Ask the godless heathen - AKA Ask An Atheist — Page 5

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rusfefmQDEs

Out of curiosity, what is the atheist explanation for things like this? Or do you just ignore these things and assume that there will be a scientific explanation in the future?

You're asking, what's the explanation for an idiot who had climbed under a heavy and obviously dangerous truck that is held up by a single flimsy jack, who is suffering massive bloodloss, internal injury and going into extreme shock hallucinates two Angels kneeling to his left and to his right in the exact same position as the two Paramedics were kneeling? (Paramedics who were metaphorically "Angels of Mercy").

Why do you assume that he could have known the jack might fail?

That of course doesn't even cover why he imagines God would torture him under a truck causing him agony the like of which he couldn't believe, then putting him into hospital for two months making his families lives a living nightmare. Also running up huge medical bills, depriving his family of his income and distracting the Doctors from helping other people. If God really wanted to help him, he would have stopped the truck falling on him in the first place.

This comes from a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. God allows suffering because he allows free will. It is mostly people who cause the suffering, not him. Suffering, however, is good according to Catholic doctrine because it helps atone for sins and is also good for the character. From what I gather, this man's faith was strengthened by his experience, which would explain why God might have allowed it. After all, it is the soul that really matters, not the body (though the body has value too, of course).

So everything up to the recuperating has an obvious explanation after even a few seconds of rational thought. As to God giving him back a little (But not all of his intestine for some bizarre reason) I offer mostly scepticism. He could have imbelished the Angel story to add weight to his claims, since as I note above it's easily explained away. Remember that this guy has launched a succesful book writing career off the back of this story. The profits of which is probably how he is paying the huge medical bills that God lumbered him with. Also it's how he is providing for his family now that God has taken away his livelihood.

I agree with the first part of that. He could have made embellishments to the story and there is no way of proving that everything happened the way he said it did. However, there are many, many testimonies like this, and they are usually similar to each other.

Who says that God took away his livelihood? Temporarily of course, but might he not be back at his job now that he has recovered?

If you look at these problems the same way Sherlock Homes would...

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.

A final note: If his prayers worked, how come they didn't for the other hundred thousand people that also died while praying for salvation on that day? It comes down to arrogance I guess (Sorry if this sounds harsh). That he'd believe that out of all the other much more deserving, blameless (He wasn't blameless the incident was his own stupid fault) and deeply good people that had their prayers ignored, he alone was chosen by God as being special among all the peoples of man.

The incident may have been partly his fault, though it seems like an accident to me. Remember, if God and heaven are real, then it is the soul that matters. If people pray for salvation, they get that when they go to heaven. I'm guessing you just used the wrong word, but I'm not sure what you meant. As I wrote, God allows suffering for purification. God doesn't usually help people because they are deserving. He also doesn't answer prayers that aren't beneficial to a person's salvation.

This is the kind of story that only confirms by belief in the non-existence of God.

 I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.

Leonardo said:

For "atheist explanation", you mean "unbiased by religion and only based on fact", right? I'm just saying because the way you asked sounded akin to asking the opinion of a sect or anything that's organized. Atheists are individuals.

I didn't mean to indicate that atheists are a group. What I meant was "how can this be explained if there is no God."

My own personal hypothesis is that the story he's telling us (remember, this is the account of one man, no other people in that video told us they saw the angels there, this is all based on his testimony) is how his brain tried to cope with what was happening. It was obviously a traumatic experience, psychologically and most importantly physically. The man was being crushed beneath a truck, and was losing conscience due to the intense pain.

I think that is quite likely.

Let's bear in mind that he's not telling us this story 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour after the fact. Months have passed. He's had time to "reconstruct" the event in his mind, and to "interpret" things the way a man of faith would.

I agree. I believe the important thing is that it strengthened his faith, though, regardless of whether or not it was actually a miracle, but the miraculous nature of the event is questionable.

