Atheism is irrational.

[Asmodee]

Do you see the irony there?

Your post verges on deceptive editing since each phrase refers to completely different issues.

Be that as it may, the key distinction is that miracles affect the external environment. Theophany falls into the same category as dreams, visions, epiphanies, and even peak experiences, all of which are subjective internal experiences.

No, it doesn't.  I quoted the part where you accused atheists of playing with semantics followed by the part I perceived as you playing with semantics.  I was not editing or censoring you, merely pointing out the parts to which I was responding.  You have to admit, there is a bit of irony there.

[Whateverist]

Atheism doesn't "deny god". It is a specialized subset of skepticism and critical thinking; the position of not automatically accepting theistic claims. Why do so many theists have trouble with such a simple concept?

I "Deny God" period. I can't for the life of me conceive of a universe created by some mystical being. No arguments by "religious" people can convince me that that life is not "an accident". I believe that in this universe at least, the laws of physics actually require the combination of particals that eventually result in "life" i.e. the ability to reproduce itself

So in addition to being one who does not believe in gods you are apparently someone who possesses a very clear idea of what would constitute a "god", along with a number of opinions which would seemingly weigh on a god so defined. That's nice.

I share your incredulity toward the notion of a cosmic watch maker and feel the same way about an 'afterlife' and the 'supernatural' category. All are ridiculous notions. But when you deny the easy stuff you haven't thereby denied every theist's god.

It's being such an ill defined term is the best reason not to make blanket statements regarding these slippery 'gods'.

To me accepting a "God or Gods" is stupid. Other than "belief" there is no proof that a god or gods exist, period. Just because man has for centuries insisted that some supreme being "caused" the universe doesn't mean some sort of "prime mover" actually invented/created the universe and us. I find nothing wrong nor inconsistent with the idea that life is anything other than the combination of the resources found in the universe.

So don't accept them. Agnostic atheists likewise do not accept them. The rest of what you say here reflects things you've probably heard particular theists say. But none of them speaks for all of them, so refuting one does nothing against the others. But by all means take them all on if you're motivated and have time to ask each and every theist for his beliefs.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your post verges on deceptive editing since each phrase refers to completely different issues. Be that as it may, the key distinction is that miracles affect the external environment. Theophany falls into the same category as dreams, visions, epiphanies, and even peak experiences, all of which are subjective internal experiences.

No, it doesn't.  I quoted the part where you accused atheists of playing with semantics followed by the part I perceived as you playing with semantics.  I was not editing or censoring you, merely pointing out the parts to which I was responding.  You have to admit, there is a bit of irony there.

That's why I said it was on the verge. There is no irony if I did not engage in deceptive wordplay. With respect to the definition of atheism, I have conceded that "simple disbelief" seems to have become a contemporary usage; however, I feel the strong insistence, that the definition be strictly limited to exclude equally valid senses and specifically those with negative connotations, betrays a censorious intent by some vocal atheists to avoid owning up to their obvious incredulity.

In the same way, the broadest sense of the word 'miracle' as any kind of divine intervention could, I suppose could include an uncanny dream. To my mind, that expansive sense didn't apply in the context of the thread. Instead, the discussion revolved around apparent violations of the natural order. I have already explained my position such inexplicable events and the criteria for excepting them as actual divine interventions.

No such criteria would apply to an epiphany, like Paul's encounter with the risen Christ. One defining feature of an epiphany is the certainty it engenders in the person who had the experience. People who have them do not question whether or not they had a divine encounter; they know with absolute certainty that they have. The OP asks if I, or any other believer, upon going back in time and observing purported miraculous events would change our minds about the veracity of those events. The question of the OP only applies to events open to dispute. With respect to an epiphany, there would not even the possibility of doubt.

The real question is whether I could be justified in accepting the veracity of another's epiphany. That could only ever be a personal judgment about the character of the person making the claim and witnessing the affect on their life. To my mind that entails a whole 'nother set of criteria and not really worth either the believer or the skeptic's time to debate. The gulf is too great.

[The Grand Nudger]

People of remarkably high character firmly believe, to the point of calling it knowledge, in demonstrably untrue things....these things can and often do effect change in their life, regardless of whether or not they actually happened.  Nothing about a persons character or life changes even speaks to the subject of consideration. Those criteria cannot answer the question to which they've been applied.

