Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

Sure, maybe someday intelligent life will discovery it. In the mean time no sense in worrying about it since we will never know it.

So then what ARE we pursuing when we foolishly believe and tell ourselves and others that we are seeking truth?

As long as they work consistently. That's the only important thing I see. Only if they stop working is there a problem.

"Working" at what? This is the question, the answer to which is defining us.

My compass we get me where I need to go. It may not be the most direct route but to me it's the journey that's important not the destination.

But where do you need to go? Why do you need to go there?

I can verify what works in the reality I perceive and what doesn't. That's enough for me.

"Works" in what way? To what end?

If it's something I can't perceive then I don't see much need to worry about it anyway.

Even dumb animals can follow the instinct of their animal desires. Seems a waste of a human being, though, to live like dumb animals. We evolved to look deeper into existence then that for a reason. Seems the least we could do is fulfill our fate.

 

[Nakosis]

That depends on what you consider that reality to be.

Whatever I perceive.
And I understand my direct perception isn't always truthful but I can investigate that and that understanding become part of my perception too.
There usually exists an explanation of why we perceive what we perceive that can be tested objectively.

And by objectively, I mean someone who is not me can individually determine on their own the same explanation for our perception.

We keep looking and find ways to test the objective reality of what we perceive. That's really all we can do so why worry about something we can't objectively test?

 

[vijeno]

That's not what I posted.

If god doesn't exist, but I imagine it does - would that "define who I am and who I am becoming" in exactly the same way?

Or, to put it another way: What does "it defines me" actually mean? What is the real-world consequence? How can I find out whether I am/am not defined by it?

the condescending disregard it shows toward those who find meaning and purpose in their faith in their God. See who your choice is causing you to become.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the only thing I am attacking is the concept of god and the belief that god actually makes any difference. If you feel offended by that, again, sorry, there is literally nothing I can do about it.

 

[Nakosis]

So then what ARE we pursuing when we foolishly believe and tell ourselves and others that we are seeking truth?

I've stopped. As per your premise, we will never know it so why waste any time on it?

"Working" at what? This is the question, the answer to which is defining us.

Whatever floats your boat. Whatever you seek for yourself. Doesn't have to be what I seek.

But where do you need to go?

Wherever I decide to. Now, that destination is mainly physical and mental well-being.

"Works" in what way? To what end?

To or toward the goal I've decided on. As long as what I do gets me closer to them that is all that matters.

Even dumb animals can follow the instinct of their animal desires. Seems a waste of a human being, though, to live like dumb animals. We evolved to look deeper into existence then that for a reason. Seems the least we could do is fulfill our fate.

As I see it we have no choice except to fulfill our fate. It is only an issue if you think you can choose your fate to be something other than what it is. You will fulfill your fate regardless of what you think it ought to be.

 

[leroy]

Nobody's claiming to understand the phenomenon. "Dark Matter" is just the name given to the phenomenon under investigation.

But neither God nor dark matter is an explanation.
Theists have provided no evidence for God, or even of any phenomena that could only be attributed to Him. God is not under investigation.

There is objective evidence of dark matter; there is none for God.

Why is this so hard to understand

1 you (and I, and most scientists) accept that DM is the best explanation for the gravitational effects observed in galaxies. (Agree? yes) ..... We don't claim to be 100% it is just the best we have.

2 if anyone disagrees on that DM is the best explanation, he is expected to provide an alternative, and show that thus alternative is better (Agree yes)....

Please let me know if you disagree at this point .....

3 if you disagree on that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe..... Why shouldn't you be expected to provide an alternative?

Why making an arbitrary exception with god hypothesis? This is special pleading

Physics is actively working on explanations of origins. Theism is not. Theism doesn't even propose an explanation, just an agent.

This false dichotomy between science and theism is nonsense.


The claim is that science (and logic) supports the conclusion the universe was caused by a timeless spaceless inmaterial , personal , inteligent etc... agent that we happen to call God........ If you disagree and claim that science supports a different conclusion then please share your argument



Note that you are not being asked to expose all the flaws in my hypothesis, you are being asked to provide an alternative and to support it....... If you are not interested in having this conversation/debate then you are free not to participate in this line of comments

 

[PureX]

If god doesn't exist, but I imagine it does - would that "define who I am and who I am becoming" in exactly the same way?

Yes. How we choose to respond to the realization of the possibility is what defines us.

