Oops. Link:

http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-god-of-small-miracles/

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> nor denied, and as I write before, this probably will never be proved 
>> or discarded.
> 
> I think it has already been proved.
> 
>> I just google this for you, I hadn't even read them, forgot to say that.
> 
> None of them said what you think they said.
> 
>> That said, I believe that even can do supernatural achievements on 
>> extreme situations,
> 
> I don't think you know what the word "supernatural" means, either. :-)
> 
>> Think about one of those extreme situations I described... you 
>> wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith you can grasp? 
> 
> Uh, no. I'd look for a solution that's actually likely to work.
> 
> If you got in a situation, would you call out to Thor to grant you the 
> Strength of his Mighty Hammer?  Would you cry out for Captain Kirk to 
> beam up the car that has your loved one pinned?  When you understand why 
> you wouldn't do either of those, you'll understand why even in an 
> emergency I wouldn't call out to JHVH for help, or whichever one it is 
> you're currently worshiping.
> 
>> I imagine the mother saying to God: "OK God, you better give me a hand 
>> here because I'm going to rescue mu child or die trying...". 
> 
> I'm not sure why you think an atheist wouldn't just start after the 
> "because" in that sentence.
> 
>> no room for rationality, just pure love for my child., but that's me...
> 
> Your tone makes it sound like "an atheist wouldn't even try" or 
> something. I think an atheist would also most likely try to lift the 
> car, unless there was something likely to be more effective than prayer 
> around, like a long pole and a big rock nearby, say. :-) As I said, you 
> don't have to be a theist to be irrational. Panic is actually a survival 
> trait, for one thing. ("Nothing reasonable is going to save me. Hence, I 
> will try something unreasonable, and I can't lose.")
> 
Or just try to lift the car. Can't remember the name for it, but there 
is a "known" biological mechanism in the body that allows for massive 
increases in short term adrenalin production, and the release of 
chemicals into the muscles, which are using under stress to increase the 
physical output of the muscles. Heck, they even had something one one of 
the new Science Fiction shows about it, where people where "doping" 
athletes with a virus that contained code to "hyper-manufacture" the 
chemical in muscle tissue, which would have made their muscles function 
at several times normal capacity, only they screwed up, and it got into 
cell walls, where it instead produced "toxic" results. The inability to 
"look up" how someone can, naturally, through a known mechanism, gain a 
temporary boost in strength, sufficient to lift a car, is **never** a 
justification for believing that magic pixies dusted someone with pixie 
powder, or any other absurd "supernatural" explanations.

It just shows the same laziness expressed already, in presuming that 
they "know" what atheists are all like, based on past misunderstanding, 
or prior prejudice, and thus refusing to find out if that perception is 
accurate for all of them, let alone "any" of them. Then again, we have 
seen it already. The "no true Scotsman" BS. If an atheist isn't like 
what I think and atheist should be like, then he/she can't be an 
atheist, but must be some sort of theist, even if they "insists" they 
are actually an atheist. Same thing here, just with ignorance added in: 
"I can't imagine, and don't know, the explanation for how someone could 
be temporarily that strong, therefor its impossible for them to be, and 
therefor the only explanation is god intervening. Why should I have to 
check my facts of do research to "find out" if I am right?"

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Interesting how we evolved, and saying we don't is being biased 
> blindsided toward a religion, there is a ton of documentary videos on TV 
> I've seen (and I'm sure is only a small number) where there is more than 
> just probable cause of evolution from one spices into another, in some 
> cases not definitive evidence in others not enough but you feel there 
> must be some kind of logical connection, because Nature simply works 
> that way: Biology in bio-/chemistry, chemistry in atomic physics, so 
> evolution is a fact of the universe, fascinating...

