• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (3 Viewers)

barnsy

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Springwood, Blue Mountains
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
There is indeed a requirement for the supernatural to cause the natural, because something cannot cause (or create for that matter) itself. It would require something beyond the natural to cause the natural (hence the 'super'+natural).
i can't say i agree with this statement. just because our science hasn't developed far enough to exactly determine such things as the universe's creation, doesn't automatically mean that there HAS TO BE a supernatural force behind it all.
I'm not saying that you're wrong for believing that, i just think that it seems a bit far-fetched to assume that something that we cannot quite explain is due to a supernatural force, and that science is wrong!!!!
no-one really knows exactly how or why we were created. it could be an act of god, or by a 'big-bang', but it is really irrelevant. religions require faith, or they wouldn't exist. without faith, they are nothing.
to say that it is LOGICAL to believe there is a supernatural force controlling everything because we can't yet explain everything really does 'cheapen' the faith in a god. it might not be the case (i'm sure it isn't), but it sounds like you are saying that you only believe in the supernatural because science doesn't seem right, or possible.
 

barnsy

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Springwood, Blue Mountains
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Medically Inexplicable? Thus, science is limited and will never be able to explain the supernatural. Therefore, denying the existence of God because of lack of scientific proof is really quite ridiculous. Have a read of this one: The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Take note of the 100,000 witnesses.
if you read the first line of the article, it says:
"The Miracle of the Sun...is an alleged miraculous event..."
notice the word 'alleged'?
that doesn't mean that is did in fact happen the way it is said to have happened, as a sign from prominent Christian persons. seriously, no-one knows what exactly happened, they might all have been 'tripping on acid', or smoking pot for all we know!!! lol
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
if you read the first line of the article, it says:
"The Miracle of the Sun...is an alleged miraculous event..."
notice the word 'alleged'?
that doesn't mean that is did in fact happen the way it is said to have happened, as a sign from prominent Christian persons. seriously, no-one knows what exactly happened, they might all have been 'tripping on acid', or smoking pot for all we know!!! lol
Catholics on pot? All 100,000 of them for 11 miles around? Please...
 

John McCain

Horse liberty
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
473
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Have a read of this one: The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Take note of the 100,000 witnesses.
The 100'000 number is disputed, and of what witnesses there were, their accounts vary and contradict each other, and are subject to exaggeration due to the emotional fervour whipped up prior to the event.

Regardless of which, there is no reason to assume this event has a supernatural origin. The exact explanation of the event is simply unknown.

If we assumed everything that is unknown has a supernatural origin, or simply followed our intuition about the origin of events, we'd still be interpreting disease as caused by an imbalance of the four humors, or something of the like.

Your assumptions of supernatural origin for any unknown event are caused by a preponderance of yellow bile imo.

So are you saying that, from nothing, a enough energy can come into existence to create the universe? I think that using quantum physics to explain this is a bit lacking. There is indeed a requirement for the supernatural to cause the natural, because something cannot cause (or create for that matter) itself. It would require something beyond the natural to cause the natural (hence the 'super'+natural).
I wouldn't make any claim either way on the origin of the universe. It is simply unknown. I could theorize ways it may come about, but I wouldn't assume any of them are true without real evidence. This is the agnostic position.
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
i can't say i agree with this statement. just because our science hasn't developed far enough to exactly determine such things as the universe's creation, doesn't automatically mean that there HAS TO BE a supernatural force behind it all.
I'm not saying that you're wrong for believing that, i just think that it seems a bit far-fetched to assume that something that we cannot quite explain is due to a supernatural force, and that science is wrong!!!!
no-one really knows exactly how or why we were created. it could be an act of god, or by a 'big-bang', but it is really irrelevant. religions require faith, or they wouldn't exist. without faith, they are nothing.
to say that it is LOGICAL to believe there is a supernatural force controlling everything because we can't yet explain everything really does 'cheapen' the faith in a god. it might not be the case (i'm sure it isn't), but it sounds like you are saying that you only believe in the supernatural because science doesn't seem right, or possible.
Firstly, I am not saying that science is wrong. I'm pointing out that it is very much limited because it categorises the natural (which in itself is limited). Atheists, as put forward by many on this forum, give science a certain 'omnipotence'; science is "the lens that sees everything" I think one put it. My focus is on the limitedness of science for the benefit of the atheists, who have problems with the idea of a God because it lacks concrete scientific evidence and explanation.

You are completely correct in saying that there is very much an element of faith in religion. Yet this has not yet been touched on because 'faith' would be irrelvant from an atheist's perspective. However, to highlight the logical agreement that exists I believe strenthens belief and faith in God, rather than 'cheapens' it.

Because science categorises the limited, it will itself always be limited, and will thus never be able to explain things such as the creation of the universe (since 'science' would have begun with the initiation of the universe).
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Medically Inexplicable? Thus, science is limited and will never be able to explain the supernatural. Therefore, denying the existence of God because of lack of scientific proof is really quite ridiculous.
You can't prove a negative.

