Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Minimalist]

Utterly false. There are over 200,000 "hibakusha," surviving victims from the atomic bombings, with an average age of nearly 79.

Jesus freaks hate facts the way vampires hate sunlight.

[littleendian]

Utterly false. There are over 200,000 "hibakusha," surviving victims from the atomic bombings, with an average age of nearly 79.

Jesus freaks hate facts the way vampires hate sunlight.

If only they also turned to dust in the presence of facts...

A girl can dream.

[Bad Writer]

We are not denying the fact that those 4 Catholics survived the blast, ronedee. The only one denying any facts is you, since you apparently glossed over all the posts of other blast survivors. You are a dishonest person. In the intelligence community, which is where I work, liars don't just get a slap on the wrist; they get locked up in Federal Prison.

[Minimalist]

Beginning in March of 1945 General Curtis LeMay began using low-level firebombing raids on Japanese cities.

Fr. Wiki.

Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless.[12] Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 220,000 people killed.[10] Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry.[10]

The remaining Allied prisoners of war in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals and torture after an air raid. The massive bombing also hit a number of prisons and directly killed a number of Allied war prisoners.

LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders. The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."[6][7] The argument was that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life. He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.

Apparently, fucking "god" didn't care about those xtians. Even more interesting is LeMay's apparent belief that only the loser can commit "war crimes." Guess now we know where Bush got his ideas from.

[Anomalocaris]

Just when I thought the evengelicals were even worse than the catholics, the catholic tells me I am wrong.

[Tonus]

There are likely to have been many such small "miracles" during the war. The JWs have experiences that they documented that were similar or that could be used to imply that the hand of god was with them. I still recall a story of some German JWs who were running a small printing press to distribute the WT literature, and whose home was searched by Nazi soldiers. Incredibly, the story went, they searched everywhere but the room where the printing press was crudely covered by a sheet of cloth. Surely, god blinded those soldiers so that his word could continue to be spread throughout Germany!

So it was pretty awesome to be the JWs who didn't get beaten and dragged off to concentration camps, thus proving that they had the approval of god. It was less awesome to be among the thousands who did get arrested, beaten, sent to camps, tortured, and killed (thus, in the minds of the JWs, also proving that they had the approval of god). Maybe miracles just tend to be in short supply. So instead of using one big one to avoid a catastrophic global war in the first place, they were used sparingly and seemingly at random. That's the personification of love, I guess.

[Minimalist]

More like the personification of bullshit.

[BettyG]

I dispute your contention that the universe is eternal. Your answer only pushes the question of the cause of the Big Bang further back. For example, this site, What happened before the Big Bang? at http://io9.com/5881330/what-happened-bef...e-big-bang hypothecizes that other universes existed before ours. So? What caused those universes to exist?

That's why we're not arguing for the existence of other universes. We try to avoid labeling a conclusion as factual before we can prove it is so.

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe that universes "just happen" than the leap of faith I take in believing God cause the universe(s) to exist.

We're not taking either leap of faith. Why do you?

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident.

Saying that something had a cause just because it exists is called an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. We recognize design in buildings because we know how they are built and who builds them. Saying that God created anything then begs the question of who or what made God.

If God really did design us, then how is this design intelligent since the pleasure parts of our bodies are located right on the septic areas? That screams of bad design, or no design at all. For instance, no engineer in his right mind would have made us with just one pipe for both breathing and eating. We run the extreme risk of choking to death every day. Dolphins are a better design, if anything, since they can breathe out of one hole and eat through another.

Why were scientists at CERN able to find the Higgs particle exactly as predicted? Because the universe has a design. Yes, there is the law of entropy, but that could also be part of the design.

Science has to start with a prediction based on facts already known to man. We go from there, test the hypotheses, and then we duplicate the efforts through peer review. No mystery there, and no reason to invoke Intelligent Design either.

And what about gravity? How come it is strong enough, but not too strong?
Also, why does the whole universe seem to be designed so that humans can exist? All the science in the world cannot explain the purpose of creation.

Science does not explain the purpose of creation because it does not postulate creation. Gravity on earth is as strong as it is because of the Earth's mass. You might as well ask why the gravity of the Moon isn't stronger. This question is only a red herring and deters people from looking for real answers.

The earth is not too far away from the sun nor too close. Etc, etc., etc. It is not just one fact that appears designed, but so many taken together makes a pattern of evidence for a designer. It is not a cosmic accident.

How do you know? What makes you think life couldn't have evolved elsewhere? We are hardly even a speck in the universe, but we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that this might be the only place where life has evolved. If this planet is so perfectly designed, then why is it not more paradisiacal? Why are the earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, diseases, and why is only 1/3 of this planet habitable? The Earth is a pretty hostile environment when put into this perspective.

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day. I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me. Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

The problem comes with the fact that you have to take a leap of faith, as I illustrated earlier. If your faith is so certain, but you see why others don't want to make the same choice to believe in god that you do, then why do you insist on telling us about your beliefs and fancies? A person can have their own set of speculations, sure, but there is no reason to go about thinking of them in terms of certainty if they cannot be proven.

I think God doesn't give us so much evidence that we would be forced to believe in Him. I think He wants that to be a free will choice based on trust and humility. There is enough evidence to believe if we choose to accept it. The paradox is that I have to believe in order to understand, not the other way around. It has to start with love, not absolute, total knowledge. I have to know in whom I trust, which is why I choose to be Catholic. It is the original Christianity, not a spin off based on some 16th century or later guy's theory.

[Bad Writer]

What's this evidence that you claim to be "enough"?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think God doesn't give us so much evidence that we would be forced to believe in Him. I think He wants that to be a free will choice based on trust and humility. There is enough evidence to believe if we choose to accept it. The paradox is that I have to believe in order to understand, not the other way around. It has to start with love, not absolute, total knowledge. I have to know in whom I trust, which is why I choose to be Catholic. It is the original Christianity, not a spin off based on some 16th century or later guy's theory.

Ok, there isn't evidence to prove god.

You choose to believe despite the lack of evidence.

Thank you, this is the only thing I've read from you that I agree with. (only the bolded parts)