Then, ofc, there's the issue of two people, both having remarkably high character, who both seem to have had positively weighted effects in their lives after having some epiphany......trouble is, they have mutually contradictory epiphanies which, by the criteria you offered, would be considered simultaneously true? 2 dozen people? 2 hundred people? 2 million people? 2 billion?

It's unworkable.

[Ravenshire]

Instead, I see the work of Providence in entirely natural processes

Confirmation bias?

[Simon Moon]

People of remarkably high character firmly believe, to the point of calling it knowledge, in demonstrably untrue things....these things can and often do effect change in their life, regardless of whether or not they actually happened.  Nothing about a persons character or life changes even speaks to the subject of consideration.  Those criteria cannot answer the question to which they've been applied.  

Then, ofc, there's the issue of two people, both having remarkably high character, who both seem to have had positively weighted effects in their lives after having some epiphany......trouble is, they have mutually contradictory epiphanies which, by the criteria you offered, would be considered simultaneously true?  2 dozen people?  2 hundred people?  2 million people?  2 billion?  

It's unworkable.

This is so obviously true.

A high percentage of Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Muslims claim to have positive 'god' related experiences with mutually exclusive deities.


Yet, according to Neo, they are wrong and only those that follow his brand of religion are right. Yet, most of the people from those other religions claim the same thing.

I have a very good friend, who was addicted to drugs and alcohol, living on the street and committing petty crimes to feed his addiction. One day, he walked into a Hindu temple in LA and claims to have had a religious epiphany, and never touched drugs again. He completely changed his life around, and now has a successful business and a great family. He is still a Hindu.

I am sure that Neo-Scholastic would not accept his epiphany actually being caused by the Hindu gods, right?

The only thing Neo has to differentiate my friend's religious experience, to the ones related to his god, is special pleading.

And here we are, on the outside of ALL of these beliefs, with no idea on who is right, if any of them. With absolutely no method to test them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A high percentage of Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Muslims claim to have positive 'god' related experiences with mutually exclusive deities...Yet, according to Neo, they are wrong and only those that follow his brand of religion are right. Yet, most of the people from those other religions claim the same thing...I am sure that Neo-Scholastic would not accept his epiphany actually being caused by the Hindu gods, right?...The only thing Neo has to differentiate my friend's religious experience, to the ones related to his god, is special pleading.

Three time you have put words in my mouth. Simon, you should know by now that I am very ecumenical. Contrary to the position you have projected on me, I could accept the idea that your friend had a genuine encounter with the Divine. I truly enjoy meeting and talking with people like your friend. Usually, we find quite a bit of common ground. IMHO both atheists and believers can be so literal-minded about details that everything appears like a contradiction to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Good luck with catholicism if you're not interested in being literal-minded about the details.  

Your bias overflows, in your response above meant to deflect criticism. He didn't have an experience with "the divine" he had an experience with the Hindu gods, the effect of that experience and his character ( being generous ) pass your criteria. End of. There's no sense in closeted dismissals, theres always someone around that will see through them even as they leave your lips, amigo. Either you have reason to accept that the Hindu gods are really real...not "the divine"....the Hindu gods...by your own criteria...or your criteria are transparently self serving and not, point of fact, the criteria you would or do use.

[Simon Moon]

A high percentage of Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Muslims claim to have positive 'god' related experiences with mutually exclusive deities...Yet, according to Neo, they are wrong and only those that follow his brand of religion are right. Yet, most of the people from those other religions claim the same thing...I am sure that Neo-Scholastic would not accept his epiphany actually being caused by the Hindu gods, right?...The only thing Neo has to differentiate my friend's religious experience, to the ones related to his god, is special pleading.

Three time you have put words in my mouth. Simon, you should know by now that I am very ecumenical. Contrary to the position you have projected on me, I could accept the idea that your friend had a genuine encounter with the Divine. I truly enjoy meeting and talking with people like your friend. Usually, we find quite a bit of common ground. IMHO both atheists and believers can be so literal-minded about details that everything appears like a contradiction to them.

I apologize.

But do you accept he had an actual experience caused by the Hindu god?

[The Grand Nudger]

You do realize that the only way Neo can answer that question without making a pagan affirmation of faith is through cultural and theological reappropriation...right?

Which do you think he's going to see as the greater evil, lol?