Searching for GOD...

[floo]

Nope, the ad hominem fallacy is where you use something irrelevant about someone to attack the arguments. Ippy isn't doing that, he just makes a flip comment. It's exactly equivalent to when you put Yawn or zzzzzz after one of Floo's posts.

When I want your opinion, I shall kick your Kennel...
See what I did there?
Maybe you should go back to sleep because you have no part in this conversation... Unless you are saying Ippy is stupid and makes comments without reason or without relevance..
Not nice of you to make Ippy out to be stupid, is it..
Leave him to defend himself. At lease he cannot help himself..
At least I know AND UNDERSTAND MY REASONS why I put the ZZZZZ after posts...

I am glad you understand yourself, even if no one else does!

[Alan Burns]

This cleft palate story is no different to the resurrection of Jesus story, since both are unevidenced anecdotes made by interested parties that claim natural impossibilities, so I'd be interested to see if there are any Christians here who doubt the cleft palate claim while, as Christians, they obviously must accept the Jesus one: and if the do reject the former what distinction they are drawing between the two claims that doesn't involve special pleading for Jesus?

You are quite correct, Gordon, to compare this story with the Resurrection.  It is the same power involved, which was also used to heal leppers, bring Lazarus back from the dead, feed 5000 people with five barley loaves and two fish etc.

These miracles done in the name of Jesus are still going on today all over the world.  Even the feeding of the 5000 - see this link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=275x994

Yikes - is there no end to your credulity, Alan.

edited - to correct original use of 'incredulity' to 'credulity'.

Don't dismiss the "Miracle in El Paso" story too quickly.
Before we were married, my then girlfriend was seriously considering joining up with the community which formed after the miracle.  She corresponded directly with the priest involved, and with several of the witnesses who were filmed in the documentary film.  There were many independent witnesses to this event, which makes it hard to dismiss as a concocted story to promote Christianity.  Your slip up in your original post may well be labelled as Freudian, because it may well be yourself who is guilty of being incredulous.

Postcript: My girfriend decided to marry me instead of joining the El Paso community, but she still has fond memories of the people involved. 

[Shaker]

There's always some excuse of one sort or another isn't there, Alan? This time the assertion treadmill cranks out that there are alleged witnesses on camera but curiously never any of these so-called events they're supposed to have witnessed.

Which in the age of small, portable HD camcorders and - even more - camera phones in almost every pocket is somewhat suspicious to me.

[Leonard James]

There's always some excuse of one sort or another isn't there, Alan? This time the assertion treadmill cranks out that there are alleged witnesses on camera but curiously never any of these so-called events they're supposed to have witnessed.

Which in the age of small, portable HD camcorders and - even more - camera phones in almost every pocket is somewhat suspicious to me.

Oh that's easily answered! Miracles don't show up on camera because they are supernatural. 

[Shaker]

Something like that 

[floo]

Funny how so called 'miracles' never have any proper verification!

[BashfulAnthony]

Nope, the ad hominem fallacy is where you use something irrelevant about someone to attack the arguments. Ippy isn't doing that, he just makes a flip comment. It's exactly equivalent to when you put Yawn or zzzzzz after one of Floo's posts.

When I want your opinion, I shall kick your Kennel...
See what I did there?
Maybe you should go back to sleep because you have no part in this conversation... Unless you are saying Ippy is stupid and makes comments without reason or without relevance..
Not nice of you to make Ippy out to be stupid, is it..
Leave him to defend himself. At lease he cannot help himself..
At least I know AND UNDERSTAND MY REASONS why I put the ZZZZZ after posts...

I am glad you understand yourself, even if no one else does!

You do nothing but make fun of Sassy, or deride what she says, almost every post she posts.  You are most unkind, you really are

[Alan Burns]

There's always some excuse of one sort or another isn't there, Alan? This time the assertion treadmill cranks out that there are alleged witnesses on camera but curiously never any of these so-called events they're supposed to have witnessed.

Which in the age of small, portable HD camcorders and - even more - camera phones in almost every pocket is somewhat suspicious to me.

Not in 1972!

[Shaker]

Not in 1972!

There were cameras, film and still, in that year, though, were there not?

Moreover, your recent claim of the alleged miraculous healing of a cleft palate occurred, you said, "recently." Where's the evidence for this?

[Shaker]

You do nothing but make fun of Sassy, or deride what she says, almost every post she posts.

