Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[blü 2]

Then there's the "really true knowledge", and the "really, really true knowledge", and of course the "no seriously, the really, really, really true knowledge, and I triple dog dare you to doubt me" levels of knowledge.

Not forgetting the secret true knowledge, the secret really true knowledge ...

 

[blü 2]

The problem is that we think the imaginary "world" we create in our minds IS that external world, and it's not. All that's "out there" is phenomena. Same as that's "in here". The "world" is just a sea of interrelated and interconnected phenomena. What we make of that in our minds is all imagined.

So now we agree that there IS an external world, that we DO perceive it, and the only question is how well we perceive it. To which I reply that science actively seeks better and better ways of perceiving it, and better and better ways of understanding it, and better and better ways of benefiting from it.

That's a good question. And one that deserves serious consideration. Because how we answer it will determine who we are.

I don't think we're on course to agree about "true knowledge" as anything special. "Accurate knowledge" would cover the situation as I see it, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality ie with our understanding of reality at the time.

Yes, we experience subjectively, but science, utterly unlike religion, goes to great lengths to maximize objectivity, and so, although perfection isn't possible, 'very good by existing standards' is possible, and is revised steadily on an ongoing basis.

 

[leroy]

So subjectivity and a false dichotomy.


Wow. There's this big bridge in London I'm selling at a bargain price, you interested in buying it?

Evidence is objective facts (typically observations or experiments) that could potentially falsify a proposition but are consistent with it and not consistent with any alternatives.

The reason god fails is that it is simply unfalsifiable. Any possible observation of the world is consistent with it.

The question that needs asking when you think you have evidence for something, is "what could falsify my proposition?" If the answer is nothing, then you don't have evidence. And, no, something that is obviously already known to be false doesn't work, so you can't say something like "the existence of the universe is evidence, if my God didn't exist, there would be nothing". That would be a bit like saying that gravity is caused by subatomic sized pixies that push things around, and if the pixies didn't exist, neither would gravity.

Given your rules.

According to your rules .....Would detecting a Dyson sphere count as evidence for aliens ?


There is no trick I honestly want to understand your criteria for determine if something is evidence or not and this example would help me

If you don't like Dyson spheres feel free to change them for anything else .

 

[F1fan]

Poor example. This is a consequence of evolution which is established understanding. Every morning bowel movement would then be an example of something that didn’t exist.

You're really getting emotional now. The fact is that we discover things that we didn't know existed yet, and that we didn't know about them before has no relevance to them existing before we knew.

Wrong. That’s the approach an atheist takes, which is denying what others define as God.

Oh no, we acknowledge that theists have a wide range of definitions for their Gods. What atheists reject is that these definitions correspond to anything in reality. Why? A lack of evidence. Can you find any fault in this approach? Is demanding evidence for fantastic claims a bad thing?

There is paucity of rationality that the vocal atheist knows underpins his or her position.

My, what a vice.
I notice you avoided my question which was:

Then what exactly is it you are accepting? It’s not a fact of a God existing so it must be you accepting what others have told you about a God existing, and without questioning it.

No answer.

 

[F1fan]

Incorrect understanding of what was said, and extrapolation beyond what was defined.

Extrapolation means generous interpretation. Not exactly the path to truth.

This is not a detriment. Your perception of my illusion is your construct.

So you aren't denying that humans create their gods?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would we want to do that?

Who said you would? But some scientists might want to try. After all, they freeze bodies don't they in the hopes of reviving them in the future. It's called cryonics, I believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said you would? But some scientists might want to try. After all, they freeze bodies don't they in the hopes of reviving them in the future. It's called cryonics, I believe.

That is not really "scientists" that are doing that. Freezing bodies are done by people that do not really know what they are doing. The body was already dead for some time. The brain, which is what makes you you, is one of the first organs to go. And then freezing only makes matters worse. At best there may be some harvestable organs, but even that is highly dubious.

 

[GoodAttention]

You're really getting emotional now. The fact is that we discover things that we didn't know existed yet, and that we didn't know about them before has no relevance to them existing before we knew.

Poor, fair, and good are not emotive, they describe quality. These new discoveries are knowable and expected before they happen. We know of them is more accurate.

Oh no, we acknowledge that theists have a wide range of definitions for their Gods. What atheists reject is that these definitions correspond to anything in reality. Why? A lack of evidence. Can you find any fault in this approach? Is demanding evidence for fantastic claims a bad thing?

Those theists are wrong objectively.

My, what a vice.
I notice you avoided my question which was:

Then what exactly is it you are accepting? It’s not a fact of a God existing so it must be you accepting what others have told you about a God existing, and without questioning it.

No answer.

How do you know I haven’t questioned?

 

[YoursTrue]

So hide your head in the sand, do nothing, and wait patiently for God to intervene?

