Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

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

Because I want to argue for a more rational approach.

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

So your God doesn't exist? You're not making a lot of sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

I believe you are conflating differences in beliefs with passing judgment on the beliefs of others. Many Theists most certainly condemn atheism, Simply Theists judge atheist as wrong, and Atheists judge Theists as wrong, Everyone makes some sort of judgements concerning subjective issues like the existence of Gods.

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

True and atheists simply do not believe this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

So, there is more than one deifintion. Now give evidence as evidence that your undestanding of what makes a defintion correct is correct with evidence. Or I will go with that we have different beliefs about what makes a definition a definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because I want to argue for a more rational approach.


So your God doesn't exist? You're not making a lot of sense.

Can you give evidence for what rational is or is it in effect a subjective belief in you?

I mean it might be that we could agree on what we concider rational, but from there doesn't follow that it is with evidence.

 

[PureX]

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

In fact, God is made necessary by both human reason and spirit.

This is what scares me so badly. We're rushing headlong into Tower of Babel 2.0 and nobody sees it coming.

I agree that it is very disconcerting, this absurd veneration of science as the mighty source of all truth and wisdom. It is a rejection of all the other tools we humans have at our disposal to help us attain some measure of truth and wisdom.

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

We are indeed squandering that moment in our history when we could finally rise above our dumb animal natures, and become more fully human. As we are instead falling back into our stupid animal natures (fear and greed and destructive competition). Perhaps we just never had it in us to evolve beyond this. And how ironic that it is those among us who are so adamantly touting the fact of evolution that are going to stand as the final impediment to it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, many atheists have now made a godless religion of science. It's called "scientism".

Atheists simply accept science as science in agreement with Theists like myself, and not any pretense of worship. Scientism is pejorative accusation and strawman argument.

And it's just as insanely irrational as any of the religions they so love to hate.

Can you cite any theist on this site that say they love to hate anything. I have not heard anyone say they hate God.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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.

That might be true if you accept the premise that gods exist, but logically if the premise is not true then conclusions based on it are not valid.
That is actual logic. Back to you for evidence for the premise.

 

[shunyadragon]

In fact, God is made necessary by both human reason and spirit.

I agree that it is very disconcerting, this absurd veneration of science is the mighty source of all truth and wisdom.

Extreme false generalization of what scientists and atheists claim, No science is the mighty source of all truth and wisdom.

It is a rejection of all the other tools we humans have at our disposal to help us attain some measure of truth and wisdom.

There is a widespread rejection of science among Theists.

We are indeed squandering that moment in our history when we could finally rise above our dumb animal natures, and become fully human. As we are instead falling back into our stupid animal natures (fear and greed and the destruction of competition). Perhaps we just never had it in us to evolve beyond this. And how ironic that it is those among us who are so adamantly touting the fact of evolution that are going to stand as the final impediment to it.

Strong hints here of the rejection of the sciences of evolution agenda.

 

[PureX]

Because I want to argue for a more rational approach.

Why? What do you care about rational speculation? You aren't engaged in it.

So your God doesn't exist? You're not making a lot of sense.

The proposal is that whatever God is, God must by necessity transcend existence. The fact you can't understand how this could be so is not a flaw on the proposition. And the fact that you can't see why it's not a flaw in the proposition is your own shortcoming, not mine.

 

[cladking]

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

NO! For the third time, People making sense is axiomatic and life being conscious is theoretical.

If you simply close your mind to other perspectives you are stuck where you are.

So you believe that people will willing work against their best interests. You believe they will believe one thing and then do or say something entirely opposite. Everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or confused. Everyone who disagrees with you or you perceive as disagreeing with you is spouting nonsense.

Indeed, just not sharing all of your premises makes someone not only wrong but nonsensical.

I use reality being as everyone perceives because otherwise you must consider everyone having a separate reality. This would make any paradigm too complex and limited in its applicability.

But you still don't need to accept my premises, just to know them so I can show that all experiment fits within this paradigm.

Seriously though isn't it obvious that people share reality and make sense in terms of what they believe? Just because Darwin believed some pretty nutty premises doesn't mean he didn't make sense. He simply made sense only in terms of his nutty 19th century prejudices.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why? What do you care about rational speculation? You aren't engaged in it.

The proposal is that whatever God is, God must by necessity transcend existence. The fact you can't understand how this could be so is not a flaw on the proposition. And the fact that you can't see why it's not a flaw in the proposition is your own shortcoming, not mine.

I believe the atheists understand the bold, but simply do not believe it.

In your history of posts you simply believe that those who do not believe as you do understand your beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That might be true if you accept the premise that gods exist, but logically if the premise is not true then conclusions based on it are not valid.
That is actual logic. Back to you for evidence for the premise.