In the few minutes spent trying to write this answer I actually found this rather interesting analysis, I would insist that you read it. If the sardonic remarks about God in it offend you, you can ignore them, I feel the thing in itself is worthy of attention and thought.

http://www.freethunk.net/freethunk-news-bites/bruce-van-natta-grows-intestines-say-what-2949

A lot of good points in that article, but the author obviously misunderstands who the Christian God is. I think there are also some good points on the Christian side in the comments.

Final thoughts: medical science saved Mr Van Natta. Just because he claims it's a miracle, and God helped him, doesn't mean it is. I feel what he claims is very disrespectful to all the doctors and surgeons responsible for him being alive today. Not a word of gratitude is spent towards them in the video and I feel that's a real shame.

 Perhaps he may be disrespectful from an atheist standpoint, but from a Christian point of view, this is not the case. That being said, the doctors did play a major part. Without them, the man would have died, and I think he should have credited them (maybe he did in his book).

My mother died whilst giving birth to me but was brought back by the hospital staff, she died again the next day but was brought back again.

As a child she told me again and again that she talked to Jesus on the second time she died and he told her that she had to return to her body to look after her new-born.

My mother and her side of the family were/are VERY religious

My mother did eventually die with complications connected to my birth 9 years later

As an adult I understand that with her strong belief in Christianity that that's what her mind wanted her to see, her consciousness

This does not effect my non-belief

J

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.

 Yeah, same for mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns. People claim to have seen them.

Oh, but they're not real!

There's a difference between saying something is not real and saying it is impossible.

RicOlie_2 said:

What I meant was "how can this be explained if there is no God."

Simple: this is the story of a dumbass mechanic who almost got crushed to death by a truck. Luckily for him, medical personnel worked their asses off to make him live.

There. Imagine reading this same story on the news, but without his testimony, without hearing his angle on it. Imagine no journalists ever gave him a microphone. All of a sudden it sounds like a pretty mundane story, one you hear hundreds of times.

I've heard miracle stories hundreds of times.

Perhaps he may be disrespectful from an atheist standpoint, but from a Christian point of view, this is not the case. That being said, the doctors did play a major part. Without them, the man would have died, and I think he should have credited them (maybe he did in his book).

 What are you talking about? In that last part you do make sense, but the first sentence is pure madness! "Disrespectful from an atheist standpoint"??? Dude, what about common sense, we're talking about basic human respect, you do acknowledge that surgeons saved his life but you say he wasn't disrespectful?

He didn't say "Those doctors and surgeons were useless--they didn't think I would survive, but thank goodness God was there to heal me, otherwise I wouldn't have made it," but rather omitted recognition of the doctors' work.

So, you're totally ok with a man of faith basically saying to his doctor:

- "hey, fuck you, you did nothing for me, the Lord saved me with a miracle!"

- "but we healed you, we put you back together, we gave you iv drips.."

- "magical man came and gave me a shock in the forehead, and my intestines grew back. and no thanks to you!!"

If I was the doctor in question I would fight really hard against my instincts to punch him in the kisser!

 I am absolutely not OK with someone saying that. That man didn't say anything like that. He didn't deny the doctors' role, but instead just didn't mention it. Let's use an analogy of the opposite scenario (someone being killed in ancient times). King Example orders the death of Joe. Executioner Bob kills Joel. Would you say King Example or Executioner Bob was responsible for Joe's death? One of Joe's friends later talks about how wrong King Example was to kill Joe. Would you say Joe's friend isn't giving Executioner Bob enough credit for Joe's death?

Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully it is good enough that you can grasp the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rusfefmQDEs

Out of curiosity, what is the atheist explanation for things like this? Or do you just ignore these things and assume that there will be a scientific explanation in the future?

...