There's no hiding for people that actually are realists. Have you ever heard of the Doomsday Clock? It's on the internet.
"This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists leaves the hands of the Doomsday Clock unchanged due to ominous trends that continue to point the world toward global catastrophe."

Doomsday Clock - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It is 90 seconds to midnight.

thebulletin.org

 

[GoodAttention]

Extrapolation means generous interpretation. Not exactly the path to truth.

Agreed. Doing nothing is not a better path.

So you aren't denying that humans create their gods?

Some may.

 

[F1fan]

Poor, fair, and good are not emotive, they describe quality.

Irrelevant.

These new discoveries are knowable and expected before they happen. We know of them is more accurate.

And it's never a circumstance that occurs for the religious.

Those theists are wrong objectively.

It's always the eye of the beholder. That's why Hindus say they are correct in their beliefs, and "a one true God" means nothing.

How do you know I haven’t questioned?

Why not just answer instead of being evasive? You've avoided the question twice now.

 

[F1fan]

Agreed. Doing nothing is not a better path.

That's why hobbies create meaning in life.

Some may.

Can you point to any religious group that didn't not create their god or gods? Are you familiar with the evolution of gods for the Caananties of which one god was Yahweh, and another is his companion Ashera?

 

[GoodAttention]

Irrelevant.

Qualifying is scientific method. Comments about emotion are irrelevant.

And it's never a circumstance that occurs for the religious.

Rarely, not never.

It's always the eye of the beholder. That's why Hindus say they are correct in their beliefs, and "a one true God" means nothing.

And atheists deny God objectively.

Why not just answer instead of being evasive? You've avoided the question twice now.

Can you paste the question in full? I can’t find it.

 

[GoodAttention]

That's why hobbies create meaning in life.

And charity creates meaning for lives.

Can you point to any religious group that didn't not create their god or gods? Are you familiar with the evolution of gods for the Caananties of which one god was Yahweh, and another is his companion Ashera?

I wasn’t there to witness what happened.

 

[Valjean]

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.

I don't see not accepting as the same as rejecting. In many cases the two may have the same practical outcome, but they're not equivalent.

I neither accept your God-claim nor reject it, inasmuch as my belief is evidence based. My only claim is that you have not yet met your burden. This is not equivalent to your ontological claim.

 

[Valjean]

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.

I don't see not accepting as the same as rejecting. In many cases the two may have the same practical outcome, but they're not equivalent.

I neither accept your God-claim nor reject it, inasmuch as my credence is evidence-based, and I'm open to new evidence. My lack of belief is a deferral, not an ontological claim like your theism. My only claim is that you have not yet met your burden.

 

[F1fan]

Qualifying is scientific method. Comments about emotion are irrelevant.

That isn't relevant to your previous comment.

Rarely, not never.

When has a God ever demonstrated its existence independent of human imagination? Use facts, not lore.

And atheists deny God objectively.

There's no objective existence to gods that can be denied. Atheists reject the claims believers make, not their gods.

Can you paste the question in full? I can’t find it.

I asked you this when you stated that you accept God:

Then what exactly is it you are accepting? It’s not a fact of a God existing so it must be you accepting what others have told you about a God existing, and without questioning it.

 

[GoodAttention]

That isn't relevant to your previous comment.

When has a God ever demonstrated its existence independent of human imagination? Use facts, not lore.

Why are past interactions with God lore?

There's no objective existence to gods that can be denied. Atheists reject the claims believers make, not their gods.

You can only reject any realizable claim.

I asked you this when you stated that you accept God:

Then what exactly is it you are accepting? It’s not a fact of a God existing so it must be you accepting what others have told you about a God existing, and without questioning it.

I accept an unknowable God that can not be realized. I then consider what others tell me and debate with them. Do you consider debating and discussion a form of questioning?

 

[Valjean]

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

Who's claiming God doesn't exist? This strawman keeps coming up in these theism-atheism discussions, despite repeated clarification from the atheist side. It seems firmly ensconced deep the theist mind; popping up when their apologetics guard is down.

 

[F1fan]

Why are past interactions with God lore?

Why assume there were actual interactions with any gods? Occam's Razor says it's more likely that these are just claims made by fallible mortals.

You can only reject any realizable claim.

That would mean rejecting the claim is dumb since the claim is true based on your standard. Creationists reject evolution even though it is a realizable claim. And they are incorrect and irrational.

Why can't a critical thinker reject claims that aren't realizable? They are the most reasonable to reject.

I accept an unknowable God that can not be realized.

Then you aen't accepting a personal experience or observation of God, so must be accepting what another person is claiming about God. Why are you accepting what they say when you can't verify it for yourself?

I then consider what others tell me and debate with them.

Just not about your specific version of God existing, which you can't verify by your own admission.

Do you consider debating and discussion a form of questioning?

It can involve questions, but not necessary.