Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

The burden of proof is a legal standard that determines whether a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. It is the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. In other words, a party must produce sufficient evidence to support an allegation or argument.

please make sense of this.

1. I made a claim and mentioned my sources as evidence. All I have said so far is not a secret and it's out there for whosoever wishes to scrutinize and widely accepted as authentic materials in terms of reliability amongst others. Now to come here and pretend all I have said is a made-up tells me that you are intentionally playing dumb for the sake of argument or you need help reconciling these facts.

2. Most of the scriptural claims made are historic and therefore the methods or criteria used in determining the authenticity of these materials are applied. And today, it still stands as true. I don't hear any atheist saying the accounts of Alexander the Great are not reliable and they are used in schools today. The same for the Christian scriptures but only then do we find these people making claims and mockery of what has been presented many years ago.

please stop throwing around the burden of proof statement because you don't understand what it is and the premise it should be applied

Just like Homer's Odyssey is evidence of Greek gods because it mentions parts of Greek history. Right?

 

[Valjean]

So sad that people can't/won't explain their positions on things and then divert by insults and point fingers from the pile or bulwark. So glad to have seen this, although I do feel sorry about it but it is sooo helpful and explanatory to see this. Thanks, guys! If you are guys. If you are not, thanks whoever you are or claim to be. Fishy stuff...

We explain till we're blue in the face, but it goes in one ear and out the other. We post links and you ignore them.

 

[Valjean]

The burden of proof is a legal standard that determines whether a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. It is the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. In other words, a party must produce sufficient evidence to support an allegation or argument.

please make sense of this.

1. I made a claim and mentioned my sources as evidence. All I have said so far is not a secret and it's out there for whosoever wishes to scrutinize and widely accepted as authentic materials in terms of reliability amongst others. Now to come here and pretend all I have said is a made-up tells me that you are intentionally playing dumb for the sake of argument or you need help reconciling these facts.

2. Most of the scriptural claims made are historic and therefore the methods or criteria used in determining the authenticity of these materials are applied. And today, it still stands as true. I don't hear any atheist saying the accounts of Alexander the Great are not reliable and they are used in schools today. The same for the Christian scriptures but only then do we find these people making claims and mockery of what has been presented many years ago.

please stop throwing around the burden of proof statement because you don't understand what it is and the premise it should be applied

What non-Christian sources are there about Jesus and his life?
We have multiple, disinterested sources talking about Alexander, with no claims of miracles.

The authors of the Christian scriptures are unknown. Their claims are hearsay, at best. Many of the biblical, historical claims are fantastical, and would demand considerable verification. Many have been outright refuted.

 

[LeftyLen]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

when referring to abiogenesis you have a very valid point

 

[leroy]

The burden of proof is a legal standard that determines whether a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. It is the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. In other words, a party must produce sufficient evidence to support an allegation or argument.

please make sense of this.

1. I made a claim and mentioned my sources as evidence. All I have said so far is not a secret and it's out there for whosoever wishes to scrutinize and widely accepted as authentic materials in terms of reliability amongst others. Now to come here and pretend all I have said is a made-up tells me that you are intentionally playing dumb for the sake of argument or you need help reconciling these facts.

2. Most of the scriptural claims made are historic and therefore the methods or criteria used in determining the authenticity of these materials are applied. And today, it still stands as true. I don't hear any atheist saying the accounts of Alexander the Great are not reliable and they are used in schools today. The same for the Christian scriptures but only then do we find these people making claims and mockery of what has been presented many years ago.

please stop throwing around the burden of proof statement because you don't understand what it is and the premise it should be applied

I mostly agree…………..and if someone claims that the sources are wrong /invalid/fallacious……. That person is the one who has to support that claim………..you can´t say “they are wrong because I say so”

 

[leroy]

"brings about" => time passes for that.

"whenever an X occurs, a Y must follow" => meaning X preceeds Y, Y happens after X.

Only according by your own personal definition.

No. You are wrong because you ignore GR physics and are still stuck in a Newtonian world.

That has been addressed multiple times………..as I said before, I agree that any cause-effect relation that is restricted by GR has to follow the rules of GR. including "the cause come before the effect)


But I don’t grant that everything (let alone the cause of the universe) has that restriction……..and you haven’t done anything to show the opposite. ………..therefore we are stock in “it true because I say so”

And then the actual answer is "we don't know".