RicOlie_2 said:

That of course doesn't even cover why he imagines God would torture him under a truck causing him agony the like of which he couldn't believe, then putting him into hospital for two months making his families lives a living nightmare. Also running up huge medical bills, depriving his family of his income and distracting the Doctors from helping other people. If God really wanted to help him, he would have stopped the truck falling on him in the first place.

This comes from a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. God allows suffering because he allows free will. It is mostly people who cause the suffering, not him. Suffering, however, is good according to Catholic doctrine because it helps atone for sins and is also good for the character. From what I gather, this man's faith was strengthened by his experience, which would explain why God might have allowed it. After all, it is the soul that really matters, not the body (though the body has value too, of course).

 It's not for you to determine "the true nature of God", even the Pope would be over reaching on that one IMO. But again I say his faith was strengthed because of his own self-obsession in that he assumes God thought his life was worth bothering to save... rather than just putting his visions down to blood-loss, delrium and shock. If I was in that ammount of pain, panic and shock, I'd think there had been something wrong if I hadn't seen Angels!

I agree that it is not for me to determine God's true nature. I think God revealed it to us though. Even if his faith was strengthened through his own self-obsession, it was still strengthened, which is a good thing in the eyes of a Christian.

RicOlie_2 said:

If you look at these problems the same way Sherlock Holmes would...

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.

 You are missing the point of Holmes' logical assertion. i.e. 'The hound of the Baskervilles': Holmes instantly assumes a hound-from-hell is impossible allowing him to immediately deduce all the possible real explanations. Everyone else in that book (Including us the reader in all likelyhood) entertains the possibility (However remote) that the hound could be supernatural, clouding our reasoning.

I didn't entirely miss it. I wanted to point out that you were assuming it was impossible. But yes, that should be the last assumption because it's more unlikely than the alternative.

Going by the tone of your original post, you took his story at face value (Since you questioned how there could possibly be any other explanation). However, I did not instantly assume it was genuine and was therefore able to examine the case with a fresh mind. Even with my very limited knowledge of both the incident in question and medicine, I was able to come up with a raft of possible explanations within minutes.

I didn't take it entirely at face value. I was less skeptical than you were, and since I know just about nothing about human anatomy, I didn't pick up on the bit about the small intestine and the severed arteries. Had I known that was off, I would have been far more skeptical right off the bat.

RicOlie_2 said:

A final note: If his prayers worked, how come they didn't for the other hundred thousand people that also died while praying for salvation on that day? It comes down to arrogance I guess (Sorry if this sounds harsh). That he'd believe that out of all the other much more deserving, blameless (He wasn't blameless the incident was his own stupid fault) and deeply good people that had their prayers ignored, he alone was chosen by God as being special among all the peoples of man.

The incident may have been partly his fault, though it seems like an accident to me. Remember, if God and heaven are real, then it is the soul that matters. If people pray for salvation, they get that when they go to heaven. I'm guessing you just used the wrong word, but I'm not sure what you meant. As I wrote, God allows suffering for purification. God doesn't usually help people because they are deserving. He also doesn't answer prayers that aren't beneficial to a person's salvation.

 OED definition of the word 'salvation'...

1: Preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss:
"They try to sell it to us as economic salvation"
1.1: (one's salvation) a source or means of being saved from harm, ruin, or loss:
"His only salvation was to outfly the enemy"

2: Theology - deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ: the Christian gospel of salvation for all mankind.

Apologies, it was just an odd usage of the word. Most people would have said it differently when using it to refer to the first definition. I just misunderstood, that's all.

^ The first is what it means, the second is what you believe it to mean. You keep suggesting I and others have made silly "mistakes" in our posts which comes across as quite patronising (Especially when you are infact incorrect yourself), I'm sure it is not your intent to do so. I let it go the first few times but thought it time to mention that.

You may not realize it, but you have come across as being condescending and patronizing a few times. You have also been wrong about some things regarding religion. I don't mean that to sound/look condescending, but please realize that both of us are doing the same things.

