Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

I have an uncanny ability to understand just about everybody. There's no "trick" to it, I simply assume they make perfect sense and I try to figure out what they must believe to say what they do. I once designed an operating system for a large automated bakery. It wasn't especially complex because there were only several main processes but there were many many pieces of equipment being controlled by it. I designed this to eliminate numerous flaws in the existing system and to give operators warning of failures and more control over every process. My programming abilities weren't up to the task so I turned it over to the software department. Upon completion my boss had software write up a memo for the operators of the changes that had been made and it was sent to me. It was two solid pages of gobbletygook. I understood none of it at all but there were numerous key words that suggested it was a synopsis of the new system. I read it over and over again until about the 12th time I recognized it as a laymen's description of the programming. Obviously it was of no use so was discarded.

This is the state of industry. The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

So long as you assume @leroy, me, or anyone else doesn't make sense you will pick out key words from the gobbledtygook and respond to that instead of discerning his point.

I suppose with great effort I might be able to translate what I'm saying into legalese, medical jargon, or Fortran; just about anything. But each individual here has his own knowledge base and individual perspective. Me? I'm a nexialist. I use English goodly and other than using some big words and odd turns of phrase anyone should be able to understand if they don't assume I'm stupid and confused. We all are but I hardly stand out from any crowd. I intentionally use some hard to parse sentences just to alert people that they might have already quit paying attention.

I've laid all my premises bare many times. People don't understand because A.,= they don't want to understand and B.,= what I'm saying flies in the face of the beliefs they learned when they learned language. The day they learned two popsicles are better than one they came to believe that popsicles exist and each are the same. I never learned that. If I had two popsicles I always ate the better one second because I only knew that practice makes perfect.

I disagree. People are not assuming you don't make sense. They are literally coming to that conclusion based on what you post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't imagine a clearer or more succinct way of summing up the last 75 years of experiment.

"We see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them."

Every experiment shows we see what we believe preferentially to what exists. We believe with the brain behind our eyes but we are supposed to be using observation to see what is in front of them. We by our very nature put the cart before the horse. I think therefore I am. Homo circularis rationatio. Our nature is such BECAUSE we use a confused language to operate our minds.

How many ways can I say the same thing before my meaning is taken? This is a simple concept. But we are confused by the very language that we use to communicate.

So you say, I don't agree. No reason to from what I've been presented with.

You should really study some recent science texts.

What you do here isn't reaching other people in any meaningful way if you really think you have something important to say. And I don't see you listen to anyone either. It's as if others have written nothing to you. That's pretty rude way to go about discussing things. Unless you don't care. Then I would wonder why are you here at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes and no.

Yes, experiment is the hallmark of science but your implication they are looking for it in or with experiment isn't entirely accurate and is misleading. Anomalies form the basis of many if not most hypotheses; someone observes something that is inconsistent with existing theory.

What I am saying is that experiment is being misinterpreted and has become anomalous itself. "Survival of the fittest", gradual change in species, and consciousness being irrelevant to life and survival have been shown by decades of experiment to be in error. A new hypothesis is needed. New experimentation is necessary to show that the Bible and ancient science were closer to reality than Charles Darwin. All life at all levels changes suddenly and is always related to consciousness.

None of what you claim here is a fact or has support of any evidence. They are just your claims. Do you want people to accept what you say without question like you are some sort of prophet revealing truth to us stinky-footed bumpkins?

 

[cladking]

There's that manufactured taxonomy with secret meanings. You reckon you intend this to mean something to others or do you just like writing it?

What?

What? I'm a biologist. What science degrees do you have again? How many years have your worked in the field? Can you provide a list of your publications?

Are you denying life is part of reality? Or are you denying there is life in reality?

Perhaps I'm wrong that most biologists will agree but I do get around some and have spoken to biologists. Perhaps I misunderstood them.

OK. So what. I don't know what you think this tells us in the discussion.

So free will and consciousness must exist...

Is there a point to this?

All life is conscious.

