Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet the happiest, lowest crime countries are the least religious ones.

It is a bit more complex than that. The Nordic countires can be understood as being in effect for a version of Christian morality moral in that sense, yet without being religious as such. In other words we are culture religious, but not actually religious.

So yes, you do have a point.

 

[F1fan]

Why does this matter?

Evidence matters if a person wants to hold truthful conclusions and beliefs. If evidence isn't important then truth isn't important. Disagree? Well good luck if you are ever on trial.

An atheist believes God is unknowable and cannot be rationalized.

False. To believe in an idea it has to be what the person is considering and judging. Atheists reject God as a plausible anything because there isn't any evidence that can be considered, and that negates any of the properties you attach, that is it unknowable. What you are defining is an agnostic theist.

Explain to me what the burden is?

Your assertion is that atheists believe that "God (exists) is unknowable". If we atheists actually believed this we would assert that God exists, but can't be known as an existing entity, or whatever it is. But atheists claim no such thing. By your thinking we would have to justify why we believe a God exists and that humans have some limitation in knowing what it is. It's absurd since atheists don't assume any gods exist by definition.

You seem to have seen past the distortion.

I understand that religious faith is unreliable and an excuse to accept ideas that not only lack evidence, but are also inconsistent with what we understand of reality. We humans can examine why so many humans adopt cultural ideas that are not factual, and it stems back to how the human brain evolved to conform to group norms for the sake of belonging to the tribe. As language evolved the ideas that created tribal identity and cohesion became integral to survival, and these traits dominated behavior. Look at the conflict between religious folks and science. They desperately try to hold onto an identity from the past, and this is reinforced by the community of similar believers. We see this kind of tribalist behavior all through human civilization, from religious affiliation, to politics, to your favorite sports teams, to anti vaxers, to creationists, etc. The need to belong to a tribe is emotional, and becomes a liability when the person lacks introspection and critical thinking skill.

This is where you are monumentally incorrect and why I even bothered to reply.

Yet you didn't bother to explain how I'm incorrect, so your rebuttal fails. If you are correct you should explain why. Since you didn't my assertion prevails, which is based on observations that thiests do indeed have lower standards for their beliefs than critical thinkers.

You are putting yourself in a theists shoes and showing your complete lack of understanding regarding how a theists thinks or rationalizes God which is a weakness you should acknowledge.

False. My own life experience that led me to be an atheist was preceded by the social pressure to adopt religious norms. I remember being told how Jesus saves, and that the Bible is authoritative and true. I remember trusting those around me about these ideas, and it was only after I was skeptical and began to naturally question these claims that I moved towards a more truthful understanding of how things are. Jesus saves? How? Why? The whole Jesus myth taken literally is absurd, and suggests an incompetent and/or sociopathic God. Is it worthy of belief? No. I eventually studied the psychology of religion and learned why humans ended up believing so many non-rational ideas, and how this behavior is a learned social construct.

And let's note that religious beliefs are just one category of irrational beliefs. Before Biden dropped out of the election race I was finding uself looking for any justification for why he still had a chance to win. This is a similar way of thinking as religious folks, that is seeking self-deceptive thought processes to help coe with the stress and factors outside of our control. It may well be that I am more self-aware of my mind doing this than the religious do with their devotion.

Its is because of people like you I attempted this challenge in the first place.

Well you have a lot of work to do. Talking about challenging atheists is NOT the work needed by theists. Ultimately the issue of religion and religious ideas, like any of the many God concepts, is on theists to explain and defend. We atheists are just responding to what believers claim.

 

[GoodAttention]

You said "An atheist believes God is unknowable and cannot be rationalized." You can't believe that God is unknowable or cannot be rationalised unless you accept that the word 'God' refers to something in reality.

An atheist doesn't accept that.


No. They are exactly the same because of the use of the word 'God'. You can't make claims about how knowable or rationalisable something is, if you don't think it exists at all to know or be rationalised.

