Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

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.

Too complicated. An atheist is anyone who doesn't personally accept claims of a god/s; frequently someone unconvinced by the claims of theists.
There are various subtypes, of course, but all have in common a lack of belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, my job is to define “god”

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

No, that's also your job.

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

My evidence for the observation that there is no evidence for god, is the total failure of god believers to provide such evidence.

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”

It's not a claim. It's an observation.
You can prove me wrong by providing evidence (which would entail giving a falsifiable definition of god followed by data + an explanation how it supports that falsifiable hypothesis).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you are claiming that DM is the label for *any* solution to the problem, then you would be wrong

If you are not making that claim, then I have no idea on what your point of disagreement with me is

so please clafify

It's a placeholder name for an unknown.
The observation is that it acts like regular matter but we can't see it like regular matter. Hence the name.
We don't know what it is. We don't know it's nature.

It's perfectly possible that it might turn out not to be a form of matter at all and that there is some other source for the excess gravity.
As it stands, our only known source for gravity is matter. Hence the name.


Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Then if we agree on this point, why are you responding to my comments as if you were in disagreement?

Because you keep claiming that I for some reason have to have "alternatives" to your magical god claims that you are pretending to be proper explanations........

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We could call it "Bob", then.

We could. But that wouldn't be very descriptive.
The name isn't chosen randomly off course.
The only source of gravity we know of is matter.
But we can't see the source of this excess gravity, hence "dark".

It's called dark matter because whatever it is, it seems to act like matter that doesn't reflect light.
But make no mistake: we have no clue what it is.

Much as God is a label for something that is unknown as of yet: i.e., the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence.

The difference, off course, is that in the case of dark matter, we actually KNOW there is *something* there, because we can literally measure its effects very accurately.
We can't just ignore it, because then there is a great bunch of gravitational forces that is unaccounted for.
Whereas gods can be safely ignored and it doesn't make a difference.

Dark Matter is NOT "undetectable". We detect it through the gravity it exerts - whatever it is.
Gods on the other hand ARE undetectable.

The word "dark" was chosen because we have absolutely no idea what it is or what it does apart from correcting our estimated universal gravitational mass.

"dark" because we can't detect it using light.
And it's not "estimated", it is measured. Observed.

It's not some "guess".

There is no "excess gravity".

This is just false.
Gravity is a force that interacts. Through observation, physics allows you to calculate gravitational forces and mass of objects. Quite precisely.

Very similar to the "God of the gap" being the only viable explanation we have at the moment for the fact that existence exists at all, and does so in a very complex and specific manner.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is because I don’t have idea on what you personally mean by convincing evidence……….

Perhaps the problem is that you think that what constitutes proper evidence is a matter of "personal opinion".

 

[vijeno]

My evidence for the observation that there is no evidence for god, is the total failure of god believers to provide such evidence.

I usually phrase it as "I haven't seen enough evidence of god to convince me" - which is obviously valid, because it's subjective, and reflects the fact that such evidence may be out there, I just haven't seen it yet.

Of course, I highly doubt that it exists, given that the debate has been raging for so long, the proposed evidence keeps being the same, and nobody as of yet published a peer-reviewed paper that contains evidence to convince an overwhelming majority of scientists. But that's just an aside. I haven't seen it, so I don't believe, end of story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I usually phrase it as "I haven't seen enough evidence of god to convince me" - which is obviously valid, because it's subjective, and reflects the fact that such evidence may be out there, I just haven't seen it yet.

Proper evidence, isn't subjective though.

And let's be serious here......... considering how mega important religions are to theists, if there actually WERE proper evidence for god(s), we would all know about it already and wouldn't have to rely on anonymous internet apologists on small-time internet forums to communicate this.

It would be common knowledge. This means way to much to way to many people for it not to be, if it actually existed.

Of course, I highly doubt that it exists, given that the debate has been raging for so long, the proposed evidence keeps being the same, and nobody as of yet published a peer-reviewed paper that contains evidence to convince an overwhelming majority of scientists. But that's just an aside. I haven't seen it, so I don't believe, end of story.

