Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[paarsurrey]

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers​

Valjean said:
That passage doesn't clarify anything. Do you not see the difference?
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
3. I don't know whether there's a god or not.

OK. Inspirational, but what does that have to do with the question?

I don't see what this has to do with the issue. If a thing is unknown it's unknown. If it's poorly evidenced the reasonable conclusion is "I don't know," is it not?

So it's back to a utilitarian issue? Are your supporters more deserving of life than the others? You're playing favorites.
Do you really think God plays these self-serving games?

What objectives does atheism have???

see you making the same assumptions;
1. Why do Christians evangelize?
if you don't know then i will tell you. Because, they want you to know about God. Now the only position you can take after this is either you accept or not. if you later say you don't know after being told, i thing that would be intellectual dishonesty.

2. The other thing I've realized about people like you "agnostic atheists" is that, you pretend not to understand even when you are told these things, but because you believe that you are more intellectual and see yourselves as more rationale people, you do not even want to admit if the so called "numb-skulls" are making good and rationale points. and thats the same ideologies that has lead our society to the point where we determine what species or gender we are utter-chaos. (2Timothy 3:2 [For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy])

we can all sit here pretend your concepts about life is more rational knowing for a fact that your so called rationale ideas can not be lived out by you yourselves.

the moment we said there's no God, we started saying even morality should be relative because the Bible talks about objective morality. Everything the Bible had ever said we will attack it with our reasoning and when we cannot comprehend, we rule it out as a myth.

You can make us seem as we don't understand what we are saying but you are not in the right state to even fathom it.

Pauline-Christianity, all its denominations and Western Atheism, all shades of it are flip side one one another, right, please?

Regards

 

[Pogo]

I respect you so much for your Stan's, but there's a little problem with it.
1. one thing some of you get wrong is that God does not catch up to science but science catches up to God
2. The evidence or proofs certain people seek in terms of God shows how insincere we can be. Have we gotten the proof or evidence of a person's thoughts, or expression of love? yet we know it exists and we accept it. why then can't we accept who God is even without proof?
3. The burden of proof is never on the entity of God. Irrespective of the numerous pieces of evidence that point to him, we decide on the most absurd evidence we don't even always provide or receive to accept something. For example, how many of us take the medication we're served at the pharmacy to personal laboratories to test the contents to see if it matches what is prescribed on their containers before consuming them or the food we buy?

if we say till We get all the answers, we ain't going to believe in him and we die and indeed he exists but have failed to honor and serve him, what would be our excuse?

I stand to lose nothing if what we believe in doesn't exist, i have no one to account for but if he does exist and I lived life to please him also good for me. in the end, it's a win-win situation for me.

A long time ago a guy by the name of Pascal tried to argue this, It is at best a poor argument about how to keep yourself happy if you don't think to hard.

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is that the refutations are easy and many.

 

[Pogo]

I not surprised by your dishonest approach

So it's random. Etc and etc.

How much of your spaghetti goes through the colander? Is your colander smarter than you? Are you a Pastafarian?

 

[Pogo]

How can you have been posting on these threads so long and still not grasp the mechanisms of evolution?

He makes giant trolls out of trash, hides them in woods for people to find​

“My ultimate goal is to have trolls surprising people in every state,” said Thomas Dambo, whose latest project is in Detroit Lakes, Minn.

look up Thomas Danbo.

 

[Pogo]

Ig city

But he is so young, he is still posting Pascal's wager as if it were considering. LOL besides, not a bad avatar.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Things get selected or sorted with no consciousness or awareness at all. Purely mechanical mechanisms can select.

Something makes a "selection." Naturally of course, according to wording.

 

[John53]

According to wording??? I'm gonna need a moment to work that out.

 

[Pogo]

So you are an animist, and believe your colander is consciously selecting whether or not to pass the spaghetti through the holes.

You have been here way to long for playing stupid to be cute.

 

[leroy]

How can you have change without time?
It necessarily requires time.
Moment 1: state X
Moment 2: state Y

You dont have to repeat over and over again the same thing, I understand what you are saying…………..what you have to do is support your claim. I know it makes sense to YOU, I know that for you personally causation without time “sounds” absurd…………… but you have to go beyond your feelings and support that claim

How do you know that necessarily (in all possible worlds and all possible realities) causation requires time?