How can something in reality be unknowable and unrationalizable?

 

[Nakosis]

Is it on us to bring back the dead?

Why would we want to do that?

 

[Pogo]

And let's note that religious beliefs are just one category of irrational beliefs. Before Biden dropped out of the election race I was finding uself looking for any justification for why he still had a chance to win. This is a similar way of thinking as religious folks, that is seeking self-deceptive thought processes to help coe with the stress and factors outside of our control. It may well be that I am more self-aware of my mind doing this than the religious do with their devotion.

Yup similar here, we were falling back on hope and faith and rationalizing our fear of a world that seemed out of control. I realized that I now understood how MAGAts feel that the modern world has left them behind.

Now we will see if Kamala can successfully prosecute Trump for his lies in the court of public opinion.

Even atheists can cross their fingers,


without believing in it.

 

[Pogo]

How can something in reality be unknowable and unrationalizable?

Requires that the something be an element of the set of reality, not evidenced only asserted.

 

[GoodAttention]

False. My own life experience that led me to be an atheist was preceded by the social pressure to adopt religious norms. I remember being told how Jesus saves, and that the Bible is authoritative and true. I remember trusting those around me about these ideas, and it was only after I was skeptical and began to naturally question these claims that I moved towards a more truthful understanding of how things are. Jesus saves? How? Why? The whole Jesus myth taken literally is absurd, and suggests an incompetent and/or sociopathic God. Is it worthy of belief? No. I eventually studied the psychology of religion and learned why humans ended up believing so many non-rational ideas, and how this behavior is a learned social construct.

This explains everything. You should study the psychology of an atheist if you value introspection.

And let's note that religious beliefs are just one category of irrational beliefs. Before Biden dropped out of the election race I was finding uself looking for any justification for why he still had a chance to win. This is a similar way of thinking as religious folks, that is seeking self-deceptive thought processes to help coe with the stress and factors outside of our control. It may well be that I am more self-aware of my mind doing this than the religious do with their devotion.

And youre American, got it.

Well you have a lot of work to do. Talking about challenging atheists is NOT the work needed by theists. Ultimately the issue of religion and religious ideas, like any of the many God concepts, is on theists to explain and defend. We atheists are just responding to what believers claim.

When did I challenge atheists? You obviously haven't read all my comments from start to finish. I attempted this from a purely linguistic point of view, looking at definition and relatability. I never made any claim, I only posed questions which you never attempted to engage in.

You're engagement is based on hysterics, you haven't engaged with my words from the start, you chose a moment to make your brave stand and for what?

 

[PureX]

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."

When we stop imagining the world around us, it ceases to be. All that remains is just unperceived and unconceptualized phenomenon.

Because perception is conception and conception is imaginary.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can something in reality be unknowable and unrationalizable?

What makes you think it can't? Do you think everything in reality is knowable and comprehensible to humans for some reason?

This is beside the point, anyway, an atheist doesn't believe in any god(s) so is not going to have any beliefs about how knowable it/they are.

Your description was clearly absurd.

 

[ratiocinator]

When we stop imagining the world around us, it ceases to be.

So if you stop imagining it, you won't need food or water any more? Want to try it? I don't recommend that you do.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because perception is conception and conception is imaginary.

As I said before, when you stop imagining that gravity applies to you and start flying round like superman, I'll that this silly statement seriously.

 

[PureX]

An atheist believes God is unknowable and cannot be rationalized.

Actually, many theists believe that as well. What you are referring to is agnosticism. Not atheism. Many theists and atheists are agnostic.

 

[PureX]

No. Not accepting your claim is not an alternative claim.

Actually, it is. Not accepting is the same as rejecting. It poses the alternate claim that the original claim is untrue. Even when it's not implicitly stated.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong.

 

[GoodAttention]

What makes you think it can't? Do you think everything in reality is knowable and comprehensible to humans for some reason?

