Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

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

That's how I see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Believe it or not, some people hare 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 may 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.

This isn't a debate or discussion. You give all the appearance of someone looking for a fight and to stomp on anyone that disagrees with you. I don't see anything that would change my mind. What you present here just reaffirms my diagnosis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can't you people READ?

I'm proficient at reading. I've been reading your posts and the message is LOUD AND CLEAR!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've decided to take "science fan fiction" as a compliment.

Certainly almost every single thing I know has been stolen from everything to which I've ever been exposed. Oh sure, I've come up with enough new ideas on my own of which I'm proud but like all people for 40,000 years I've built on what has come before. Our whole race stands on the shoulders of giants and whether you peer out with binoculars or stare at your own belly button you are still standing on giants' shoulders just by acquiring language which is the hardest thing people do in their lives.

My theory is a direct result of what I've been taught and all of my experience as seen through the prism of experiment. Without an early religious education or decades of reading the finest science fiction from the '40's through '60's I would be a different person. Without a little formal education in physics and math I would lack the tools to do simple calculations and develop a much simplified way of seeing physical reality. Without studying computer programming back in the 1960's I couldn't recognize a language that worked like computer code.

But still most everything of what I am including the words I use and the way I express myself came from giants in every field and even Egyptology. I steal insights from almost everyone as well as tidbits of evidence and citing of experiment. Someday I'll even make use of @Dan From Smithville 's idea that species don't change: Fascinating concept, I wonder how I missed it. We are each a product of our place and time as am I.

I didn't feel I was wasting my time reading science fiction then because there wasn't much culture left in those days and the little that survived largely showed up there. And I don't feel now that I was wasting my time. I got exposed to chaos theory which is a critical part of my hypotheses. I certainly stole many ideas from the greats of science fiction. "Science fan fiction" is hardly inappropriate to describe my research.

You should familiarize yourself with the word "fiction". It might help you understand. I would also look back at the context and that it is not referencing getting ideas from science fiction.

 

[PureX]

This isn't a debate or discussion. You give all the appearance of someone looking for a fight and to stomp on anyone that disagrees with you. I don't see anything that would change my mind. What you present here just reaffirms my diagnosis.

The problem is that all you have to offer is what I "look like" to you. And I really couldn't care less about that. It's not my concern nor my responsibility to look any way to you. What I look like to you is not the debate topic in this thread. Nor does it offer me or anyone else any logical reasoning to be analyzed. So I really have no idea what you're even doing here besides venting your own pet peeves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you agree I accept as axiomatic that cause precedes effect, everyone makes sense, and life is consciousness and that all of my work is based on these being true?

I agree that you accept these items as axiomatic. Other than the first one on your brief list that I consider to be an axiom, I don't agree that the other two are axioms. They are assumptions.

There's no point going forward if you don't.

I remain unconvinced that a reason has been established to proceed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is that all you have to offer is what I "look like" to you. And I really couldn't care less about that. It's not my concern nor my responsibility to look any way to you. What I look like to you is not the debate topic in this thread. Nor does it offer me or anyone else any logical reasoning to be analyzed. So I really have no idea what you're even doing here besides venting your own pet peeves.

I know what the problem is. I'm seeing it even now.

You can ramble on however you like, the evidence of what I have observed speaks for itself. But, by all means, do go on. It is the most entertaining thing I've seen from your posts the entire day.

 

[John53]

The problem is that all you have to offer is what I "look like" to you. And I really couldn't care less about that. It's not my concern nor my responsibility to look any way to you. What I look like to you is not the debate topic in this thread. Nor does it offer me or anyone else any logical reasoning to be analyzed. So I really have no idea what you're even doing here besides venting your own pet peeves.

Attacking a group of people for disagreeing with you is also not the topic of the thread. I still don't see the logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

To help clarify, metaphysics refers to the axiomatic philosophical concepts that we are using to 'understand physics'. These might include the axiom that time only flows one way. That the universe is a finite entity And so on.

All rightee -- I guess the thought that time could go backwards is the basis for some sci-fi shows. (I never liked that idea much anyway.)

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Ahhh....that's why you call yourself gnostic! Good going.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Attacking a group of people for disagreeing with you is also not the topic of the thread. I still don't see the logic.

I have observed that some people have an issue with their ego being larger than their skillset or knowledgebase. In some cases, there are those that are entirely blind to their own flaws, however glaring they may be to others in written or spoken form. And this seems to increase the antagonism they feel for others that don't agree with them. Then too, there is what appears to be an obsessive fixation on a position that renders responses that fall within a certain range of type. I have found it fairly easy to predict how such people will behave and respond with a robust degree of confidence in the predicted values.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

It is, may I say, apparently very hard to correct someone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, yes, you doubt, but not that you believe in. I doubt even that and makes me a skeptic.

Oh, ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

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.

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.

You have just summed up in a nice way why I believe in the Bible as God's message to mankind.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is, may I say, apparently very hard to correct someone.

I rephrase. It is apparently very hard for some to accept correction. Probably includes most of us when corrected before others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is, may I say, apparently very hard to correct someone.

I agree. It can be very difficult depending on the person. Some people don't even seem aware of their own flaws or flawed thinking.

How are you doing? It has been a long day. I'm tired.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree. It can be very difficult depending on the person. Some people don't even seem aware of their own flaws or flawed thinking.

How are you doing? It has been a long day. I'm tired.

Oh, thanks. I don't like being tired but I am retired so don't have to drag myself to work now no matter how I feel. And as a female that made it even worse when I was younger and working and needed to take a day or two off. I can rest during the day when I want to now, but I'd love to have more energy.

 

[gnostic]

Ahhh....that's why you call yourself gnostic! Good going.

When I joined RF in 2006, I was interested in reading translations of Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

The Nag Hammadi codices were like the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, except it was to prevent Pauline (Orthodox) Christians from burning sacred texts of Gnosticism.

Since the 2nd century CE (to the 4th century), Christians often persecuted Gnostics as heretics.

Gnostic texts would have vanished from history, if the Nag Hammadi texts weren't preserved and hidden from their persecutors. It was discovered around the same time as the Dead sea scrolls,between 1946-48.

In 2006, I had retold some of the creation stories, Gnostic version, in my old website Dark Mirrors of Heaven.

That was the reason I chose gnostic instead of agnostic, because ofmy fascination with Gnosticism.

Despite some of comments about the Bible, I don't hate religions. I just love storytelling. Stories of different religions and different cultures.

What I don't like are some people's interpretations of the scriptures.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, thanks. I don't like being tired but I am retired so don't have to drag myself to work now no matter how I feel. And as a female that made it even worse when I was younger and working and needed to take a day or two off. I can rest during the day when I want to now, but I'd love to have more energy.

Sorry, had to step away and check on the dogs.

I'm worn out from a long week. It will be some time before I retire, if I ever do.

Lack of energy doesn't seem to have a gender bias from what I've experienced, but I know individual mileage varies.

 

[cladking]

I agree that you accept these items as axiomatic. Other than the first one on your brief list that I consider to be an axiom, I don't agree that the other two are axioms. They are assumptions.

If you can't accept that I take these things axiomatically then there's no point talking to you further. What I am attempting to do is show that science should accept these axiomatically so all experiment makes sense instead of what each observer picks and chooses. This is equivalent to disputing my definition of "metaphysics".