Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[SkepticThinker]

Well, actually, those ARE evidence in much the same way as any human witness is evidence. It may not be strong enough evidence to convince the rest of us, by itself, but it is nevertheless valid evidence. And that remains true even if we can provide an alternative explanation for how the witness arrived at their perceptions.

As I pointed out, that's only evidence to him. Not to anyone else.
Thanks for explaining my own words to me though.

You own material bias does not determine what is and is not evidence for everyone else.

Pretty sure I said that already.

Pascal's Wager isn't evidence. I agree.

That's an absurdly vague statement of bias.

It's called apologetics. Enough said and I've heard enough of it to make such a statement.

The Bible is in a collective way a human 'witness' and can stand as evidence in that regard. But what credibility it gains as a mass witness it loses in self-contradictory detail. So few would consider it significant evidence. Like asking a crowd with only very limited access to an event what exactly happened.

I consider it a story in an old book. And a not very believable story, at that.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, my job is to define “god”

But you job is to define evidence and to provide an objective metric.

If you are making a positive claim “there is no evidence for God” you have a burden which includes defining evidence and providing a metric that would allow us to test objectively if something counts as evidence or not


If you don’t want a burden proof, then you should change your radical claims such as “there is no evidence for god” for more moderate claims such as “I don’t know if there is evidence for god, because I don’t know what evidence or god means”

No the burden is yours alone. Your interlocutors have none.
If you can't provide convincing, objective evidence, your claim is shelved. We don't need to provide any opposition. Failure to meet your burden automatically shelves your claim. It is considered unfounded.

 

[YoursTrue]

So unevidenced beliefs are gifts from God?

To ME, there was evidence. Just so you know, faith is one of the fruits of the spirit. Obviously not all have faith in God or cannot receive God's spirit. I certainly did not for many years, but later received this gift. I believe faith will be made manifest to all who are alive in the near enough future, but that does not mean everyone's experience is the same.
"But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," Galatians 5:22.

 

[YoursTrue]

No the burden is yours alone. Your interlocutors have none.
If you can't provide convincing, objective evidence, your claim is shelved. We don't need to provide any opposition. Failure to meet your burden automatically shelves your claim. It is considered unfounded.

Let me ask you a question per your reply above. What do you think will happen in the future -- and by future I mean within the next 50 years and beyond? Do things look good to you insofar as the future goes, or how do you see it?

 

[Valjean]

So what? Doesn't make them true. Pascal's Wager doesn't work because there are more than 2 gods to choose from.

You've assumed that this immaterial, spaceless, timeless intelligent being you worship came to earth and resurrected and died again. But like I just pointed out, none of this makes any sense. You glossed over most of my response.

Okay, I guess that's one. How do you know the god you worship is intelligent?

You added this after. These aren't qualities. They are claims.

"Personal" doesn't mean anything to me. What is it supposed to mean?


Anything. Is there anything about your claims that are measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable, repeatable ... ?

No, it's not. It's a demonstration that the thing you claim exists, actually exists.

See above. Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Something that other people can use to verify the veracity of your claims.

Pascal's wager isn't even evidence. It's not offered as proof. It's an argument for utility.

 

[Valjean]

To ME, there was evidence. Just so you know, faith is one of the fruits of the spirit. Obviously not all have faith in God or cannot receive God's spirit. I certainly did not for many years, but later received this gift. I believe faith will be made manifest to all who are alive in the near enough future, but that does not mean everyone's experience is the same.
"But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," Galatians 5:22.

So you have to believe first, and then the evidence will come? Does that hold for other religions, as well? If I believe there are færies in my garden, will legitimate evidence of færies manifest?

Evidence 'for you'? Well, what convinces you convinces only you. It's not legitimate epistemic evidence that would logically support your position. As @Skeptical Thinker pointed out: "Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere."

 

[Димитар]

See above. Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Something that other people can use to verify the veracity of your claims.

So, can we demonstrate or measure how miracles happen?
And if not , can we verify that just because of that , they don't happen?

For me for example , a miracle is something like this.

Icon of Christ survives devastating church fire (+VIDEO)

Although the altar suffered the most, at the same time, the fire completely bypassed an icon of Christ the Savior that was hanging in the High Place.

orthochristian.com

I would ask myself why that icon was untouched.That's the first thing i would think and go into research.
Let's see what you think

But that's not the point,because there are countless similar stories.To seek if all of them are true is absurd.Only one needs to be however..
The point is that something can be true even if it is not demonstrated , measured or repeated.
That's not a thing even to be proven , miracles just happen sometimes.
The issue of who or if someone/something is responsible for that is a separate topic of discussion.

