Why do Atheists arbitrarily and irrationally say Miracles don't exist?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 52
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated. 

Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual.  

The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place". Or the atheist could could say he has talked to someone who does know everything.  ( I think the only person who knows everything is God) 


So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion.  Something which does not have any educational value. 

What say you? 
#2
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
For this reply I am using a tentative definition of miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws that is thought to be the work of a deity.

Personally, I don't believe in miracles because of a few reasons. 

1. The frequency of 'miracles' decreases as our knowledge (and ability to investigate) has increased.

This suggests people attribute miracles to misunderstood events (we know this has happened) or are dishonest (we know this has happened). 

2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Tradesecret
The status quo is nothing, and proof or counterproof shifts the status around. If there are pretty much equal amounts of proof and disproof, it returns back to the Status Quo.

The status quo of whether miracles exist is null: We can't prove whether if it exists or not. That is the status quo. Unless there are presented information that amounts to something about whether miracles exist or not, we cannot say that miracles exist or not due to the lack of information.

The center-ground or status quo on the God issue would quite literally be agnosticism. Both sides present proof of why their side is more correct. If there is no proof, then we cannot prove anything. A toddler who just got introduced to the idea of "god" would have no proof of it existing or not, and the default settings to any problem, without proof shifting anything anywhere, is in the center where we cannot know anything.
#4
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@SkepticalOne

2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
Ne honest. You'll just chalk them up to coincidence.  
#5
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Can you give us an example of a documented miracle outside the bible? I mean besides the Miracle On Ice in 1981. I don't think we can have a fruitful discussion if we aren't understanding what you think a miracle is first. 
#6
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
to prove you will chalk it up to coincidence, I will give you 3 examples

#7
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
Can you point out the supernatural element that can't be denied in that story? Otherwise it does look like a coincidence. Spectacularly unlikely, but not supernatural. You say "I know you'll chalk this up to coincidence," then link to a story that is literally a coincidence, unless there's something more to it that you can show that would rule out the coincidental in favor of the supernatural. I also don't get why God would spare the choir but wants to blow up his own house to do so, seems a strange way to demonstrate its existence. 
#8
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you point out the supernatural element that can't be denied in that story? Otherwise it does look like a coincidence. 
Just as I suspected, LOL. Who said anything about the supernatural?  It could be unknown natural elements at play.  The op is asking why atheists don't believe in miracles, not why they don't believe in the supernatural, that is assuming one does not believe in the supernatural.  

The story mentioned is beyond coincidence, especially when you get into why each person who was always on time, were late this one time in the past decade, preceeding the event.

What about the Mayan prophecy that predicted the arrival of white man, the exact same date and time it happened and in the same area?

Coincidence again. 

There are honestly too many things beyond any reasonable mathematical probability that we need to look into why.

It's funny that you need to attribute a miracle to anything supernatural though. 

Is that why you deny miracles?

You fear that a true miracle is supernatural, so you deny any exist, because that might threaten your world view? 

Most people try to fit what happens with their world view. Your naturalistic world view is so weak, that you have to deny that extreme coincidences break the laws of probability. 
#9
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you point out the supernatural element that can't be denied in that story? Otherwise it does look like a coincidence. Spectacularly unlikely, but not supernatural.
Why is it required for the supernatural to be proven beyond doubt? Why can it not be the case that the supernatural is seen as more likely but that natural causes are also possible?
#10
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated. 
No, miracles still bide by the principle of cause and effect. They are caused, and they do have effect. Miracles have such simple simplicity to them, they occur, and repetitively occur, much more often than you might imagine. A miracle is simply an event occurring by means and for purpose we may not understand, but our lack of understanding does not necessarily mean they defy natural law. We just call them supernatural because they are beyond our understanding, much as we once considered the sun rising and setting a miracle. Miracles are simply events beyond our ability to reason how and why they occur. That they occur cannot be denied. Is God always the cause of miracles? No, I believe we, ourselves can cause them to occur, as long as God allows them to be caused.
#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Because as yet no one has demonstrated that anything supernatural exists or has occurred at all. Everything we know occurs within nature, not "super"nature. 
#12
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
 Who said anything about the supernatural?
This is why I asked for the definition of miracle in this case. I don't deny that incredibly unlikely things happen all the time (Leicester winning the PL in 2015 or 16 whenever it was was a 5000-1 gamble), I just don't assign supernatural cause. In a religion forum it seems reasonable to have assumed the cause of the mentioned miracles was Jesus or god or whatever. If you don't think miracles have a supernatural component, and are not guided or caused by anything divine, and are instead just crazy coincidences, then I don't deny crazy coincidences occur, and sometimes are colloquially called miracles (as in the Miracle on Ice, or the Music City Miracle). I don't deny breaking the laws of probability occurs. Breaking the laws of nature, though, doesn't. 

