Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.

My response was sufficient for your hilariously nonsensical thought. Because only a few people saw, therefore miracle. Except miracles can't have evidence. Haha...smoke another...

 

[Spare_change]

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.

My response was sufficient for your hilariously nonsensical thought. Because only a few people saw, therefore miracle. Except miracles can't have evidence. Haha...smoke another...

Wow! What an artful, articulate, concise, and thoughtful reply. You must be proud ...

Give me a break.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You failed to respond to his answer

If God had actually done something to the sun, it would have been evident everywhere on earth

The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion of hallucination

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.

My response was sufficient for your hilariously nonsensical thought. Because only a few people saw, therefore miracle. Except miracles can't have evidence. Haha...smoke another...

Wow! What an artful, articulate, concise, and thoughtful reply. You must be proud ...

Give me a break.

Exactly what are you expecting? You say illogical, idiotic things, and expect not to be ridiculed because you claim some sort of divine authority....no, you are no different than any other crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn. But meeting every Sunday with like-minded weirdos to compare clothing has fooled you into thinking you are normal.

 

[RWNJ]

You are confusing predestination with foerknowledge. Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that it is fated to happen. We still have choices. God simply knows what those choices will be. There is a big difference.

Okay ... So He doesn't know what is going to happen ... He just knows what the choices will be.
Still sounds like you are little confused about what He knows ... I mean damn, I know what the choices are and I am not God ...

.

He does know what will happen. God is not bound by or subject to time. All of time and space is visible to Him. He knows what you are thinking right now. He knew what you would be thinking right now before He created the universe. Look up the definition of omniscient. That's God. He's also omnipotent, and omnipresent. All knowing, all powerful, and everywhere and every when. That's God.

 

[Vandalshandle]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

 

[Spare_change]

... this, of course, is viably false. The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God.

Neither is more viable than the other.

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.

My response was sufficient for your hilariously nonsensical thought. Because only a few people saw, therefore miracle. Except miracles can't have evidence. Haha...smoke another...

Wow! What an artful, articulate, concise, and thoughtful reply. You must be proud ...

Give me a break.

Exactly what are you expecting? You say illogical, idiotic things, and expect not to be ridiculed because you claim some sort of divine authority....no, you are no different than any other crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn. But meeting every Sunday with like-minded weirdos to compare clothing has fooled you into thinking you are normal.

Now you see ... well, actually you don't.

You feel it necessary to attack and demean anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. You don't try to learn - you don't consider the alternative position, with an mind open to the potential of altering yours.

Instead, like a petulant little child, you metaphorically throw yourself on the floor, pounding and screaming in an irrational tantrum, as if your childish little attack is going to change somebody's mind. You immediately divert from the subject, instead attacking a class of people who think differently than you.

I wonder at the hubris and egotism that allows you to think you are ever so much smarter, ever so much aware, ever so much better, that you are somehow authorized to judge others.

I wonder .... but I'm not surprised. It seems to be the prime trait of atheists.

 

[Spare_change]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

.... two out of three falls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The fact that it was only "seen" by a tiny fraction of the people supports a conclusion that this was the intent, and the work, of God. "

Not only is that utterly ridiculous, you are now attempting to present evidence for a miracle. Just minutes before, you had said that miraclea have no evidence, by definition.

And the phrase "viably false" makes zero sense and is an assault on the English language.

LOL - that's the best you got ? That's it? No proof of your supposition? Merely an attack on my comment? That's it?

How pathetic.

However, in the lowbrow manner in which you attacked, I shall respond ... Miracles, by definition, defy proof. Instead, we consider 1) its occurrence (proven by the witnessing by thousands), 2) it's lack of verifiable rationale (proven by the lack of witnessing by another thousand), and 3) no other verifiable proof.

By the way, had your education expanded beyond "Run, Spot, Run" ... you would have come across the phrase "viably false" - it used to describe a false claim that is given a life of its own - typically used within the context of the ignorance of those who spread the falsehood. More explicitly, it is used to describe a phrase that is accepted as truth, despite its falsity, only because it is oft repeated, not because it is true.

Nice try, bucko --- but you are clearly out of your league.

My response was sufficient for your hilariously nonsensical thought. Because only a few people saw, therefore miracle. Except miracles can't have evidence. Haha...smoke another...

Wow! What an artful, articulate, concise, and thoughtful reply. You must be proud ...

Give me a break.

Exactly what are you expecting? You say illogical, idiotic things, and expect not to be ridiculed because you claim some sort of divine authority....no, you are no different than any other crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn. But meeting every Sunday with like-minded weirdos to compare clothing has fooled you into thinking you are normal.

Now you see ... well, actually you don't.

You feel it necessary to attack and demean anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. You don't try to learn - you don't consider the alternative position, with an mind open to the potential of altering yours.

