Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

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.

And just how many members here, at Religious Forum, actually belonged to this “organisation” called American Atheists (AA)?

How many of (atheistic) RF members are even Americans? Does non-American RF members agree with AA’s definition?

I don’t know of any RF member here, belonging to any club or organisation for atheists.

I am an agnostic, and I don’t belong to any club or any organisation for agnostics. I am not affiliated to any of them.

I had become agnostic on my own, just an individual free-thinker, back in 2000, but that was before I even heard of philosophical position called “Agnosticism”. I didn’t even know there was a name for the way I felt at that time.

I only came across the word agnosticism, when I joined my first internet forum in 2003, called Free2Code, a forum for computer programmers. I didn’t refer myself to being agnostic, until I had joined Free2Code.

My point is that I am agnostic for my own reason, and I am sure you don’t have to affiliated with any organised group, like a club or organisation, to being an agnostic. And that would applied to most atheists here, they have their own reasons for being”atheist”. Some may have being “atheist” all their lives, while others were most likely former theists, who lost their faiths, for reasons of their own.

 

[PureX]

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

None of us KNOWS. Why would we?

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.

I just did. There are three options. 1. and 2. are logically and observably incoherent. 3. is at least logically coherent, if not observable.

This is not proof. No proof is available. But it is the only viable logical possibility. Do with that what you will. But keep in mind that to demand proof that you know you cannot have is also logically incoherent. (Yet many people here do this constantly.)

 

[gnostic]

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.

People being atheists for their own reasons.

Some may have been atheists all their lives, while others were former theists. For whatever reasons there might have been, you will have to ask them, as neither you, nor I, can read their minds.

 

[PureX]

I love rational speculation, just not made up magic supernatural beings.

A made up supernatural being IS a rational speculation. In fact, it's far more rational than the meaningless "poof" theory or the "non-eternal eternity" theory. But since you have no theory whatever, who are you to be critiquing anyone else's? And based on what? The theory that you don't have?

Feel free to explain it, then.

Why, you still won't see it.

If 'God', as you sometimes seem to be saying, is nothing but the "mysterious reason why stuff exists" (if there is one), I'd just think it was an odd way to refer to it, but I've yet to find a theist who limits their belief in God to that, and almost all add things like 'purpose', 'plan', 'good', 'just' and so on, and endlessly tell us what it wants from us....

Did anyone else besides Oswald shoot John F. Kennedy?

It's a mystery that we will very likely never solve. Yet many people have posed and believed in many different scenarios. Because even though it is a mystery, we humans don't want to let it stand unresolved. We want to fill it in, in some way that makes sense to us. It's a fundamental drive in the human psyche.

Humans have determined for eons that there logically must be some metaphysical, supernatural source from which everything springs, and is being controlled. But we have no way of investigating this theory. We can only observe the result. It is a profound mystery. In fact it is the most profound mystery of all, as it defines EVERYTHING. So, we humans being what we are, we start inventing scenarios and characterizations that we can use to imagine that we have some sort of understanding of this great and profound mystery. Just like we invented lots of different scenarios about who shot John Kennedy. And different people believe in different "solutions" depending of which one resonates best with their intellect and life experience. Are they wrong? No one knows. Are they right? No one knows.

If you have accepted that you can't know. Why do you care what anyone else thinks about it? Why are you criticizing their scenarios? And based on WHAT? You've already admitted that you don't know anything.

 

[Audie]

People being atheists for their own reasons.

Some may have been atheists all their lives, while others were former theists. For whatever reasons there might have been, you will have to ask them, as neither you, nor I, can read their minds.

My reason is I don't believe it.

Like being a ahigfootist

 

[PureX]

People being atheists for their own reasons.

That I can respect. But that is almost never the reasoning they give, and it doesn't explain why they are here harrasing everyone else for their beliefs and reasoning.

Some may have been atheists all their lives, while others were former theists. For whatever reasons there might have been, you will have to ask them, as neither you, nor I, can read their minds.

I am not interested in reading anyone's mind. Most people are very unclear on what's going on in their minds, anyway. I am simply reading their posts and responding to what I am seeing them say. I presume it's why they are here.

 

[John53]

That I can respect. But that is almost never the reasoning they give, and it doesn't explain why they are here harrasing everyone else for their reasoning.

