Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

I am sure there are many many people, possibly some here who claim to see and possible talk to ghosts. The problem is the lack of confirmable objective evidence for such claims.

And then there are persons, possibly called nuts (or insane) by some who hear voices and do terrible things.

 

[shunyadragon]

Reasoning can be good with some people.

True, everybody at some time or another uses reasoning to justify what they believe, but that was not the problem I was responding to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And then there are persons, possibly called nuts (or insane) by some who hear voices and do terrible things.

There is evidence of people suffering from mental illness that have behaved exactly so.

 

[shunyadragon]

We may have different beliefs, right? Some believe there are ghosts, while others do not. Do I believe there are ghosts? I believe there are unseen spirit persons that exist. Some good; some not good.

The problem remains as to whether the subjective claim of seeing and talking to ghosts or other spirits can be objectively verified.

 

[leroy]

"My mistake I forgot that you don't accept the testimony of scientists in peer reviewed papers as evidence.... So no I don't have evidence"

In that quote I am not claiming that testimony and evidence are synonyms.

Are you willing to admit your mistake?

 

[Pogo]

In that quote I am not claiming that testimony and evidence are synonyms.

Are you willing to admit your mistake?

"You won’t find a single quote of me claiming (or implying) that testimony is synonym for evidence"
"My mistake I forgot that you don't accept the testimony of scientists in peer reviewed papers as evidence.... So no I don't have evidence"

That just happened to be the first one I checked, I can't help it that as with testimony and numerous other words, you do not understand what they mean.

And BTW, how does a colander demonstrate intent?

 

[cladking]

The point that stands is that you claim things about brains without any evidence or reason to do so. You offer no evidence or reason to discuss your claims.

I've cited numerous facts about the brain but you can't seem to see them. There's also simple logic like why would humans need two speech centers and one isn't even natural since its exact location varies from individual to individual. I've also cited numerous things said by the brains (homo sapiens) I claim existed with a single speech center. Over and over I cite facts like the explosion in the number of brain cells at two years of age and the simple fact tht these tend to all fall into disuse/. In one breath you say the brain requires nature to do extra work to operate and maintain and in the next you simply ignore the fact that young children grow brain cells for nothing at all. I told you what these brain cells were for: They helped in acquisition of metaphysical language that our species, homo omniscirencis, no longer can even understand when it's explained to us.

ALL the facts and ALL the experiments fit my theory whereas only Darwin's assumptions fit his theory.

I could go on all day with the facts and when I'm done you'd tell me that I have no facts. "Evidence" and "facts" mean nothing at all because every individual sees what he believes and then calls what he sees "evidence". You evidence is irrelevant to reality and only relevant to your premises and assumptions.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence of people suffering from mental illness that have behaved exactly so.

Yes, it is a shame (sad) to see that -- nevertheless they can hear voices (so they say) and do destructive things.

 

[cladking]

If this is a valid translation of some written work of the last 5,000 years, I wouldn't expect it would reflect modern thinking, but I have no reason to conclude it supports anything you've claimed regarding your unevidenced "ancient language" of only a couple thousand words from 40,000 years ago.

Animal languages contain a few thousand words. The first Ancient Language speakers had only a few thousand words. Only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations. As such learning increased and as it did the language became geometrically more complex. By the time they used "The Theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture there were ten or twelve thousand words including no abstractions and mostly just nouns.

Not only does Ancient language break Zipf's law and Heeps Law (et al) but it also contained no abstractions making inductive reasoning impossible. These are facts and that you haven't seen them before is testament not to my being wrong but to the fact that all anthropological assumptions are wrong. Linguists failed you because just like you and me they saw what they believed instead of reality. You want to ignore all these facts because on some level you know that language is impossible without abstractions and our race can't function without induction. So you believe in Darwin, instinct, intelligence, and the old wives tales that underlie most modern science.

502a. To say: The phallus of Bȝ-bii is drawn; the double doors of heaven are opened.
502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,
503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.
503b. They make a way for N., that N. may pass by it. N. is a Horus.