That aside, can you explain that out of the thousands(?) of other people on the planet who suffered painful (Near fatal) accidents on that day (Or any day), who also prayed to God, he alone got a little help (While for everyone else it was "Tough sh*t"). I'm sure you could point to a hundred other cases of Angels appearing but I could point to a hundred-billion where they didn't.

Sure, they didn't, and what I am saying is maybe they went to heaven. If they went to heaven/purgatory, then that's what's important.

This is the kind of story that only confirms by belief in the non-existence of God.

 I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.

For me, it is a story of the kind of crazy stuff the human mind can dream up when it is pushed to the limits. If it was a story of a totally rational and sober man seeing Angels, it would be less easy to dismiss.

 Possibly. Entirely sober people have described experiences like that, though many of them are still explainable. Another instance of a miracle (whether it was or not, I can't say for sure) is just a minor instance. When my grandmother was far younger, she broke her wrist and the bone was protruding. Her father took her to the hospital and the doctors looked at her wrist and noted the protruding bone. Her father touched her wrist (I can't remember this part with certainty) and told her it would be all right, or something like that. She says the pain went away at that point. When the doctors went to put the cast on her wrist, to their surprise the bone was no longer protruding and her wrist was healed. Her father had a sore wrist for six months after that. Now, I am just telling the story as I heard it. My grandmother tends to think critically and skeptically most of the time and is not a super spiritual type like someone who made that stuff up might be. She is quite honest and as far as I know, isn't prone to embellishing her stories. You can take it as you will, but I don't know if that's what really happened, or if something really happened there. There were some strange things about my grandmother's father, and he supposedly appeared to someone after his death and my great-grandmother heard his voice saying "I made it"--presumably to heaven. Cloven hoof-marks were also found on his body (he was supposedly tempted by demons during his lifetime). I don't know what to make of all that, but I figured it might be relevant information when determining the authenticity of the healing.

Thoughts? Explanations? Or do you think that isn't enough information? I personally don't think it's explainable with that information, but I don't think that means it can necessarily be taken at face value either. But make of it what you will.

Since there have been several recent conversations that I did not respond to, I will link to a large post I made a while back.  I'm too lazy to fix the typos I noticed in it right now. 

http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Religion/post/626614/#TopicPost626614

What you now have at your fingertips is my reason for being a rational, scientific, skeptical adult and a deeply believing, faithful Christian.  You should feel honored.  You see, I have felt that the atheistic crowd here has been a bit harsh on the believers, often saying that everything strengthens their belief in no God, making sometimes ridiculous arguments that state that one cannot logically be a Christian, etc.  Well, with surprise at the passion the nonbelievers hold, I tell you that I respect your beliefs and your reasons for not believing, but I encourage you to bear in mind that simply because some of us accept some things on faith does not make us imbeciles or mean we have not thought of the many same counterpoints that you use (i.e. why would God save this one man who was being stupide when other good people are allowed to die?).  Obviously these are thoughts that have crossed the minds of believers since everyone thought the world was flat and the sun was a small light passing over our plane.  We understand and get it.

I honestly grow a little tired of when non-religious people talk down at believers.  I consider myself intelligent and well educated.  But perhaps (assuming you've already read the link I provided), you can see where my intelligence may be strongest is in my ability to simultaneously hold seemingly contradictory ideas in my mind and accept them.  I understand that things may not always mesh, but my mind is quite capable of holding both as true to the best of my understanding and the understanding of humanity in general.  You will never know enough to be able to disprove God.  But whether you like it or not, you will never be able to prove that electrons exist, or that UFOs are not real, or anything else.  We still rely on theories developed from current understanding, understanding which has often undergone tremendous changes even in recent years.  How can anyone here show me that there will not be another such tremendous change that will further alter our understanding?  Right now we don't see how it all fits.  No human in this lifetime will.  If you don't believe in God but instead believe in an ultimate fiery death to this universe, I guarantee you that humanity will still not have come to the point of understanding all there is to it by then.  But I do believe that I can one day know it all, and that there is room for science and religion to coexist, even if you can't accept the complementarity of both.

