Right! They're Smartter Than atheists.

[ApostateLois]

In the most basic sense, the difference between miracles and magic is the difference between nonfiction and fiction. And as I've explained in other places, the idea of a miracle accomplishing the impossible is really a misnomer.

No, it isn't. Jesus walked on water. This is impossible. It cannot be done. But we are told that he did it. If that is not a miracle, what is? So, too, would be instantaneously healing someone who was dying, or raising a dead person to life.

But in terms of theological understandings over time, virtually all theologians have understood God's all-powerfulness (i.e. omnipotence) to refer to an ability to do all things that power can accomplish without violating His own nature or character.

 God can do anything that God can do. Got it.
 

Magic is something of a different sort entirely. Most typically, it is a falsehood based on some level of deceit. In other words, the things claimed to be done are not done in reality.

 Well, that would be a miracle, as well, since nobody has REALLY ever done one. All the ones you read about are just stories from far away and long ago. This is very convenient, as there is no way anyone can go back in time and check up on it. However, based on the complete lack of either miracles OR magic in today's times, it is reasonable to assume that they never happened in ancient times, either, and the stories you read are just fables to impress the gullible.
 

Pharoah's magicians were able to accomplish certain things, but in the end, they proved to be mere pretenders. To the extent that their snakes were real, they were accomplishing their task by way of a lesser power that could not match or overcome the miraculous power of the one true God.

  Who cares how they did it, or what powers they invoked? They still did it--but then, we know that it never really happened at all, don't we? It is merely a once-upon-a-time story for children and easily-duped adults.
 

Regarding what you term "bullshittery", I can only say this. God can choose to say "No" or to not answer a particular prayer, as he's done in my life many times. I'm not aware of that response or non-response as having been designed by me or anyone else to make God look any particular way.

  You pray for something to happen, it doesn't happen--that is called prayer not being answered. It happens all the time. That is why we can never get a Christian to go into a cancer ward and pray for all the sick patients to be instantly made well. They know they will be made to look like fools when nothing at all happens. It is the reason why a Christian will claim God's intervention when they pray for a new job and get hired the next week, but have nothing much to say when they pray for children to be protected and instead they starve to death by the millions.
 

This is also false, for there is no human being that can help himself.

A ridiculous statement that can be proven to be a lie by the number of people who DO, in fact, help themselves. You are full of shit for even thinking such stupidity! It is nothing more than a lie perpetuated by ministers and priests and other assorted church bigwigs who have a vested interest in keeping you feeling helpless, weak, and worthless. The fact is that, while I see plenty of people helping themselves and each other, I have never once seen God help anyone. Never have I seen God come down from the sky-dome, like he used to in Old Testament times, to intervene personally on human behalf. Never have I seen or heard of food raining down from the sky to feed starving children, as we read about the manna incident in the OT; and I have never heard of Jesus magically causing food to multiply so that everyone gets to eat. These things happen only in STORIES, never in real life. The only ones helping people are other people, not magic fantasy rainbow-promise entities that you've never actually seen, touched, or talked to.

[Solitary]

I wonder how many adult religious people believe in the Easter Bunny or tooth fairy?  :roll:  :rollin:  Solitary

[Plu]

I wonder how many adult religious people believe in the Easter Bunny or tooth fairy?  :roll:  :rollin:  Solitary

The only reason they do not is because mommy and daddy told them those weren't real when they were young.

[ApostateLois]

None, but plenty of them believe in invisible devils lurking around every corner, ready to attack the spiritually weak and lead them to all sorts of evil temptations, such as marijuana, prostitutes, and collecting Hello Kitty.

[Colanth]

In the most basic sense, the difference between miracles and magic is the difference between nonfiction and fiction.

But not in the way you mean.  Magic and miracles are fiction, reality is nonfiction.

But in terms of theological understandings over time

We're talking about reality, not "theological understandings".  It doesn't matter what theologians "understand", nothing works like prayer - literally.  Nothing and prayer are exactly the same in the real world.  Don't do anything and a sick person may recover or die.  Pray and that same person may recover or die.  The prayers changed nothing.

Now if you have evidence that refutes the thousands of scientific studies that show that prayer has the same effect as nothing, post them.  But save some bandwidth for the forum and don't post your usual nonsense as "evidence" - it's not.  (And, yes, that's all we're interested in here - evidence.)

