Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I don't think that what I responded to is the result of any understanding and recognition of the limitations and problems associated with objectivity. It is the words from a position of true belief knowledge delivered as if free of bias and without any blind spots.

But it is interesting to watch...for a time.

 

[B-psychedelic]

very wrong analogy,
my submissions came with historical, archaeological and scientific evidence yet you claim they don't satisfy your criteria and the question asked was do you have a better alternative?

you can't say something is wrong when you don't have or evidence to back it up

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

very wrong analogy,
my submissions came with historical, archaeological and scientific evidence yet you claim they don't satisfy your criteria and the question asked was do you have a better alternative?

you can't say something is wrong when you don't have or evidence to back it up

It doesn't have to be wrong. It just has to be different. I have a different faith/belief system than you properly, but I don't claim yours is wrong.
It is in effect a variant of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.

 

[gnostic]

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 keep demanding “metric” for evidence that people would accept, but you’re ignoring the fact there are no evidence for any god.

Do you even know what metric is?

generally, metric is a unit of measurement, that are accepted standard. If there are evidence, then you can detect and measure them (these are observations). These detection & measurements provide information, or what scientists & engineers called data, where the metrics are units of measurements, such as metres, kilograms, litres, seconds, volts, joules, etc.

The point, as you cannot observe God, there are no evidence to support it, there can be no measurements…so why would you think there needs to be metric, for something that cannot be observed and measured?

Don’t you think your demands are pointless?

I not only think your demands are pointless, they are also absurd.

 

[PureX]

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

No I don't. Not any more than science has show that it's theory about dark matter is true. Or even it's theory of evolution. The best any of us can do is show that these theories, when adhered to, produce functional results. That's the best we can get. And often even that is simply not possible.

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.

That's just silly.

The process of observation is both objective and subjective as we are both physical objects and cognitive subjects. We are physical mechanisms that are also cognitive mechanisms. And there is no way of separating the observed from the observer except via imagination. "Objectivity" is thus an imaginary state that no human will ever experience. Because to experience it requires cognition, and cognition is subjective.

Not being aware of this or even denying it does not make it not so. Believing in objective reality does not change the fact that no human will ever experience or understand it except through their imagination. This isn't what I believe, it simply is what is. Belief is irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No I don't. Not any more than science has show that it's theory about dark matter is true. Or even it's theory of evolution. The best any of us can do is show that these theories, when adhered to, produce functional results. That's the best we can get. And often even that is simply not possible.

That's just silly.

The process of observation is both objective and subjective as we are both physical objects and cognitive subjects. We are physical mechanisms that are also cognitive mechanisms. And there is no way of separating the observed from the observer except via imagination. "Objectivity" is thus an imaginary state that no human will ever experience. Because to experience it requires cognition, and cognition is subjective.

Not being aware of this or even denying it does not make it not so. Believing in objective reality does not change the fact that no human will ever experience or understand it except through their imagination. This isn't what I believe, it simply is what is. Belief is irrelevant.

Yeah, but you can't observe existence as it has no property. The same with physical, they are both in effect ideas in the mind.

 

[PureX]

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

So what you are trying to imply is that if anyone states anything, it must be equally self-righteous to anyone else stating anything else? Or is this just some childish, "nut-huh, YOU did!"

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

I am sorry that you can't understand these things. Perhaps you should reserve comment until someday you can.

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

Or perhaps you could stop resenting anyone that posts anything that you can't understand.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, but you can't observe existence as it has no property. The same with physical, they are both in effect ideas in the mind.

Ideas (imagination) are the cognitive lens through which we are able to 'observe' our experience of existing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ideas (imagination) are the cognitive lens through which we are able to 'observe' our experience of existing.

There is no existence unless you believe in that concept. No matter how much you "observe".

 

[PureX]

There is no existence unless you believe in that concept. No matter how much you "observe".

Existence does not require that we believe in it to exist. But recognizing (observing) it, does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Existence does not require that we believe in it to exist. But recognizing (observing) it, does.

What is it and how do you recognize it?

 

[PureX]

What is it and how do you recognize it?

We don't know what it is. We recognize ourselves experiencing something that so far as we can tell, we are not making happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

We don't know what it is. We recognize ourselves experiencing something that so far as we can tell, we are not making happen.

You bite yourself in the butt with this foggy reasoning.

