| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:50 |
I know what it is ...
BUNK
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:47 |
 The T wrote:
Not really, but It's still not good enough for me. I wanted Ivan to explain it anyway since he said the church was an authority in the first place.
We really need The Amazing Catholic or The Amazing Theist...  |
No we don't need it.
The Church is an authority because they have spent the last centuries studying with a defined method, every event that can be cataloged as a miracle.
They have a process and an office in charge, with a not limited budget, they have talked with all the people involved,. witnesses, scientific experts who are in favour and also those who are against, they have debunked largely more than 95% of the miracles claimed with help of the science.
If that wasn't enough, there's a canonic law (a discipline of laws, recognized even by civil institutions) that defines a process to accept a miracle, we are not talking about a bunch of lunatics who make a guy walk every Sunday, but a process with a lawyer, an DA (until some years ago called The Devil's Advocate), and as many witness and experts (in every field) as they need, this process can take, years, decades or even centuries, in order to achieve a high degree of certitude.
Is this is not an authority...I don't know what is.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:37 |
When I post a video, it's usually because I think that it is interesting with respect to the topic at hand. I also posted a Pat Condell video, and a video by TAA that was critical of Pat Condell.
Please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting me on purpose. If your world view is centered around blindly believing figures of authority - and you being religious hints towards that - then that is sad, but it doesn't have anything to do with me.
Incidentally: I think I've posted a few videos by KingHeathen ... if you watch them to the end, you'll know his motto:
"Don't take my word for it - think for yourself"
I agree 100% - and it is sad that in our conversation I have to spell this out, it should go without saying.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 08 2010 at 12:38
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:08 |
The T wrote:
Ivan, I posted a few videos the other day of an idiotic candidate here who said she was not witch. Did I do so because she is, for me, an authority?
No T, if I'm not wrong you quoted her to make mockery, and we all laughed because the situation is absurd
We all sometimes post videos of people saying things we agree with. That doesn't mean we regard them as authorities. We regard them as people with one (maybe just one) good opinion. Why does it have to be either "authority" or "no authority" in your book? In this cae Mike is so absolutely right. You're seeing everything black or white.
If I consistently post SEVERAL videos of a guy in a serious discussion, as an example of a correct arguments, and claim how right he/she is, then you are using that person to reaffirm your position, ergo, it's a figure of authority or at least of respect to you.
I wouldn't quote a video of any John Smith, even when he said God exists, because the guy is a nobody without any authority.
And believe me, I SO dislike the amazing atheist...
That's not the point, I dislike Dawkins, but I recognize he's an authority for atheists, the guy is intelligent, I simply like the Amazing Atheist, because each time he talks, he converts a couple persons to religion. 
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:10 |
Textbook already highlighted the circular nature of this argument.... and I guess we all might agree that Protestants don't accept the authority of the pope, but they still can believe in miracles.
Just because you can explain something, doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it. Christians in general believe that God works through natural things.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:02 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The Church is an authority because of scripture. Scripture is authoritative because the Church says so. |
We need a third party to define what an authority is once and for all... is beyond our grasp.
Let's create a god.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:56 |
The Church is an authority because of scripture. Scripture is authoritative because the Church says so.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:41 |
Not really, but It's still not good enough for me. I wanted Ivan to explain it anyway since he said the church was an authority in the first place.
We really need The Amazing Catholic or The Amazing Theist... |
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:33 |
The T wrote:
I still haven't had a response (other than Stonebeard's) regarding why the Church is supposed to be an authority on miracles....
Or maybe it's this easy: I'll invent a new category, let's say, "TheT-events", and I'll write all there is about the subject. Therefore, I'm an authority. |
You really need to pay more attention... or maybe my posts have miraculously disappeared! 
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:25 |
I still haven't had a response (other than Stonebeard's) regarding why the Church is supposed to be an authority on miracles....
Or maybe it's this easy: I'll invent a new category, let's say, "TheT-events", and I'll write all there is about the subject. Therefore, I'm an authority. |
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:23 |
Ivan, I posted a few videos the other day of an idiotic candidate here who said she was not witch. Did I do so because she is, for me, an authority?
We all sometimes post videos of people saying things we agree with. That doesn't mean we regard them as authorities. We regard them as people with one (maybe just one) good opinion. Why does it have to be either "authority" or "no authority" in your book? In this cae Mike is so absolutely right. You're seeing everything black or white.
And believe me, I SO dislike the amazing atheist...
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:12 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
What I can't understand is why if somebody quotes a Doctor and a panel of medical doctors it's wrong but if Mike quotes a clown it's OK?