You realise it's a debate/discussion forum? People are allowed to disagree with you.

 

[PureX]

You realise it's a debate/discussion forum? People are allowed to disagree with you.

I said nothing about anything not being "allowed". You are "allowed" to urinate on yourself right now if you want to. But that doesn't mean it's a logical or reasonable course of action for you to choose, nor for me to suggest.

 

[John53]

I said nothing about anything not being "allowed". You are "allowed" to urinate on yourself right now if you want to. But that doesn't mean it's a logical or reasonable course of action for you to choose, nor for me to suggest.

So you wish to silence those who disagree with you so you can preach your ideas in peace. Got it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you wish to silence those who disagree with you so you can preach your ideas in peace. Got it.

I wouldn't be so charitable to call it peace.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said nothing about anything not being "allowed". You are "allowed" to urinate on yourself right now if you want to. But that doesn't mean it's a logical or reasonable course of action for you to choose, nor for me to suggest.

I've been watching you escalate most of the day with posts going from angry to raging. Do you think anyone wants to discuss things with you? Knock it off.

 

[PureX]

So you wish to silence those who disagree with you so you can preach your ideas in peace. Got it.

No, I wish to point out that although they are constantly proclaiming themselves to be hyper-logical, they are in fact very illogical.

If you were them, wouldn't you want someone to point this out to you? Or would you just blindly fight any criticism simply because it's criticism?

 

[PureX]

I've been watching you escalate most of the day with posts going from angry to raging. Do you think anyone wants to discuss things with you? Knock it off.

Whatever anger or rage you think you're seeing, you are inventing in your own mind, I can honsetly assure you. I may have a matter-of-fact writing style that upsets the thin-skinned a bit, but I am not in the least bit angry and I am certainly not raging. So I would suggest that you look 'under the hood' there, friend, because I think one of your sensors is giving you faulty readouts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whatever anger or rage you think you're seeing, you are inventing in your own mind, I can honsetly assure you.

It don't agree. It is evident and easily observed.

I may have a matter-of-fact writing style that upsets the thin-skinned a bit, but I am not in the least bit angry and I am certainly not raging. So I would suggest that you look 'under the hood' there, friend, because I think one of your sensors is giving you faulty readouts.

I realize that you think very highly of yourself and your vast knowledge the supersedes all others, but there is no one interested in debating with someone that seems more interested in a fight and beating up on others.

Knock it off.

 

[John53]

No, I wish to point out that although they are constantly proclaiming themselves to be hyper-logical, they are in fact very illogical.

If you were them, wouldn't you want someone to point this out to you? Or would you just blindly fight any criticism simply because it's criticism?

So you're complaining about people disagreeing with you by not agreeing with them. I fail to see any logic.

 

[PureX]

It don't agree. It is evident and easily observed.

Well, logically, I would be the one to determine this, don't you think? But as I have been pointing out all day, those who think they are the most logical are often not. That's why we call it out, and analyze it.

I realize that you think very highly of yourself and your vast knowledge the supersedes all others, but there is no one interested in debating with someone that seems more interested in a fight and beating up on others.

Believe it or not, some people here ARE smarter than other people here. The smarter ones understand this, and so have learned to listen to logical criticisms instead of blindly auto-defending against them. That is, in fact, WHY they are smarter then those that don't. This is not my doing, and is not my fault. It's simply a choice we all have to make when we are confronted by criticism ON A DEBATE THREAD.

You can argue with this all you like, and call me a bully or whatever, but it will remain true, regardless. And I know this because I am smart, and I can both learn from and pose reasoned criticism. And if you do ever manage to offer me any, I will gladly listen.

But calling me a meanie and whining about my imaginary anger is not offering me or anyone else any logical or reasonable criticism. It's just you whining.

 

[PureX]

So you're complaining about people disagreeing with you by not agreeing with them. I fail to see any logic.

Can't you people READ?

 

[John53]

I've been watching you escalate most of the day with posts going from angry to raging. Do you think anyone wants to discuss things with you? Knock it off.

Freedom of speech for everyone! Except those who don't agree with me.

 

[John53]

Can't you people READ?

I can read.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

YOU haven't offered definitions to tell us what YOU mean. You haven't offered evidence either.

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

Evidence is not meaningless.

More claims without explanation to establish what you mean or that what you mean is significant.