(of course just like my other assumptions this must be taken axiomatically)

What questions does this answer? Is it of any real value in this discussion. Seems like a lot of rambling to no useful end.

If we don't know we're confused well take our beliefs as ending points rather than starting points.

The simplest definitions and fewest axioms win. And this goes a thousand fold over when it is supported by experiment and the ability to make prediction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't imagine a clearer or more succinct way of summing up the last 75 years of experiment.

"We see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them."

Every experiment shows we see what we believe preferentially to what exists. We believe with the brain behind our eyes but we are supposed to be using observation to see what is in front of them. We by our very nature put the cart before the horse. I think therefore I am. Homo circularis rationatio. Our nature is such BECAUSE we use a confused language to operate our minds.

How many ways can I say the same thing before my meaning is taken? This is a simple concept. But we are confused by the very language that we use to communicate.

I think he is right. Much of your stuff seems like gobbledygook to me too. I'm failing to see how we can have a rational discussion consider how this always seems to play out.

You make a lot of claims. People ask you for references, evidence and explanations and you don't provide them. You respond. With what looks like gobbledygook and claims that you have provided everything everyone has asked for like billions of times.

It's OK if you want to make this a syncretic belief system mixing science, Egyptian cultures, wild claims and your take on things. I have no issue with that. The problem is that you come here and claim it is all fact. I don't know it to be and you have failed to help me know it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What?



Are you denying life is part of reality? Or are you denying there is life in reality?

Perhaps I'm wrong that most biologists will agree but I do get around some and have spoken to biologists. Perhaps I misunderstood them.



So free will and consciousness must exist...



All life is conscious.

(of course just like my other assumptions this must be taken axiomatically)



If we don't know we're confused well take our beliefs as ending points rather than starting points.

The simplest definitions and fewest axioms win. And this goes a thousand fold over when it is supported by experiment and the ability to make prediction.

I'm not getting into more discussion with you. It isn't worth the trouble. You are going to ignore me and post sermons I'm not interested in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said, and you seem to have missed; "we see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them.".

We are each a fantasist who creates his own world.

I can't find any reason to disagree, but I don't understand why you would post in such a way to encourage that view either. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Pogo]

What? I'm a biologist. What science degrees do you have again? How many years have your worked in the field? Can you provide a list of your publications?

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

OK. So what. I don't know what you think this tells us in the discussion.

Is there a point to this?

What questions does this answer? Is it of any real value in this discussion. Seems like a lot of rambling to no useful end.

Now we are into Free Will, where do we go from here?
I see my shrink next week, I have a lot of questions for her.
Meanwhile, you are responsible for the rabbit hole metaphors, own them.

 

[Pogo]

What? I'm a biologist. What science degrees do you have again? How many years have your worked in the field? Can you provide a list of your publications?

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

OK. So what. I don't know what you think this tells us in the discussion.

Is there a point to this?

What questions does this answer? Is it of any real value in this discussion. Seems like a lot of rambling to no useful end.

Now we are into Free Will, where do we go from here?
I see my shrink next week, I have a lot of questions for her.
Meanwhile, you are responsible for the rabbit hole metaphors, own them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What?



Are you denying life is part of reality? Or are you denying there is life in reality?

Perhaps I'm wrong that most biologists will agree but I do get around some and have spoken to biologists. Perhaps I misunderstood them.



So free will and consciousness must exist...



All life is conscious.

(of course just like my other assumptions this must be taken axiomatically)



If we don't know we're confused well take our beliefs as ending points rather than starting points.

The simplest definitions and fewest axioms win. And this goes a thousand fold over when it is supported by experiment and the ability to make prediction.

I am curious though. What do you expect to get out of it by telling everyone all these things you claim?

You don't seem to want to discuss it. Do you want everyone just to accept all you claim as if it is fact?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now we are into Free Will, where do we go from here?

Down to the lake I fear. Ah-yah-yah-yah-yah-yah

I see my shrink next week, I have a lot of questions for her.

I'm going to start seeing one now.

Meanwhile, you are responsible for the rabbit hole metaphors, own them.