Your previous history of posts reflect not 'We do not know.' but you absolutely know and others are absolutely wrong.

 

[leroy]

You keep demanding “metric” for evidence that people would accept, but you’re ignoring the fact there are no evidence for any god.

Do you even know what metric is?

generally, metric is a unit of measurement, that are accepted standard. If there are evidence, then you can detect and measure them (these are observations). These detection & measurements provide information, or what scientists & engineers called data, where the metrics are units of measurements, such as metres, kilograms, litres, seconds, volts, joules, etc.

The point, as you cannot observe God, there are no evidence to support it, there can be no measurements…so why would you think there needs to be metric, for something that cannot be observed and measured?

Don’t you think your demands are pointless?

I not only think your demands are pointless, they are also absurd.

strawman...
with metric I simply mean an objective standard…………….just forget about God and No-God stuff for a minute, I am asking in general for an objective standard that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not.

For example

If we have a hypothesis “A”

And we make an observation “X”

How can we test if X is evidence for A?.....................given that you (plural) don t accept the standard that I proposed, what standard do you suggest?

why is this so hard to answer? @Valjean @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker etc.?

Don’t you think your demands are pointless?

I am asking for an objective way to test if an observation “X” is evidence for a Hypothesis “A”………….what I pointless about that?

The point, as you cannot observe God, there are no evidence to support it

hOw can we ever know if you don’t provide an objective way to test if something is evidence or not?

Just remove your mind from “God stuff” for a minute, in general how can we test if some observation/experiment/equation/ discovery etc. count as evidence for a particular hypothesis/theory/claim etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

You just told me this is the case. Now you're disagreeing with it.


Mmkay.

Someone has to, apparently.

Yeah, totally. I don't understand what I'm even saying. Thank goodness you're here!

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.

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'.

LOL Have fun in your fantasy world where you know more about what I think than I do.
Have fun with that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't know what it is. We recognize ourselves experiencing something that so far as we can tell, we are not making happen.

Yeah, that is in a sense the definition of objective - having reality independent of the mind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I'm struggling to see where the miracle is here. The church burned down but one thing inside it wasn't damaged so that's a miracle?
I mean, really? Why is that a miracle?

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.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image ....

In this case that is the connection with what the miracle might be.


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


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

To the extent that I have no idea why you think your example is a miracle. Do you think God saw the church burning down, did nothing to intervene and stop that, but instead, intervened and stopped one single piece of artwork from being burned? And he did this as starving people around the world are desperately praying for food, or for god to save their starving child's life, and instead, God is spending his time saving a piece of artwork in a burning church?

Where's the miracle?

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

Of course it can be explained. And quite easily. Anyone who has been through a fire can tell you that stuff like this is mundane and happens all the time.

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.

My line of questioning has to do with your ability to demonstrate the veracity of your god claims.

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.

Logic and reasoning work the same, regardless of the subject being discussed.

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.

If we're just taking peoples' word for it, then we're stuck believing in all kinds of things that we can't demonstrate, many of which will be false. It leaves us with no way to distinguish between fact and fiction.

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.

Maybe we could start with a definition.

 

[PureX]

You bite yourself in the butt with this foggy reasoning.

There is nothing foggy about it. And if you think there is, it should be very easy to refute. What have I posted so far that you wish to refute? And how are you going to do that?

Philosophically speaking, everything begins with "I think therefor I am". With that realization comes the realization that there is a "not I" (otherwise how could I recognize an "I"?). So how did we recognize that there is an "I" and a "not I"? And the logical answer to that question is that we are aware of experiencing something that we are not making happen. That we are not responsible for or in control of.

And after "I am" comes "here". I am here. Here is not me, but is effecting me. This is how I am able to recognize it. And finally come the realization, "now". I am here now. And the "now" is the result of our experience of her constantly changing.

When philosophers try to understand the truth of being, this is where they begin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Your ten-year-old self thinks it's a reasonable conclusion, or your current self thinks it's a reasonable conclusion?

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

So I get no answer instead.
Okey dokey.

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 this your evidence for the god you believe in? How does this get you to a god, and more specifically, to the god you believe in?

This is what you seem to be saying:
The initial entropy of the universe was low.
This is statistically unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Therefore, the specific God I believe in exists.

You're missing some major steps here. And some actual evidence for your god.

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

I've given it to you several times now. Scroll up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

We've all explained to you what we are looking for over and over.