Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

Yeah, that makes sense to you. I don't need that.

You realize that idea goes nowhere, I hope. Like Popeye saying "I ams what I ams".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You realize that idea goes nowhere, I hope. Like Popeye saying "I ams what I ams".

You really struggle with the idea of different kinds of in effect mental/psychological/cognitive schemata for how to cope as a human.

In effect you are a kind of objectivist/rationalist for making cohherently sense.
I have never come across only one way to make sense as a human that is actually so for the everyday world. And all claims of it being possible in effect end in -"My way is the correct one and yours isn't, because it doesn't make sense to me".

 

[ratiocinator]

There are no degrees of objectivity. There are only degrees of functionality relative to our totally subjective idea of "objective reality". But functionality is all it is. 'Useful is not necessarily truthful', as they say.

You do understand that this totally contradicts your own 'argument' for God (eternity, poofing, or God). I mean, it was already absurd and arrogant, but now you've basically told us we can't possibly know what we'd need to know to accept it, regardless. You really couldn't make this up, except you did....

 

[ppp]

Aim for consensus.

I asked, What you can define and what you can to accept is not in question. Anyone can define a thing and then accept it. People do everyday. People accept and define BS everyday. No one questions whether or not you can do that. The question is can you do anything more than that?

Simply "aiming for consensus" is not more than that. Suicide cults make definitions, accept them, and aim for consensus.

 

[PureX]

You really struggle with the idea of different kinds of in effect mental/psychological/cognitive schemata for how to cope as a human.

I'm not struggling at all. There is nothing I can do with that idea. It goes nowhere and teaches us nothing. "Live and let live" is a fine axiom but it goes nowhere in a debate. Why come on a debate thread and assert that all points of view are valid to the person asserting it?

In effect you are a kind of objectivist/rationalist for making cohherently sense.

Logic is a useful tool. I am here to help us all apply it. Because many here are not very good at it.

I have never come across only one way to make sense as a human that is actually so for the everyday world. And all claims of it being possible in effect end in -"My way is the correct one and yours isn't, because it doesn't make sense to me".

And yet most people do this most of the time to an insane degree.

All the more reason to learn how to apply some honest logic to our thinking, don't you think?

 

[PureX]

You do understand that this totally contradicts your own 'argument' for God (eternity, poofing, or God). I mean, it was already absurd and arrogant, but now you've basically told us we can't possibly know what we'd need to know to accept it, regardless. You really couldn't make this up, except you did....

You really are just constitutionally incapable of specifics, aren't you. It's all just vague general insults. Whatever serves that jerking knee.

I really have no idea what you're on about, here, but my guess would be that you are absurdly conflating a discussion about the subjective limitations of human cognition with the reasoned attributes ascribed to the great mystery source of all existence. Why you think these should be considered in the same discussion, I don't know. Because you seem to be incapable of offering such clarity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not struggling at all. There is nothing I can do with that idea. It goes nowhere and teaches us nothing. "Live and let life" is a fine axiom but it goes nowhere in a debate. Why come on a debate threat and assert that all points of view are valid to the person asserting it?

Logic is a useful tool. I am here to help us all apply it. Because many here are not very good at it.

And yet most people do this most of the time to an insane degree.

All the more reason to learn how to apply some honest logic to our thinking, don't you think?

Yeah, you are not an us. One thing I learned working in effect as a teachers assistent is the danger of assuming that we can all be the same for cognition and so on.
And all points are not useful to me. Rather useful is relative to a given individual.

So I really don't think it is about being logical. It is about learning to live as a given indivudal in a given context. And there is no universal logic for that.
In effect if you really could do that, you would be the first human in recorded history to do that.

 

[GoodAttention]

I asked, What you can define and what you can to accept is not in question. Anyone can define a thing and then accept it. People do everyday. People accept and define BS everyday. No one questions whether or not you can do that. The question is can you do anything more than that?

You can't do this solo, you need to test your definition amongst a group of peers or informed individuals. Otherwise you're just listening to the sound of your own voice. If you are in luck people will question you instead of berate you.

Simply "aiming for consensus" is not more than that.

When aiming for a constructive conversation is painful enough, aiming for consensus would be a pipedream.

Suicide cults make definitions, accept them, and aim for consensus.

Shall we start one? I'll get the Kool Aid.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, you are not an us. One thing I learned working in effect as a teachers assistent is the danger of assuming that we can all be the same for cognition and so on.
And all points are not useful to me. Rather useful is relative to a given individual.

So I really don't think it is about being logical. It is about learning to live as a given indivudal in a given context. And there is no universal logic for that.
In effect if you really could do that, you would be the first human in recorded history to do that.

It's about debate. No one here us living with anyone else here, that I know of.

Also, we are all VERY much alike, even as we are all unique. Surely you must understand this. I just happen to be addressing how we are alike. While you seem to want to stay focused on how we are unique.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's about debate. No one here us living with anyone else here, that I know of.