Ancient rabbits invented them. Oryctolagus deepus circularis holis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What?

The taxonomy you use to describe Homo sapiens. It exists only with you and it means something only you know. It doesn't help me understand anything you post.

Are you denying life is part of reality? Or are you denying there is life in reality?

No. Just pointing out that I'm a biologist and you aren't. And that I don't believe what you claim for biologists. At least the way you wrote it. Maybe you meant something else and just aren't very good at communicating that something else.

Perhaps I'm wrong that most biologists will agree but I do get around some and have spoken to biologists.

You are speaking to one now and I don't know of anything you have claimed that I agree with. I don't know anything that you claim that any biologist would agree with and I reckon I've probably talked to a few more than you have.

Perhaps I misunderstood them.

Perhaps. Maybe they don't understand you either. Wouldn't it be worth your while to improve that?

So free will and consciousness must exist...

I don't know if they must. I believe free will exists and the evidence indicates that some living things are conscious. I don't agree with all that you claim. You can't even demonstrate what you claim, so I've no reason to consider it.

All life is conscious.

So you claim. More revealed truth? Seems like it.

(of course just like my other assumptions this must be taken axiomatically)



If we don't know we're confused well take our beliefs as ending points rather than starting points.

The simplest definitions and fewest axioms win. And this goes a thousand fold over when it is supported by experiment and the ability to make prediction.

No idea. Just seems like more attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Who knows. I'm not even sure that you understand what you write.

 

[gnostic]

No matter what you believe about it, the narrative says first was water, then vegetation, then animals.

Except that there are evidence that microorganisms from the domain Bacteria and from the domain Archaea, have flourished for 3 billion years prior to the earliest evidence of eukaryotes during the Cryogenian period (720 to 635 million years ago) existed in the sea, were main planktons (of protists, protozoans; various earlier algae), with the protozoans being the most basal form of animals. The Cryogenian was then follow by diversity radiation of more complex marine animals, earliest multicellular animals, the sponges, in the Ediacaran period (635 to 538 million years ago), and then in Cambrian (538 to 485 million years ago).

Through these 3 periods, marine invertebrates flourished in the last 2. There are trace evidence that even as in movements on lands, by some unknown arthropods in the late Cambrian.

The points are there were no plant life on dry land, yet when marine life flourished in these periods. When biologists or paleontologists talk of “flora” in the Ediacaran or in the Cambrian, they are not talking of any land plants, but of algae, like green algae that we commonly see them as seaweed.

Your position on about water, plants and then animals are wrong, inaccurate. There were no plants growing on land, period to Ediacaran sponges, as I said, the earliest multicellular marine animals. Marine arthropods, like the trilobites from middle Cambrian predated the earliest land flora.

The earliest terrestrial plants didnt reproduce by seeds, but by spores. These were more like mosses, non-vascular and spore-reproducing plants, from the Ordovician period. Vascular plants (like ferns) didn’t appear until the Silurian period, but these plants still reproduce by spores, not by seeds.

Seed plants (or spermatophyte), didn’t appear until the Devonian period, the earliest appearance around 319 million years ago...and these earliest didn’t produce flowers nor fruits until the Cretaceous period.

The earliest fishes were jawless fishes, and they have been around as early as the late Cambrian. So land plants actually didn’t predated these jawless fishes.

jawed fishes appeared in the Silurian period, and the earliest fishes with bony skeletal structures around 425 million years (also in Silurian).

The earliest land animals weren’t vertebrates, but were invertebrates like arthropods, like insects, possibly as early as 400 million years ago.

the point is that marine animals actually existed before there were land plants, and no land plants produced seeds until much later.

 

[John53]

I'm not getting into more discussion with you. It isn't worth the trouble. You are going to ignore me and post sermons I'm not interested in.

It seemed pretty simple to an uneducated dumb Aussie.

He said there is no such thing as species then said the species homo sapien went extinct after the tower of babel.

