Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

Science works. Its only problems are ones it attempts to solve. It isn't causing problems. Antisocial capitalists and politicians are causing problems using the fruits of science, but they're the problem, not science.

"Science" is not now and never was the problem. The problem is it is widely misunderstood. Rather than being understood as the tool it is it is misunderstood as gospel.

See post immediately above.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Science" is not now and never was the problem. The problem is it is widely misunderstood. Rather than being understood as the tool it is it is misunderstood as gospel.

See post immediately above.

I find it interesting, to say the least, that mankind has concocted more and more weapons. Plus manage to pollute the atmosphere. Aside from supposed asteroids knocking out life to a degree they say. (No "science" needed for that one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

But you're wrong. Of course they're honest. They're as sincere as you are.

Sorry, but the conclusions some draw from the supposed "evidence" of evolution cannot be accurate. As far as sincerity goes, I guess people that pick up weapons to hurt others are sincere as the ones they fight against.

 

[cladking]

I find it interesting, to say the least, that mankind has concocted more and more weapons. Plus manage to pollute the atmosphere. Aside from supposed asteroids knocking out life to a degree they say. (No "science" needed for that one...)

I don't disagree.

I believe that we'd all make better decisions if we didn't believe some individuals are better than we are and some individuals aren't sufficiently fit to survive. Most of us are content to sit back complacently as our betters kill off the unworthy and send our children to war. Now they want us to pay them to undo a harm they claim they themselves did with planned obsolescence and inefficiency using science as dubious as covid 19 masks. And they continue to make products that don't last because they can sell more that way.

If an asteroid does come it will be first seen by an amateur rather than a professional. I understand the sky is being scanned now days but that might not affect the equation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that is your belief. Your belief is not fact and can be dismissed without further review.

I know that is part of your belief system. There is nothing to support it as fact. You never have.

Again, something that can dismissed without further review.

Nebulous. No idea what this is supposed to tell anyone.

Never once have you supported your claims regarding consciousness, nor defined terms or shown any experiments.

This is just another empty claim. There is nothing to refute. It can be ignored.

I've made no such claims. You've presented no evidence. You have defined no terms.

All you claim has no basis and none is ever offered. You post it like it is revealed truth. Religion. Not science.

No. Sorry. Reach all you like to nebulous denigration. I've been asking you and it is YOU that is non-repsonsive.

I don't believe asking you to support and explain your claims is circular. At worst, it is joining you in your circle with the expectation that you will actually answer when history and the evidence tell me that you never will.

Again whatever it is that you mean homo circularis rationatio to represent is your own secret and meaningless to me, this conversation or science.

I'm not confused. I think the evidence supports that I have come to the best interpretation here.

You've never presented any valid experiment to support anything you have claimed.

Appealing to a list of people you claim are confused isn't helping, isn't supporting evidence for your claims or useful in any way. It tells me something, but that something is not flattering to you or your position.

What I see and have seen coming from you best fits with a religious position. And not one I'm interested in joining. It seems that your religion consists of a deity, a prophet and acolyte that all one person. A personal trinity. A polymeism.

I do notice that some people talk in such abstract terms so as not to be understood. Have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't disagree.

I believe that we'd all make better decisions if we didn't believe some individuals are better than we are and some individuals aren't sufficiently fit to survive. Most of us are content to sit back complacently as our betters kill off the unworthy and send our children to war. Now they want us to pay them to undo a harm they claim they themselves did with planned obsolescence and inefficiency using science as dubious as covid 19 masks. And they continue to make products that don't last because they can sell more that way.

If an asteroid does come it will be first seen by an amateur rather than a professional. I understand the sky is being scanned now days but that might not affect the equation.

"We'd all make better decisions," you say? I don't think "we" have much input on decisions like war and other things beyond our own consciences. Anyway, have a good one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You said I never defin4ed it but right there is the definition I provided. Arguing the definition is a semantical game. We could argue about the experiments and observations that led to the definition instead.

You don't define terms unless it is to declare something is the basis of something else.

You claimed a lot for consciousness, but that is not defining it.