The effect of what are currently called electrons are physically measurable and difficult to explain by other means but if a more compelling explanation for those effects were to be found it would probably in time replace the currently accepted scientific model.

The effects of any God or spiritual philosophy are only subjectively measurable and most religions would too bound by dogma to change without schism a major tenet of that religion.

Every unidentified flying object is a UFO so they definitely exist.

It only becomes an issue when the irrational beliefs of someone impact on the freedoms of others.

By irrational I mean beyond reason, that doesn't necessarily mean something bad or barmy, just beyond the requirement of explanation based on evidence.

If you are to limit the freedoms of others based on a set of ideas they have to at the very least be rational ideas. It's very difficult to rationalise human slavery over paying a working wage. It's difficult to rationalise prejudice or torture.

It's easy to point to a book and claim an invisible being or an historical leader of a despotic group from anywhere in the world requires slavery or murder etc.

It bears mentioning not all religions have a godhead and not every theist is religious and not all irrational beliefs are religious or theistic.

I personally can't even call myself agnostic because it implies a fixed model of god or gods to be unsure about but I can know I'm not a Biblical literalist because I know how the bible came to be in it's current form and it's unbelievable to me that anyone would believe it, Let alone use it as a basis to prejudge others. I am clearly not a Mormon but I'm also not an Atheist.

However I can see how being a Mormon and acknowledging the high probability of electrons existing are possibly compatible situations.

Bingowings said:

By irrational I mean beyond reason, that doesn't necessarily mean something bad or barmy, just beyond the requirement of explanation based on evidence.

That's why I prefer to use the term "non-rational" in this context. It's doesn't carry the same prejorative connotations.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.

Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.

 Yeah, same for mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns. People claim to have seen them.

Oh, but they're not real!

There's a difference between saying something is not real and saying it is impossible.

Potato potato. (really doesn't work in writing ;P )

Alright, impossible. Angels are supposed to be supernatural beings, right? No such thing as the supernatural. There. Impossible.

I think it's pointless debating this, but it is only your belief that the supernatural does not exist, as it is mine that it does.

RicOlie_2 said:

...

So, you're totally ok with a man of faith basically saying to his doctor:

- "hey, fuck you, you did nothing for me, the Lord saved me with a miracle!"

- "but we healed you, we put you back together, we gave you iv drips.."

- "magical man came and gave me a shock in the forehead, and my intestines grew back. and no thanks to you!!"

If I was the doctor in question I would fight really hard against my instincts to punch him in the kisser!

 I am absolutely not OK with someone saying that. That man didn't say anything like that. He didn't deny the doctors' role, but instead just didn't mention it. Let's use an analogy of the opposite scenario (someone being killed in ancient times). King Example orders the death of Joe. Executioner Bob kills Joe. Would you say King Example or Executioner Bob was responsible for Joe's death? One of Joe's friends later talks about how wrong King Example was to kill Joe. Would you say Joe's friend isn't giving Executioner Bob enough credit for Joe's death?

Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully it is good enough that you can grasp the gist of what I'm trying to say.

 I don't understand your analogy, sorry.

 That's OK, it wasn't a very good or clear one. My point is just that a person can credit someone with an action that they weren't directly responsible for (but the action came about because of that person), and not mention the person directly responsible, without being accused of not giving the person directly responsible enough credit. Hopefully that is clearer. If not, perhaps I can attempt a better, real-world, analogy.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

[...stuff...]

Apologies, it was just an odd usage of the word. Most people would have said it differently when using it to refer to the first definition. I just misunderstood, that's all.

^ The first is what it means, the second is what you believe it to mean. You keep suggesting I and others have made silly "mistakes" in our posts which comes across as quite patronising (Especially when you are infact incorrect yourself), I'm sure it is not your intent to do so. I let it go the first few times but thought it time to mention that.