 

[cladking]

I'm sure there a many, many, many, many, many...reasons that you can't provide evidence, explanation or example. We just have to accept your word that you are this great.

It is not "greatness". It is not "intelligence". There is no such thing as intelligence IMO, remember?

I was just unlucky enough to start with all the right assumptions and reasoned in a circle to my assumptions because that is what we do. I assumed that reality exists, cause precedes effect, and everyone makes sense. Many in the past would have discovered this and Sir Isaac Newton himself translated a critical document that I had at my disposal but he lacked google. Nobody has the depth and breadth of knowledge to understand ancient science so it required tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of searches. Even a telephone wouldn't have been fast enough to do these searches. It required a working search engine which existed between about 2002 and 2012.

Just so you understand I don't believe I understand ancient science. I believe I understand its metaphysics but the science itself I don't understand much better than a four year old would have understood. This does give me two metaphysics and suggests that the inventors of agriculture didn't believe in "Evolution" and instead used the theory of change in species.

People today believe science operates on genius which truly is a belief in miracles. Only Newton supports such a miracle since he was so far ahead of his time. Mebbe the apple doesn't get enough credit though. Certainly the shoulders on which he stood don't get enough credit. The calculus was coming with or without him and when this is factored out he wasn't quite so far ahead of his time.

By the way, what is "science fan fiction"? Am I a science fan?

 

[Pogo]

None of what you claim here is a fact or has support of any evidence. They are just your claims. Do you want people to accept what you say without question like you are some sort of prophet revealing truth to us stinky-footed bumpkins?

I would ask if that was rhetorical, but that may not be the correct question in this relationship.

 

[Kfox]

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?

You obviously don't know what a miracle is, and you obviously don't know what an atheist is. Anything else you're ignorant of?

 

[Pogo]

By the way, what is "science fan fiction"? Am I a science fan?

Science fan fiction is fiction based on alternate axioms of reality such as you claim re conciousness, species, speciation etc.
Sometimes interesting, but generally only so if it is self consistent.
Yours need more work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would ask if that was rhetorical, but that may not be the correct question in this relationship.

It reflects what I feel from reading his posts and I have often wondered if that is what is desired.

I get a lot of impressions from the way things are written and the intensity. As if there is a desire to be seen as someone in the know. Or maybe it is a belief that this is already so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is not "greatness". It is not "intelligence". There is no such thing as intelligence IMO, remember?

I was just unlucky enough to start with all the right assumptions and reasoned in a circle to my assumptions because that is what we do. I assumed that reality exists, cause precedes effect, and everyone makes sense. Many in the past would have discovered this and Sir Isaac Newton himself translated a critical document that I had at my disposal but he lacked google. Nobody has the depth and breadth of knowledge to understand ancient science so it required tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of searches. Even a telephone wouldn't have been fast enough to do these searches. It required a working search engine which existed between about 2002 and 2012.

Just so you understand I don't believe I understand ancient science. I believe I understand its metaphysics but the science itself I don't understand much better than a four year old would have understood. This does give me two metaphysics and suggests that the inventors of agriculture didn't believe in "Evolution" and instead used the theory of change in species.

People today believe science operates on genius which truly is a belief in miracles. Only Newton supports such a miracle since he was so far ahead of his time. Mebbe the apple doesn't get enough credit though. Certainly the shoulders on which he stood don't get enough credit. The calculus was coming with or without him and when this is factored out he wasn't quite so far ahead of his time.

By the way, what is "science fan fiction"? Am I a science fan?

Fan fiction is fiction based on an existing body of work. Like Star Trek or Dr Who. It doesn't have to be science fiction there are fans using many different popular TV shows as the basis for their own fiction. The premise, sets and characters of the shows form the basis and the fans come up with their own ideas, plots, episodes etc. and write their own stories that aren't part of the traditional show cannon.

What you do gives me that impression that you are taking little dribs and drabs of science that you have accumulated over the years and developing your own narrative as if it were fact. Science, fan fiction is the closest I can come to in describing the impression I get. It would be similar to a conspiracy theory in format and evidence.