Does that clear it up? 
#13
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Bones

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


YOUR INITIAL POST ON YOUR TOPIC:

YOUR REVEALING QUOTES THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT OTHER THAN YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS:

1. "Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated." Scientific or Bible citation is where?

2. "Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual."  Scientific or Bible citation is where?

3.  "The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place." Conversely, where is your empirical evidence and experience upon this topic to be able to make this statement in the first place?

4.  "So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion."  Like your unsupported opinions shown above?  LOL!

5.  "What say you?"   Well, I would say, are you going to RUN AWAY AGAIN from giving pertinent citations to your otherwise opinions in your topic post, like you did before in the following link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6542-the-implicit-resurrection-within-the-jewish-system?page=1&post_number=2

Tradesecret, "what say you now?

BEGIN:

.



#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do Atheists arbitrarily and irrationally say Miracles don't exist?
Bigoted, false generalization.   ATHEISM, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.  You can be an Atheist and still believe in the supernatural- ghosts, for example.

You seem to be arguing directly against science and deliberately mislabeling science as Atheism, which is deceptive.

Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated.  Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual.  
SCIENCE is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

When you tell a scientist that a report of some supernatural event is unrepeatable and therefore untestable, science never concludes that the report is therefore untrue- only unknowable.  There is nothing arbitrary or irrational about that system- it's just the difference between knowing something is true because it conforms to one's own experience and believing something is true because you've been told to believe as much.

The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place". Or the atheist could could say he has talked to someone who does know everything.  ( I think the only person who knows everything is God) 
I can think of many ways for an Atheist to say that miracles don't exist.  Scientists never draw conclusions about untestable hypotheses, they simply set that data aside as untestable.

So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion.  Something which does not have any educational value.  What say you? 
Well, I'd say you're deflecting.  You really want to attack science here but you are mislabeling science as atheism.  Scientists have good reason to be skeptical about most miraculous claims but never conclude that the report is therefore false.  Take, for example, miraculous claims regarding the resurrection of the dead.  There is no evidence that people have returned after being dead for a day or two but plenty of evidence that people thought to be dead have recovered after hours of no detectable heartbeat or brain activity.  An Atheist only posits that if somebody does come back from the dead it was not due to the will of some inhuman powerful intelligent entities.  A scientist gathers  all the evidence and tries to improve the reliability of measurements and instruments used to determine when a human body is irreversibly deceased.  Neither group of people denies miracles inherently, as you falsely claim.

It is silly to ask somebody why they don't believe in the truth of something they've never experienced. 
It is perfectly valid to ask somebody why they believe in the truth of something they've never experienced.

#15
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
we theists can show things that look like supernatural healing. healing that happens despite the science saying it's impossible. atheists can't show things that look supernatural happening to them. why is that? atheists assume the same level of things happen to them... but the examples are just never reported. for me, if someone prays and then something supernatural occurs, i see no reason to assume similar things happen to atheists too. the burden of proof is on the atheist, if they claim those things happen to them too. 

there's also stories of God talking to people, and then healing them. a lot of times these people seem perfectly credible. it's a stretch to think they hallucinated, and then something that's thought to be impossible then occurred. 

atheists just have a deep seated need to not believe, that's all there is to it. 
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
Atheists have a conditioned database, just as theists do,  that's all there is to it.

