Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

I do believe that the natural universe is real, fair, orderly and knowledable. I just don't have any evidence for that.
What about you?

I'm sure we've done this before. My justification is that science consistently works (even if you don't believe in it).

 

[Pogo]

You realise that calculus is based on continua?

I was taught it was based on adding up a bunch of tiny steps. Sniffle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sure we've done this before. My justification is that science consistently works (even if you don't believe in it).

Yeah, I bet that you have solved Agrippa's Trillema. You are that special and unique. One in a kind of human.

I am just honest and admit the limits to knowledge.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure we've done this before. My justification is that science consistently works (even if you don't believe in it).

Yeah, but metaphysically there might be other explanations, to which I say without further evidence , I don't care.
This does not make me a philosophical naturalist, only one who doesn't like wasting time on 2 AM conversations.

And everybody must get stoned by Dylan is playing on the radio appropriately.

Excuse me Rainy day women etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, but metaphysically there might be other explanations, to which I say without further evidence , I don't care.
This does not make me a philosophical naturalist, only one who doesn't like wasting time on 2 AM conversations.

And everybody must get stoned by Dylan is playing on the radio appropriately.

Excuse me Rainy day women etc.

Well, we have been here before. Evidence is in effect a belief system. I happen to hold that belief system, but it is still a belief system.
I am just honest.

 

[ratiocinator]

I was taught it was based on adding up a bunch of tiny steps. Sniffle.

Are you being entirely serious?

It involves taking limits on the assumption that you can make the steps smaller and smaller, ad infinitum.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong, (in red lettes) I could not do that forever, eventually I will get tired, or my computer will run out of power, or it will collapse…………….. I grant that you can imagine and make models of something infinite……………but in the real world you can´t really have something infinite.

In response to this;
"@ratiocinator What don't you get? It's a basic property of a continuum that it is infinitely divisible. Take two numbers, say 0 and 1. You can find a point between them, e.g. 0.5. Then do the same between 0 and 0.5, to get 0.25, do the same between 0 and 0.25, and you can go on doing this literally forever to get an infinite number of points. Translate the numbers to distance, say metres, and you have the result."

And yet you claim a god with infinite properties.

This is just a further example of your lack of understanding of the subject at hand.
Most of us learned this in HS but some through peyote.

 

[Pogo]

Well, we have been here before. Evidence is in effect a belief system. I happen to hold that belief system, but it is still a belief system.
I am just honest.

Which is why I no longer "discuss" it with you, our differing approaches are understood at least by me.
It is part of my overcoming my version of learning disabilities.

 

[Pogo]

Are you being entirely serious?

It involves taking limits on the assumption that you can make the steps smaller and smaller, ad infinitum.

Well is a continuous curve the sum of an infinite set of parts, or can it be divided into an infinite set of tiny parts.
I actually don't remember which way Leibniz and Newton argued it, but no, not entirely serious, but it is a diversion from some of the other "arguments" here.
I could ask if any one has actually added up these parts or if limits are not just some metaphysical idea.

Still haven't deciphered your sig

eta
There exists chi such that? am I at least on the road at all?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you rephrase that?

You didn't understand it? Ok, how about this...Jesus spoke of his return. He used figurative language in a sense to be watched for spiritually of course...
Matthew 24 -
30At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
Some people's brains (probably not Einstein's) can understand this although much is there to be yet understood and interpreted. Hope that helps.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is why I no longer "discuss" it with you, our differing approaches are understood at least by me.
It is part of my overcoming my version of learning disabilities.

Not to interfere but I was reading about materialism developing as a perceived fundamental effect of evolution. Interesting. Gorillas are not particularly materialistic as far as I understand . Maybe someone can say they are..? Maybe there is more scientific knowledge about materialism as a result of the belief in the process darwinian style of evolution.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not to interfere but I was reading about materialism developing as a perceived fundamental effect of evolution. Interesting. Gorillas are not particularly materialistic as far as I understand . Maybe someone can say they are..? Maybe there is more scientific knowledge about materialism as a result of the belief in the process darwinian style of evolution.

You are aware that there are to different kinds of materialism?

1. the belief that having money and possessions is the most important thing in life
2. the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not

Which one are you talking about?

 

[Pogo]

Not to interfere but I was reading about materialism developing as a perceived fundamental effect of evolution. Interesting. Gorillas are not particularly materialistic as far as I understand . Maybe someone can say they are..? Maybe there is more scientific knowledge about materialism as a result of the belief in the process darwinian style of evolution.

To continue the or my recent thread of different definitions of even common words causing entirely different concepts to be confused, I offer this.
"Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ma·te·ri·al·ism
/məˈtirēəˌlizəm/
noun
1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"they hated the sinful materialism of the wicked city"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

That said, I just reread your post and it was not in terms of that dichotomy that first came to mind.

Why are we the most materialistic species we know, probably because we can be, Crows are also known for collecting shiny things. In terms of evolution I don't know but probably a byproduct of some other tendency.

Critical analysis of one's own thoughts is generally a useful exercise.

 

[Pogo]

You are aware that there are to different kinds of materialism?

1. the belief that having money and possessions is the most important thing in life
2. the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not

Which one are you talking about?

So I wasn't the only one who wasn't sure which hole to chase.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So I wasn't the only one who wasn't sure which hole to chase.

I read @YoursTrue post in regards to this:

Which is why I no longer "discuss" it with you, our differing approaches are understood at least by me.
It is part of my overcoming my version of learning disabilities.

And then I couldn't decide which version of materalism it was as none of them seemed to be relevant.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are aware that there are to different kinds of materialism?

1. the belief that having money and possessions is the most important thing in life
2. the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not

Which one are you talking about?

I don't know what the author meant yet. I'm assuming he meant capitalism but I could be wrong. I'll let you know if I continue reading or researching. I don't think I have attention deficit disorder but maybe I do. But I don't think so... but I'll let you know.

 

[YoursTrue]

I read @YoursTrue post in regards to this:


And then I couldn't decide which version of materalism it was as none of them seemed to be relevant.

Good question because I never thought of it until the assertion was made.

 

[YoursTrue]

So I wasn't the only one who wasn't sure which hole to chase.

Where is your position? Running over what you deem to be rabbit holes?

 

[Pogo]

I read @YoursTrue post in regards to this:


And then I couldn't decide which version of materalism it was as none of them seemed to be relevant.

Because it wasn't relevant, the avoidance of discussion had to do with metaphysics, materialism we apparently mutually recognize as having at least the two definitions that seem appropriate here.

My answer was obvious in my mind almost instantaneous, translating it to written English has taken some time. Part of my struggle.

And I add that this program seems to have a grammar autocorrect that speaks another language and I have tried numerous times to turn it off without success. Chrome operating system is new to me.

 

[Pogo]

Where is your position? Running over what you deem to be rabbit holes?

Your last three posts are all relevant to the recent side trip on this thread about one of the major problems in discussing the OP.
We have discovered (no surprise) that we often have problems agreeing on even basically relevant words.
You used the word materialism, and more recently equated it with capitalism, I and others had two other understandings of the word in the evolution and science context and questioned ourselves which one you might have meant. Then you mentioned capitalism which I and I think others see as yet another variation on the basic understanding of the word.

The point of @Dan From Smithville's point and mine is there are a lot of ways we can go, but without mutually agreeing on the subject is that we don't wish to waste our time emulating Elmer Fudd to introduce yet another concept.

And you did bring up a point that was relevant.