Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

This applies only to Theist beliefs. The atheist simply rejects these beliefs nothing more.

No, simply the atheist perspective concerning the nature of our explanation of our physical existence is based on science.

What atheist perspective? Atheists are constantly denying that they have one. YOU denied it in your first sentence, and then referred to it as "science" in your second. And you atheists are constantly doing this all the while constantly denying that you're doing it. Because you believe your own nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

What atheist perspective? Atheists are constantly denying that they have one. YOU denied it in your first sentence, and then referred to it as "science" in your second. And you atheists are constantly doing this all the while constantly denying that you're doing it. Because you believe your own nonsense.

The atheist perspective of the nature of our physical existence is determined by science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The principles that drive us
We are independent, impartial, and neutral.
We are guided by universal medical ethics.
We are committed to bearing witness.
We are transparent and accountable.
We are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Home | Doctors Without Borders - USA

Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) treats people where the need is greatest. We are an international medical humanitarian organisation. We help people threatened by violence, neglect, natural disasters, epidemics and health emergencies

www.doctorswithoutborders.org

MSF is an organization of doctors, but the principles above do not define doctor.

Well, the link I gave started thus:
"
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism. ..."

So this organisations of American Atheists define atheism like that.

Well that those definitions don’t apply to all atheists.

There are atheists who work as accountants, bankers, salespeople, carpenters, plumbers, bricklayers, police officers, fishermen, farmers, chefs, bakers, English literature teachers, athletes, musicians, artists, dancers, etc…and so many varieties of other non-scientific jobs. Do you really believe that they ALL followed the “scientific method”, if they are not scientists.

You are putting every atheists in the same pigeonhole, with a definition that don’t apply to all atheists.

it is strawman.

And again, I would ask you the same question I have asked @PureX , so please answer this question:

Have you ever asked any atheist, here at RF, whether they agreed with your claim that things (eg Universe or life) just pop into existence from nothing?

No, I believe some atheists and not all atheists use another understanding than the one you gave.
And all atheists of the world are present on this site and can speak for all atheists of the world.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well logically, for an atheist, either existence just popped onto being from nothing and for no reason, or it has always been (it us eternal) even though nothing IN existence is eternal. So either way, you're married to a completely irrational premise. So which is it!

Actually, I don't have to believe anything about why existence exists, I can just not know. As Richard Feynman said:

I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.​

As for your simplistic 19th century thinking, I've posted a great deal about why your options are nowhere near comprehensive and, in fact, both be wrong. I really can't be bothered to post them all again. Suffice to say that general relativity undermines your options in making space-time a single four-dimensional object that is not, as a whole, subject to time.

As for your claim "though nothing IN existence is eternal" rules out most versions of theism.

So drag yourself out of the 19th century view of time and try to be at least logically self-consistent.

 

[cladking]

Well, okay, but then your conclusions are probably wrong, as any arguments based on dodgy premises will be unsound.

Yes! Exactly.

If you begin with unsound premises you end up with things like "Evolution" or "Khufu built the Great Pyramid".

If accept dubious statements as axioms, then why should anybody take you seriously?

Until such time as you understand my argument you can't possibly judge it. My premises are just premises. My argument is based on experiment and what you call "empirical evidence".

Meanwhile my theories make predictions where others usually can not.



You obviously don't understand that science, all science, is based on definitions and axioms and where those are weak or wrong the conclusions you have found are also wrong.

When you build on sand your construction is weak. When you build in the clouds it fails and falls.

 

[cladking]

Well, okay, but then your conclusions are probably wrong, as any arguments based on dodgy premises will be unsound.

If I had started without the axioms that reality is as it appears to everyone and they each make sense all the time I wouldn't have found our ancestor species (homo sapiens) or taken the time to show Darwin was not only wrong but ancient people (the ones who invented agriculture) knew better than he. I believe these thing are very important and will be recognized by science as being high probability in the long run.

Homo omniscirencis needs an attitude adjustment to survive the next century. We're far too big for our britches. Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[ratiocinator]

Until such time as you understand my argument you can't possibly judge it.

Since you have said you've based it on what I consider to be obviously flawed axiom, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Your first task, if you ever want to convince anybody, is to ditch them as axioms and justify them.

My argument is based on experiment and what you call "empirical evidence".

So what are your 'axioms' for and where is the first hint of the merest suggestion of empirical evidence do you have, because I've never seen you post any yet.

Mind you, you waffle on so much, it might have got lost in the noise....

 

[ratiocinator]

If I had started without the axioms that reality is as it appears to everyone...

You didn't. It doesn't appear that everybody makes sense all the time, nor that all life is conscious.

 

[cladking]

I would say that logically the latter is most definitely included in the former. It's all of a singular whole: the source and the results. The "creator" and the "created". Even though we humans do not (and likely will never) know the full extent of either of these perceived phenomena.

"God" as nature or reality or even consciousness is hardly offensive to reason and the human spirit.

It's the growing "scientism" cult that has adopted this absurdly elevated concept of science and then continually misunderstands and misstates what science has done and is doing, as a result.

This is what scares me so badly. We're rushing headlong into Tower of Babel 2.0 and nobody sees it coming. I don't believe the human race can survive. In babel one the illiterate comprised the new species and the old one stepped aside. There is no new species waiting in the wings and no mechanism to create one on the ruins of our technological culture. Within a few centuries the few surviving enclaves will find tools can not be replaced and that ancient science can not be reinvented.