Exactly. I just go the extra mile. As explained above, considering the magnitude of this subject, IF proper evidence existed, we would all already know about it. It would be extremely easily accessible. We wouldn't need to try to drag it out of people who claim to have such evidence, only to see them fail to provide it after 200-page threads.

So at present, it seems very safe to claim that there is no proper evidence in support of god(s).

 

[PureX]

We could. But that wouldn't be very descriptive.
The name isn't chosen randomly off course.
The only source of gravity we know of is matter.
But we can't see the source of this excess gravity, hence "dark".

It's called dark matter because whatever it is, it seems to act like matter that doesn't reflect light.
But make no mistake: we have no clue what it is.

You keep ignoring the fact that there is no "it" that we can find. There is only our logical need for there to be an "it".

The difference, off course, is that in the case of dark matter, we actually KNOW there is *something* there, because we can literally measure its effects very accurately.

Actually, that's exactly what we don't know. We only surmise that logically something must be there. The truth, however, is that it is a profound mystery.

We can't just ignore it, because then there is a great bunch of gravitational forces that is unaccounted for.
Whereas gods can be safely ignored and it doesn't make a difference.

Dark Matter is NOT "undetectable". We detect it through the gravity it exerts - whatever it is.
Gods on the other hand ARE undetectable.

We only surmise that it must be exerting gravitational force because that's what our observations are telling us must be happening.

"dark" because we can't detect it using light.
And it's not "estimated", it is measured. Observed.

No, actually it is only being mathematically surmised.

See, this is what happens when you forget that science is not the fountain of truth, and that it is only a means of applying human logic to physical observation.

It's not some "guess".

Of course it is. It's a logical guess.

This is just false.
Gravity is a force that interacts. Through observation, physics allows you to calculate gravitational forces and mass of objects. Quite precisely.

So we presume, based on observations and logical deduction. But we would be fools to presume these are not prone to error. Sometimes profound and fundamental error. But you science worshippers tend to forget and ignore this. Because you have replaced the existential mystery with science. And now you think science has it all figured out. And you have done so wrongly.

 

[leroy]

My evidence for the observation that there is no evidence for god, is the total failure of god believers to provide such evidence.

Maybe... Who knows given that I have no idea on what your personally mean by evidence.... I can't know if there is evidence for god nor for anything

 

[leroy]

It's a placeholder name for an unknown.
The observation is that it acts like regular matter but we can't see it like regular matter. Hence the name.
We don't know what it is. We don't know it's nature.

It's perfectly possible that it might turn out not to be a form of matter at all and that there is some other source for the excess gravity.
As it stands, our only known source for gravity is matter. Hence the name.


Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The hard part to comprehend, (given the ambiguity of your comments) is whether if we have a point of disagreement or not.

Because you keep claiming that I for some reason have to have "alternatives" to your magical god claims that you are pretending to be proper explanations........

As I made very clear . You only have to support your alternative if you claim to have one

 

[leroy]

Perhaps the problem is that you think that what constitutes proper evidence is a matter of "personal opinion".

The opposite is true.....I am asking for an objective metric , presisly because I what to avoid answers such as "it's not evidence because I say so"

 

[PureX]

The opposite is true.....I am asking for an objective metric , presisly because I what to avoid answers such as "it's not evidence because I say so"

I can tell you right off that is all you're going to hear. But good luck.

 

[leroy]

Kalam fails because the space-time did not begin to exist, as a whole, it is timeless.

Well how do you know that ?




...

I have to admit that I have problems in understanding why is your objection,(related to a tensless view of time) more that just a vocabulary problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The opposite is true.....I am asking for an objective metric , presisly because I what to avoid answers such as "it's not evidence because I say so"

Not that I have any beef in this since I am a cognitive relativist in the end, but in general objective is different combinations of these defintions and not the ones for subjective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
-involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Not objective as subjective:
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-peculiar to a particular individual : personal
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[fatemahmanahil]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

Atheist believe that nothing is supernatural but believe in miracles, strange

 

[gnostic]

So we presume, based on observations and logical deduction. But we would be fools to presume these are not prone to error. Sometimes profound and fundamental error. But you science worshippers tend to forget and ignore this. Because you have replaced the existential mystery with science. And now you think science has it all figured out. And you have done so wrongly.