And a miracle is how one cares to define it.

Everything boils down to data management in the end.

I think therefore I do or don't believe in a deity.
Topic's author
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
For this reply I am using a tentative definition of miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws that is thought to be the work of a deity.

Personally, I don't believe in miracles because of a few reasons. 

1. The frequency of 'miracles' decreases as our knowledge (and ability to investigate) has increased.

This suggests people attribute miracles to misunderstood events (we know this has happened) or are dishonest (we know this has happened). 

2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
And yet they do happen.  

How many doctors have confirmed very surprising results in relation to different matters?  Things that cannot be explained naturally? the problem of course is not the dishonest matters - but rather the ones which are confirmed.    I am not sure I agree with you definition. I am pretty sure most religious people would not attribute every miracle to a deity.   When an unexplained situation occurs - even non-religious people tend to call it a miracle - but they certainly would attribute it to a deity. Just unexplained.  

The fact that fraud happens - indeed as it does in science as well - is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

BTW my point even from the OP is that it is arbitrary and irrational for atheists to say miracles don't exist.  Your response does not address that at all. However thanks for your response. 
Topic's author
#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
The status quo is nothing, and proof or counterproof shifts the status around. If there are pretty much equal amounts of proof and disproof, it returns back to the Status Quo.

The status quo of whether miracles exist is null: We can't prove whether if it exists or not. That is the status quo. Unless there are presented information that amounts to something about whether miracles exist or not, we cannot say that miracles exist or not due to the lack of information.

The center-ground or status quo on the God issue would quite literally be agnosticism. Both sides present proof of why their side is more correct. If there is no proof, then we cannot prove anything. A toddler who just got introduced to the idea of "god" would have no proof of it existing or not, and the default settings to any problem, without proof shifting anything anywhere, is in the center where we cannot know anything.
In other words, you are saying you don't have a reason to excuse atheists for being irrational and arbitrary on this matter.  Attempting to shift the burden of proof is a concession in this thread.  


Topic's author
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you give us an example of a documented miracle outside the bible? I mean besides the Miracle On Ice in 1981. I don't think we can have a fruitful discussion if we aren't understanding what you think a miracle is first. 
Really, 

please show us there is a murder, but please do it without producing  the dead body, the weapon or the witness who said he did it.

Unless you can produce some evidence that disqualifies the bible from being used, then why would I want to go along with your prejudiced opinion. Only people who don't know anything about the Bible would make such a naive comment. 


Topic's author
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
No, miracles still bide by the principle of cause and effect. They are caused, and they do have effect. Miracles have such simple simplicity to them, they occur, and repetitively occur, much more often than you might imagine. A miracle is simply an event occurring by means and for purpose we may not understand, but our lack of understanding does not necessarily mean they defy natural law. We just call them supernatural because they are beyond our understanding, much as we once considered the sun rising and setting a miracle. Miracles are simply events beyond our ability to reason how and why they occur. That they occur cannot be denied. Is God always the cause of miracles? No, I believe we, ourselves can cause them to occur, as long as God allows them to be caused.
Who says so?  Why can you be so confident that miracles abide by cause and effect? 
Topic's author
#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
In other words,

you don't have a proper response. That does not surprise me? 