Maybe it's only correct if you quote scientists who agree with your position.
Anyway, it's interesting how when there's no argument, people start to insult.
Iván |
You can quote scientists - there's nothing wrong with that. When you quote medical doctors commenting on what's a miracle and what isn't, then it gets ridiculous. Sure, I know, they're only determining that no medical cause is found. But that's a non-issue - nobody contests that in the first place. Except for the fact that some claims are bogus - but on the whole, even your most hard nosed atheist will agree that sometimes people who have terminal illnesses get better with no apparent reason - the best doctors that we have can find none. And if some of those happen to have been Catholics, or Catholics were praying for them - then they become candidates for miracle claims. Never mind the Hindus, Muslims etc. who get better.
And please, the idiot thing was a sarcastic attempt at demonstrating the false dilemma fallacy ... 
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:51 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
When Ivan was talking about the panel of Consulta Medica doctors, Mike said: That's ridiculous, they are clearly biased - normal scientists would determine that there are no apparent reasons. And even then, who says that the ''available CT scans'' etc are authentic? Doctors aren't detectives. Well, neither are doctors/scientists infallible, and that includes ''normal scientists''. What is a ''normal scientist''? How does Mike know whether the Consulta Medica are clearly biased? And how does Mike know what the ''normal scientists'' would determine? How do I know whether men walked on the moon and whether the evidence is authentic? |
This kind of reasoning leads you down the slippery slope towards post-modernism ("we can't really know anything - so all opinions are equally valid").
"Do you personally believe in miracles?
Yes, there are some medical events that are not explainable... If you do not believe in miracles, your life is not as full as it could be." There you see the principle of the argument from ignorance at work - no explanation is found, so we conclude that it must have been a miracle. Never mind if history shows that for many "miracle cures" decades later an explanation was found. Like he says previously: "What about miracles that you determined unexplainable 10 years ago, but are now quite easily explained [because of medical advances]? We believe that any progress of humanity is a present from God. And therefore, if I receive a Nobel prize for discovering the cure for cancer, I thank God for giving me the light and understanding to discover this, but it does not cancel out unexplained cures of cancer." Notice the deeply religious argumentation in the first two highlighted parts, and the inherent logical contradiction in the third highlighted part. Sure, the mere fact that some previous miracles were debunked does not prove that they're *all* invalid. But it does show that that the current process of detecting miracles is flawed (-> argument from ignorance).
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 08 2010 at 10:39
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:36 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Again you loose your temper Mike?
You are the one who quoted this guy and you call me an idiot?
Iván
|
I think he's smarter than you when it comes to religion.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:29 |
What I can't understand is why if somebody quotes a Doctor and a panel of medical doctors it's wrong but if Mike quotes a clown it's OK?
Maybe it's only correct if you quote scientists who agree with your position.
Anyway, it's interesting how when there's no argument, people start to insult.
Iván
|
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:44 |
|
How so?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:22 |
|
^ isn't bring up conspiracy theories kind of shooting yourself in the foot?
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:18 |
I'm not saying that every statement is a provocation, but what exactly do Northeast Indianan Wild Unicorns and invisible pet dragons have to do with Christianity? (Rhetorical question, obviously.)
@Textbook: Yes that's a fair point about the authority of the Church, but I wouldn't expect a skeptic to accept the pope's authority any more than I would expect a Protestant, Muslim, Jew etc to do so. When all possible explanations of an event have proven inadequate the Church may assume that a miracle took place. Compare this with the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation, and that because there is no scientific evidence for God then God doesn't exist.
When Ivan was talking about the panel of Consulta Medica doctors, Mike said: That's ridiculous, they are clearly biased - normal scientists would determine that there are no apparent reasons. And even then, who says that the ''available CT scans'' etc are authentic? Doctors aren't detectives. Well, neither are doctors/scientists infallible, and that includes ''normal scientists''. What is a ''normal scientist''? How does Mike know whether the Consulta Medica are clearly biased? And how does Mike know what the ''normal scientists'' would determine? How do I know whether men walked on the moon and whether the evidence is authentic?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 07:45 |
Again you loose your temper Mike?
You are the one who quoted this guy and you call me an idiot?