Yes "I dont know" would be the actual answer……………… the problem is that you seem to know with nearly 100% certainty that everything (literally everything that exists) is restricted by GR………….but for some reason you haven’t done anything o support such a radical and controversial claim

 

[shunyadragon]

The burden of proof is a legal standard that determines whether a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. It is the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. In other words, a party must produce sufficient evidence to support an allegation or argument.

Burden of Proof is also a standard of logic for reasoning: https://quillbot.com/blog/reasoning/burden-of-proof-fallacy/

The burden of proof fallacy involves failing to support one’s own assertion and challenging others to disprove it.

Although the person making a claim is responsible for providing evidence for that claim, people often commit the burden of proof fallacy by passing that responsibility on to the opposition.

please make sense of this.

1. I made a claim and mentioned my sources as evidence. All I have said so far is not a secret and it's out there for whosoever wishes to scrutinize and widely accepted as authentic materials in terms of reliability amongst others. Now to come here and pretend all I have said is a made-up tells me that you are intentionally playing dumb for the sake of argument or you need help reconciling these facts.

2. Most of the scriptural claims made are historic and therefore the methods or criteria used in determining the authenticity of these materials are applied. And today, it still stands as true. I don't hear any atheist saying the accounts of Alexander the Great are not reliable and they are used in schools today. The same for the Christian scriptures but only then do we find these people making claims and mockery of what has been presented many years ago.

False, scripture claims cannot be considered historical unless independently verified by other evidence such as archeological evidence.

Your pejorative accusation against atheist reflects your extreme bias. Religious beliefs atheist or theist or agnostic has nothing to do with whether the accounts in the Bible or Alexander the Great are accurate history or not. The standards of academic history are independent of religious belief. Parts of the Bible and the records of the life of Alexander the Great are independently verified by evidence others re not, Ancient Narratives reflect the beliefs of those that wrote them. They are not necessarily factual. The Pentateuch was written after 600 BCE and is not a first hand witness of the events and people recorded in the text,

please stop throwing around the burden of proof statement because you don't understand what it is and the premise it should be applied

It should be applied to logical arguments as well as law. The person making the positive claim is responsible for the burden of proof.

 

[leroy]

A thought just occurred to me!

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

No, it would not produce sound…………………it would produce “sound waves” but in order for sound to exists you need an ear and a brain that interprets those waves…………….in other words “sound” is the result of the interpretation of our brains

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.

The a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person. is simply a fact of the nature of being human and not a miracle by definition.

An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

You like some anti-science theists misuse miracle outside the accepted meaning to justify an ancient religious agenda,

Science is indifferent to religious beliefs. It has stated factually that science does not remotely propose anything came from nothing. Natural Laws are not considered to have emerged out of nowhere by themselves.

It would help if you avoided pejorative biased accusations of atheists to justify your ancient religious anti-science agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The burden of proof is a legal standard that determines whether a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. It is the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. In other words, a party must produce sufficient evidence to support an allegation or argument.

please make sense of this.

1. I made a claim and mentioned my sources as evidence. All I have said so far is not a secret and it's out there for whosoever wishes to scrutinize and widely accepted as authentic materials in terms of reliability amongst others. Now to come here and pretend all I have said is a made-up tells me that you are intentionally playing dumb for the sake of argument or you need help reconciling these facts.

2. Most of the scriptural claims made are historic and therefore the methods or criteria used in determining the authenticity of these materials are applied. And today, it still stands as true. I don't hear any atheist saying the accounts of Alexander the Great are not reliable and they are used in schools today. The same for the Christian scriptures but only then do we find these people making claims and mockery of what has been presented many years ago.

please stop throwing around the burden of proof statement because you don't understand what it is and the premise it should be applied

The burden of proof is not just a legal standard. It is a debating standard. It is a philosophical standard. Did you make the mistake of going to a dictionary?

When you make a claim you have to be able to support it properly. If you claim that a source supports you, you have to be willing to show how that source supports you. Merely mentioning a source doesn't do you much good at all. Take the Bible as an example and the countless Christians sects out there. If any of them want to claim that they are the one right religion merely referring to the Bible does them no good since all of the other Christian sects will also claim the Bible as 'evidence" that they are right. You need to go above and beyond just mentioning sources when people demand it.

Second you do not appear to understand the term "historical" since most of the Bible is not historical. Quite a bit of it is myths or morality tales at best. A lot of it are rules from a supposed God. If you want to claim that something in the Bible is historical that still bears a burden of proof. There are areas of the Bible that clearly contradict other parts of the Bible by history.

