Shedding Light in the Darkness

I would like to comment on this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/02/here-i-opened-wide-door-darkness-there.html

    It a dialogue between two social media users, an atheist and a Christian, that concerns the truth of Christianity based on a would-be miracle. If the atheist's sister would be miraculously cured of her MS, then that would be sufficient evidence for him to believe. She has experienced this disease over the course of years and has deteriorated as a result. That is evident to the atheist's eyes.

    The Christian then offers a couple of examples of miraculous cures of fatal diseases, which then the atheist offers counter explanations of how the cases could be explained without a miraculous explanation. Perhaps the examples themselves are suspect or the patients have been misdiagnosed. He offers alternative explanations in the face of narratives outside of his common experience.

    This response I am offering does not criticize the way either party has represented their beliefs about miracles. But this dialogue reminds me how what we are familiar with becomes the way to interpret analogous cases typically outside of our experience. Because we have not failed to understand, but rather have not taken the time to absorb what a source says, we react weakly when confronted.

    So beyond apologetics, there is the idea that this story of the atheist's sister who has this disease can serve as an excuse for unbelief. This idea is not brought up in the dialogue but perhaps that is in the background. Or perhaps one has seen for himself the miraculous cure of a family member and that gives that person enough evidence to believe. Again one's experience can shape your beliefs.

    Based on one's perceived grievance or gratitude, you respond in offence or beneficence. Albeit this is a theistic viewpoint, what is the alternative? One sees the facts as they are and the other just is blind? Given the atheist is correct, what explains theistic belief? I guess they don't have to justify it because it is outside of their narrow viewpoint. I have my atheism, so whatever you believe does not matter.

Four of a Kind

    There were a few animals that met in a man-made house. The snake, the rabbit, the ox, and the monkey talked about the impact of the natural disaster. The snake said that he would prevent another disaster like the first. The rabbit suggested that she might be a victim if another one happened. The ox saw that there was no way that another one will happen. And the monkey agreed with the alert ox.

    The rabbit was then upset with the monkey because he was abrupt. The rabbit began to shed her fur, which fell in clumps and made the rabbit worry even more. She made comments about her shedding and the ox decided to ignore them. The rabbit turned to the ox and the snake started to slither away. The ox made irrational noises, which could be heard from the outside. They then ended the meeting.