[Colanth]

Your assertion indicates that you either haven't understood what I'm asking

At least one of us understood your question - and answered it.  You ignored the answer because it's not the answer you wanted.

The fMRI is calibrated, and then no input is needed from the subjects.  If you don't want to accept that, don't, but don't keep coming back with "but that's not the answer I wanted", which is all you've been doing.

If you can't understand how the answer you were given makes any further questions from you along the same lines sound suspicious at best, follow some of the links and learn.  Unless you can debate the accuracy of the method (which means learning what the method actually is, for starters), accept the words of those who know better than you do.  See, that's how science actually works.  You CAN do the experiment (any experiment) yourself but in most cases that means about 8 years of education, begging for grants for years and finally getting to do the experiment.  But you CAN do it - no one's stopping you.

What you're doing is saying, in effect, "I want to instantly be given enough knowledge to be able to accurately analyze the experiment and determine whether the results are valid".  That's like a 5 year old wanting to be 21.  Not in 16 years, but now.  It ain't gonna happen.  All that WILL happen is that those of us who DO know how science works will read your posts and be mildly amused.

[GalacticBusDriver]

gomtuu77,

Earlier in this thread you made the naked assertion that there are tons of evidence for your god.

We already have enough light (i.e. evidence) of His obvious reality

I've asked once, but you seem to be dodging the question.

Would you care to present some of that evidence?

Please note, that says evidence. Please don't try to pass off the usual christer bullshit as evidence. What you need to provide is testable, verifiable evidence. If you won't (read, can't) do this (as all of the little christer assholes before you wouldn't/couldn't), kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Nobody here is interested in listening to you mentally masturbate yourself.

[gomtuu77]

I don't need christs help sir. I enjOy beING imPerFect.  Your just brainwashed.  Ever thought of that possibility?

Yes, extensively.  Why do you think I constantly and consistently expose myself to alternative points of view, including those that are deeply hostile to my own beliefs?

If you truly believe that you are not in need of Christ's help, then you will not receive it.

[gomtuu77]

gomtuu77,

Earlier in this thread you made the naked assertion that there are tons of evidence for your god.

We already have enough light (i.e. evidence) of His obvious reality

I've asked once, but you seem to be dodging the question.

Would you care to present some of that evidence?

Please note, that says evidence. Please don't try to pass off the usual christer bullshit as evidence. What you need to provide is testable, verifiable evidence. If you won't (read, can't) do this (as all of the little christer assholes before you wouldn't/couldn't), kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Nobody here is interested in listening to you mentally masturbate yourself.

Given your tone, do you think I feel obliged to respond?  In addition, if you think strictly empirical evidence or repeatable experiments are the only forms of valid and useful evidence, you are simply mistaken.  If you expect to interact in a helpful or useful manner with anyone, including Christians, it would probably be best not to fill your questions & comments with things like "christer bullshit", "little christer assholes", and "kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw".  That's probably not the best way to elicit answers, conversation, or much of anything else that would be helpful or useful.

[gomtuu77]

Your assertion indicates that you either haven't understood what I'm asking

At least one of us understood your question - and answered it.  You ignored the answer because it's not the answer you wanted.

The fMRI is calibrated, and then no input is needed from the subjects.  If you don't want to accept that, don't, but don't keep coming back with "but that's not the answer I wanted", which is all you've been doing.

What do you mean by "calibrated"?  So are you saying that the fMRI simply knows that the neurochemicals in question have to do with love and there is no correlation with any 1st person information from the person undergoing the fMRI?  From what I've read about it, the process involves correlating and/or matching things related a persons actions, thoughts, and/or responses with energy used in the brain that changes its blow flow.  But for the most part, I can't get anyone to actually confirm or deny anything.  I wonder what "calibrated" means though?

[Graceless]

What do you mean by "calibrated"?  So are you saying that the fMRI simply knows that the neurochemicals in question have to do with love and there is no correlation with any 1st person information from the person undergoing the fMRI?  From what I've read about it, the process involves correlating and/or matching things related a persons actions, thoughts, and/or responses with energy used in the brain that changes its blow flow.  But for the most part, I can't get anyone to actually confirm or deny anything.  I wonder what "calibrated" means though?

Yes, we calibrate it to people's self-reported feelings. But we can do so in ways that don't require "taking people's word for it" about whether or not they're happy.

