Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

Well, to me God is a part of the problem of what objective reality is in itself as in itself.

To me that is unknown and thus in pratice I can't claim any positive claims about what it is.

As I said earlier in this thread, we do logic differently.

So, what can you know to be so? Or, if you can't know anything to be so, how can you function?

Seems to me that you are defining the necessity of faith. Which I totally agree with.

 

[leroy]

It is the better one to you. That is not so for me. There is no we there.

Well given that you haven’t provide an alternative……………….i win by default

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, what can you know to be so? Or, if you can't know anything to be so, how can you function?

Seems to me that you are defining the necessity of faith. Which I totally agree with.

I act with trust/faith in objective reality that it is real, fair, orderly and knowable. But since I am not religious there is no element of souls, Heaven and so on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well given that you haven’t provide an alternative……………….i win by default

Sure, you win. The price is that you have won nothing in effect, other than the ability to believe that you have won. Good for you.

What do you want me to claim I in effect know better however I do that? I can't do that, since I am a global skeptic. So I practice I have my personal beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My prediction turned out spot on. You don't even remember what original point you were replying to when you started this trolling derailment, even though it was less then 2 hours ago and you could even go back in the thread to double check...

That's the end of this rabbit hole.


Feel free to post another rant about nothing where you use words in ways that nobody else is using them to make a silly point about how nothing is objective and everything is just a matter of opinion, that I won't be reading.

Well, everything is not subjective and everything is not just a matter of opinion. But from there doesn't follow that everything is objective and not opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

How does that prove it's unintended?

There is no proof here, because Intent is anthropomorphic, The natural nature of our physical existence has no evidence of intent.

Can you demonstrate or prove intent in the nature of our physical existence outside the belief that God Created and intended the Laws of Nature?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, everything is not subjective and everything is not just a matter of opinion. But from there doesn't follow that everything is objective and not opinion.

In science everything is not objective. There are many things that are indeed subjective like the existence of Gods.

Though based on your previous posts you my think everything id subjective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Strawman ….The claim is that I could have not been born as a consequence of an infinite chain previous events…(where the events are causally connected to each other)



But even that would be impossible and absurd.

If there is an infinite number of events, what is the probability of me experiencing the specific event of my birth? the possibility is 1/infinity= 0

But given that I experience that event, the probability necessarily has to be greater than zero………..otherwise you would have to affirm that events with zero probability occur




I mean, that it would be a different question

For example the claim “humans evolve from ancient apes” it likely true and well supported.

But that leads to an other question

If humans evolved from apes, where did apes come from………….? Your ability or inability to answer that question is “beyond the scope” of the original claim (in red)……………..it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an answer, the claim in red is still true

In other words we can agree on that the universe has a “reason” (which according ratiocinator means cause in tensless language)

And leave the question on whether if God has a reason or not, for a future discussion…………….my ability or inability to support that god doesn’t have a “reason” has no bearing in the previous claim (in red)

The line of reasoning for an explanation for an actual infinity neglects the more likely possibility of a "potential infinity."

Actual infinities are best described in terms of sets of numbers and sets of things like the stars in the universe.

 

[PureX]

Sure, you win. The price is that you have won nothing in effect, other than the ability to believe that you have won. Good for you.

What do you want me to claim I in effect know better however I do that? I can't do that, since I am a global skeptic. So I practice I have my personal beliefs.

You see no value in living for the benificial possibility? What is the value in being a skeptic? What is the value of pessimism?

One of the things I never understood about atheism is the rejection of a positive and beneficial possibility based not on nothing: no logic, no evidence, and no experience. And even weirder still, many want to deny these to others, as well.

 

[PureX]

I act with trust/faith in objective reality that it is real, fair, orderly and knowable.

And yet reality as we experience it is none of those things. Why do you call yourself a skeptic. It looks, here, like you are quite an optimist.

But since I am not religious there is no element of souls, Heaven and so on.

Those are mostly just imagery, even for the religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You see no value in living for the benificial possibility? What is the value in being a skeptic? What is the value of pessimism?

One of the things I never understood about atheism is the rejection of a positive and beneficial possibility based not on nothing: no logic, no evidence, and no experience. And even weirder still, many want to deny these to others, as well.

Well, we end in effect in psychology and how we do good life, good enough life or even cope and content.

To me the postive meanning of a life is a construct. My constructs work well enough for me and I don't demand that others must do as I do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet reality as we experience it is none of those things. Why do you call yourself a skeptic. It looks, here, like you are quite an optimist.
...

Well, it works for me.

 

[PureX]

Well, it works for me.

Could another way work better? Is that possibility enough to inspire you to look for it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Could another way work better? Is that possibility enough to inspire you to look for it?

Well, I doubt there is any version of objectively better. Rather it would be subjectively better. But for me, I am close to 60 years old and have been an atheist for over 30 years. And I have tried to do some version of religion and it didn't work for me.

 

[Nakosis]

I am close to 60 years old

Youngster..!

 

[Nakosis]

Could another way work better? Is that possibility enough to inspire you to look for it?

Why do you have to "look" for the truth?
Why do you assume it is not right in front of you?

You can believe the truth to be something/anything else but why if it is not in front of you, you'll never know it.
Why not accept what is, that which is before you?

Sure, I could believe in magic fairy land but it seems like a waste to me if I can't verify its reality.

 

[PureX]

Well, I doubt there is any version of objectively better. Rather it would be subjectively better.

You should know better than anyone that these are one and the same. Because it's ALL subjective.

But for me, I am close to 60 years old and have been an atheist for over 30 years. And I have tried to do some version of religion and it didn't work for me.

Religion is NOT the alternative to atheism. You do know that, I hope.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Religion is NOT the alternative to atheism. You do know that, I hope.

I should have expressed it better. I use a variant of in effect cogntive coping methods.

 

[PureX]

Why do you have to "look" for the truth?
Why do you assume it is not right in front of you?

The truth is far greater than you or I will ever know.

You can believe the truth to be something/anything else but why if it is not in front of you, you'll never know it.
Why not accept what is, that which is before you?

Because perception is conception. And our conceptions can be quite wrong.

And your compass needs some more dimensions added to it. The truth is 'what is'. It's everything everywhere all the time. It's in us and around us and apart from us. What we "see" is not truth. It's just a very, very limited slice of truth that we then interpret as we choose. And often quite wrongly.

Sure, I could believe in magic fairy land but it seems like a waste to me if I can't verify its reality.

You can't verify ANY reality. But you don't understand this yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn't it reasonable to doubt or defer belief in things not evidenced?

It depends. What I mean by that is that since there are things (? not that 'things' is a great word to use there) that are but not seen (like radio waves), it would not be illogical to think that there are things not seen but which exist.