Instead, like a petulant little child, you metaphorically throw yourself on the floor, pounding and screaming in an irrational tantrum, as if your childish little attack is going to change somebody's mind. You immediately divert from the subject, instead attacking a class of people who think differently than you.

I wonder at the hubris and egotism that allows you to think you are ever so much smarter, ever so much aware, ever so much better, that you are somehow authorized to judge others.

I wonder .... but I'm not surprised. It seems to be the prime trait of atheists.

The only person throwing a tantrum is you. You said miracles can't have any evidence, by definition. Then you presented evidence of a miracle literally minutes later. I pointed it out. One big tantrum later by you, here we are.

 

[Czernobog]

Like so many others you misunderstand my position. There is no God is not my belief. It is merely a premise. It is a negative premise that awaits objective evidence to falsify it.

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

By definition ---- if there was proof, it couldn't be a miracle.

Amazing how you try to pervert the English language in order to support an unsupportable supposition.

Well, you should certainly explain to Blackrook that he is clueless about the nature of miracles, then. After all, he is the one who claimed the Fatima Sun Dance was "proof" of God's existence.

 

[Czernobog]

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

 

[Czernobog]

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

So, as a counter-proof to the observation of thousands, you offer the inimitably more unsupportable supposition that those thousands were victims of some mass hysteria? You have no more proof than he poster .... he has an opinion, and you have an opinion ---- nothing more, nothing less. (except that his is supported by thousands of eyewitnesses)

 

[Czernobog]

So, your moral compass directs you to be a sycophant, in the hopes that God would be stupid enough to mistake it for sincerity, in the hopes of avoiding Hell. Yeah...I'd prefer to just be honest, and let the chips fall where they may.

there are no chips

you either follow and accept jesus as your savior, and get into heaven
or
burn forever


and really, god hasn't taken a direct roll in anything in over 2000 years.

So what? That's even worse. After demonstrating himself to be genocidal, he then just takes a poweder, and leaves us all to the whims of fate, when all along he could have chosen to make a difference.

You don't seem to get that if God is omniscient, he's gonna know that you're only saying the right words to avoid Hell. You think that's gonna cut it? Really??? You don't really think much of God, do you?

now you're making false assumptions to make false accusations.

weak
fucking
sauce


dismissed as a nutter

Says the guy who insists that bowing down to a Genocidal God is rational. Thanx for stopping by. Buh bye.

Once again, you have put your stake in the ground about a "genocidal God" - but, of course, you offer no proof. I await, with much delight, your response.

Okay. This is the last time I am going to post Gods' command to the Jews to you. Henceforth when you claim "no evidence", you are a liar:

1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Now, I don't know where you are4 from, but where I am from that is the textbook definition of genocide.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Indeed, a rainbow is an optical illusion. It appears to be "at a certain distance", when it is really the effect of all the water droplets in your line of sight that are at a certain angle to the light source.

Let the squawkers squawk.

 

[hobelim]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

Translation of the OP; "I refuse to believe in a gentricidal God that allowed the big bad wolf to eat grandma, even if he exists."

 

[Czernobog]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

Translation of the OP; "I refuse to believe in a gentricidal God that allowed the big bad wolf to eat grandma, even if he exists."

 

[hobelim]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

Translation of the OP; "I refuse to believe in a gentricidal God that allowed the big bad wolf to eat grandma, even if he exists."

C'mon now, you don't have to admit that your premise is ridiculous for other people to notice.

 

[Czernobog]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

Translation of the OP; "I refuse to believe in a gentricidal God that allowed the big bad wolf to eat grandma, even if he exists."

C'mon now, you don't have to admit that your premise is ridiculous for other people to notice.

 

[hobelim]

With all due respect, the entire premise of this thread makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Superman could beat up Ironman, or not.

Translation of the OP; "I refuse to believe in a gentricidal God that allowed the big bad wolf to eat grandma, even if he exists."

C'mon now, you don't have to admit that your premise is ridiculous for other people to notice.

Hey, I'm not the one who is so clueless and feels so insecure that he calls on his "fellow atheists" to join him in denouncing Sargon for ordering the destruction of baby orcs,.... even if he was proven to exist!.

Its like you're hell bent on being the biggest dick in the sky..

You do have my vote.

 

[Spare_change]

Then I invite you to examine the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. God proved his existence so overwhelmingly that there is no possibility to deny it.

Question. Since the whole world is illuminated by the same sun, how is it that this "miracle" was only visible in one place, by one group of people?

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

By definition ---- if there was proof, it couldn't be a miracle.

Amazing how you try to pervert the English language in order to support an unsupportable supposition.

Well, you should certainly explain to Blackrook that he is clueless about the nature of miracles, then. After all, he is the one who claimed the Fatima Sun Dance was "proof" of God's existence.

Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle.

God's existence is NOT the miracle.

 

[Spare_change]

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.