There's a good reason for that. That good reason is that she makes stupid, stupid, stupid claims (that amputees regrow limbs being the latest) and, when asked to provide evidence for this witless tosh, simply stonewalls, dodging, ducking, diving and deflecting and doing everything and everything but provide the evidence for her claims. Alan Burns does likewise with his equally risible allegations of miraculous healing and I've been similarly hard on him for the same reasons: either you've missed those posts or you're simply not bothered because Alan is a man and presumed not to stand in need of your "defence," I don't know which.

The demand for verification is exactly as it should be. Make a claim, back it up or retract it. It's the normal way of conducting any enquiry into the way the world works.

I know there's no evidence for this ridiculous rubbish. You know it too. So, I suspect, does she (unless she really is utterly divorced from reality rather than a tedious and tiresome troll). But rather than admit it, she simply spews yet more illiterate garbage, reams of it, usually with yards of biblical cut-and-paste. Whatever criticism she attracts, she brings it squarely upon herself.

[Alan Burns]

Not in 1972!

There were cameras, film and still, in that year, though, were there not?

Moreover, your recent claim of the alleged miraculous healing of a cleft palate occurred, you said, "recently." Where's the evidence for this?

I have quoted some miracles which have been related by reliable witnesses, but there are many miracles which have had thorough medical verification.

Just from Lourdes alone there are over one thousand documented verified miracles, but if you can turn a blind eye to the miracle of our existence, and our awareness of our existence, you are capable of turning a blind eye to any miracle, even if you witness it personally.

[Nearly Sane]

Not in 1972!

There were cameras, film and still, in that year, though, were there not?

Moreover, your recent claim of the alleged miraculous healing of a cleft palate occurred, you said, "recently." Where's the evidence for this?

I have quoted some miracles which have been related by reliable witnesses, but there are many miracles which have had thorough medical verification.

Just from Lourdes alone there are over one thousand documented verified miracles, but if you can turn a blind eye to the miracle of our existence, and our awareness of our existence, you are capable of turning a blind eye to any miracle, even if you witness it personally.

Since medicine is methodologically naturalistic, your above post is nonsensical

[Shaker]

I have quoted some miracles which have been related by reliable witnesses

How do you know that they are reliable? What makes them so? What's the yardstick for reliablity? We can go on to have an interesting discussion about the astonishing lack of reliablity in eyewitness testimony, for example.

but there are many miracles which have had thorough medical verification.

Examples?

Just from Lourdes alone there are over one thousand documented verified miracles

Aren't these alleged "miracles" declared to be so by the Catholic Church which has a vested interest in claiming miracles (of which there are, IIRC, something like 69, not "over one thousand" - where does this figure come from)?

but if you can turn a blind eye to the miracle of our existence

Neat semantic dodge (elision of "a natural law-defying event assumed to have a supernatural cause" and "Wow, isn't that amaaaaaaaaazing!") duly noted.

[Shaker]

It's clear to me that everyone who has taken part in or even merely read this thread following Alan's absurd claims of recent miracles and continued evasion of providing evidence for these claims will agree that no evidence is ever, ever, ever going to be forthcoming, and that it might be considered a waste of time to keep pressing for what we all know doesn't exist.

I don't agree. In fact I think the opposite: that the pressure should be kept up or even increased on people who make fatuous claims, because any rational appraisal of the world relying on scepticism and critical thought demands that we hold the magic-merchants and woo-peddlers to account, expecting of them any claim they make to be matched by evidence. Credulity and sloppy thinking are, as far as I'm concerned, enemies of humanity: these things have to be confronted wherever they fetch up in ways large and small.

[BeRational]

Shaker

Fully agree.

[floo]

Some more extreme Christians have not moved forward from the dark ages of myths and magic where their faith is concerned. As I have said boringly many times, I am of the firm opinion there is a natural explanation for everything!

[Shaker]

Some more extreme Christians have not moved forward from the dark ages of myths and magic where their faith is concerned. As I have said boringly many times, I am of the firm opinion there is a natural explanation for everything!

Well, we could get into a fairly convoluted discussion about whether the word natural in natural explanation is redundant, since supernatural explanation is a contradiction in terms - if you explain anything (that is, an actual explanation as opposed to a pseudo-explanation) it is by definition a natural explanation, so you don't really need the natural and just need to say explanation. 

[floo]

Some more extreme Christians have not moved forward from the dark ages of myths and magic where their faith is concerned. As I have said boringly many times, I am of the firm opinion there is a natural explanation for everything!

Well, we could get into a fairly convoluted discussion about whether the word natural in natural explanation is redundant, since supernatural explanation is a contradiction in terms - if you explain anything (that is, an actual explanation as opposed to a pseudo-explanation) it is by definition a natural explanation, so you don't really need the natural and just need to say explanation.