This is beside the point, anyway, an atheist doesn't believe in any god(s) so is not going to have any beliefs about how knowable it/they are.

Your description was clearly absurd.

How is it any different to say God doesn't exist.

 

[PureX]

As I said before, when you stop imagining that gravity applies to you and start flying round like superman, I'll that this silly statement seriously.

Why do you keep trying to insist that what we think about gravity must effect gravity if we stop thinking it? If we stop imagining that gravity is effecting us we will simply not understand why we are being pulled to the Earth. You are surely intelligent enough to recognize this. So why all these continued childish comments?

 

[F1fan]

This explains everything. You should study the psychology of an atheist if you value introspection.

Look at the sarcasm. And your shorter replies as you become more defensive.

And youre American, got it.

Relevancy? More snark?

When did I challenge atheists?

When you asserted they believe something they don't. Your claim wasn't ever rational given atheists don't believe in gods, but your claim was that atheists do.

You obviously haven't read all my comments from start to finish.

If a sentence is wrong from start to fininsh it's just wrong. Nothing else you wrote suggested some other context.

I attempted this from a purely linguistic point of view, looking at definition and relatability.

The word atheist has a solid and broad definition. It has numerous subsets that can be further defined to more precision.

I never made any claim, I only posed questions which you never attempted to engage in.

Not given the sentences I replied to. You even reiterated the declarative that "atheists believe God is unknowlable" so clearly not a question, just an untrue statement.

You're engagement is based on hysterics, you haven't engaged with my words from the start, you chose a moment to make your brave stand and for what?

More false assertions. Feel free to point out any hysterics on my part. And I have engaged directly with what you wrote. That you can't offer rebuttals is your problem.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, it is. Not accepting is the same as rejecting. It poses the alternate claim that the original claim is untrue. Even when it's not implicitly stated.

Because it's wrong.

Nice try but even ChatGPT knows better. This is a primary part of your problem, insistence on your own personal definitions that are not in fact accepted.

Is not accepting the same as rejecting?

Not necessarily. While they may seem similar, there's a nuanced difference between not accepting something and rejecting it.

• Not accepting typically implies a neutral stance or withholding a decision. It could mean that a decision hasn't been made yet or that further consideration is needed before reaching a conclusion.
• Rejecting, on the other hand, usually implies a more definitive action of refusing or declining something. It often indicates a clear decision against accepting whatever is being offered or proposed.

In summary, not accepting something doesn't automatically mean rejecting it outright. It could imply a temporary stance or a need for more information or time, whereas rejecting implies a firm decision against acceptance.

 

[leroy]

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.

Just ot let you know that I haven’t read any of your comments from the last 3 or 4 days……….I will try to keep up this weekend

You don’t have to repeat claims that you have done before

 

[GoodAttention]

Look at the sarcasm. And your shorter replies as you become more defensive.

Relevancy? More snark?

When you asserted they believe something they don't. Your claim wasn't ever rational given atheists don't believe in gods, but your claim was that atheists do.

If a sentence is wrong from start to fininsh it's just wrong. Nothing else you wrote suggested some other context.

The word atheist has a solid and broad definition. It has numerous subsets that can be further defined to more precision.

Not given the sentences I replied to. You even reiterated the declarative that "atheists believe God is unknowlable" so clearly not a question, just an untrue statement.

More false assertions. Feel free to point out any hysterics on my part. And I have engaged directly with what you wrote. That you can't offer rebuttals is your problem.

Okay, lets recentre this and start again, keeping it simple.

If an entity is unknowable and can not be rationalized, does it exist?

 

[leroy]

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

Well that is quite convinient………

My suggestion for the origin of the universe (all physical reality including space and time) is that the universe had a cause, a speceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and intelligent cause, that I happen to call God, but you can call it however you whant…………..why is this alternative not a serious suggestioni ?.............or is it another case of “it´s true because I say so)