Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

"World" is an imaginary concept. "Inside" and "outside" is an imaginary concept. "Perception" is an imaginary concept. We agree that existence is SOMETHING. But what that something is, is up to our imaginations.

Science is just as imaginary as anything else we humans conceptualize.

Yeah and from there doesn't follow God. Nor does logic as based on how someone reasons/thinks determine how it happens as not in their mind.

In short logic is how you think. If you want to claim something about something, which is not you thinking, you can't use how you think.

 

[ratiocinator]

"World" is an imaginary concept. "Inside" and "outside" is an imaginary concept. "Perception" is an imaginary concept. We agree that existence is SOMETHING. But what that something is, is up to our imaginations.

Science is just as imaginary as anything else we humans conceptualize.

Yet again there is nothing imaginary about building models of our experience of 'reality' that work so well they can allow us to create tools that allow fools to post their BS to the world about everything being imaginary.

 

[PureX]

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.

If you are undecided regarding the theist proposition, then you should be honest about it, and say so. And stop labeling yourself an atheist when you're not. Atheism is not indecisive. Atheism is the rejection of the theist proposition. All I would ask of atheists is that they be honest. Yet this is becoming increasingly rare.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet again there is nothing imaginary about building models that work in predicting our experience of 'reality' that work so well they can allow us to create tools that allow fools to post their BS to the world about everything being imaginary.

That your experinces makes sense, doesn't mean they correspond with objective reality as real.
If you want to use a standard of in effect burden of proof, then it also applies to you (and me).

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Well, extend life. I suppose that is a possibility. Once your dead I don't expect any coming back from that.
Maybe we can extend life though lately I hear we are losing ground on that front.

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheism is the rejection of the theist proposition.

Atheism is the rejection of the reasons given by theists as to why we should take their God-concepts at all seriously.

'God' therefore falls (in many cases, anyway, some God-concepts can be falsified) into the fantastical but unfalsifiable category.

It cannot be disproved, but there is simply no reason to take it seriously. Saying we were undecided would be misleading. We've decided there is no reason why it deserves serious consideration, unless or until somebody comes up with more credible reasoning or evidence.

 

[PureX]

Yeah and from there doesn't follow God. Nor does logic as based on how someone reasons/thinks determine how it happens as not in their mind.

In short logic is how you think. If you want to claim something about something, which is not you thinking, you can't use how you think.

Logic is not how we think. Logic is a way of examining how we think. Similar to how mathematics is a way of examining and quantifying perceived relationships within the world. The math does't change. Nor does logic. What changes are the thought progressions and perceived relationships that we apply them to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic is not how we think. Logic is a way of examining how we think. Similar to how mathematics is a way of examining and quantifying perceived relationships within the world. The math does't change. Nor does logic. What changes are the thought progressions and perceived relationships that we apply them to.

Well, logic is to me a process in a mind about other processes in the mind.

 

[PureX]

Yet again there is nothing imaginary about building models of our experience of 'reality' that work so well they can allow us to create tools that allow fools to post their BS to the world about everything being imaginary.

Everything about building conceptual models from our sensual experiences is imaginary. You're so busy trying to fight it that you can't see the obvious.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everything about building conceptual models from our sensual experiences is imaginary.

Endlessly repeating a silly assertion, without actually addressing the counterarguments is not going to magically make it make sense. If you think it's all imaginary, why are you so busy arguing on an imaginary device, that works using imaginary models, with imaginary people?

You're so busy trying to fight it that you can't see the obvious.

Irony.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everything about building conceptual models from our sensual experiences is imaginary. You're so busy trying to fight it that you can't see the obvious.

That is also so about claims about existence, time and space if about objective reality. And if it is only about how you make sense as how you think about different concpets, then it tells us nothing about objective reality.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is the rejection of the reasons given by theists as to why we should take their God-concepts at all seriously.

That's an absurd definition of atheism. Atheism is the philosophical antithetical of theism. Theism is the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist in a manner that effects and therefor matters to humanity. Atheism is therefor the antithetical proposition that no gods exist in any way that effects or matters to humans. The "reasons" for accepting the theist proposition as true depend on the person accepting it. Likewise the reasons for accepting the antithetical proposition as true depend on the person accepting it. Their reasons do not define the proposition itself. The proposition is just what it is: God/gods exist and this existence effects/matters to us. Or they don't.

'God' therefore falls (in many cases, anyway, some God-concepts can be falsified) into the fantastical but unfalsifiable category.

It cannot be disproved, but there is simply no reason to take it seriously. Saying we were undecided would be misleading. We've decided there is no reason why it deserves serious consideration, unless or until somebody comes up with more credible reasoning or evidence.

This is all just your personal subjective exposition. It has nothing to do with the philosophical proposition or it's counter proposition. What you "take seriously" or don't is your own business. No one else cares.

 

[blü 2]

I am not a solipsist or nihilist. I am a cogntive relativist.
I accept that you have those feelings, but I do consider your objection to be a subjective one without evidence.

As for real, from that doesn't follow that the universe is natural. Only that the universe in effect doesn't "cheat" and that you can trust your experiences.

So how's your foot? And have you concluded that the brick you used was real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So how's your foot? And have you concluded that the brick you used was real?

Yes, I do beleive in real and accept it is without evidence and not rational.
What about you? Are you as much a believer like me and just as irrational?

 

[blü 2]

"World" is an imaginary concept. "Inside" and "outside" is an imaginary concept. "Perception" is an imaginary concept. We agree that existence is SOMETHING. But what that something is, is up to our imaginations.

Science is just as imaginary as anything else we humans conceptualize.

I regret that you've retreated into the old incoherent nonsense, which you constantly contradict all by yourself by posting here.

 

[PureX]

That is also so about claims about existence, time and space if about objective reality. And if it is only about how you make sense as how you think about different concpets, then it tells us nothing about objective reality.

Exactly. "Objective reality" is a mythical state that no human will ever experience. Because perception is conception and conception is imaginary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I regret that you've retreated into the old incoherent nonsense, which you constantly contradict all by yourself by posting here.

Yeah, we are all deluded and irrational. Now what we believe varies but the core delution is the same. That the universe must make sense, because otherwise it is meanigless and we don't like that. In other words the universe has to take care about our feelings and make sense.

 

[PureX]

I regret that you've retreated into the old incoherent nonsense, which you constantly contradict all by yourself by posting here.

I regret that you will never be able to grasp the obvious about human perception/conception being irrevocably subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. "Objective reality" is a mythical state that no human will ever experience. Because perception is conception and conception is imaginary.

That also applies to your logic about existence, time and space. And not just the atheists as you understand them.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's an absurd definition of atheism. Atheism is the philosophical antithetical of theism. Theism is the proposition that God/gods exist in a manner that effects and therefor matters to humanity. Atheism is therefor the antithetical proposition that no gods exist in any way that effects or matters to humans. The "reasons" for accepting the theist proposition as true depend on the person accepting it. Likewise the reasons for accepting the antithetical proposition. They do not define the proposition itself. The proposition is just what it is: God/gods exist and this existence effects/matters to us.

This is all just your personal subjective exposition. It has nothing to do with the philosophical proposition or it's counter proposition. What you "take seriously" or don't is your own business. No one else cares.

Just stamping your foot about what you'd like 'atheism' to mean, is pointless.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Agnostic atheism – or atheistic agnosticism – is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.​

​

Get over it.