Stigmata Saturday!

SkepticalScience

Thinker
S
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
225
Hello All. . .

I asked this a while ago on another thread, but my wife and I are seeing this priest on Saturday.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/rumor/stigmata.htm

My wife believes he is legit, I don’t. I’d like to ask him some questions with the intention of “exposing” him. (Or converting myself should adequate evidence be provided)

Something to the effect of:

‘Why do you and other stigmatic people’s wounds differ?”
‘Has anyone seen a wound appear from start to finish?’

Can you all help me please??

(or should I just show up with a box full of statues and see what happens?)
 
Didn't we do this before?

well anyway, good question to ask is do the wounds go all the way through the hands & feet? Do the wounds appear on the hand or the wrist? a spike through the hand won't support a person, crucifiction would have to be done through the wrist (or tied up at the wrist as well) do the wounds look like a cut or a puncture wound
 
Yea, sorry, we did go over this before. . .

The question you bring up is excellent. . . but it's important to note that he doesn't have the stigmata anymore. . .

But I think he has scars.

I am more looking for questions that . . . hmmm . . . imagine Randi and this guy in the same room. What kind of questions do you think Randi would come up with??
 
That's a pretty good one diogenes. . .

what if he comes back and says, "God works in mysterious ways' or something equally vapid?

How do I peg him down??
 
SkepticalScience said:
That's a pretty good one diogenes. . .

what if he comes back and says, "God works in mysterious ways' or something equally vapid?

How do I peg him down??
Click to expand...

How does he have any idea how God works; does God share his plans with him before he carries them out?
 
Well Andonyx, I think he would reply. . . 'God doesn't share his plans, that's what makes his ways mysterious'

Not to change subjects, but what would be a good response to the following argument:

religious guy: 'if we went back 100 years ago before the discovery of an atom. . .and there was a guy that said , 'hey there are these teeny tiny little things that are the building blocks of the whole universe. They are further subdivided into these things called neutrons and protrons , and they are surrounded by these things called electrons that swirl around them at the speed of light' the skeptic would say he was crazy, cause there was no evidence. Perhaps god is just like that. . . science just hasn't figured out a way to detect him just yet'

I always had trouble coming up with a good answer to that one. . .anyone got any counters??
 
SkepticalScience said:
That's a pretty good one diogenes. . .

what if he comes back and says, "God works in mysterious ways' or something equally vapid?

How do I peg him down??
Click to expand...

I would say..

"It sounds pretty unjust, for a God to make himself mysterious and un-understandable, but demand that we trust in him with our immortal souls.."

" WTF is a crying statue suppose to prove? How about having a few toddlers come walking out of some earthquake rubble, without the need for a diaper change?"
 
LOL!

That is an excellent point. . .

Really, what are we supposed to do with a crying statue?? Why not come down with the cure for aids or something. . .

LOL!

That is great!

THANKS A LOT! I got something new in my arsenal. . .
 
SkepticalScience said:
Well Andonyx, I think he would reply. . . 'God doesn't share his plans, that's what makes his ways mysterious'

Not to change subjects, but what would be a good response to the following argument:

religious guy: 'if we went back 100 years ago before the discovery of an atom. . .and there was a guy that said , 'hey there are these teeny tiny little things that are the building blocks of the whole universe. They are further subdivided into these things called neutrons and protrons , and they are surrounded by these things called electrons that swirl around them at the speed of light' the skeptic would say he was crazy, cause there was no evidence. Perhaps god is just like that. . . science just hasn't figured out a way to detect him just yet'

I always had trouble coming up with a good answer to that one. . .anyone got any counters??
Click to expand...


Since we have rocks and stuff, one might suspect that they are made out of something.. That fact, guided us to develop instruments to detect those parts...

There is no evidence for the effect that God has on the universe. Thus, there is no starting place to develop an instrument to detect him..

Doesn't prove he is not there, though... He just doesn't seem to do anything that can't be explained without him..
 
This is a very good reply. . . but in placing myself back in the days before machines could detect atoms. . . I probably wouldn't believe in them.

'He just doesn't seem to do anything that can't be explained without him..'

I probably could have used that argument back in the day too. . .

