Because the religious trolls keep inappropriately imposing it here. They and you and can believe anything you want to, but this repetitious proselytizing of religion does not belong here. It is contrary to the purpose of the forum, and in some cases is being done to trash Ayn Rand's philosophy.

More rational people could engage in philosophical questions or discussion, which would still require naming what we are talking about. Trashing atheists for using the word 'god' makes no sense.

"Ignorant" is not an insult. Stupid is an insult. Ignorant means that one is not educated in an aspect of the debate. Based on recent polling, a minuscule percent of the anti-Christianity population has read the Bible, much less studied it. Intelligent Creation is not mysticism or "supernatural" in the sense you are defining supernatural. There have been a boatload of scientists who have been trying diligently for decades to find out the intelligence that created the original intelligent information needed for initial DNA creation. I use DNA as my sample, because I have studied this one aspect of life more than others. Based on scientific facts, intelligent design is clearly the front runner. Why ask? Mankind has been asking these questions for a very, very long time.
Ayn Rand's *Alisa Rosenbaum" childhood was influenced by her Jewish family members. I see that basic principles and values in her philosophy. Even though she rejected faith, I see ingrained in her philosophy much of Jewish influence. Only through seeking the knowledge of the Bible, and science, and philosophy, etc. have I come to reconcile much of what she believes with my faith. This is a personal journey, and there isn't enough space here to delve into it. It is because I reason and research for the answers to the questions I believe are important, that I can make such statements. I am not offended by questions. I am offended by several statements above such as: "He is a mystic and will believe whatever he feels like, impervious to any logic. There is no point trying to discuss anything with him at that level."
and "My goodness, you are as sensitive as a sunburn on a rash . . . bellicosity." I do not have to be an atheist to be logical and objective - quite the opposite in my case. My belief has been concreted with much research, scientific and Biblical. If, by bellicose, you mean that I am aggressive to give others something sound to research and think about - then I am guilty.

I have found that a LOT of what Heinlein wrote 'works for me.'
+1

Everything is limited to something. If it weren't something in particular it wouldn't be anything. Being a philosophy of reason means "limited" to reason, excluding faith and other forms of anti-reason. That is not a flaw. You, too, are limited to what you can think and know while following anti-reason that prohibits it.

and, of course, the Next Logical Step is to correlate Red Lights, and THAT symbolism practically goes without saying... (or 'stops' without saying?)

Wow! A whole new potential cult/religion in the making! With their/our Symbols on So Many Street Corners around the world Already!

A Miracle! (?) :)

Sorry to disagree, but I think I/we have seen a lot of examples here where a <sarc> - </sarc> delimiter would really help. MY error rate on detecting sarcasm is much higher than jbrenner's estimate of 10% for themself....

You could have tried reading the explanations of what it means and why she formulated it that way, but you don't care. You would rather pretend it doesn't make sense and attack, attack, attack. Take it somewhere else.

They said they continued with the CPR. That is what saved him, it didn't pop out of a vacuum.

Articles are posted here for discussion. The article clearly was religious in nature and was originally written and published to be just that. So are several others, such as the one promoted by Glenn Beck. There are thousands of cases every day of medical success for which we could be happy and which don't try to invoke religion. This one is circulating in the religious conservative media because it is obviously promoting religion, while the rest are ignored. Saying you didn't want to start a religious discussion in such circumstances is dubious.

Not at all, Robbie, and maybe that's why your comment is gathering negative points. I'm not even going to vote that one down.

jbrenner... as I've often said, scientists have been looking for the Answer to "How did the universe begin" or 'where did it come from' for a Very Long Time.

We may or may not be closing in on an Answer to that Question, but 'we' are still looking. Until the proverbial repeatable Experiment can support a Good Theory, claiming that the Only Logical Explanation is "God Did It" is truly illogical.

Unless, in your personal Belief System, that IS a 'logical statement,' in which case, as I've also often said... "Discussion Ends There."

Amazing Grace is a great tune for jazz.

Yes, and I loved Richard Bach's words... "How do you know when your work on earth is not done? If you're alive, it's not done."

And I can enjoy those words without invoking any Supreme Being.

