Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden........which is why you are expected to provide an alternative

Depends on the status of best and knowledge. What are those to you?

 

[vijeno]

For the biblical god which is both inconsistent and not worth worshiping yes, people are anti that but that doesn't even make them atheists.

Hehe, true. I don't think I ever heard anybody use the word outside of the debate between bible believers and atheists, in which case they're obviously a subgroup.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden.......

The claim is that it doesn't even mean enough to be an alternative. It's vacuous, content-free fantasy that even theists can't agree amongst themselves about.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you. The problem is more about my knit picking the nature of analytical science tools. We can measure photons with a photometer. The device is designed to react to the photons, which is then equated to the photon properties. There is a middle man; matter; photons impacts matter and matter responds and this is interpreted. Both mean the same thing. Tools have a middle man. If I stand on an old fashion spring scale, my weight or force creates an opposing force, that moves the dial; action-reaction-output. If I touch a tree my brain is reacting to the sensors in my hand, which are activated by the texture of the tree and pressure I apply. This says the same thing with more detail.


I have been saying this for years. It has been known for some time that some aspect of the DNA hardly ever change, and some aspect have a higher rate of change. It is like two slot machines set side-by-side with two sets of odds. Life can load dice and count cards. The problem is the current empirical organic centric approach is not conductive to the logic needed to infer how and why. The standard approach is more of a result of statistical empiricism and is not a rational and logical model that can extrapolate and predict this.

This is why my approach iso have the water leading, creating organic equilibrium effects that are easier to infer with chemical logic using a basic set of principles, like the water and oil effect. Water and oil want to separate unless we add surfactants to get them to blend; tweak surface tension to dial in the perfect shape in water such a mutations.

The empirical approach to science is sort of similar to getting a new cell phone with a new operating system. At first it seems complicated. You can play with it and through trial and error learn how to use it. Or you can speed this up by reading the owners manual or listen to your peers show you their little tricks and hacks. Getting good at this does not require you have to understand how it works from the inside; hardware and software. This can stay in the black box.

The graphical user interface; GUT, of empirical science can be learned with trial and error, and provides an intuitive way to operate the hardware and software, without having to fully understand phenomena at that deeper level; can stay in the black box. My approach was from the inside. The cell phone is not randomly assembled, but has a logical order; space saving and component interfaces. While the software is based on computer logic. This is much harder to see from an organic centric POV, due to the endless variety of organic materials in life. Water is one thing and touches all the organics thereby simplifying the innards.

When I discuss evolution I do not stay at the GUT level, of statistical empiricism, but I try to also address the hardware and software, which then is mistaken for Creationism, since it seems like magic, if all you know is from the GUT. A GUT approach to evolution and life does not go all the way to the logic inside of life. There is room to improve evolution, but opening the black box takes way the foundation of the GUT approach and is resisted. One does not need to know about the hardware and software to turn the cell phone on and off or play video games. Why confuse things? The answer is if you know the innards and how they work, you can overclock the processor.



Maybe overclocking is too soon, and may looks like magic or religion to the empirical GUT crowd in science. But I am bored waiting and enjoy hacking the living state and the brain with the water logic of the innards.

Problem with very confusing non-scientific terminology and descriptions that do not make sense. I see a foggy anti-science delusion to Intelligent Design.

If you want to talk science use terminology and dialogue I can understand,

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no such "objective test".

Yes there is. If our models of 'reality' correctly predict our future experience of 'reality' that is objective, regardless of what you believe our perception of 'reality' to be.

This is how the device you are using has come to exist. Models that predict our experiences of 'reality' to a very accurate and detailed level have made it possible. And it will go on working for you regardless of what you believe about our perception of 'reality'.

As Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes there is. If our models of 'reality' correctly predict our future experience of 'reality' that is objective, regardless of what you believe our perception of 'reality' to be.

This is how the device you are using has come to exist. Models that predict our experiences of 'reality' to a very accurate and detailed level have made it possible. And it will go on working for you regardless of what you believe about our perception of 'reality'.

As Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Yeah, that is in practice a part of the world humans live in, but not all of it.
And no, it is not solipsism. It is that the world is more than objective.

 

[idea]

if you dont do a little research, none of the models to the hypothesis Abiogenesis ever claim to come from nothing.

I agree - perhaps semantics?
"a" beginning
vs.
"The Beginning"

There are many beginnings, I just do not believe in any grand "The" beginning.