Hmm. Point in your favor, you are not a creationist.. lol Oh, nothing 
interesting bit, they have finally manage to make a "test" condition 
where two very simple RNA sequences, placed in a medium containing only 
the "chemicals" needed to make more, result in a continuous process by 
which chemical A and B produce E, which then propagates itself, until it 
runs out of chemicals. And, like regular RNA/DNA replications, each 
"replica" made has slight "mutations" in the structure, do to copy 
errors. This puts the difference between life and chemistry at... 
roughly the same point as accidentally spilling lemon juice on two 
different metal electrodes. The "precise" conditions, or exact 
"original" RNA pattern that likely happened is still unknown, but its 
been shown that, once you have something able to make copies, even if it 
"has to" work with something else to do it, you don't need anything else 
to keep it going, just raw materials.

But, it still brings up the question of, "Why is the rest of the stuff 
about god true, if the basics, at the start, are dead wrong?"

Course, someone else made a jibe about the whole three different 
versions of events in Genesis by stating, "Well, of course something 
existed before God. Do you see 'anything' suggesting that he 'created' 
the firmament, or the sky itself? No, he breaths upon the waters that 
are already there, to start the whole mess. Doesn't that kind of make 
him at least a 'little' less impressive to start with, if he had to have 
something to start it all from?"

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 15-Jan-09 2:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>  >> In Short, I'm searching the truth... about God... that implicitly
>>> tells me how to follow him (most Religions fail at this purpose, 
>>> ironically).
>>
>> Well, I am also searching but being an atheist, I look via a different 
>> path.
> 
> I and wish you the best of lucks my friend. I'll pray for you...

Hmm, I am sure he will, "keep a padded room open for you, when you 
decide to get help". ;) Saying you will pray for someone that doesn't 
believe in it is either a) meaningless, since its no different than 
suggesting that you will, "wave at them through the computer", or b) 
implies that it "has" some sort of meaning for them, other than being 
colloquial, and thus accepting it is the same as admitting they believe 
after all. I think we can both take it in the terms you didn't intend 
though, and just say, "Uh, thanks, but I didn't sneeze, nor do I believe 
my soul will leave my body through the nose if you don't say it."

Mind, I can't really speak for Andrel on the subject, so.. maybe he will 
have a different take.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
can't love.

Post a reply to this message

You call me ignorant, I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail 
because Science and specially you have an answer to everything, and what 
I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed 
the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs, that Nature didn't make it 
all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never 
have a rational explanation there (too many to put here and I don't 
recall any now but I have seen many many cases on documentaries and I'm 
sure there is something spiritual if not divine out there) are many 
outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them, 
hahahaha and I'm  deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all 
but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world 
and you are the ignorant here. but no you and the Atheists are the 
owners of the truth, OK, so be it.

And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational 
trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you 
even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a 
cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you 
are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Think about one of those extreme situations I described... 
>  > you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
>> you can grasp? 
> 
> By the way, this is something I've always been curious about.
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier for God to just prevent the child from winding up 
> underneath the car than to grant the mother unusual strength to pick the 
> car up?  I mean, why is it that everyone getting out of the crashed 
> plane alive is a miracle, but the plane crashing from a freak series of 
> events isn't a miracle?  Why isn't the mother just as likely to be 
> pissed at God for endangering her child as she is to ask for help?
> 
Free will. I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going 
well, you make fun of me at some point and that is disrespectful so as I 
don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits. 
Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.

Best Regards.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> My thoughts:
> 
> Clarification: I haven't read all posts.
> 
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of 
> creation: something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on 
> peace of matter, I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a 
> sleepless night.
> 
> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that. As some people 
> pointed out, you cant actually find a single proof of God existence and 
> probably you wont in your lifetime, hence the belief in God is by faith 
> and by faith alone.