It's also frightening that our leaders lack any morals beyond "greed is good".

 

[ratiocinator]

We all know that atheists believe there are no gods unless someone can prove otherwise.

False. This is something I have explicit denied multiple times. You are not a mind-reader.

 

[cladking]

Since you have said you've based it on what I consider to be obviously flawed axiom, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Your first task, if you ever want to convince anybody, is to ditch them as axioms and justify them.

And this attitude (the status quo is right even where it's wrong) is why science changes one funeral at a time. Younger people aren't so inflexible and are willing to climb up on anyone's shoulders just to check out the view. They will replace us.

So what are your 'axioms' for and where is the first hint of the merest suggestion of empirical evidence do you have, because I've never seen you post any yet.

Mind you, you waffle on so much, it might have got lost in the noise....

My experience is when someone uses the term "waffle" it means they don't even read your posts.

 

[Pogo]

But the existence of God is understood as the source and purpose of all that is. So to reject the existence of God, you must be rejecting it as the source and ourpose of all that is (all that exists). Which then logically requires some reasoned alternative. Otherwise, it's just empty negation. A reasonless and pointless attempt to end the philosophocal discussion.

Yes, that is a good definition of theism, but how long have you been here not to know that not believing in a god is the definition of atheism. The baggage about lack of purpose and existence is not part of the definition. Atheism says nothing about belief in an externally defined purpose or lack of existence. It is not an end to philosophical discussion except to those who cannot even contemplate alternatives to their own position.

The rest snipped till you reconsider your "unreasonable" position in that you seem unable to reason about your position.

 

[ratiocinator]

But the existence of God is understood as the source and purpose of all that is. So to reject the existence of God, you must be rejecting it as the source and ourpose of all that is (all that exists). Which then logically requires some reasoned alternative.

How do you know there is a purpose? As for 'source', not even sure what you mean, but why should it, should it mean something, be anything like any theist idea of 'God'?

You often do a kind of bait and switch, first saying that 'God' is just a label for the mystery of existence (or some such) and then giving it the standard personal being characteristics of most monotheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False. This is something I have explicit denied multiple times. You are not a mind-reader.

Well, no, not all atheists.

But in a sense those who hold that they know the universe is everything and it is not supernatural, thus know there are no gods.
But that is not the same as being an atheist for at least one defintion.

 

[PureX]

The atheist perspective of the nature of our physical existence is determined by science.

Yes, many atheists have now made a godless religion of science. It's called "scientism". And it's just as insanely irrational as any of the religions they so love to negate.

 

[cladking]

..merest suggestion of empirical evidence do you have, because I've never seen you post any yet.

I've listed countless thousands of facts that support my argument and do not support the prevailing beliefs.

I predicted many years ago there was passage leading into the Great Pyramid in several places including at the chevrons on the north side entrance called the "Nurse Canal" and at ground level there was one called the "Cool is the Crown Path". I spent many years trying to embarrass Egyptologists into using century old infrared imaging to find these. Despite this they did it anyway and found both of these. At that time I predicted many more of these spots and where they would be but they refuse to release any of the results from the 2015 study because "they might confuse the public". This means not even Egyptologists can see these results because they are being sat on. One could even say that there is no longer even a "cutting edge" in Egyptology because nothing is being studied and results are not being seen.

Egyptology has become a cult.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that is a good definition of theism, but how long have you been here not to know that not believing in a god is the definition of atheism. The baggage about lack of purpose and existence is not part of the definition. Atheism says nothing about belief in an externally defined purpose or lack of existence. It is not an end to philosophical discussion except to those who cannot even contemplate alternatives to their own position.

The rest snipped till you reconsider your "unreasonable" position in that you seem unable to reason about your position.

No, it is one defintion. I showed you another one.
And, no, I am not saying that all atheists are only atheists according any one defintion. I am saying that there are no objective, absolute, universal single definition of it. Neither the one you gave or the one I gave.

 

[ratiocinator]

And this attitude (the status quo is right even where it's wrong) is why science changes one funeral at a time.

It's got nothing to do with the status quo, it's merely that your so-called axioms are not at all like things appear at all, so you need to justify them.

My experience is when someone uses the term "waffle" it means they don't even read your posts.

I used to read your posts comprehensively but you bored me with your baseless assertions, pompous pronouncements, and total lack of evidence or logic....

 

[PureX]

Actually, I don't have to believe anything about why existence exists, I can just not know.

This is true. But then why are you here presuming to pass judgment on what anyone else chooses to think or believe about the question?

As for your claim "though nothing IN existence is eternal" rules out most versions of theism.

Not at all. Theists would assert that God is eternal. Not existence. That logically, God must transcend the limitations governing everything that God then causes to exists.

 

[Pogo]

Well, the link I gave started thus:
"
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism. ..."

So this organisations of American Atheists define atheism like that.


No, I believe some atheists and not all atheists use another understanding than the one you gave.
And all atheists of the world are present on this site and can speak for all atheists of the world.

Whoosh, that one organization gave a definition no more makes it the group identity of MSF doctors the definition of Doctor in general.