 

[Valjean]

You don't seem to get the point. The world isn't run by scientists, is it? It's run by greed and selfishness and instinct. For instance, methane gas emitted by cows are a prime ingredient causing global warmup, so say scientists, right? Methane emissions from livestock and climate change.
People aren't going to stop eating steaks, the cattle industry isn't going to say ok, we'll stop breeding cows...
Methane gas emissions by cattle is a big factor in worldwide warming, killing much in its unregulated way. And some people are threatened with death if they voice their opinions -- that includes politicians and others, isn't that true? Yes, it is.

Should we develop incentives to decrease beef consumption?
Or should we pray to God to save us from ourselves?

 

[Valjean]

Science sure isn't working to stop crime--undo global warmup--

So forensic and interventionist technology doesn't reduce crime?

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that is in practice a part of the world humans live in, but not all of it.
And no, it is not solipsism. It is that the world is more than objective.

And when you can demonstrate this something more like alternative medicine it will just become objective.

 

[Valjean]

Some things are not self-evident for everybody. But for some, they are self-evident. If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear or watch it fall, it is nevertheless realistic to recognize that a reasonable, normal thinking person realizes it makes a noise when it falls even if they're not there. But that's not for everybody.

Where's the evidence that it was all planned and managed?

 

[Valjean]

The clock of the Atomic Scientists is pretty close to blast off time. Playing games by some scientists isn't going to stop bombs from falling while they scratch their heads trying to figure if the universe came from something or nothing.

I don't see your point. It's not either-or. There's more than one scientist. Science can work on multiple problems at the same time.

 

[Pogo]

So forensic and interventionist technology doesn't reduce crime?

Obviously not, as @YoursTrue and others claim the constant decline in our beliefs since some golden age are the cause of increasing crime.

https://static01.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2024-07-02-rattner/d6005106-b577-4d57-a02f-3dd6ea801660/_assets/crime-600.png

Dots left to right 1991, 2020, 2024 est. headers are violent and property crimes per 100,000

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And when you can demonstrate this something more like alternative medicine it will just become objective.

Well, yes. But so far utility and morality seems to remain subjective. As arts and religion.

 

[Valjean]

Well, most of us enjoy playing games. Nevertheless, things are getting pretty hot here...on this earth...killing vegetation, ruining the waters, killing people -- air conditioning invented by scientists just isn't doing enough to cool the earth now, is it? No need for a rock to fall to begin life as a possibility offered by some scientists -- nothing from outer space that causes or prevents mankind from killing itself. Unless, of course, a miracle happens...

Air conditioning doesn't cool the Earth. It moves heat out of small spaces -- into the ecosystem. It heats the Earth.
Yes, we're undermining the ecosystem -- and our own society. Are you doing anything to reduce your ecological footprint, or just praying to god to intervene?

 

[Pogo]

Hehe, true. I don't think I ever heard anybody use the word outside of the debate between bible believers and atheists, in which case they're obviously a subgroup.

A subgroup of humanists maybe, but there are a whole lot gods less horrible and less narcissistic than the biblical god to believe in.

 

[Pogo]

Well, yes. But so far utility and morality seems to remain subjective. As arts and religion.

Yeah, so?

 

[YoursTrue]

More likely, science and technology will solve the problems we all face as this is what they were developed for. Much more likely than waiting for some omniscient being to swoop in and save us from ourselves. Either we do it our we don't.

Better to accept that it is all on us to keep humanity going and not some imaginary benevolent super being. Even if one exists, no guarantee that they give a rat's behind about the faith of humanity.

Is it on us to bring back the dead?

 

[F1fan]

The problem is that we think the imaginary "world" we create in our minds IS that external world, and it's not.

That's what we keep telling you, yet you hold onto your archaic illusions.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you claim that God is not the best alternative, you are making a knowledge claim that has a burden........which is why you are expected to provide an alternative

Not only are gods not the best alterantive, they are irrelevant as serious suggestions.

It's you theists insisting some supernatual being is an alternative, yet you have no factual basis for that assertion. At best you are assuming the cultural indoctrination about a God is true and trying to make it relevant. It's arrogant to assert that there is some burden on those who recognize that religious concepts are irrelevant to the investigation of how things are in reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, so?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
About the limit of the concept of reality in regards to the everyday world.