"Atoms just don't seem to do anything that can't be explained without them"

I see your point here:

"Since we have rocks and stuff, one might suspect that they are made out of something"

It's an excellent observation, but couldn't a religious person say, "Since we have the universe and stuff, one might suspect that it was made by someone"
 
SkepticalScience said:

"Since we have rocks and stuff, one might suspect that they are made out of something"

It's an excellent observation, but couldn't a religious person say, "Since we have the universe and stuff, one might suspect that it was made by someone"
Click to expand...


One might, but wouldn't you expect a creator to be at least as obvious as the creation?

You might find some good ammo here..

An 18 year-old Atheist’s Rebuttal to “5 Crucial Questions about Christianity”

I like the part about trusting someone/something based on past performance. It's pretty ludicrous when you realize God doesn't measure up in this regard..
 
how about this

"Well Andonyx, I think he would reply. . . 'God doesn't share his plans, that's what makes his ways mysterious'

Not to change subjects, but what would be a good response to the following argument:

religious guy: 'if we went back 100 years ago before the discovery of an atom. . .and there was a guy that said , 'hey there are these teeny tiny little things that are the building blocks of the whole universe. They are further subdivided into these things called neutrons and protrons , and they are surrounded by these things called electrons that swirl around them at the speed of light' the skeptic would say he was crazy, cause there was no evidence. Perhaps god is just like that. . . science just hasn't figured out a way to detect him just yet'

I always had trouble coming up with a good answer to that one. . .anyone got any counters??"


What is the premise of this anaolgy? It is that God is detectable by science. Ask him if he thinks God is then detectable by science which would bring a resounding "no". This is a bad analogy because God is more or less defined as something beyond detection - not of this world. How can he even pose such an analogy with such an obvious flaw. Of course, I assume he believes that God is all that omni-nonsense stuff. These days you never know!
 
http://skepdic.com/stigmata.html

What the skeptic dictionary has to say on the subject

You will not be able to expose him and you'll end up looking a d1ck. This is because his followers will not listen to reason and he has years of practice responding to skeptics.

Your wife is persuadable though, work on her slowly
 
Diogenes said:
"WTF is a crying statue suppose to prove? How about having a few toddlers come walking out of some earthquake rubble, without the need for a diaper change?"
Click to expand...
And for you, what would the toddlers prove?
 
------------------------
What is the premise of this anaolgy? It is that God is detectable by science.
-----------------

That's sort of the point, but not really. More precisley, it is that God isn't detected by science NOW. . . just like 10 years before the tools that detected the atoms were built, science couldn't detect the atom. But that doesn't mean that atoms didn't exist before we could detect them.

I the point is that just because we can't detect God exists, doesn't mean he isn't there.

My usual rebuttal is just because you can't detect Mother Goose, doesn't mean she isn't there. But my rebuttal is kinda an argument trick, and doesn't really adress their main point.
 
ceo_esq said:
And for you, what would the toddlers prove?
Click to expand...

That there is a supernatural being/entity/whatever, that can operate outside of the observed laws of physics with a meaningful purpose.

I don't waste any time imagining that it is going to happen..

I could be wrong..
 
SkepticalScience said:
------------------------
What is the premise of this anaolgy? It is that God is detectable by science.
-----------------

That's sort of the point, but not really. More precisley, it is that God isn't detected by science NOW. . . just like 10 years before the tools that detected the atoms were built, science couldn't detect the atom. But that doesn't mean that atoms didn't exist before we could detect them.
Click to expand...


I just had an ' Oprah ' moment about this..


The big problem with this analogy, is that countless people did not claim that there were atoms, before we were able to detect them...
 
Thanks Diogenes,

I used to fall back on that a bunch too. . .but it turns out there were people.

There was this greek philosopher, Democritus who logically reasoned that all matter must be created out of elementary pieces that could not be broken down any further. And he called those pieces atomos. . .

His logic, is kind of similar to the ones used by religious people. . . everything must have been created by something else, until you get to a point where there was something that wasn't created by anything else.

Or whatever. . . in thinking about these two thing, i realize that if i was born in Deocrituses day, and heard him speak, I'd probably write him off as one of those "atom woo-woos". But it turns out, he was right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom