McBell
Unbound
All they have to do is click the "show ignored posts" link available in every thread with ignored content.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Clicking this one shows the content of this specific member on the page you clicked show content on.
Clicking this one allows you to see all ignored content of all ignored members on the page you clicked it on.
Neither removes them from the ignore list
Edit note:
Added pics and descriptions.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
and yes, I unignored @We Never Know after grabbing the pics.
The universal laws are pretty much fixed, thats how you live your life, that's how you posted your message, they laws are laws, not experiments
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is not absolute in the strong sense.
I have no idea, because you are not talking about the Real World(TM).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?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, to me that is a much a belief as God. But one I happen to believe in.
Care to explain? What would that belief be?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That e.g. the world is natural. Or that real has an objective referent.
It is only sensible to avoid presuming miracles just because.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but from there doesn't follow that it is a fact the world is natural. It might be unknown for ontology and metaphysics.
Careful referring to broad variable philosophical concepts like ontology and metaphysics to justify your 'might be unknown,; because these philosophies in some versions do not reject that our physical existence as natural, but speculate on the underlying causes and relationships of our natural existence
For example: Metaphysics of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics simpliciter seeks to answer questions about the existence, nature, and interrelations of different kinds of entities—that is, of existents or things in the broadest sense of the term. It enquires into the fundamental structure of the world. For example, it asks what properties are, how they are connected to the entities which have them, and how the similarity of objects can be explained in terms of their properties. The subject matter of metaphysics is somewhat heterogeneous: topics include the composition of complex entities (such as tables, turtles, and angry mobs), the identity and persistence of objects, problematic kinds of entities (that is, entities about which it is unclear whether or in what sense they exist at all, like numbers and fictional objects such as unicorns), and many more. Metaphysics is usually understood as working at an abstract and general level: it is not concerned with concrete individual things or particular relations but rather with kinds of things and kinds of relations.
Metaphysics of Science is not completely disjoint from metaphysics simpliciter. Not only does it draw on the pool of methodological tools employed in metaphysics, but there is also substantial overlap regarding subject matter. Metaphysicians have their own reasons, independently of science, to investigate causation, modality, and dispositional properties, for example. Like space and time, these concepts pertain also to everyday phenomena. Although Metaphysics of Science, too, is usually attentive to our everyday intuitions and opinions about such phenomena, it engages in a specific investigation of the roles these concepts play in scientific contexts.
Metaphysicians of science often take scientific realism for granted—that is, they hold the philosophical stance that the sciences are apt to find out what the world is really like, that they track the truth, and that the entities they postulate exist. Antirealism about science, on the other hand, often coincides with a skeptical or agnostic attitude towards metaphysics. In the context of some broader metaphysical inquiries, scientific endeavors might well be seen as but one way to the truth. A mainly science-guided metaphysics might even be seen as mistaken (as, for example, in phenomenological approaches (compare Husserl 1936; 1970)).
Your vague obtuse philosophy is close to what may be called Ontological Idealism.
The world being natural is not a fact. By definition the world being natural is based on objective facts regardless of what may be speculated as the underlying causes or relationships.
Last edited:
I wonder what the term is for the particular kind of fallacyIt 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?
based upon proving claims simply by stating them using
language that proves the claims?
To re-phrase...
Atheists believe "miraculous" things happen.
Therefore they believe in "miracles". But the
claim about believers eschews those terms.
Let me try, using 2 true claims.....
Evil gingers are evil.
Blondes do good works.
Therefore, blondes are more moral than gingers.
Precisely. All one has to do is test it to see what things look like under "ignore" and then switch back.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents a person from testing the feature and finding out.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
But if you hypothesize and test something, you might learn something and thus know something and lose your membership in the NeverKnows.
Or, for those of us that have a theology, we may consider it the exercise of the talents and abilities that we were given to explore the universe and learn about what we were given.But if you hypothesize and test something, you might learn something and thus know something and lose your membership in the NeverKnows.
The origin, I do not know, does not require a specific set of beliefs or the lack of them in order for questions to be the basis for learning.
We Never Know
No Slack
That would be the easiest way for sure
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Finally a reasonable reply.
You mention it constantly, so I would reckon it is more than 35 posts, if indeed that is an accurate count of current reference.It's ridiculous.
35 comments about how the ignore list works...
I advise you to find something serious that you can dedicate your mind to and exercise your brain (????).
Some puzzle books, Scrabble, ... There are many games easy to install on your PC or mobile
Perhaps if you stop mentioning it, and stop responding to those you claim you have on ignore and actually respond to the post directly that you clearly have read and are responding to, any need to mention it would disappear. What do you think? Doesn't it seem like it takes away from the response to go about it like the example that is being set?
Why do you keep coming back as you do if you consider puzzle books, Scrabble and many PC or mobile games more productive?