If you know so much and that is a valid message coming from your posts, then you should be able to explain it to others. Sadly, you never do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You said I never defin4ed it but right there is the definition I provided. Arguing the definition is a semantical game. We could argue about the experiments and observations that led to the definition instead.

We could argue experiments and observations that lead to a definition, but you don't provide any experiments or observations that lead anywhere.

Your arguments end up appearing like nebulous double talk offered with the appearance of a diversion to avoid what duty demands and others ask for. I'm not alone in this. I have witnessed practically everyone with an interest in science voice recognition of this. The only support you have gotten is from those clearly unfamiliar with science and/or have an agenda of their own to get over against science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do notice that some people talk in such abstract terms so as not to be understood. Have a good one!

I notice that some people construct sentences so obtuse that it is sometimes difficult to understand what they are saying.

I really have no idea what you are getting at.

You have a beautiful, wonderful day too!

 

[John53]

I notice that some people construct sentences so obtuse that it is sometimes difficult to understand what they are saying.

I really have no idea what you are getting at.

You have a beautiful, wonderful day too!

Glad it's not just me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin is a problem.

It appears that Darwin is only a problem for those that want his ideas, evidence and theory to turn to dust.

An infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps is a problem.

On a flat earth, an infinite number of cats could solve this problem.

The 55,000,000 "unfit" human beings who died in WWII is a problem.

They are unfit by human standards, not natures. At some point an event overcomes selection and reproduction and a species goes to extinction. Not a problem for the theory, but one for those with little or no understanding of the theory and the evidence.

The gross inefficiency of the economy and that it rewards only a few is a problem. The evil experiment being imposed on the planet to enrich the few might be a problem that our children suffer for generations to come. Chaos runs rampant and manifests as war, famine, disease and wholesale murder is the problem caused by 19th century nonsense.

These are problems caused by people that only care about what they want and that motivation predates the 19th Century. Trying to blame human problems on thinking that hasn't been thought in over 100 years is a problem. Driving our culture on emotion alone and dogma is a problem. These too, are large statements that don't offer solutions or direct one to understanding the real problems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Glad it's not just me.

You it is not could be some scientists say and I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's an idea.

List the assumptions Darwin used to formulate the theory of evolution. Then demonstrate how they are all false.

How bout that?

I'm still waiting to see this happen. And waiting...

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice that some people construct sentences so obtuse that it is sometimes difficult to understand what they are saying.

You & I must have poor reading skills, eh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You & I must have poor reading skills, eh.

What are you saying about my repeating stills?

 

[cladking]

You claimed a lot for consciousness, but that is not defining it.

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You & I must have poor reading skills, eh.

It's my fault really. I expect too much out of people and their use of language. How dare I expect something comprehensible or constructed in any way that it should be so. The nerve of me. How insulting I am to request clarification or point out a flaw.

 

[Valjean]

We each define our own terms. This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

If this were true we'd all be babbling incoherently, wouldn't we?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each define our own terms.

We can agree on the definition of terms. If you have definitions that you have come up with, you don't offer them so that others can understand you. You hide them and ignore requests or comments by others and just repeat the terms.

Many and numerous times I have explained to you what the definition of a bottleneck is and how it is used in science. I have seen others define it or refer to the definition in use in science. You refuse to acknowledge this and continue to kill dialogue by insisting on a use that is not only atypical, but non-sensical given there are already words to describe what you claim for bottleneck.

It gives the appearance that you don't understand and are just making things up and deciding that this word fits.

This is how language works. Everything else is a word game.

All I see from you are games. Ask you to list Darwin's assumption and you don't. You post links to another thread where a person would have to waste time digging around to find that you didn't list them there either.

When you get asked anything, you buckle and weave and never respond with anything that is requested. Who is playing games here?

There's no point trying to talk about it if you refuse to accept other peoples' definitions.

There is no point in trying to talk with you when you refuse to provide definitions, assumptions or anything that would pass for a reasonable answer to a reasonable request. It is not me that is the problem. I am not the only one that suffers from your refusal to cooperate. Given that you claim cooperation is how it all works, that is doubly (no, infinitely) ironic.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you saying about my repeating stills?

Their badder almost than mein.