And if you've never seen even a fictional portrayal of the phenomenon, it's a major scene in the movie The Abyss.

Riftsrunner is spot on, but if any of the other folks posting here want to call it a Miracle or a Divine Intervention... "more power to ya..."

But don't fall into the trap of one of Murphy's Laws... it won't usually work..
"Don't believe in miracles... Rely on them."

Good luck with that Philosophy/Belief/Religion.

It is not reasonable and not what Ayn Rand "should have" thought instead of an alleged "shortcut". Atheism means a-theist, not a theist, rejecting belief in the supernatural. That does not require proving negatives, which is impossible. When someone makes an arbitrary assertion it is in logic to be rejected as cognitively worthless as if it had never been said. You don't accept it, period. You don't run around giving the arbitrary serious consideration as "possible" in contrast to not believing it. The burden of proof and explanation is on he who asserts the positive, not someone who rejects it, refusing to believe it, and that applies equally to assertions of what is possible in reality. Imagination or fantasy is not evidence of either existence or possible existence.

That is the general meaning of "atheism". In addition, if someone says something contradictory you logically say it can't be because contradictions cannot exist. Or if someone says something utterly meaningless it can't exist because he hasn't said anything at all. This is common in various claimed accounts of god but need not always be the case. This has been explained here many times.

Heinlein seemed to have considered it a palliative,
a source of self-psychological comfort in life. OK! -- j

Ayn Rand rejected the supernatural and explained why. It is a direct consequence of her philosophy and contradicts it. So does "not knowing" what to think as if it could be accepted as "possible" despite the lack of meaning and evidence. That is not another form, a "non-strict Objectivism", regarded as somehow "ok". Either one understand whats atheism means and why or he doesn't, not what he's "told" without bothering to read and understand it firsthand. It is not a matter of Robbie's disparaging "faithful Objectivist", which makes no sense except perhaps for those who try to apply his own approach to Ayn Rand, which would be a train wreck on the order of a metaphorical Taggert Tunnel disaster.

No, in fact I believe that science is the unraveling of God devices AND that man was given his mind and faculties to achieve wonders of his own.

I am Christian dino--
Hear me roar!

Do faith and miracles need to be non-scientific, I.e. something intervening and temporarily suspending the laws of nature? What if it's something scientific like the amt of sodium in his body interacting with a medication? Could we call that a miracle?

Just curious, what is the truth here? After 45 minutes what truth brought this boy back to life when every doctor essentially gave up?

If you say I don't know it wouldn't be a crime. Not knowing allows an opening for faith and miracles.

Respect.

You..... are weird.

I don't think this kind of ignorance is "benign" and it certainly is not "benign" to publish stories extolling it. Some people who read it may think it "proves" something that it does not and later claim it is evidence of that supposed truth.

"There is no place for faith in the world."

Look around, reality defies your statement. Also, you have faith that reason is your answer to life's questions, no?

Despite my knowing that this post would likely blow up into a discussion/war over realigson (meshed word intended) I simply wanted to share a story that I found refreshing,remarkable, and encouraging.

They boys recovery is beyond reason. The woman had faith that God would deliver her son from death. Until such time doctors can reason away the miraculous aspect of this boys recovery I'd think decent folk would just be pleased and satisfied to see the boy alive. This doesn't mean anyone should stop looking for a practical explanation.

Au contraire!
I'll give you both a point here and now.
Pop! Pop!
I want to spread the points around. -- l'emperor Barry L'Obamasaurus

Fair enough. This is why I make the distinction between strict Objectivists (requiring atheism as a must) vs. non-strict Objectivists (where admitting that you don't know whether a deity exists is OK). I guess it's a good thing I admitted a 10% error rate in being able to see sarcasm earlier tonight. I have a little catching up to do ;-S

I do not have faith in Ayn Rand and am not an Objectivist. I am a Gaultist.

I want to point this down for being repetitive.

Let me be frank. (OK, I'll be Susanne, but ya get my point, or not...)

(1) get offa da pittypot. We LOVE discourse, and even opposing viewpoints... but coming at it from a "I'm a victim" place will get you nada here. KNOW your background, know your source material, even be ready to cite it... and you may have people who will not only listen to your POV, but embrace it. And if they don't... they don't. Get over it, and if you **really** believe your POV is right, don't back down... but if you have doubts, you're in the right place. Otherwise... you're spewing air. It is what it is, and that's the way it is. WE have a saying - A=A. You can't BS the truth.

(2) I get insulted all the time - from ny old libtard freinds, from my Commie Red buds (and yes I still have some from that part of my life), from my own family, and even from my friends here. Know what? I let it roll off my back like oily water offf a duck. Maybe you should thing about trying the same? If you sport a thin skin here you're destined to doom...

We, for the most part, are a pretty open group of individuals, but individuals we are... You want a *good* cross section of people, then come at us with blatant honesty and with your cards on the table, and we'll answer you. You may not LIKE the answers, but again, it is what it is - I can name 9 groups that will give you pablum. WE - will give you flat out honesty. Like it or not.

Harsh? Maybe. But in my humble opinion, this gang of folk will tell you what it is (from their viewpoint) and not mamby-pamby you to not hurt your feelings. But in most cases, that honesty is what is reality.. MOST people hide from it - but - and this is a bigger but than my derrurier - if you can can embrace it, you will find not only you can find others who have a grip on reality, but you may find your philosophy twisted to a deeper sense of embracint your inner sense of honesty - and self.

Thats all I got to say for now... good luck to you!

+1 (:

Did you really think that I had not understood this instantly?

What I am saying is that we should not let someone else's belief benign belief system be a point of division. When a person says, "I prayed and my son got well." the proper response is "That is great!" not, "Statistically, there are 2% spontaneous revivals after cardiac arrest when the subject is young and has been immersed in cold water."

Jan

Amen!

You could reply with: "Beginnings begin."
It is just as logical....