Have a read of this one: The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Take note of the 100,000 witnesses.
Fatima? Miracle? Lol.

From the same article:

"Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[28]"

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

"..likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena)."

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[30]

So are you saying that, from nothing, a enough energy can come into existence to create the universe?
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that using quantum physics to explain this is a bit lacking.
Why?

There is indeed a requirement for the supernatural to cause the natural,
Why? Justify this statement.

because something cannot cause (or create for that matter) itself. It would require something beyond the natural to cause the natural (hence the 'super'+natural).
Yes, it can (or at least there's nothing in physics that says it can't, only your limited understanding of it).

"An explanation that involves supernaturalism is, by definition, illogical." Rather, inexplainable when looking through the lens of science. Philosophy, on the other hand, correlates with the notion of the supernatural.
Why in the hell would you use "philosophy" to explain the existence of anything in the physical world?
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
The 100'000 number is disputed, and of what witnesses there were, their accounts vary and contradict each other, and are subject to exaggeration due to the emotional fervour whipped up prior to the event.

Regardless of which, there is no reason to assume this event has a supernatural origin. The exact explanation of the event is simply unknown.

If we assumed everything that is unknown has a supernatural origin, or simply followed our intuition about the origin of events, we'd still be interpreting disease as caused by an imbalance of the four humors, or something of the like.

Your assumptions of supernatural origin for any unknown event are caused by a preponderance of yellow bile imo.


I wouldn't make any claim either way on the origin of the universe. It is simply unknown. I could theorize ways it may come about, but I wouldn't assume any of them are true without real evidence. This is the agnostic position.
100,000 or 30,000... that still is an insurmountable amount of evidence. As the article stated, people who weren't part of the crowd saw the event of the sun occur. This rules out any "emotional fervour". There were a series of apparations that led up to this event, in which they were told this would happen. And because this occurred in what would be supernatural occurences would reinforce that it is of the supernatural.
 

John McCain

Horse liberty
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
473
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Though sympathetic to your cause, I think attempting to argue science can presently explain the origin of the universe is flawed, kwayera.

Concepts like quantum physics and gravitational singularities follow certain physical laws. Though you've pushed god back from the discussion, and eliminated any doubt that can remain about his role in many things, there still remains the creation and origins of the laws of physics that these theories follow.

Why does gravity obey

And not any other equation? How and why did this equation come about and allow the universe in its present state to exist?

I think it's simpler and better to simply state the origin of the universe is unknown, and like the existence of celestial teapots, it is foolish to jump to any conclusion, and make assumptions about the unknown.
 

John McCain

Horse liberty
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
473
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
100,000 or 30,000... that still is an insurmountable amount of evidence. As the article stated, people who weren't part of the crowd saw the event of the sun occur. This rules out any "emotional fervour". There were a series of apparations that led up to this event, in which they were told this would happen. And because this occurred in what would be supernatural occurences would reinforce that it is of the supernatural.
You only really addressed the first part of my post. I have no doubt that they did observe something, and it is difficult, or impossible to explain the origin with our present scientific knowledge.

A lack of an explanation does not mean you should jump to a supernatural conclusion. There are many things we don't presently and will never know. This doesn't make it good practice to assume god must be involved in all of them.

Three children are the only witnesses to any apparition or premonition and are not a reliable source.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Though sympathetic to your cause, I think attempting to argue science can presently explain the origin of the universe is flawed, kwayera.
Presently, no. It can't. But that's okay. It infuriates me when people say "well, we don't yet know what caused it, so lets just say it was supernatural and that God did it!" Oy vey.

Concepts like quantum physics and gravitational singularities follow certain physical laws. Though you've pushed god back from the discussion, and eliminated any doubt that can remain about his role in many things, there still remains the creation and origins of the laws of physics that these theories follow.

Why does gravity obey

And not any other equation? How and why did this equation come about and allow the universe in its present state to exist?
That's going about it arse-backward. Gravity doesn't follow an equation; the equation follows the phenomena. I get what you're saying though, and I guess that the only answer is that in this universe, gravity "obeys the equation" because that is the only way things can happen in this universe. It is what it is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be gravity, and this universe wouldn't exist in the form it currently is (if at all).

I think it's simpler and better to simply state the origin of the universe is unknown, and like the existence of celestial teapots, it is foolish to jump to any conclusion, and make assumptions about the unknown.
It is unknown in an absolute sense, but that doesn't mean we don't have hypothesis about the "unknown" that may or may not be shown to be true in the future.
 

Sprangler

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
494
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
100,000 or 30,000... that still is an insurmountable amount of evidence. As the article stated, people who weren't part of the crowd saw the event of the sun occur. This rules out any "emotional fervour". There were a series of apparations that led up to this event, in which they were told this would happen. And because this occurred in what would be supernatural occurences would reinforce that it is of the supernatural.
Mass hysteria cooked up by a bunch of excited people who convinced each other something actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Whether there's 1 or 30,000 of them, religious people can never really be reliable sources in something like that.
 
