If you think that I, of all people, are putting atheists up on a pedestal with my post, then either it was really, really badly written or you didn’t understand what I was actually saying there. Granted, I’m writing this on an iPad, but I can’t see how what I wrote is conveying what you are apparently reading. Just so you know, my title of ‘Agnatheist’ is a gentle mocking knock at many of the board atheists for past clashes on the subject of self labels. 
I’m sorry, but if you’re a theist person of faith you pretty much are a credulous dupe. Substituting some vague hand waving about God for a specific God doesn’t make it any more rational. Replace God with with anything else and you will see how silly it is: “Of course I don’t believe in a literal tea cup orbiting the sun, but I think there may be some sort of pottery out there that we can’t know about”.
The fasting and suffering lady in the OP has many similarities to the 15’t century Dutch saint Lidwina of Schiedam. (Wikipedia article)
Okay, that’s just gross.
Can’t blame those four soldiers for wanting to tap that.
Thank you. That is an almost perfect example of what I’m talking about.
The minority who recover, claim ‘God fixed me’. Shouldn’t the majority who don’t, therefore, blame ‘God fucked me’?
It’s far more reasonable to conclude that ‘God’ is a useless concept, and just say “shit happens” (Latin: cacas contingit).
He may come off as rude, but nevertheless why should belief in God be given more respect than belief in orbiting teacups or, for that matter, belief in Zeus? Is Zeus a sufficiently respectable comparison to make? Zeus was after all worshiped quite seriously by thousands of people over hundreds of years.
If the theist position is simply “I follow the scriptures and tents of X because it makes me a better person,” fine. Anything beyond that is subject to analysis and comparison.
Yes, introducing Zeus may be sufficiently respectful, as he was also an attempt at understanding the concept of “Godness” and he seems to have had at least as many wonder-tales assigned to his activity as Jesus does.
Paraphrasing Russell’s Teapot, however, is intellectual laziness.
There is no reason to believe in either of them. The concept of “Godness” is nonsense.
Not at all. It accurately shines a light on how absurd the belief in a God is.
Au contraire. It is intellectually lazy to not give any thought to the idea behind Russell’s comparison, and make a huf and puf that comparing GOD to a teapot is disrespectful.
Not every wonder-story perhaps, but is there some wonder-story in the bible or elsewhere that deserves special merit, and wouldn’t stand out as being just believed by credulous dupes?
Um, no. Sorry. Off-hand I can’t think of a one that doesn’t work better as a metaphor, parable or some other teaching tool. Do you have any ideas?
Many accept them as such nowadays more than ever, but that wasn’t always the case. And even today, aren’t most still in with Paul on one of the biggest wonder-stories of all when he said, if Christ hasn’t risen, their faith is in vain. I don’t think many can accept that as another allegory.
But both Zeus and Jesus are God-like. The question is why does a belief in something that has “Godness” deserve any special dispensation from critique than any other baseless assertion? I’m sure the lady I saw ranting in the street today about the government reading her thoughts would be just as offended as you are if I questioned her beliefs.
There is a discrepancy in the claims. In the Vatican site, the woman subsisted on the wafer of bread of the Eucharist. However, in the first site Lossee provided, we find this:
"We were told that you do not take food.
- That is true. I stopped eating and drinking six years ago. "
That is NO food or water. This is emphasized at the conclusion of the newspaper article:
“In spite of the understandable loss of weight, (Alexandrina) maintains an impressive freshness and resilience. Finally, hers is a case that Medicine, to a large extent, can explain, but it does leave some details unclear because food is important to the biological process. Such a length of time without liquids and anury should impose certain suspensions. Medicine needs to give a clear explanation and provide more light on such happenings. However, science is not definitive, as we know. What is undisputed is the fact that the patient has lived for years without taking anything by mouth, neither food nor drink.”
Yes, a bedridden person surviving on the Eucharist for years is possible, taking into account the loss of weight. However, there would be severe (perhaps fatal) vitamin deficiencies. I would at least expect scurvy, which would be very evident as her gums got black and her teeth fell out. This did not happen. So here the “miracle” is going to be the lack of scurvy on such a diet. Lucky mutation that she had a functional proline hydroxylase gene?
Six years without any food and water is tougher. It appears we can rule out intravenous feeding since the expertise and equipment is not present. By “expertise” I mean the overall nutritional knowledge available in the 1940s. No one would know enough to formulate an IV formula that could keep a person alive and healthy for 6 years.
I admit, I’m curious about the nature of the implied test that determines where on the respectful-to-lazy spectrum a proposed comparison lies, and how Zeus and Russel’s teapot got their rankings.
The article itself may be of questionable accuracy. This is, given the evidence at hand, still a simpler explanation than her being sustained by God or other supernatural forces.
The evidentiary hurdle I’d assign to such claims is going to be very high. At least James Randi high, and I figure his standard would be along the lines of close monitoring 24 hours a day for several weeks, though I doubt the JREF would take on a case like this since I understand that don’t evaluate claims that require such extensive effort to test, nor claims that are likely to be harmful to the claimant.
You have a problem in that modern scientists don’t consider a concept of “Godness” to be nonsense. The prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Science is devoted to the question of God and cosmology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2001.950.issue-1/issuetoc
What’s more, if belief in God is “absurd”, then you have the problem of at least 40% of scientists – who are critical thinkings – being so poor at critical thinking as to believe something is “absurd”.
I think instead that these claims are absurd. It is OK for you to believe deity does not exist, but it is not OK to claim that a belief in deity is “nonsense” or “absurd”. That claim is contradicted by the evidence.
Now you’re arguing over his choice of terminology, as though him saying “absurd” or “nonsense” is sufficiently rude that he can be dismissed because of it.
That dismissal does not transform into supporting evidence, though.