Wow, you take the cake of making false accusations of others who disagree with you.

There are none of this stupid scientism, that you keep throwing around, whenever anyone disagrees with you. There are no scirence worshippers BS you are throwing around.

Just because people may accept some current scientific theories based on the supporting evidence, don’t make them worshippers of science.

No one here except a lot of ignorant creationists would the claims you have been making about others.

No one is claiming that these scientific theories are about “absolute truth” or ”perfect knowledge”. Nor are anyone saying that sciences have answers to everything. No one are claiming these things are you and number of creationists, making up some of strawman.

I am quite sure that everyone who disagreed with you on this thread, would agree with me that every single scientific theories, even strong theories, like Evolution, Genetics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, etc, are ALL PROVISIONAL KNOWLEDGE, subjected to changes or even the possibilities of being replaced by better alternatives. But that won’t happen unless the alternatives are supported by stronger evidence or by more conclusive experiments.

These scientism accusations from you are growing old & tiresome; you sounds like a broken record. Unless, you can offer stronger evidence-based alternatives, I really don’t see you being all that logical at all.

 

[PureX]

The presumption that God exists ("God" referring to some creative and sustaining power that transcends the limitations of existence as we know it) is based on human logic being applied to human observations of existence that then lead us to conclude that this "higher power" is necessary to explain the fact that something exists instead of nothing.

The presumption that dark matter exists is based on human logic being applied to human observations of how the physical universe functions that then lead us to conclude that this "dark matter" is necessary to explain what we are observing.

Neither God nor dark matter has itself been found or observed as an actual existential phenomena. Therefor neither are actually known to exist. But are only surmised to exist through the logical extrapolations of what we observe within and about existence. So to the extent that we hold these propositions to be accurate, we are doing so as acts of faith.

Some theists understand this and some do not. Some science aficionados understand this, and some do not. In fact there are many in both camps that do not. Mostly because they have become "true believers" in the presumption of their own righteousness. A common trap set by the ego. And it is an intellectual failure that is very hard to overcome, because it fights tooth and nail to maintain it's own ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The presumption that God exists ("God" referring to some creative and sustaining power that transcends the limitations of existence as we know it) is based on human logic being applied to human observations of existence that then lead us to conclude that this "higher power" is necessary to explain the fact that something exists instead of nothing.

...

Then you have to show that these observations are true, with evidence and/or sound as per true in logic and not just valid.

But since you are in effect a kind of subjectivist due believing that there are no objective experiences in the strong sense, as it is happening in the mind as cognition (concepts), you can't claim observation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The presumption that God exists ("God" referring to some creative and sustaining power that transcends the limitations of existence as we know it) is based on human logic being applied to human observations of existence that then lead us to conclude that this "higher power" is necessary to explain the fact that something exists instead of nothing.

The presumption that dark matter exists is based on human logic being applied to human observations of how the physical universe functions that then lead us to conclude that this "dark matter" is necessary to explain what we are observing.

Neither God nor dark matter has itself been found or observed as an actual existential phenomena. Therefor neither are actually known to exist. But are only surmised to exist through the logical extrapolations of what we observe within and about existence. So to the extent that we hold these propositions to be accurate, we are doing so as acts of faith.

Some theists understand this and some do not. Some science aficionados understand this, and some do not. In fact there are many in both camps that do not. Mostly because they have become "true believers" in the presumption of their own righteousness. A common trap set by the ego. And it is an intellectual failure that is very hard to overcome, because it fights tooth and nail to maintain it's own ignorance.

But the righteousness of your words, that's all true?

Reading through all these posts, I get the sensation of a drowning man claiming he isn't even near water.

I wonder what the outcome would be if you reapplied your vast knowledge and all seeing eye in a more personal, self-examination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the righteousness of your words, that's all true?

Reading through all these posts, I get the sensation of a drowning man claiming he isn't even near water.

I wonder what the outcome would be if you reapplied your vast knowledge and all seeing eye in a more personal, self-examination.

Well, I did that years ago and I am a still a strong, global universe skeptic and that includes in effect naive versions of evidence.
Most people regardless of religion or not believe in some sense that they know what objective reality is in effect.
But there is if you look closer no evidence for what objective reality is in itself.