For the sake of simplicity, I grant that in our space-time bubble causation requires time due to the speed of light, but how do you know that anything (physical or nonphysical) beyond that bubble has the same limitation?

Besides………..you can´t provide an alternative that doesn’t have to deal with that alleged problem anyway.

 

[Audie]

But he is so young, he is still posting Pascal's wager as if it were considering. LOL besides, not a bad avatar.

So many think it's their own original idea.

 

[Pogo]

So you are an animist, and believe your colander is consciously selecting whether or not to pass the spaghetti through the holes.

You have been here way to long for playing stupid to be cute.

 

[gnostic]

Something makes a "selection." Naturally of course, according to wording.

Natural Selection involved the changes to the environments, that’s what put selective pressures upon populations of organisms, to reproduce, where the more inherited adaptable traits are more likely to reproduce more successfully, thereby sustaining increases in population growths. Those populations where the traits are unchanged and less adaptable to the changed, will still reproduce but the increase in population growth will most likely be not as strong, so the populations may decline.

That “something” you are talking about, are about the populations of organisms that lived in the changed environments.

For instance, a colder & dyer climate might in certain regions that can last for generations, will require animals to move from place to place seeking water. Animals being smaller in size, and stocky, having more body fat to sustain body warmth, and bodies that preserve water more efficiently in their bodies would be more sustainable for populations.

There are no “Designer” or “Creator” required, for animals, plants, fungi or microorganisms to change, where there are selective pressures in the geographical location that have changed.

Why do you and others like you (creationists), think changes have to be supernatural of divine intervention or manipulation?

Why is it necessary for complexity required God to make things happen?

Soil are mainly of silicon-based minerals, and these cannot magically transform into living cells and tissues of human being, like what Genesis 2 narrated. What Genesis creation of man (Adam) is not only scientifically improbable, but it is impossible, which makes Genesis 2 narrative mythical.

Nor do any plants and animals just pop into existence as Genesis 1 & 2 say…existence of living organisms without natural reproduction.

plants and animals are multicellular organisms, they only exist through reproduction, not by divine will & creation from nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to wording??? I'm gonna need a moment to work that out.

lol -- take your time -- The mutations are selected naturally. Somehow they're selected by ?? unconscious nature, I suppose. So unconscious nature selects whatever it wants -- some bad choices (deleterious mutations) and some, according to the theory, that enabled some fish that might have been endangered to crawl out of water and live on land. Or maybe they weren't endangered...they just wanted to get out of the water...or -- I guess nature knows...or doesn't know what it's selecting...

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural Selection involved the changes to the environments, that’s what put selective pressures upon populations of organisms, to reproduce, where the more inherited adaptable traits are more likely to reproduce more successfully, thereby sustaining increases in population growths. Those populations where the traits are unchanged and less adaptable to the changed, will still reproduce but the increase in population growth will most likely be not as strong, so the populations may decline.

That “something” you are talking about, are about the populations of organisms that lived in the changed environments.

For instance, a colder & dyer climate might in certain regions that can last for generations, will require animals to move from place to place seeking water. Animals being smaller in size, and stocky, having more body fat to sustain body warmth, and bodies that preserve water more efficiently in their bodies would be more sustainable for populations.

There are no “Designer” or “Creator” required, for animals, plants, fungi or microorganisms to change, where there are selective pressures in the geographical location that have changed.

Why do you and others like you (creationists), think changes have to be supernatural of divine intervention or manipulation?

Why is it necessary for complexity required God to make things happen?

Soil are mainly of silicon-based minerals, and these cannot magically transform into living cells and tissues of human being, like what Genesis 2 narrated. What Genesis creation of man (Adam) is not only scientifically improbable, but it is impossible, which makes Genesis 2 narrative mythical.

Nor do any plants and animals just pop into existence as Genesis 1 & 2 say…existence of living organisms without natural reproduction.

plants and animals are multicellular organisms, they only exist through reproduction, not by divine will & creation from nothing.

Again, it's a "selective" process, according to the wording. But thanks for offering your view on things.

