A question to atheists

[robvalue]

Good call. Anecdotes are not evidence. They're not even reliable sources about what actually happened. People distort things a huge amount, even eye witnesses.

But no matter what anyone saw, you can't demonstrate supernatural causation. If they have a way of doing so that doesn't involve saying "what else could it be" (argument from ignorance) or "well the priest knows how he did it" (unsupported assertion from the priest) then I'd love to hear it.

[Homeless Nutter]

I don't even think the so-called "believers" actually believe in religion (except for the clinically insane ones). They confuse "belief" with "hope". They also take parts they like ("somehow I'm not going to die", "someone powerful cares about me") and disregard the rest.

If I truly believed I knew a way to live forever, happy as a pig in shit - like following the "word of god", for example - and someone I love strayed off that path, I'd go crazy. If someone in my family stopped believing in gravity and started endangering their life, by walking off roofs - I'd restrain them, if I had to. If my children started to play with fire, risking injury or death, due to ignorance of fire's properties - I would not stop reprimanding/punishing/restraining them, until they stopped, because I couldn't imagine ever being happy again, if something horrible happened to them.
And yet my catholic mother, who says she loves me (which I believe), passively watches her child walking right into hell. For eternity.

How can heaven be any good for a mother, if she knows her child is forever being tortured in hell, with no hope for redemption? Either she doesn't care about the child's fate in the afterlife, she claims to believe is real. Or she doesn't really believe religion is the only path to salvation. She just hopes death is not the end and whatever happens after - will work out fine for her family, somehow.

[robvalue]

As Matt D said, "They believe in believing".

Their actions betray them at every opportunity.

[Pyrrho]

Aside from the fact that is it vague and could apply to pretty much anyone (and a believer will be motivated to try), just as robvalue states in his first two posts in this thread (posts 2 and 4), the same kind of thing is reported in pretty much all religions and all superstitions. This matters because they all use such things in an attempt at proving their favored religion or superstition is correct. But logically, it is quite impossible that they are all correct; either Mohammed is the prophet of God or he isn't, either Jesus is the son of God or he isn't, etc. So it is impossible that both Islam and Christianity are correct. But they both have countless examples of this foolishness that are used to "prove" they are correct. Therefore, these kinds of things cannot prove a religion is correct, because they all have this kind of "support."

You might also want to read Section X of David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, as it deals with the subject of miracles, and explains why you should not believe in stories of miracles. But really, the specific situation that you are dealing with is covered by what robvalue has already stated.

If you do decide to read Hume, which you can find at:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341

the "real presence" to which he refers is about the Eucharist ceremony, in which, according to official Catholic doctrine to this day, the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Jesus. Most protestants view it as metaphor and do not believe that the substance actually changes in the ceremony. But Catholics who actually believe all Catholic doctrine believe the substances literally change into bits of Jesus. If when reading Hume, you have any questions, feel free to either start a thread on Hume, or PM me.

[LastPoet]

The question is: When arguing with a religious person, how does a non-religious person respond with something "supernatural" like that??

If it is your mother, be kind.

Anyone else: tell them to blow mary out of their ass™

[RobbyPants]

The question is: When arguing with a religious person, how does a non-religious person respond with something "supernatural" like that??

Best case, that's an easy example of cold reading, and honestly, that's being charitable.

What he said was so vague, he might not have even been employing any real sophistication. He's relying on a sufficient vagueness along with his status of authority to compel her into trying to "fix" a problem he just created.

[Minimalist]

Okay so I don't want you to be confused by the title of this thread, I am agnostic.

So here's the story. A while ago I was arguing with my mom about what we both believed in. She is a very religious Catholic. She was telling me a story about how one time she went into a church and suddenly, the priest or whatever from that church came to her and told my mom that she should get back in a relationship with Mary (Jesus' mother). Funny enough, my mom was a bit "distant" ( I don't know how else[/size][/font] to describe it) with Mary at that time. For example she didn't pray to her and things like that.

The question is: When arguing with a religious person, how does a non-religious person respond with something "supernatural" like that??

What is "supernatural" about some religious asswipe telling someone else to pray to a nonexistent character? That's all the fuckers ever do.

[Nope]

My elderly aunt did something similar to me. First, she pmed me worried that I would not be among those she sees again in heaven. I answered as politely as I could. Later, she told me that she had experienced Jesus in some deep way and wanted me to know he was real. She is old and I love her so I wrote back that I was happy she had an experience that gave her joy but I still didn't believe. What else could I say? My response must have discouraged her from writing because she didn't answer back. Maybe that is the only way the OP can respond to his mom. Tell her you are understand that she has something that makes her happy but that you simply don't believe.

[robvalue]

Yeah, that's a good point. You can believe that they believe something amazing happened, it's just that you don't have to also believe it.

[Mudhammam]

Okay so I don't want you to be confused by the title of this thread, I am agnostic.

So here's the story. A while ago I was arguing with my mom about what we both believed in. She is a very religious Catholic. She was telling me a story about how one time she went into a church and suddenly, the priest or whatever from that church came to her and told my mom that she should get back in a relationship with Mary (Jesus' mother). Funny enough, my mom was a bit "distant" ( I don't know how else[/size][/font] to describe it) with Mary at that time. For example she didn't pray to her and things like that.

The question is: When arguing with a religious person, how does a non-religious person respond with something "supernatural" like that??

First, you flex the muscles on one side of your face so that part of your mouth is at a forty-five degree angle, while the rest remains frozen in disbelief. You might even bite your lip a little. Then you catch your eyes before they roll into the back of your head, keeping them focused on the person and suppressing the deluge of laughter that is nearly escaping from your bitten lip. Finally, after the hilarity is processed and you've analyzed whether the person is really serious or not, and assuming they are, you take a deep breath and look at them strangely, maybe offering the words: "I see." Then you nod and say "Uh huh" until you're able to steer the conversation back to earth.