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 01:40 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I didn't call you an idiot, I effectively called you a mis-representer of arguments. |
Didn't misrepresented the arguments Mike, I did exactly what you did, I presented an opinion of a an expert in medical science (in my case) and you presented the opinion of a moron like The Amazing Atheist.
|
So I apologise ... you *are* an idiot. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Show me one post where I mentioned TAA and presented him as a figure of authority. LOL, the guy is a comedian - he posts funny rants about this and that on YouTube, and besides that also has serious things to say about many topics, including religion. I simply think that sometimes he makes points that are worth considering - but nobody should take his word for anything - or mine, or anybody else's. |
Mike, I could never guess that you are posting a 5 or 10 minutes video of a guy you believe nobody should take his word for anything...What's the point?
|
It's called "edutainment". You can listen to or watch something, not take their word for it, and still get something from it - maybe entertainment, maybe inspiration for further investigation, or maybe you indeed take their word on some points ... it's entirely up to you. Sorry, but setting up a false dichotomy (something is either completely useless or 100% authoritative) won't work, it's just too easy to see through.
Iván wrote:
But since you say he has serious things to say.....You are considering him an authority, otherwise, you wouldn''t had posted him.
|
Please stop being an idiot ... it gives me a headache.
Iván wrote:
If he has so serious things to say about many issues...Why he calls himself The Amazing Atheist in direct reference to religion, if it isn't because religion is his main and only target?
|
... because that's the user name he chose? Duh.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
When it comes to science, I may take the word of a respected scientist as authoritative - if he/she is talking about things that are in his area of expertise. But in your case it's medical doctors making claims about supernatural events. That is the definition of the argument from authority: They're out of their field, yet you try to use their degrees to make it appear like they're more qualified to identify a miracle than you or me. All they are more qualified to do is to determine "there's no apparent medical cause, based on our knowledge today". |
No Mike, the Medical Doctor can't decide if something is a miracle or not, he has no authority, he only declares:
- There's no medical explanation.
- The person was in a determined place at the time of healing
- The person is completely cured
- After some years pass he reaffirms that the sickness hasn't re-appeared
The Church is the one who decides with the information provided by this doctor and four more, plus a neutral opinion of any respected medical institution with no connection with the Church, if it's a miracle.
|
I was merely quoting the article - and it was you who at some point said something to that effect - *if I recall correctly*. I may be wrong here - but at this point, between breakfast and having to leave for work, I'm too lazy to look it up. BTW: "neutral" - you got to be kidding me. How many of these doctors are Catholics?
Iván wrote:
So at the end: - The Doctor talks about medicine where he is an authority.
- The Church declares if it's a miracle where she is an authority.
Now, IMO The Amazing Atheist is an authority in stupidity and arrogance without any base..
|
I never said that TAA is an authority in anything, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. BTW: Your church is only an authority on religion because you see it that way. Ask any Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or even Protestant whether the Vatican is an authority on anything.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
No. I'm saying that if I don't know how something happens, the least likely explanation is "miracle". The most likely explanation, based on cumulative empirical data, is that we don't yet understand all the (naturalistic) mechanisms that might explain such an event. That is simply much more likely than the supernatural explanation. |
This is a different issue, you don't believe but you don't deny.
Still, saying it's less likely without any evidence of the contrary is not very scientific.
|
Well, not everyone is cut to be a scientist or to be able to grasp what science is about ... I think that's unfortunate, but all I can do is to present it to you. You're either not able to understand (clandestine stab at your intelligence) or you don't want to understand.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I'm perfectly calm.  I'm not interested in "proving you wrong", I'm just trying to show that your explanation is much more likely to be wrong than mine is. You said yourself that you *need* faith in order to believe it. It is the religious people (in this case: the Vatican) who have set this up to look like science enters into this - not us atheists. |
Mike, you lost your temper more than once, I now you for years and it's easy to notice, when you are calm, you debate, when you loose your temper, the harsh adjectives start to flow.
|
That's merely some frustration from your close-mindedness combined with the fact that you accuse me (and Dean, and many others) of close-mindedness at the same time. Like I said above, it gives me a headache.
Iván wrote:
Now Mike, my explanation is not more or less likely than your's, both are at the most intelligent guesses, because there's no evidence to support any of them.with absolute certitude.
|
Yours is idiotic, mine is scientific. To me the latter sounds more intelligent. If you talk about science and "absolute certitude" then you don't have a clue what science is.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant". 2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence"). 3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot".
|
Tomato - Tomate........Sound different but are the same Mike, sand you know what's your intention, of course with much more class than other guy, but you are trying to provoke a reaction, I was born in the night, but not tonight, I know when somebody is provoking, I deal with provocations every day at court.
Iván
|
And maybe you'll stop thinking like a lawyer trying to defend a lost case and start thinking like a scientist. I won't hold my breath until that happens, but I certainly hope it will. It has, for some religious people.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