 

[John53]

lol -- take your time -- The mutations are selected naturally. Somehow they're selected by ?? unconscious nature, I suppose. So unconscious nature selects whatever it wants -- some bad choices (deleterious mutations) and some, according to the theory, that enabled some fish that might have been endangered to crawl out of water and live on land. Or maybe they weren't endangered...they just wanted to get out of the water...or -- I guess nature knows...or doesn't know what it's selecting...

For someone who claims to understand evolution you sure don't express it very well.

 

[cladking]

But people with the same beliefs about specific things are common. Scientists generally agree on the basics of their disciplines.

First of all no scientist is really supposed to believe in anything at all. Obviously we all do because this is the nature of our species but most scientists will tell you that belief is anathema to the scientific method and perspective. And, yes, you are correct that there is lots of agreement among peers on basic fundamental ideas. All biologists believe consciousness is irrelevant to survival of the fittest and all Egyptologists believe pyramids are tombs and their builders were ignorant of modern science and highly superstitious.

But even here there exists variation in their models. Some biologists study animal communication and some Egyptologists believe some pyramids might be false tombs. I'd say all cosmologists believe protons are sub atomic particles except many cosmologists have experience that shows they are exactly that. They know.

Be this as it may where the rubber hits the road in prediction their models will yield different results because everyone's models are different. No two scientists will agree on much of anything.

It seems to me that belief in science is DEcreasing. Is it still taught in school?

Any science education without instruction in metaphysics is a religion. If you don't understand that science is a process created by man and dependent on experiment then you have a religion and not reason or logic. It is taught as unfailing law as derived from genius rather than experimental results derived from hypotheses in turn derived from logic and evidence. The ONLY hard and fast rule in science is theory depends from experiment and everything else is part of a belief system; a system that believers use to find miracles and magic. They think a miracle is putting a mentos in pepsi and that it has to fizz because it did before. They think the sun must rise in the morning because the weather channel can tell you to the second what time to expect it.

Kids are being converted to atheistic pepsi drinkers and taught to howl at heretics. Then they get out of school and never notice no two scientists agree on anything and every study proves the results desired by the corporation or government that paid for it. When was the last time you saw the American Dairy Science Association say that milk might not be good for some people or excessive amounts are associated with heart disease or that age related lactose intolerance could lead to flatulence?

No, more and more people believe in science and fewer and fewer understand it.

​

 

[cladking]

The science is updated, improved and made more precise.

I wouldn't necessarily quibble about "updated" or "improved".

But "more precise" assumes the conclusion and assumes linear progress. This is the exact same assumption that wrecked Darwin's thinking. There is no such thing as linear progress. Any progress that comes comes in bounds and leaps but every change is not progress. Just as an animal (like homo omnisciencis) can devolve so too can any other thing or process.

Everything changes just as the river into which you can't step twice but sometimes these changes involve the river cutting right through the heart of the city. Practices that work well for centuries are often replaced by slipshod garbage that is less efficient and more costly.

There is nowhere in nature where one can find linear progress. We and Darwin merely imagine it.

 

[gnostic]

lol -- take your time -- The mutations are selected naturally. Somehow they're selected by ?? unconscious nature, I suppose. So unconscious nature selects whatever it wants -- some bad choices (deleterious mutations) and some, according to the theory, that enabled some fish that might have been endangered to crawl out of water and live on land. Or maybe they weren't endangered...they just wanted to get out of the water...or -- I guess nature knows...or doesn't know what it's selecting...

please don’t try to explain something you don’t understand.

There are no choice made, YoursTrue. Choice implied conscious intent and decision making. Animals, plants & microorganisms don’t choose, it is the genes that determine what traits are inherited, not by any intent of any organisms.

Sure a man and woman can choose to have children, and you can predict what traits that each offspring may or may inherit from one or another, but on the gene & DNA levels, what are inherited or not, occurred without intent of conscious being.

There may be some traits in the gene that remain dormant for tens of generations, and that traits might manifest themselves when the gene activated, when an offspring has been born.

That’s just genetics as the result of sexual reproduction, where the gene pool from either of the families (ancestors of paternal & maternal sides) are already there. So there are no mutations involved.

Mutations, on the other hand, is where the genes mutated, and those mutated genes may or may not be added to the gene pool. Not all mutations are added to the gene pools. And if they don’t get added to the gene pool, then it is very unlikely any descendants will inherited that mutations.