Or, to put it another way: What does "it defines me" actually mean?

It means you will become your response.

What is the real-world consequence?

It depends on who you become in response to the realization that God is a possibility. If you choose to deny that possibility you will become an "atheist". If you choose to embrace that possibility you will become a theist. And there are all kinds and degrees of atheists and theists. But whichever you choose, you will live in the world as an expression of that choice. And you will effect the world as that expression.

How can I find out whether I am/am not defined by it?

You are being defined by it even through your ignorance or indecision.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the only thing I am attacking is the concept of god and the belief that god actually makes any difference.

No, you are also disparaging those who trust in their God, because you are belittling the idea of trusting in God by implying it's just about feeling good. It's about a great deal more then that for most people. But you don't understand this because you didn't choose this path as your response to the God possibility.

If you feel offended by that, again, sorry, there is literally nothing I can do about it.

I am not offended. I am just trying to help you understand the 'God thing' better. And why it matters.

 

[PureX]

I've stopped. As per your premise, we will never know it so why waste any time on it?

Whatever floats your boat. Whatever you seek for yourself. Doesn't have to be what I seek.

Wherever I decide to. Now, that destination is mainly physical and mental well-being.

To or toward the goal I've decided on. As long as what I do gets me closer to them that is all that matters.

As I see it we have no choice except to fulfill our fate. It is only an issue if you think you can choose your fate to be something other than what it is. You will fulfill your fate regardless of what you think it ought to be.

You think your fate is to remain a dumb animal? Just doing whatever satisfies the animal's desires? Could it be that in seeking what we cannot attain that we might gain something even greater?

 

[ratiocinator]

And yet, there is no evidence for what makes something the best as far as I can tell, as best has no objective referent with evidence.

I {subjectively) regard not being manipulated by charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and would-be dictators, to be a desirable, if you don't care, I guess it doesn't matter to you.....

 

[ratiocinator]

If I ignored them, it's because they were posting stupid nonsense.

Then point out why it's 'stupid nonsense', if you don't, it looks like you're running away. How about, for example, my post #3,724? Why is that 'stupid nonsense'?

There are a couple posters here that are not intellectually or emotionally mature enough to even participate in this discussion.

Whereas calling everybody who disagrees with you stupid and/or accusing them of lying, while ignoring their actual points, is so 'intellectually and emotionally mature'....

 

[ratiocinator]

Those are useful tools, but we have others that are useful as well. Only a fool would ignore those others and worship those few just so they could pretend to themselves that they are smarter than everyone else.

And only a fool thinks this is about anything other than utility in pursuit of being able to control our own fate. We all want to be the God of our own existence. But we aren't. And this is what is driving both theism AND atheism (and science, too).

So, according to your approach, I can ignore this because it's 'stupid nonsense'. Got it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I {subjectively) regard not being manipulated by charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and would-be dictators, to be a desirable, if you don't care, I guess it doesn't matter to you.....

I do care and I agree. I also care about the method of evidence and don't like it being claimed for something for where there is no evidence.

 

[PureX]

Then point out why it's 'stupid nonsense', if you don't, it looks like you're running away. How about, for example, my post #3,724? Why is that 'stupid nonsense'?

No. It's a waste of time and energy. The people that post that stuff are incapable of learning anything. They only come to fight to maintain their bias and ignorance.

We are all biased and ignorant, but some of us understand this, and so are open to new ways of understanding things. Some do not, and are not.

Whereas calling everybody who disagrees with you stupid and/or accusing them of lying, while ignoring their actual points, is so 'intellectually and emotionally mature'....

You seem to falsely imagine this discussion is about agreement and disagreement. It's not. It's about using honesty and logic to examine what and how we are thinking. I can critique your assertions, but only you can dare to honestly determine if the criticism is valid, and what to change. This isn't a fight, or an argument. It's just a debate style conversation. No one has to agree or disagree. We share and we learn from logical critique. Or we don't.

Those who don't are just wasting everyone else's time to puff up their own egos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are benefits to many people in this live from living via faith in a higher power. Billions of people will attest to this, but you will ignore it, of course.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

There are also many benefits from living in this life by basing your beliefs on proper verifiable evidence and by being skeptical of faith based claims. But you will ignore that also, of course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's total BS. Everyone is looking to control their own fate. And we humans do that by learning how to control our circumstances, and control ourselves in relation to those circumstances. "Truth" is just the measure of our ability to do that. It's also why science has become the new "higher power" for a lot of people. Including you.

