made fantasy. QED.

Hrududu

me_right_one wrote: »

You dont see anything inexplicable about flying humans to another planet in a time when you'd be lucky to get your morris minor started?

Considering you think the moon is a planet should we really trust anything else you think?

aidan24326

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was looking up Lourdes on skepdic.com and they attribute it to Belgian philosopher Etienne Vermeersch (no source for where he siad, or if he could prove it though).
What I found interesting (on the same site) though was this:

The same could be said of prayer also. For all the millions of prayers offered up every day, how many are answered? How often does god actually intervene to cure your cancer-ridden mother? The answer is not very often at all, apparently.

But point out these rather obvious facts to any religious person and they just revert to type. i.e jump through hoops / make sh1t up / the lord moves in mysterious ways.

fatmammycat

People are lazy thinkers.
I once sat in Bo Bos on Wexford street with my OH having a burger and chips, seated next to me at a different table were a group of 4 adults, one of whom was telling a story of 'someone' who knew a person who went to lourdes in a wheel chair, was pushed into the water and could walk perfectly the next day.
All around this guy the trio nodded, 'that's amazing' one girl said.
My OH kicked me on the leg as he could see the expression on my face, the expression that said I was about to lean over and ask for clarification of this 'miracle'.
Where had it happened? When? Who was the person? Was there any record of this so called miracle? A clinical paper? Surely it would have been all over the news?
But no, 'that's amazing.'
And now that bull**** story will do the round three more time as fact because people are too bloody lazy to go 'you know, I'm curious about some of those details.'

Why did no one demand Joe Coleman, the old fraud, produce this mystery blind boy he claimed he healed. How come people never grow limbs back, or gain a new eye. It's always bull**** iffy clap trap like 'I had an itch and now I don't', Give me a break. ANYONE who buys into that rubbish need a good dunking into a cold lake, not for miracles but to wake them the hell up.