Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ppp]

A non-theist is a person who could consider the belief in God, but chooses not to, perhaps given it would take them a lifetime to consider.

An atheists does consider the belief in God, and decides they could not, would not, or should not, believe in God.

Nah. You made those definitions up. Moreover what you are trying to assert is something called epistemic voluntarism. This is the hypothesis that individuals have control over their beliefs in the same way they have control over their actions. According to this view, people can choose to believe or disbelieve propositions based on their will.

Belief formation and change are complex processes influenced by automatic brain functions, cognitive biases, emotional states, and social factors. While individuals have some degree of control over their beliefs, this control is limited and often indirect, mediated by underlying neural mechanisms that are not fully accessible to conscious, voluntary control.

 

[Pogo]

Nah. You made those definitions up. Moreover what you are trying to assert is something called epistemic voluntarism. This is the hypothesis that individuals have control over their beliefs in the same way they have control over their actions. According to this view, people can choose to believe or disbelieve propositions based on their will.

Belief formation and change are complex processes influenced by automatic brain functions, cognitive biases, emotional states, and social factors. While individuals have some degree of control over their beliefs, this control is limited and often indirect, mediated by underlying neural mechanisms that are not fully accessible to conscious, voluntary control.

I look forward to your comments on the logic that leads to @leroy and @PureX to conclude that there must be a god to explain our existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

How does it work when you complement them on using a word correctly?
I suspect that is not a good idea, even if it seems to be progress.

Sometimes it's hard for others to take seriously something a person says if their grammar and/or spelling is not good.

 

[GoodAttention]

Non theist is just a euphemism for atheist in a culture dominated by theists who get bent out of shape at the word atheist. Not to mention who foolishly try to insist that an atheist must be absolutely convinced that no gods exist.

The first sentence is an impulsive defence by playing the victim in emotive language. The second sentence then manipulates the argument by involving God, which was not discussed, instead of beliefs.

Nah. You made those definitions up. Moreover what you are trying to assert is something called epistemic voluntarism. This is the hypothesis that individuals have control over their beliefs in the same way they have control over their actions. According to this view, people can choose to believe or disbelieve propositions based on their will.

Given some time to recover, this person then moves to arguing the value of a hypothesis that no one can control their beliefs.

Belief formation and change are complex processes influenced by automatic brain functions, cognitive biases, emotional states, and social factors. While individuals have some degree of control over their beliefs, this control is limited and often indirect, mediated by underlying neural mechanisms that are not fully accessible to conscious, voluntary control.

Realizing that advocating for a hypothesis of relinquishing control conflicts with their own ego, the following description aims to "soften the blow", disregarding the previous paragraph and hypothesis that "no one has control", to "control is limited and often indirect".

It appears to stem from the hypothesis, but rather it is a reconciliation of a hypothesis with an identity crisis.

All of which purposefully avoids the statements quoted, deflecting them as "made up definitions", then hiding under a verbal barrage in the hope they are successful. Calling for sympathetic voices to support their position often follows.

 

[ppp]

I look forward to your comments on the logic that leads to @leroy and @PureX to conclude that there must be a god to explain our existence.

Their logic:

 

[ppp]

The first sentence is an impulsive defence by playing the victim in emotive language. The second sentence then manipulates the argument by involving God, which was not discussed, instead of beliefs.

Both of those assertion are false. That all you've got?

 

[Pogo]

Sometimes it's hard for others to take seriously something a person says if their grammar and/or spelling is not good.

And sometimes it is also difficult to take a person seriously when they misunderstand the meaning of a word.

 

[YoursTrue]

And sometimes it is also difficult to take a person seriously when they misunderstand the meaning of a word.

So complement or compliment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh?

If I weren't willing to consider it I wouldn't be endlessly debating on RF.
Unknowable/unrealizable are your attributed qualities. I'll accept anything I have good evidence of.

Before I came to an understanding that there IS a God who cares (or any god at all) -- I asked a preacher about God, because I guess I wanted to believe but could not FIND God. And he said something I will never forget. He said, "Faith is a gift. Only God can give you this gift." And I said, But how can I have faith if I don't believe in God? And he said, "Only God can give you this gift." So the conversation ended. But I finally prayed asking God, if He was there, to give me this gift of faith. And He did. It took time and is still moving along.

 

[Pogo]

So complement or compliment.

Oh, we do it to each other all the time, take your pick.

 

[GoodAttention]

Both of those assertion are false. That all you've got?

The use of "false" aims to deflect under a guise that there is no proof, or any "proof" is a consipiracy.

Again this is defense reflex and denial that there could be many types of atheists, and that a distinction exists between atheist and non-theist.

A neutral observer can seek research independantly to understand there is a difference, in addition to confirming there is no conspiracy.

 

[Valjean]

You just said yourself that God could have done anything (picked any color balls). And yet he chose to create exactly THIS universe (picked only the red balls). A very specific and complex expression of existence. And this is why most humans perceive existence as being the result of intent.

The premise presupposes an intentional God, It assumes this very specific and complex expression is statistically less likely than other complex expressions. You conclude that this implies intent on the part of your assumed God. and assume our adaptation to this chance expression implies pre-design for us.