And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is 
inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.  All 
proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed to be 
true without evidence.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 3:40, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I don't know if it is where I live or who my friends and acquaintances 
>> are but in my experience the group that tries to express their believe 
>> by living as an example of what faith can do to a person is so large 
>> that you can not neglect them. The group that you refer to is more 
>> visible as a group, but I are less likely to meet them as they tend to 
>> stick together. The group I mean is not so recognizable as they are 
>> friendly people and you have to know them better to understand what 
>> rôle faith plays in how they interact with other people. Sometimes it 
>> may turn out that that faith happens to be atheism, but we were not 
>> talking about those.
>>
> 
> Hmm. Just to be clear here, what "faith" are you talking about with 
> atheism? 

That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out 
what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns out 
that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken the 
non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping others."

Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
not carry across cultures?

> Last I checked the only "faith" involved there was the same 
> ones those who have "faiths" apply all the time, like, "I have faith 
> that the laws of physics will let my car start in the morning, not turn 
> me into a grapefruit." Sorry to be picky here, but since we are, 
> supposedly trying to make "clear" distinctions about things talked 
> about, and people, it might be useful what "faith" you seem to think an 
> atheist has that makes it the "same" as a religion...
> 
> That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced around 
> a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, 

given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.

> I will post a 
> paraphrase of his statement on "compassion", as it was applied to a case 
> of a family that had a child diagnosed with hydrocephalus. 

I did not understand the following until I followed the link in he other 
post. So, as an abbreviation it leaves something to be deserved. ;)

> The doctors 
> stated that she would either be still born, or only live a short time. 
> The chaplain's statements about the matter:
> 
> 1. Thumbs up to the christians that chose to follow their own creed of 
> loving others.
> 
> 2. The two who they helped might not have made it without such help and 
> compassionate people with them.
> 
> 3. Not impressed with the god in the story, who seemed to be unable to 
> do anything at all that the doctors didn't already predict.
> 
> 4. "Four, I wish that the friendships that abound in this story would 
> have been accomplished without the framework of religion to constrain 
> them. This story speaks poignantly of both the power and the depth of 
> human empathy and compassion. Danny, Danielle and Bobbi didn’t need a 
> deity; they needed other people. The Christians didn’t need a deity; 
> they had tremendous strength and love within themselves. Danny, 
> Danielle, the pastor and all of the church people have sold themselves 
> short. Instead of recognizing their own virtue, they believe that the 
> source of all their goodness is a small god who performs pitifully small 
> miracles. That’s almost as tragic as the death of baby Bobbi."
> 
> Mind, the first poster on the reply thread suggested that #1 may have 
> been a bit "artificial", in that many such people are far more 
> interested in getting people "into" the club, and saving souls, than 
> truly showing compassion, without strings attached. And, he is right. 
> Its very hard to tell the difference some times.

There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the 
church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that 
that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation of 
their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if someone 
would question my intentions in this way.

To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist and 
is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact closely 
for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. Sometimes 
that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes into it and 
sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not result in 
anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that the internal 
changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave friendly 
towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We might hope 
that the other follows our example, but that does not make any of us 
missionaries.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 4:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 15-Jan-09 2:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>  >> In Short, I'm searching the truth... about God... that implicitly
>>>> tells me how to follow him (most Religions fail at this purpose, 
>>>> ironically).
>>>
>>> Well, I am also searching but being an atheist, I look via a 
>>> different path.
>>
>> I and wish you the best of lucks my friend. I'll pray for you...
> 
> Hmm, I am sure he will, "keep a padded room open for you, when you 
> decide to get help". ;) Saying you will pray for someone that doesn't 
> believe in it is either a) meaningless, since its no different than 
> suggesting that you will, "wave at them through the computer", or b) 
> implies that it "has" some sort of meaning for them, other than being 
> colloquial, and thus accepting it is the same as admitting they believe 
> after all. I think we can both take it in the terms you didn't intend 
> though, and just say, "Uh, thanks, but I didn't sneeze, nor do I believe 
> my soul will leave my body through the nose if you don't say it."
> 
> Mind, I can't really speak for Andrel on the subject, so.. maybe he will 
> have a different take.

I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no actual 
meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'

Post a reply to this message