Science is a methodology to understand the world around us. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet, there is no evidence for what makes something the best as far as I can tell, as best has no objective referent with evidence.

Off course it is objective as it is goal based.

If the goal for example is to regain health when sick, then science is a better means to try and accomplish that then a faith healer.
Objectively.

If the goal is to get your car fixed, then going to a garage is a better means to try and accomplish that then to take it to a carpenter.
Objectively.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those are useful tools, but we have others that are useful as well. Only a fool would ignore those others and worship those few just so they could pretend to themselves that they are smarter than everyone else.

And only a fool thinks this is about anything other than utility in pursuit of being able to control our own fate. We all want to be the God of our own existence. But we aren't. And this is what is driving both theism AND atheism (and science, too).

Maybe you should consider that this is just you projecting your own thoughts on the rest of us.

I have no use for "worshipping" anything. I have no desire to be "the god of my own existence".
And nothing "drives" my atheism as my atheism is not something that requires any "driving" nor is it something I actively have to nurture or uphold or whatever.

It is rather something I default to simply because I don't buy into the claims of theism, that is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Off course it is objective as it is goal based.

If the goal for example is to regain health when sick, then science is a better means to try and accomplish that then a faith healer.
Objectively.

If the goal is to get your car fixed, then going to a garage is a better means to try and accomplish that then to take it to a carpenter.
Objectively.

Yeah, but that health is good, is not objective.

I have seen no evidence that you even in effect understand the is-ought problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everyone likes to think they are terminally unique, but we aren't.

"terminally unique"? What does that even mean?

We are all stupid humans, doing stupid human stuff. All the days of our lives. With minute, extraordinary, and rare momentary exceptions here and there.

Mmkay.
Very vague though.
Not quite sure what you mean exactly.

 

[PureX]

"terminally unique"? What does that even mean?



Mmkay.
Very vague though.
Not quite sure what you mean exactly.

We don't think about the fact that there are billions of us all basically facing the same perplexing situation (life). Instead, we think we are unique. And so can learn nothing about it from anyone else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 you (and I, and most scientists) accept that DM is the best explanation for the gravitational effects observed in galaxies. (Agree? yes) .....

No.
This has been explained to you several times by several people. Did you even read those posts?
"Dark matter" is not an explanation. It's rather the label used to refer to an unexplained phenomenon.

It's the label used to refer to whatever it is that accounts for the excess gravity that is observable and measureable.
We don't know where the gravity comes from. We call this unknown stuff "dark matter".

2 if anyone disagrees on that DM is the best explanation, he is expected to provide an alternative, and show that thus alternative is better (Agree yes)....

It's not an explanation. It's the label given to whatever it is that accounts for the excess gravity that is being observed.
We don't know what it is. What we do know is that there are gravitational forces that can't be accounted for by the matter / mass we observe (see).
So we need an explanation for where that excess gravity comes from. We call that unknown thing "dark matter" - but we do not know what it is.
So it's not an explanation. It's rather the name of an unknown, of a problem yet to be solved.

3 if you disagree on that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe..... Why shouldn't you be expected to provide an alternative?

Because we don't need "alternatives" to things that aren't even explanations to begin with.
It's not that I think that god is not the "best" explanation. It's rather that I don't even consider it an explanation, full stop.

Why making an arbitrary exception with god hypothesis? This is special pleading

It's not arbitrary at all. There is no "god hypothesis". There is nothing there but bare claims. There are no testable predictions, there are no facts to argue from, there are no tests that can be conducted, there is zero verifiability, there is zero falsifiability,... there is nothing there.

This false dichotomy between science and theism is nonsense.

The claim is that science (and logic) supports the conclusion the universe was caused by a timeless spaceless inmaterial , personal , inteligent etc... agent that we happen to call God........

It does not and it has been explained to you countless times in this thread why it does not.
As usual it's in one ear and out the other.

Note that you are not being asked to expose all the flaws in my hypothesis, you are being asked to provide an alternative and to support it

There is no need to.
We don't require "alternatives" to point out absurdities in claims.

When you are trying to solve a murder case and come up with a claim that uses false premises or otherwise engages in fallacious argumentation or misrepresentation of facts, we can absolutely dismiss those claims without having an "alternative".
We don't need alternatives to nonsense.