#22
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
I have observed miracles in my own life, and have been the vehicle of their action in others. Personal experience is powerful evidence.
Topic's author
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
So explain the cause and effect side of this? 
#24
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok, so clearly you don't get that you cannot use a bible to prove the bible is true. By that logic I can prove that the novel IT by Stephen King is a documentary. 
#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and now back to a man, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks,


TRADESECRETS RUNAWAY QUOTE TO ONLY GIVE THEIR "SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS" INSTEAD OF PEER REVIEWED OBJECTIVE CITATIONS IN THEIR INITIAL POST:  "In other words, you don't have a proper response. That does not surprise me? "

In addressing yet another ever so weak response from you relative to my post #13 that you have to runaway from to at least "try" and save what face you have left within this forum, we need peer reviewed citations to your unsubstantiated 'opinions," Get it Bible #1 runaway fool?  Any inept Bible fool like you can throw out their "opinions," therefore your initial post is again sophomoric.  Why am I not surprised?


Now, when you talk about not having a proper response from me, where my post in question was the proper response, it doesn't surprise me in return that you have RAN AWAY AGAIN from recent posts to you by me listed below at your continued embarrassment!  As if you on record in running away OVER 100 TIMES from my godly posts isn't embarrassing enough for you! LOL!

TRADESECRET, READY?

1. Your outright admittance is having a gender reassignment surgery, where I am addressing your previous post to me:

2. My followup to the link above that you continue to RUN AWAY from:

3. Your despicable foul language within this forum that goes against Jesus' words as I have shown, and where you do not fully address your sin upon this topic!

Last but not least, your complete ADMITTANCE, and the proof thereof, of you being an ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANT as you have shown within this forum that you continue to RUN AWAY from in total embarrassment with some of the lamest excuses that this forum has probably ever seen!  

Tradesecret, to save you further embarrassment amongst the membership, I will only show the above recent examples of your ungodly actions, whereas you can thank me later, and where you are no more a Christian than the equally bible fool FAUXLAW was, understood the #1 Bible runaway fool upon this forum? Huh?


NEXT BIBLE INEPT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE TRADESECRET THAT LIKES TO REMOVE ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER WHEN DEALING WITH THEIR BIBLE IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY OF SAME WILL BE ... ?

.








#26
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
So explain the cause and effect side of this? 
Contrary to popular thought, miracles do not cause faith. They are caused by faith and hope, and function by the pure love of Christ extended to those in need. Why isn't everyone in need benefited by a miracle? I'm no judge, thankfully, but in my experience, lacking faith and hope is a big detraction. God isn't so interested in acting for someone who will dismiss the expected miracle. So, there's your cause: faith and hope in Christ, specifically. The effect is clear: a change of condition, a change of heart, a change of confidence in God. The effect is the physical manifestation of a miraculous occurrence, which, again, is why miracles are overlooked and dismissed by some, even if they see the effect, much like the many who left after experiencing the miracle of feeding the 5,000, who then heard the following sermon on the Bread of Life, and said, "This is an hard word. Who can hear it?" They certainly didn't hear it and walked away. Such as these do not deserve miracles.
#27
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Tradesecret
Your proof of miracles existing is that there is no proof of them not existing.
Topic's author
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your proof of miracles existing is that there is no proof of them not existing.

No.  

Miracles have occurred in the past.  The bible is evidence for this.   

Miracles also exist today. There are many reliable and credible persons who have provided such evidence. 

You can read the bible and see what miracles have been identified.  

You can also go to the local GP. I imagine most GP's have their own little file of unexplained healings.  Do they call them miracles? Sometimes. And sometimes not. 

I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.  

So the answer to your question is no. 

On the other hand atheists are irrational if they say that miracles have not happened.  
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The bible is largely myth.

The supernatural bits are the supernatural bits.

And the actual bits are the actual bits.

And one can believe some of it, or none of it, or all of it.


Things sometimes happen that are not readily explained, so we sometimes like to refer to them as miracles. 

And sometimes we would rather that they weren't explained.




#30
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, in that case, miracles may happen, but they will not be considered eternally a miracle. In the end of all things, there are no miracles because we will eventually be able to explain stuff.

Like, in the old days what is considered a miracle of a healing is now discovered like just a regular response of a gland releasing more of this one substance than in other scenarios.