Last edited:

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
You can't prove a negative
Proof by contradiction.

Fatima? Miracle? Lol.

From the same article:

"Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[28]"

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

"..likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena)."

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[30]
From the same article: "De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria, according to De Marchi."

A statement was issued later by witness Professor Almeida Garrett:
"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.
"Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet...turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.
"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color."
"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible."

Why in the hell would you use "philosophy" to explain the existence of anything in the physical world?
Because it's a lot better at providing reasons than science is.
 
Last edited:

barnsy

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Springwood, Blue Mountains
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
100,000 or 30,000... that still is an insurmountable amount of evidence. As the article stated, people who weren't part of the crowd saw the event of the sun occur. This rules out any "emotional fervour". There were a series of apparations that led up to this event, in which they were told this would happen. And because this occurred in what would be supernatural occurences would reinforce that it is of the supernatural.
1) a whole bunch of people seeing something happening doesn't automatically make it an act of god.
2) these 'apparitions' were by 3 children...3 kids!!! seriously, how many things have happened where a child says something, and everyone believes them!!!

i will admit, the timing that they say this thing to happen was good, but it doesn't automatically mean that supernatural forces were at work!!

also, i have an interesting question to kind of add a tangent to the topic!! why do so many 'apparitions' or 'signs' from god appear to children?? i can't exactly remember most of them, but there have been a lot of them!!!
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
1) a whole bunch of people seeing something happening doesn't automatically make it an act of god.
2) these 'apparitions' were by 3 children...3 kids!!! seriously, how many things have happened where a child says something, and everyone believes them!!!

i will admit, the timing that they say this thing to happen was good, but it doesn't automatically mean that supernatural forces were at work!!
How many children do you know of that said stuff like this, then went on to have unexplainable occurrences of the sun witnessed by up to 100,000 people? Also, if you knew the story behind this, you would also know that no one did believe them until this happened.

also, i have an interesting question to kind of add a tangent to the topic!! why do so many 'apparitions' or 'signs' from god appear to children?? i can't exactly remember most of them, but there have been a lot of them!!!
Off the top of my head, I only know of two. I can list dozens of these sorts of things where adults were 'at the centre' of it.
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
P
From the same article: "De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria, according to De Marchi."
Never claimed it was a mass hallucinations (which is a silly argument anyway). And that statement (lack of any known scientific causative factor) simply means we don't know exactly which or which combination of natural phenomena it was, not that there's a lack of explanations at all. The latter statement - that the activity of the sun was reported up to 18km away - is simply more evidence to a naturalistic explanation.

Because it's a lot better at providing reasons than science is.
In an abstract way, yes, in that philosophical thought is itself the driver behind scientific thought. But philosophy will never explain how cells divide and how stars are born and die.
 

NCB619

I Am The Chorus
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
176
Location
Griffith
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Woah...hang on a second....100 000 people saw the sun emerge from the clouds in a rainstorm? Holy crap, call the churches we have a miracle, I've never seen that happen before
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Woah...hang on a second....100 000 people saw the sun emerge from the clouds in a rainstorm? Holy crap, call the churches we have a miracle, I've never seen that happen before
That is not what happened. You obviously know very little or nothing of this, otherwise you would understand that a lot more occurred than the sun coming from behind the clouds.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,894
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
That is not what happened. You obviously know very little or nothing of this, otherwise you would understand that a lot more occurred than the sun coming from behind the clouds.
No, he would understand a lot more was alleged to have occurred.
 

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Never claimed it was a mass hallucinations (which is a silly argument anyway). And that statement (lack of any known scientific causative factor) simply means we don't know exactly which or which combination of natural phenomena it was, not that there's a lack of explanations at all. The latter statement - that the activity of the sun was reported up to 18km away - is simply more evidence to a naturalistic explanation.
Sorry, I intended it to be for someone else previously.

Perhaps it was natural, perhaps it wasn't. But I think it's pretty miraculous that the event occurred as predicted by the children and at the time they said it would. I can give you lists of other unexplainable/predicted events that reinforce someone's belief in God. Yet, it is quite clear that you are determined these have natural causes.

I've given you reasons why God exists (uncaused cause, miracles, etc.), and you have replied with your reasons why they do not necessarily infer his existance. But now, it should be your turn. What makes you SO sure that the supernatural doesn't exist. The argument shouldn't just be me defending my belief - you all ought to as well. So, why are you all positive that God doesn't exist?



In an abstract way, yes, in that philosophical thought is itself the driver behind scientific thought. But philosophy will never explain how cells divide and how stars are born and die.
Yes, science may explain these. Yet, science cannot explain creation of the universe, since science was created with it. Philosophy and logic can (as demonstrated).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top