No, that has nothing to do with valid. You are thinking of sound.

Example:
P1: All vertebra animals who find food in the ocean are fish.
P2: Whales find food in the ocean.
C: Whales are fish.

That one is valid, but not sound.

 

[YoursTrue]

Knowing the history of many science fiction writers, I am aware that many of them have vocations in mathematics, physics, engineering and other sciences. Three very famous science fiction authors were involved in the Manhattan Project. Sometimes they use science fiction as a means to speculate on things that stem from their knowledge of science, but are technically outside of science. Some of them using this means have been pretty good at predicting technologies that we use today.

I'm not sure that it does help. We are talking about science here and not science fiction. Speculating is part of science too. An hypothesis can be seen as speculation.

It seems that you are trying to equate the fact that the evidence indicates that life arose from non-life as some sort of fiction. You've agreed that the evidence shows this and not provided an alternative explanation. Do you have one or just the attempt to falsify the facts by association?

I am not believing that life came about accidentally or by chance. That's what I'm saying. Now of course some scientists do say that considered possibilities of how it all happened--namely, the beginning of life, or abiogenesis, or the first cell(s)--is speculation. And, of course, they might proceed to say how they think it could have happened in a variety of ways physically, of course.

 

[PureX]

That might be true if you accept the premise that gods exist, but logically if the premise is not true then conclusions based on it are not valid.
That is actual logic. Back to you for evidence for the premise.

It's the only premise that logically remains standing. Both of the other alternatives are logically absurd: that existence poofed into being from nothingness for no reason at all, or that existence is eternal even though everything known to exist is not eternal. The only alternative that is not logically absurd is that there is a source for existence that transcends the limitations of existence as we now it. That there is a metaphysical, supernatural, source, that we as mere existential beings cannot comprehend.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe the atheists understand the bold, but simply do not believe it.

To me, it's amazing, wonderful and astounding that the God I believe in as the only true God (as Jesus said) allows different thoughts. And will take an accounting.

 

[shunyadragon]

To me, it's amazing, wonderful and astounding that the God I believe in as the only true God (as Jesus said) allows different thoughts. And will take an accounting.

OK, this is what you believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's the only premise that logically remains standing. Both of the other alternatives are logically absurd: that existence poofed into being from nothingness for no reason at all, or that existence is eternal even though everything known to exist is not eternal. The only alternative that is not logically absurd is that there is a source for existence that transcends the limitations of existence as we now it. That there is a metaphysical, supernatural, source.

Well, I go with that I don't know.

BTW can you an actual logical argument out of it:
P1 ...
P2 ...
And so on
C: There is a source for existence that transcends the limitations of existence as we know it.

 

[PureX]

I believe the atheists understand the bold, but simply do not believe it.

They do not believe it based on WHAT? On the idiotic assumption that if it were true, they would somehow know it??? Because that's the absurd argument I see them posing all the time.

In your history of posts you simply believe that those who do not believe as you do understand your beliefs.

I can see by their comments WHY they think and believe as they do, and their reasoning is absurdly stupid, and childishly egocentric. And they remain so because when this is pointed out to them, they refuse to learn, and instead just want to fight. Exactly as you are doing, now.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't know what it means how would you recognize any evidence for it.

Evidence is meaningless and lies mostly behind the eyes rather than before them. Experiment in terms of its metaphysics is what counts in science.

OK. Now I have a question of you. While I understand your first two sentence, what does your last sentence mean? I am not into metaphysics, whatever it is, but can you kindly explain in terms I might understand your last sentence. Thanks.

 

[cladking]

And how ironic that it is those among us who are so adamantly touting the fact of evolution that are going to stand as the final impediment to it.

The ironies of science belief and trust in 19th century ideas is simply staggering. Rather than change theory they accept anomalies as routine.

....what does your last sentence mean? I am not into metaphysics, whatever it is, but can you kindly explain in terms I might understand your last sentence. Thanks.

"Metaphysics" is the definitions, axioms, and experiment that underlie all theory. Theory has no meaning except within this metaphysics so this means theory must be applied properly. Just as a computation of the gallons of gas your car will require to go from San Francisco to Honolulu is meaningless the "Theory of Evolution" is meaningless when applied to families or the Man on the Moon.

People who believe in scientism are improperly applying scientific theory and knowledge to all of reality. They color in all the unknowns and the unknowables with misapplied science. And then they reject all other means of knowing or reason. Their rejection of ancient knowledge and wisdom is a knee jerk reaction. Their rejection of those who don't share their beliefs is automatic.