Also, we are all VERY much alike, even as we are all unique. Surely you must understand this. I just happen to be addressing how we are alike. While you seem to want to stay focused on how we are unique.

Yeah, that is me because I am in effect a variant of neurodiverse and I don't like normal people explaining how I should cope as them, because it works for them.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, that is me because I am in effect a variant of neurodiverse and I don't like normal people explaining how I should cope as them, because it works for them.

Ah! I both appreciate and respect that you know this about yourself. And that you're willing to express it to others.

 

[Pogo]

the universe manifests cognition (through us), that the mystery source of the universe (God) would also manifest cognition.

We are here therefor an anthropomorphic god is not logic, it is your assumption and assertion without evidence, that is all.

 

[ratiocinator]

You really are just constitutionally incapable of specifics, aren't you. It's all just vague general insults. Whatever serves that jerking knee.

Wow. Do you really not see the irony here? Can you not see that you're perfectly describing your own attitude here?

May I remind you that I engaged in great detail with your supposed argument, and you, apparently, weren't interested enough to respond?

I really have no idea what you're on about, here, but my guess would be that you are absurdly conflating a discussion about the subjective limitations of human cognition with the reasoned attributes ascribed to the great mystery source of all existence. Why you think these should be considered in the same discussion, I don't know. Because you seem to be incapable of offering such clarity.

You really don't understand your own arguments, do you? Your options require a particular view of how time works, and I know you keep denying it, but then, as soon as we get back to detail, you're back to the time-based options (poofing, eternity, or God) you like so much, and round and round and round we all go. It's like you're blind to your own assumptions.

If you're saying everything is subjective then you cannot possibly know how time works, or even that it's real, for that matter.

Jeez, you seem to be trying to construct an argument from a blueprint that looks like this:

 

[PureX]

We are here therefor an anthropomorphic god is not logic, it is your assumption and assertion without evidence, that is all.

Logic is evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

It would not be illogical to presume that since the universe manifests cognition (through us), that the mystery source of the universe (God) would also manifest cognition.

Since the universe manifests nuclear fusion in the stars, it would not be illogical to presume that the mystery source of the universe would also manifest nuclear fusion.

Or may in fact BE cognition...

Maybe it IS nuclear fusion. There appears to be far more fusion going on than cognition, after all.

...spread across the vastness of the universe,

Hang on, how do you know the universe is vast? Are you trying to tell us an objective fact?

Remember "human perception/conception being irrevocably subjective".

This is fun.

 

[ratiocinator]

Logic is evidence.

No. And you haven't actually given us either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic is evidence.

No, logic is one kind of evidence and it has a limit for the term valid. The moment you go for sound, it is more than just valid.

 

[PureX]

Wow. Do you really not see the irony here? Can you not see that you're perfectly describing your own attitude here?

May I remind you that I engaged in great detail with your supposed argument, and you, apparently, weren't interested enough to respond?

I read it. You were clearly determined to refuse to recognize any logic but your own. So there was no point.

I am not here to fight with other people's biases. If you want to hold into them that badly, then keep them.

You really don't understand your own arguments, do you?

I do, but I can't make you understand them when you're determined not to. And I can tell that you're determined not to because you never ask any questions except to lead into an objection. You don't read to understand. You read to fight. It's exhausting and pointless for me to engage in that.

Your options require a particular view of how time works, and I know you keep denying it, but then, as soon as we get back to detail, you're back to the time-based options (poofing, eternity, or God) you like so much, and round and round and round we all go. It's like you're blind to your own assumptions.

If a sphere spins in place, on it's axis, for all eternity, do you think that constitutes 'change'? Do you think time passed just because it was spinning? You can say that it did, but how could you show it? An endlessly repeating 'change' changes nothing. An endlessly repeating moment records nothing. Yet this is the condition of an eternity.

And it is not the condition we observe existing. This is why claiming that existence is eternal makes no logical sense.

But now your mind is already desperately seeking some way to object, and to counter, and dismiss, rather than to simply sit still and contemplate the reality of an eternity. And see how incongruous it is with what we experience existing.

If you're saying everything is subjective then you cannot possibly know how time works, or even that it's real, for that matter.

Jeez, you seem to be trying to construct an argument from a blueprint that looks like this:

 

[PureX]

Since the universe manifests nuclear fusion in the stars, it would not be illogical to presume that the mystery source of the universe would also manifest nuclear fusion.

Or to state it like an adult, it would not be illogical to presume the source IS manifesting fusion via the stars. You're wanting so bad to fight that you can't see the obvious.

Maybe it IS nuclear fusion. There appears to be far more fusion going on than cognition, after all.

We can't see how much cognition is happening. Please try to think at least a little.

Hang on, how do you know the universe is vast? Are you trying to tell us an objective fact?

Now you're just becoming a toddler.

Remember "human perception/conception being irrevocably subjective".

This is fun.

It's sad that you think so.

 

[PureX]

No, logic is one kind of evidence and it has a limit for the term valid. The moment you go for sound, it is more than just valid.

So yes, as I stated, logic is evidence.