 

[YoursTrue]

Burden of Proof is also a standard of logic for reasoning: https://quillbot.com/blog/reasoning/burden-of-proof-fallacy/

The burden of proof fallacy involves failing to support one’s own assertion and challenging others to disprove it.

Although the person making a claim is responsible for providing evidence for that claim, people often commit the burden of proof fallacy by passing that responsibility on to the opposition.

False, scripture claims cannot be considered historical unless independently verified by other evidence such as archeological evidence.

Your pejorative accusation against atheist reflects your extreme bias. Religious beliefs atheist or theist or agnostic has nothing to do with whether the accounts in the Bible or Alexander the Great are accurate history or not. The standards of academic history are independent of religious belief. Parts of the Bible and the records of the life of Alexander the Great are independently verified by evidence others re not, Ancient Narratives reflect the beliefs of those that wrote them. They are not necessarily. The Pentateuch was written after 600 BCE and is not a first hand witness of the events and people recorded in the text,

It should be applied to logical arguments as well as law. The person making the positive claim is responsible for the burden of proof.

Logic doesn't always give the right conclusion. Because some things are unanswered in the process of logic. The conclusion therefore can be wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

The burden of proof is not just a legal standard. It is a debating standard. It is a philosophical standard. Did you make the mistake of going to a dictionary?

When you make a claim you have to be able to support it properly. If you claim that a source supports you, you have to be willing to show how that source supports you. Merely mentioning a source doesn't do you much good at all. Take the Bible as an example and the countless Christians sects out there. If any of them want to claim that they are the one right religion merely referring to the Bible does them no good since all of the other Christian sects will also claim the Bible as 'evidence" that they are right. You need to go above and beyond just mentioning sources when people demand it.

Second you do not appear to understand the term "historical" since most of the Bible is not historical. Quite a bit of it is myths or morality tales at best. A lot of it are rules from a supposed God. If you want to claim that something in the Bible is historical that still bears a burden of proof. There are areas of the Bible that clearly contradict other parts of the Bible by history.

It may be a debating standard but you leave out much in the process of logic of miracles, either side. You switch rapidly from discussing logic re: evolution and swiftly move to putting down the Bible. Anyway thank you all for the discussion.

 

[Valjean]

when referring to abiogenesis you have a very valid point

What in abiogenesis came out of nothing? What about it is miraculous?

 

[YoursTrue]

What in abiogenesis came out of nothing?

As the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever will..." Unless of course you get info from Dr. Hawking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may be a debating standard but you leave out much in the process of logic of miracles, either side. You switch rapidly from discussing logic re: evolution and swiftly move to putting down the Bible. Anyway thank you all for the discussion.

The "logic of miracles"? And it is creationists that cause the Bible to be put down by abusing it. It can be properly used as a source for lessons on how to treat your fellow human beings. The value of faith, and other areas having to do with a belief in God. But it fails if one takes it too literally. Creationists are the ones that make it just a book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever will..." Unless of course you get info from Dr. Hawking.

But that is a creationist belief. I do not know of any on the science side that even believes in "nothing".

 

[Valjean]

Logic doesn't always give the right conclusion. Because some things are unanswered in the process of logic. The conclusion therefore can be wrong.

Of course it can be wrong, but done correctly, it will still be valid.
It's garbage in-garbage out. If a premise is wrong, for example, you'll likely get a wrong conclusion.

 

[Valjean]

It may be a debating standard but you leave out much in the process of logic of miracles, either side. You switch rapidly from discussing logic re: evolution and swiftly move to putting down the Bible. Anyway thank you all for the discussion.

What sort of logic can be done with miracles?

 

[Valjean]

As the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever will..." Unless of course you get info from Dr. Hawking.

But it's only the fundamentalists claiming that something comes from nothing.
Haven't we posted a hundred times that science doesn't claim that something came from nothing?

In one ear, out the other....

 

[Bear Wild]

The "logic of miracles"? And it is creationists that cause the Bible to be put down by abusing it. It can be properly used as a source for lessons on how to treat your fellow human beings. The value of faith, and other areas having to do with a belief in God. But it fails if one takes it too literally. Creationists are the ones that make it just a book of myths.

Actually the bible is a book of myths. It's myths are the truths to its followers in creating relationship to the divine. When you use these myths as absolute facts directly applied to our world then you have completely misunderstood the myths indicating you do not know the meaning that the words represent. It represents a lack of understanding of the myths. This is true of pagan myths which represent truth of relationship and not as literal description. That is why most pagans agree with the theory of evolution and know the importance of it.