What it means by mutated, it means there are alterations to the sequences of the DNA. These changes are abnormal.

Mutations are something new, that occurred…it may present themselves as physical trait that can be observed, or it may occur internally, so not externally noticeable. Some mutations are helpful (eg immunity to disease), while others malignant (eg cause disease), but most are neutral.

Organisms have no conscious control over whether mutations occur or not.

 

[Valjean]

see you making the same assumptions;
1. Why do Christians evangelize?
if you don't know then i will tell you. Because, they want you to know about God. Now the only position you can take after this is either you accept or not. if you later say you don't know after being told, i thing that would be intellectual dishonesty.

Understood, but before we can accept something we need to be convinced it actually exists, and I honestly am not convinced. I have not as yet seen any convincing evidence of any God, and believing something just because my parents and friends did isn't rational.
If you have any empirical evidence I'd be glad to listen, but I've heard a lot of apologetic arguments, and have found them wanting.

2. The other thing I've realized about people like you "agnostic atheists" is that, you pretend not to understand even when you are told these things, but because you believe that you are more intellectual and see yourselves as more rationale people, you do not even want to admit if the so called "numb-skulls" are making good and rationale points.

When someone posts a word salad, an ambiguity, or an argument I can't make head or tails of, yes, I don't understand. Usually, though I understand the claims and arguments, but find them unsupported, factually wrong, or logically flawed. Either way, I'll usually explain the problem.
I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with serious discussions, using technical terms to avoid ambiguity, or with rational criticism of flawed claims. I believe my arguments are rational. If they're not, just tell me why.

When the "numb-skulls" are making rational points I'm happy to accept them, but when they're not, I'll try to explain why. Usually it's the apologists who refuse to admit their errors, not the atheists.

and thats the same ideologies that has lead our society to the point where we determine what species or gender we are utter-chaos.

See, here's one of those posts I don't understand. It's neither a sentence nor grammatical.
Are you saying that society is in utter chaos due to the species or gender we claim to be, because we claim the wrong species or gender, because we don't know our proper species or gender or something else?

(2Timothy 3:2 [For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy])

Why are you throwing bible quotations at an atheist? They don't clarify anything, and I don't find the Bible to be authoritative.

we can all sit here pretend your concepts about life is more rational knowing for a fact that your so called rationale ideas can not be lived out by you yourselves.

Lived out? Are you implying that life can't be lived in accord with my "concepts?" Please explain. This is ambiguous.
My concepts are based on evidenced facts, connected reasonably. This is rational. If you see errors, please point them out.

the moment we said there's no God, we started saying even morality should be relative because the Bible talks about objective morality.

Who's "we?" I don't recall your saying this. I was under the impression that you believed in an objective morality.
Why should morality "be relative because the Bible talks about objective morality?"

Personally, I find Biblical morality pretty spotty, often contradictory, and exemplars often immoral. I think divine command morality can usually be traced to a leadership trying to codify and preserve the current cultural norms and practices of its society -- and to keep the peasantry in line, of course.
Me, I'm more comfortable with a consequentialist morality.

Everything the Bible had ever said we will attack it with our reasoning and when we cannot comprehend, we rule it out as a myth.

??? -- Are you attributing this to us? We comprehend fine, and we have no anti-Bible motive to "attack."
What is fantastical and unevidenced we generally do consider myth -- from anyone's religious writings.

You can make us seem as we don't understand what we are saying but you are not in the right state to even fathom it.

What, exactly, don't we fathom? Would we have to be in a credulous, uncritical, irrational state to fathom it?

 

[Valjean]

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers​

Valjean said:
That passage doesn't clarify anything. Do you not see the difference?
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
3. I don't know whether there's a god or not.

OK. Inspirational, but what does that have to do with the question?

I don't see what this has to do with the issue. If a thing is unknown it's unknown. If it's poorly evidenced the reasonable conclusion is "I don't know," is it not?

So it's back to a utilitarian issue? Are your supporters more deserving of life than the others? You're playing favorites.
Do you really think God plays these self-serving games?

What objectives does atheism have???

Pauline-Christianity, all its denominations and Western Atheism, all shades of it are flip side one one another, right, please?

Regards

I don't see it. Clarify?