BUT IT WASN'T ANYTHING. If God could have intended anything, and this is what God did, then this is what God intended.

Presupposing God, design, and intention of course.

We know that existence as we experience it depends on maintaining all kinds of equilibrium. And that requires that "fine tuning" that's being discussed.

Yes, evolution fine tunes us to fit the chance expression of the universe.

 

[Valjean]

You just said yourself that God could have done anything (picked any color balls). And yet he chose to create exactly THIS universe (picked only the red balls). A very specific and complex expression of existence. And this is why most humans perceive existence as being the result of intent.

The premise presupposes an intentional God, It assumes this very specific and complex expression is statistically less likely than other complex expressions. You conclude that this implies intent on the part of your assumed God. and assume our adaptation to this chance expression implies pre-design for us.

BUT IT WASN'T ANYTHING. If God could have intended anything, and this is what God did, then this is what God intended.

Presupposing God, design, and intention of course.

We know that existence as we experience it depends on maintaining all kinds of equilibrium. And that requires that "fine tuning" that's being discussed.

Yes, evolution fine tunes us to fit the chance expression of the universe.

 

[Valjean]

A non-theist is a person who could consider the belief in God, but chooses not to, perhaps given it would take them a lifetime to consider.

An isolated non-theist might have no exposure to a god-concept. Would he be likely to consider one?

An atheists does consider the belief in God, and decides they could not, would not, or should not, believe in God.

Some atheists are indifferent to the idea of god, and have no occasion to consider the matter.

A lack of utility, either from a personal or social perspective, drives their decision, although the requirement of evidence underpins their argument.

The utility of atheism? Isn't atheism more often a personal or social hindrance?

 

[vijeno]

I have no idea how you think that comment is relevant.

Oh really?

How many whips have been made and sold to train animals and sometimes people, and how many have been sold for sexual pleasure do you think?

Yeah, one thing is for sure, if you put cream into your carbonara, that's not even cultural appropriation, it's just a crime against Italianity. On the other hand, I sincerely grant you the right to drink cocoa with your grilled ham and cheese sandwich, so there you go!

If you were to take a moment to think about these things before posting some knee-jerk response, I am sure you would be able to see the wisdom in not posting the response.

Hm... Let me think. Yeah, you're right, it would be much better if I exercised some... wait for it... restraint. *pa-dumm*

But then again, would it be fun?

 

[vijeno]

Moreover what you are trying to assert is something called epistemic voluntarism. This is the hypothesis that individuals have control over their beliefs in the same way they have control over their actions. According to this view, people can choose to believe or disbelieve propositions based on their will.

Hoo boy, you just made my day! Remarks like that make me come back to these discussions. I've been looking for that term for a decade now! It's what I consider one of the cardinal sins of christianity. Thanks!

 

[vijeno]

But I finally prayed asking God, if He was there, to give me this gift of faith.

Statements like that are so mind-boggling to me. How does one do that? How does one pray to something one doesn't believe to exist in the first place?

Sometimes I say that I did try prayers like that, and then there's usually some christian who replies that I wasn't sincere in my prayer. Which is true, of course, but then again, how could I? I simply see no way to sincerely talk to a nonexistent entity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not necessarily.

I have made many sculptures in my life. I am therefor the 'source' of those artworks. They are representations of my mind and spirit at the time I created them. I am a "part of them" and they are a "part of me" precisely because I was their source. This is a common observation.

No, the sculptor is not the sculpture.

Do you see how it does? Or are you still fighting it.

It does not.

The car manufacturer is not the car.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you are still refusing to address my actual point……why?

I, and others, have addressed your point (ie; mistake) head-on.
You continue to falsely claim that Dark Matter is an actual explanation, while in reality it is merely the name of a yet-to-be-solved problem.

Repeating this mistake is not going to change anything.

All I am saying is that if I claim that there is a better alternative explanation that yours I have a burden proof and I am expected to provide explain support this alternative....................so ether agree or refute this statement

So you are just arguing a strawman?

Pointing out problems is what-you-call an explanation, does not imply there is a "better" explanation.
Furthermore, for there to be a "better" explanation, your assertion must first be recognized as even being an explanation.
It is not. Bare assertions based on falsehoods are not explanations.




And as has been explained so many times.... regardless of your proposition being an explanation or not, one does not require any "alternatives" to point out absurdities or problems in a proposed explanation.

When I reject the "explanation" that undetectable cookie monsters stole the cookies from the kitchen to account for the missing cookies, I by no means am required to come up with an alternative to validate that rejection.

I can just say "I don't know" while rejecting the unevidenced claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your refusal to define evidence and provide an objective metric is telling……………..why are you afraid?............

It's not about being "afraid". It's about there being nothing there.
It's also about that being the job of the one making the claim to explain how it can be tested.

It's about that being YOUR job.
So why are YOU afraid?

What you really want is to keep the concept of evidence ambiguous so that you can repeat “it´s not evidence” over and over again

If believing that makes you feel better, go for it.

Off course all this is just a rather silly attempt to insist on having other people do your homework.