You may not realize it, but you have come across as being condescending and patronizing a few times. You have also been wrong about some things regarding religion. I don't mean that to sound/look condescending, but please realize that both of us are doing the same things.

 Apologies if I come of like that, it's not my intent either. I tend to pepper my arguments with a little humour, even light sarcasm but it is meant in jest (Gives a debate some zest IMO). But there is a subtle difference between poking a bit of fun at the content of somebody's argument and suggesting that somebody lacks the basic language skills to make that argument.

The best of us are guilty of that. Humour tends to come across badly over the internet. In the heat of a debate, things can be taken more personally than normal, or things you say might seem OK from your perspective, but appear rude to the other person.

RicOlie_2 said:

This is the kind of story that only confirms my belief in the non-existence of God.

 I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.

For me, it is a story of the kind of crazy stuff the human mind can dream up when it is pushed to the limits. If it was a story of a totally rational and sober man seeing Angels, it would be less easy to dismiss.

[story]

 Exactly, that story is less easy for me to dismiss or explain. I still don't believe it and am sure there must be a rational explanation somewhere in there if I had more information like Doctor's notes, pathologist's reports, a library of similar case notes, patient history, multiple witness testimonies, a degree in medicine etc etc.

 It is certainly impossible to refute some purported miracles, and equally hard to prove they happened. I choose to accept many of them, but you choose to believe there is a natural explanation. Both work, I guess, but each side shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the other.

What's your response to atheists who are not skeptics (or to phrase it another way, people whose atheism is not informed by their skepticism), and believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, alien abduction stories, Nostradamus, water crystals, etc.?

I find them to be annoying blowhards, who think that religion is just another conspiracy, so they pat themselves on the back for wearing their tin foil hats when they walk past churches, so that super secret Catholic Technology they stole from Nikola Tesla can't brainwash THEM, no siree! They're SMARTER than that, man--it's just another way for The Man to keep us from knowing the truth about Area 51, man. You should read this Geocities page from 1997, it tells you all about how the Mayans knew this was going to happen, so they sank Atlantis and then shot JFK. Then you will have your eyes opened, man. It's like, whoa. Totally.

lol at King Example.

TV's Frink said:

lol at King Example.

 I know--it was honestly the best I could come up with at the time. :P I must have been tired.

Sadako said:

What's your response to atheists who are not skeptics (or to phrase it another way, people whose atheism is not informed by their skepticism), and believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, alien abduction stories, Nostradamus, water crystals, etc.?

I find them to be annoying blowhards, who think that religion is just another conspiracy, so they pat themselves on the back for wearing their tin foil hats when they walk past churches, so that super secret Catholic Technology they stole from Nikola Tesla can't brainwash THEM, no siree! They're SMARTER than that, man--it's just another way for The Man to keep us from knowing the truth about Area 51, man. You should read this Geocities page from 1997, it tells you all about how the Mayans knew this was going to happen, so they sank Atlantis and then shot JFK. Then you will have your eyes opened, man. It's like, whoa. Totally.

Personally, I think these atheists practice atheism just like some theists claim all atheists do -- ie. as a religion.

I think a lot of atheists are religious and unfortunately for those who aren't, religious people (who belong to organized religions) lump all atheists together.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Bingowings said:

By irrational I mean beyond reason, that doesn't necessarily mean something bad or barmy, just beyond the requirement of explanation based on evidence.

That's why I prefer to use the term "non-rational" in this context. It's doesn't carry the same prejorative connotations.

 I didn't want to exclude the barmy and bad from my statement either.

RicOlie_2 said:

I think a lot of atheists are religious and unfortunately for those who aren't, religious people (who belong to organized religions) lump all atheists together.

 Huh?.....my brain hurts, my brain hurts!

J