Why do you think that what you wrote is of importance ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, can we demonstrate or measure how miracles happen?
And if not , can we verify that just because of that , they don't happen?

For me for example , a miracle is something like this.

Icon of Christ survives devastating church fire (+VIDEO)

Although the altar suffered the most, at the same time, the fire completely bypassed an icon of Christ the Savior that was hanging in the High Place.

orthochristian.com

I would ask myself why that icon was untouched.That's the first thing i would think and go into research.
Let's see what you think

So, the church burned down. An icon was found unburnt underneath the rubble and you think that's a miracle.
But the church burned down.
Hmmmmm ... not seeing the miracle here.

But that's not the point,because there are countless similar stories.To seek if all of them are true is absurd.Only one needs to be however..
The point is that something can be true even if it is not demonstrated , measured or repeated.
That's not a thing even to be proven , miracles just happen sometimes.
The issue of who or if someone/something is responsible for that is a separate topic of discussion.

Why do you think that what you wrote is of importance ?

If you have no way to demonstrate that the things you say are accurate, then I have no reason to believe them. I'm a person who wants to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.

You can claim something is true without being able to demonstrate or measure it, but then I just have to take your word for it. And that's not enough for anyone else besides yourself, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims such as these.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you have to believe first, and then the evidence will come?

No. That was not my experience.

Does that hold for other religions, as well? If I believe there are færies in my garden, will legitimate evidence of færies manifest?

Evidence 'for you'? Well, what convinces you convinces only you. It's not legitimate epistemic evidence that would logically support your position. As @Skeptical Thinker pointed out: "Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere."

I can't speak for others. I've heard experiences from others that do not necessarily agree with mine in a certain sense. There was a sequence of events, and because I don't like to put them up for public perusal, analysis, and/or mockery, I'll just mention that they happened. They are evidence to me that (1) there is a God, (2) that He heard my prayer, and (3) He knows my heart and so helped me. Peace.

 

[PureX]

As I pointed out, that's only evidence to him. Not to anyone else.

And you are wrong. Because your bias against the subjective experiences of others do not apply to anyone but you.

Thanks for explaining my own words to me though.

Someone has to, apparently.

It's called apologetics. Enough said and I've heard enough of it to make such a statement.

Surely even you must realize that you are wildly biased against all forms of religiosity. Theological and religious apologetics is a very broad umbrella. The only way to dismiss such a huge category of thought unilaterally is through an unremitting bias.

I consider it a story in an old book. And a not very believable story, at that.

So do I. But the stories have survived all this time for some significant reasons. And as such they bear some degree of credibility as a collective witness. The problem is that the "testimony" is symbolic, and metaphorical, which then requires creative translation. And that invites all manner of variation and contradiction. Thus, it's all far less than ideal as a collective 'witness'.

 

[Димитар]

So, the church burned down. An icon was found unburnt underneath the rubble and you think that's a miracle.
But the church burned down.
Hmmmmm ... not seeing the miracle here.

Anything could have burned down - you just name what you would like it to be, that was not the point that i was trying to make.
Church is not a facility , it is the communion of people who practice worship.

The point that i was trying to make is that the icon is of Christian value.And i don't mean it as an object.The icon represents something or someone and all about that something or someone.
In this case that is the connection with what the miracle might be.

You can claim something is true without being able to demonstrate or measure it, but then I just have to take your word for it.

Yes that is the case , thank you for the honesty.

And that's not enough for anyone else besides yourself, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims such as these.

Yes , i can understand the skepticism , surely i do , i tend to practice it myself.
But to what extent ?

The story that i posted is just an example.It tells us that things happen that can not be explained.

And i am just trying to understand your line of questioning.Would you not say for examole , 'What would be behind these things that happen?' Are religious things so unimportant? Are they just a tool or they have some importance in reality? And is that importance of higher value then just a cultural one for example?

These are all just examples and i wanted to see how another thinker answers to it.

For me being a skeptic means to have a burden of knowledge on my shoulders.Because that's what comes if you follow what it means to be a skeptical person , would you not agree?
To have doubts about all things - that might be true and all things that turn out not to be true.
And i use my experience from different areas of study.
That's why many Theists(at least the honest ones) chose to leave religious beliefs and speak from different perspective.
I talk with people about Science the way Science requires me to do it.
I do it the same way History requires me also.
The same with other areas of study,each one of them as it requires.They are all different categories with different lines of reasoning.

I noticed that you mentioned 'take your word for it' , so we will leave this for further discussions in faith that we will find what is 'legit' and what is not.