OK

[Shaker]

But we'll leave that for another day 

[Rhiannon]

The Vineyard stuff follows on from the Toronto Blessing and it heavily influences HTB and, to a lesser extent, Alpha. It's fairly new, and not Biblical. People report experiencing feeling drunk, uncontrollably laughing etc which they later describe as feeling like possession. I suspect it is rather a result of suggestion - and abusive.

A friend of mine was a team ministry priest at a church to which HTB were invited to do the Holy Spirit thing. When nothing happened my friend was singled out by the HTB visitors as 'blocking the Holy Spirit'; he was told by the PCC to resign from the church and some other congregation members told never to visit the church again.

Alpha has become diluted and a course run in a regional church is probably ok. But HTB and its church plants are not.

http://www.christian-forum.co.uk/index.php?action=printpage;topic=12538.0

http://truthinreality.com/2012/07/06/the-truth-concerning-holy-trinity-brampton/

http://www.letusreason.org/Pent59.htm

[floo]

As a young person I watched Christian extremists doing the 'speaking in tongues' crazy hocus pocus at our church. It was quite funny and hard not to giggle at their stupid antics.

[Shaker]

Would it not be in the interests of Christians (specifically) to provide proof for their allegations of miracle? I ask this given:

(a) the Great Commission - that Christianity is a missionary, proselytising religion whose acolytes are, so to speak, ordered to go out and win converts to the cause; and

(b) the possibility or in fact the likelihood that given unambiguous (or as unambiguous as it can ever be) evidence of a miracle, more people would be more likely to consider Christian claims to be true and thus more likely to become Christians.

If both of these statements hold, would it not be in the best interests of Christians to back up their claims of miraculous healings etc. with evidence? Should they not be trying to marshal and to provide to the world at large as much of this so-called evidence as they possibly can?

Or does John 20:29 negate all this?

[Leonard James]

It's clear to me that everyone who has taken part in or even merely read this thread following Alan's absurd claims of recent miracles and continued evasion of providing evidence for these claims will agree that no evidence is ever, ever, ever going to be forthcoming, and that it might be considered a waste of time to keep pressing for what we all know doesn't exist.

I don't agree. In fact I think the opposite: that the pressure should be kept up or even increased on people who make fatuous claims, because any rational appraisal of the world relying on scepticism and critical thought demands that we hold the magic-merchants and woo-peddlers to account, expecting of them any claim they make to be matched by evidence. Credulity and sloppy thinking are, as far as I'm concerned, enemies of humanity: these things have to be confronted wherever they fetch up in ways large and small.

  It is equally clear to me, Shakes, that we will get nowhere because they simply think THEY are the ones that can see the evidence and that we are just blind to it, or refuse to accept it. It's a stalemate.

[BashfulAnthony]

It's clear to me that everyone who has taken part in or even merely read this thread following Alan's absurd claims of recent miracles and continued evasion of providing evidence for these claims will agree that no evidence is ever, ever, ever going to be forthcoming, and that it might be considered a waste of time to keep pressing for what we all know doesn't exist.

I don't agree. In fact I think the opposite: that the pressure should be kept up or even increased on people who make fatuous claims, because any rational appraisal of the world relying on scepticism and critical thought demands that we hold the magic-merchants and woo-peddlers to account, expecting of them any claim they make to be matched by evidence. Credulity and sloppy thinking are, as far as I'm concerned, enemies of humanity: these things have to be confronted wherever they fetch up in ways large and small.

  It is equally clear to me, Shakes, that we will get nowhere because they simply think THEY are the ones that can see the evidence and that we are just blind to it, or refuse to accept it. It's a stalemate.

Why don't you and Shaker just start a thread of your own, where you can indulge in your mutual admiration posts to your heart's content?  You could allow Floo in: if she's finished sorting her templates.   

[Alan Burns]

Some more extreme Christians have not moved forward from the dark ages of myths and magic where their faith is concerned. As I have said boringly many times, I am of the firm opinion there is a natural explanation for everything!

Well, we could get into a fairly convoluted discussion about whether the word natural in natural explanation is redundant, since supernatural explanation is a contradiction in terms - if you explain anything (that is, an actual explanation as opposed to a pseudo-explanation) it is by definition a natural explanation, so you don't really need the natural and just need to say explanation.

So what do you think is the explanation for what determines the content of the posts you write?  Do you really think that there can be an explanation derived purely from the chemical reactions in you body driven by the deterministic laws of science, or is something else involved?