Everybody's brain has essentially the same "roadmap"- that is, everyone has "pleasure centers" in roughly the same places, everyone has a visual processing center in roughly the same place, et cetera. Check out this article for more info. If you scan someone's brain during something that is pleasurable, the same areas will light up every time.

Hypothetically, it could be possible that every single person in that study lied about what they find pleasurable. But not only are the odds of that extraordinarily low, we could also check the fMRI scans against an arbitrary number of other people's scans during pleasurable activity. Of course, we see no contradictions in the data when we compare any honest person's "pleasure" fMRI scans with anyone else's, so we know that this is universal.

That's the thing about empirical science: it's always subject to revision with new information. That is what makes it powerful, since it can adapt to any circumstances. It also means that nothing in science can ever be 100% certain- including things like the theory of gravity that we take for granted every day. But we can be 99.999% sure, and that's enough for any sane person.

After all, those odds are a hell of a lot better than the false certainty one gets from blindly following an ancient book.

[Sargon The Grape]

Given your tone, do you think I feel obliged to respond?

Given that you have apparently come here to try and convince people of your views, yes, you should. His tone is indicative of nothing more than your arguments being full of enough holes to sink the USS Nimitz.

[GalacticBusDriver]

gomtuu77,

Earlier in this thread you made the naked assertion that there are tons of evidence for your god.

We already have enough light (i.e. evidence) of His obvious reality

I've asked once, but you seem to be dodging the question.

Would you care to present some of that evidence?

Please note, that says evidence. Please don't try to pass off the usual christer bullshit as evidence. What you need to provide is testable, verifiable evidence. If you won't (read, can't) do this (as all of the little christer assholes before you wouldn't/couldn't), kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Nobody here is interested in listening to you mentally masturbate yourself.

Given your tone, do you think I feel obliged to respond?  In addition, if you think strictly empirical evidence or repeatable experiments are the only forms of valid and useful evidence, you are simply mistaken.  If you expect to interact in a helpful or useful manner with anyone, including Christians, it would probably be best not to fill your questions & comments with things like "christer bullshit", "little christer assholes", and "kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw".  That's probably not the best way to elicit answers, conversation, or much of anything else that would be helpful or useful.

:rollin:
So, you got nuthin'! Just what I figured.
 

[Icarus]

What do you mean by "calibrated"?  So are you saying that the fMRI simply knows that the neurochemicals in question have to do with love and there is no correlation with any 1st person information from the person undergoing the fMRI?  From what I've read about it, the process involves correlating and/or matching things related a persons actions, thoughts, and/or responses with energy used in the brain that changes its blow flow.  But for the most part, I can't get anyone to actually confirm or deny anything.  I wonder what "calibrated" means though?

Answered on the bottom of page 7, just because you choose to ignore it/don't like the answer doesn't mean it hasn't been answered for you.

[Colanth]

Your assertion indicates that you either haven't understood what I'm asking

At least one of us understood your question - and answered it.  You ignored the answer because it's not the answer you wanted.

The fMRI is calibrated, and then no input is needed from the subjects.  If you don't want to accept that, don't, but don't keep coming back with "but that's not the answer I wanted", which is all you've been doing.

What do you mean by "calibrated"?

The answer to that question is part of the 8 or so years you have to put in to learn enough to understand it.

So are you saying that the fMRI simply knows that the neurochemicals in question have to do with love and there is no correlation with any 1st person information from the person undergoing the fMRI?

No, that's what you're implying.  I'm saying that when you've completed a course of study that includes biochemistry, neurobiology and magnetic resonance, you won't have to ask the question because you'll understand the process well enough to understand that the question is meaningless.

From what I've read about it, the process involves correlating and/or matching things related a persons actions, thoughts, and/or responses with energy used in the brain that changes its blow flow.

That sounds like a science writer's interpretation of what a public information officer put into a press release.  And it's too simplistic to mean anything.

But for the most part, I can't get anyone to actually confirm or deny anything.

When you have the requisite education, you'll know what the process actually is, not what someone who doesn't have a clue reported what someone else who doesn't have a clue said.  (If you get all your science from science writers, you'll never understand what's happening.)

I wonder what "calibrated" means though?

It means that the operators know what the readings mean.  Uncalibrated, the readings are useless.  No metric-type instrument is worth anything without calibration.  A tube full of colored alcohol can show you whether the temperature is going up or down, but without calibration it can't tell you what the temperature is.