I don't know how to talk about miracles except in the way that they happen.That's how much i know about them.It's to the point that either you belive what does that word mean and accept it as it is , either you don't.
It's like this , you can reject everything that you observe online , but when it comes to the matter of your own eyes and ears and matter of personal experience , it will change everything.It changed for me however.I understood it when i realized that i was waiting for this personal experience to happen somehow Me being the special one waiting for it to happen.That day i gave something up.
Seeing your answers reminded me of how much i used to push.

 

[leroy]

So what? Doesn't make them true. Pascal's Wager doesn't work because there are more than 2 gods to choose from.

You asked a personal question ......... I personally Remember my 10yo self , saying “íll believe in god just in case” which is a childish version of PASCL WAGER.......................in my opinion it is a reasonable conclusion

You've assumed that this immaterial, spaceless, timeless intelligent being you worship came to earth and resurrected and died again. But like I just pointed out, none of this makes any sense. You glossed over most of my response.

Okay, I guess that's one. How do you know the god you worship is intelligent?

You added this after. These aren't qualities. They are claims.

"Personal" doesn't mean anything to me. What is it supposed to mean?

You have a lot of concerns, and each of them requires a long and detailed answer……………….I will not develop everything for you……………. Ill repeat my offer pick 1 concern and I will address it ……………….but first you have to provide objective metrics for what type of evidence would you acccept

See above. Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Something that other people can use to verify the veracity of your claims.

The initial entropy of the universe was low……..(veeeeery low) which is statistically unlikey to have occurred by chance…..

This is testable, measurable, demonstrable etc. so your metric was acomlished

Is that good enough? (Probably not) ,………so please provide more details on what you mean by evidence

 

[leroy]

No the burden is yours alone. Your interlocutors have none.
If you can't provide convincing, objective evidence, your claim is shelved. We don't need to provide any opposition. Failure to meet your burden automatically shelves your claim. It is considered unfounded.

If you can't provide convincing, objective evidence, your claim

That is because I don’t have idea on what you personally mean by convincing evidence………. That is why I keep asking and you keep refusing to provide an objective metric.

 

[GoodAttention]

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

Depending on the degree of isolation. Would a one man or woman alone in the universe contemplate a god-concept?

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

I would consider these people non-theists.

The utility of atheism?

No, the utility in the belief in God.

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

In the US? I can empathize.

 

[Valjean]

Let me ask you a question per your reply above. What do you think will happen in the future -- and by future I mean within the next 50 years and beyond? Do things look good to you insofar as the future goes, or how do you see it?

My future, or the world's future?
I expect my situation in 50 years to be equivalent to my situation a century ago.
The world seems headed for a Sixth Extinction. That bodes ill for the human race and our current civilization.

 

[YoursTrue]

My future, or the world's future?
I expect my situation in 50 years to be equivalent to my situation a century ago.
The world seems headed for a Sixth Extinction. That bodes ill for the human race and our current civilization.

I have hope based on the situation and the Bible that God will change the way things are now on the earth. I am happy about that. And I believe it will be soon

 

[Valjean]

No, the utility in the belief in God.

Utility isn't evidence of veracity.

 

[F1fan]

That is because I don’t have idea on what you personally mean by convincing evidence………. That is why I keep asking and you keep refusing to provide an objective metric.

You use this excuse any time you lose arguments. It's been explained to you. Juries manage to understand evidence, but you are flummoxed? If you intend to debate then you have an obligation to learn what evidence is, and what is valid and what is not. You've been told what you consider evidence is irrelevent numerous times.

 

[YoursTrue]

My future, or the world's future?
I expect my situation in 50 years to be equivalent to my situation a century ago.
The world seems headed for a Sixth Extinction. That bodes ill for the human race and our current civilization.

P.S. let me say that I appreciate your mild and respectful responses, even though we do not agree now. As the world definitely seems to be headed in that direction which you noted it gives me great joy to realize that what God told Adam is true, i.e., makes sense. I believe He wanted Adam to have dominion over the earth because that is what He told Adam. But Adam lost that opportunity. However, I am convinced (I believe ) that things will change.

 

[GoodAttention]

Utility isn't evidence of veracity.

The commenter has jumped over context, marrying a reply to a comment containing "belief in God" with "isn't evidence of veracity". This is an attempt to "defend and conclude", but in reality is a manipulation of the discussion to suit their argument.

Returning to what was discussed.

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.
- Addition: This would also include individuals who "are indifferent to the idea of god, and have no occasion to consider the matter".

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

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

Here I use the term utility to mean, as it does, usefulness or benefit/beneficial.