If you can't, so be it... I'm easy, too. :)

It depends on who and what the person is. If all you want to do is express relief that the kid survived and the person is immersed in the supernatural then it's pointless to try to explain more. But discussing the article here is much broader than that.

Don't "bad things happen for no apparent reason" and "rational explanation" comprise an oxymoron?

Glad you're easy... :)
My problem with your first assertion is that it has no predictive value, so why make the assertion?

"return quite unexpectedly at an appointed time" simply says nobody knows when the event will happen, and nobody Will Know until After it's Happened, but the assertion really doesn't at all imply that the Happening Can Or Will "happen."

For a while I collected pamphlets and checkout-aisle newspapers and magazines Predicting the Second Coming, The Apocalypse and other 'future events' of that ilk.

Then, after a while, after all of the forecasted dates expired, they all went into the Recycling Bin.

That was 'easy,' too... :)

Now we can go on to theologize about yellow lights. Is that purgatory?

All true, but you aren't going to get a coherent answer from him. He's a mystic.

He's lost period. Of course his general statement includes the prayer in the article. But whatever contradiction you show, he twists and turns with more arbitrary pronouncements. That's why you can't have a rational discussion with him. It's endless, arbitrary, meaningless sophistry that can't stay consistent from one statement to the next.

Um, how, why and proof, please?
And no, quoting the bible here does not constitute "proof," contrary to some folks' Beliefs.
:)

This is all arbitrary. Having wisdom, courage, etc. has no connection to the arbitrary faith in prayer with arbitrary pronouncements about what an alleged god will do with moochers, prayers or anything.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and her philosophy that made it possible. This repetitive proselytizing for religion is contrary to the purpose of the forum and has no place here. Robbie doesn't care and is spamming anyway because he has admitted that he opposes Ayn Rand's philosophy and is constantly attacking it, regardless of his lack of understanding of what it is. Pushing his religion in contradiction (that much he knows very well) is all he cares about.

Wait... Robbie.. have you Personally Observed Jesus?!

How? When? Where? Proof? Photos? Witnesses? Videos?

And you wonder why this 'discussion' persists?

I forget.. does "This pretty much defines a lack of logic and defines mysticism." imply a truism or a tautology...? :) ... on the part of Paul, that is...

Self-defining circular definitions are bloody hard to argue, and they seem to be all over the place in alleged 'discussions' such as these...

"It's true because the bible says it!"
"Why does the bible say it?"
"Because it's true!"

Sure.... yep, still very happy to be an atheist.
:)

Robbie, (and allosaur) ... what if the Answer to That Question is simply "we don't yet know" and some of us keep looking for the Answer?

A lot of people, I'd postulate, would be/are afraid of that Answer coming to light (pun unintended.)

But the Search is what science is all about, and when new discoveries cause old beliefs or theories to be overturned or discarded, that's just "life in the Big City."

I just don't have any problem with that...

No, it's not a legal context. Its philosophical. It's epistemology. In every field of knowledge the standards of what is proof must be developed. But they all start with evidence of the senses perceiving reality, not someone's imagination. Consciousness is awareness of reality based on the five senses. But it doesn't end with perception because our knowledge is conceptual, the only way we can hold general knowledge. We classify perceptions through abstraction into concepts, and build a hierarchy of concepts to ever higher levels of abstraction. Don't do that correctly and you wind up with floating abstractions disconnected from reality and thinking in non-essentials with invalid concepts.

Proving abstract statements, or even making claims to evidence, requires conceptually thinking ín principles grounded in reality, not imagination. Evidence is not proof but is required for it. You need conclusive evidence, not examples. That we have the capacity to abstract and reorganize thoughts in ways not found in reality -- like Disney characters -- is not evidence, let alone proof, of its existence, or "circumstantial evidence".

If someone claims to have a proof of something it's up to him to validate the standards of proof employed. This happens in science all the time; there is no known general theory of induction and the standards of proof must be developed as each science progresses with its own kinds of facts, observation, experiment and tests. Imagination plays a crucial role in scientific creativity but is not evidence.

Imagination is not circumstantial evidence, and neither is existence of the world evidence of the supernatural as its cause. The imagination and demands of mysticism are not circumstantial evidence for its own conclusions.

:) ... and just as good of an 'explanation' as Divine Intervention...
And equally reliable and predictable!
:)