We believe this and all ancient writing was made by sun addled bumpkins but the reality is they, just like all God's creatures, made perfect sense in terms of their premises. We are the sun addled bumpkins because we believe only we make sense, are conscious, and have intelligence. No other species from before or after the Tower of Babel believed(s) such nonsense.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 13. A Series of Five Charms, Utterances 312-316

The Pyramid Texts, Samuel A.B. Mercer tr., at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

 

[YoursTrue]

I've cited numerous facts about the brain but you can't seem to see them. There's also simple logic like why would humans need two speech centers and one isn't even natural since its exact location varies from individual to individual. I've also cited numerous things said by the brains (homo sapiens) I claim existed with a single speech center. Over and over I cite facts like the explosion in the number of brain cells at two years of age and the simple fact tht these tend to all fall into disuse/. In one breath you say the brain requires nature to do extra work to operate and maintain and in the next you simply ignore the fact that young children grow brain cells for nothing at all. I told you what these brain cells were for: They helped in acquisition of metaphysical language that our species, homo omniscirencis, no longer can even understand when it's explained to us.

ALL the facts and ALL the experiments fit my theory whereas only Darwin's assumptions fit his theory.

I could go on all day with the facts and when I'm done you'd tell me that I have no facts. "Evidence" and "facts" mean nothing at all because every individual sees what he believes and then calls what he sees "evidence". You evidence is irrelevant to reality and only relevant to your premises and assumptions.

I didn't know the brain has two speech centers. That all is very interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Animal languages contain a few thousand words. The first Ancient Language speakers had only a few thousand words. Only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations. As such learning increased and as it did the language became geometrically more complex. By the time they used "The Theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture there were ten or twelve thousand words including no abstractions and mostly just nouns.

Not only does Ancient language break Zipf's law and Heeps Law (et al) but it also contained no abstractions making inductive reasoning impossible. These are facts and that you haven't seen them before is testament not to my being wrong but to the fact that all anthropological assumptions are wrong. Linguists failed you because just like you and me they saw what they believed instead of reality. You want to ignore all these facts because on some level you know that language is impossible without abstractions and our race can't function without induction. So you believe in Darwin, instinct, intelligence, and the old wives tales that underlie most modern science.

502a. To say: The phallus of Bȝ-bii is drawn; the double doors of heaven are opened.
502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,
503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.
503b. They make a way for N., that N. may pass by it. N. is a Horus.

We believe this and all ancient writing was made by sun addled bumpkins but the reality is they, just like all God's creatures, made perfect sense in terms of their premises. We are the sun addled bumpkins because we believe only we make sense, are conscious, and have intelligence. No other species from before or after the Tower of Babel believed(s) such nonsense.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 13. A Series of Five Charms, Utterances 312-316

The Pyramid Texts, Samuel A.B. Mercer tr., at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

When you talk of animal languages right now the best I can think of is that they don't have dictionaries. (I'm not trying to be funny, however.)

 

[blü 2]

Testimony as evidence has its limits. and most often does not stand alone. If someone testifies in court that they saw a ghost. I believe the testimony would not be accepted as evidence for the ghost.

It's common for sworn evidence of A to be met with sworn evidence of not-A ─ most civil and some criminal legal disputes are of that kind.

And as RF shows, you don't need to be in a courtroom ─ though we're not under oath here, merely on our honor.

 

[YoursTrue]

Animal languages contain a few thousand words. The first Ancient Language speakers had only a few thousand words. Only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations. As such learning increased and as it did the language became geometrically more complex. By the time they used "The Theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture there were ten or twelve thousand words including no abstractions and mostly just nouns.

Not only does Ancient language break Zipf's law and Heeps Law (et al) but it also contained no abstractions making inductive reasoning impossible. These are facts and that you haven't seen them before is testament not to my being wrong but to the fact that all anthropological assumptions are wrong. Linguists failed you because just like you and me they saw what they believed instead of reality. You want to ignore all these facts because on some level you know that language is impossible without abstractions and our race can't function without induction. So you believe in Darwin, instinct, intelligence, and the old wives tales that underlie most modern science.

502a. To say: The phallus of Bȝ-bii is drawn; the double doors of heaven are opened.
502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,
503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.
503b. They make a way for N., that N. may pass by it. N. is a Horus.

We believe this and all ancient writing was made by sun addled bumpkins but the reality is they, just like all God's creatures, made perfect sense in terms of their premises. We are the sun addled bumpkins because we believe only we make sense, are conscious, and have intelligence. No other species from before or after the Tower of Babel believed(s) such nonsense.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 13. A Series of Five Charms, Utterances 312-316

The Pyramid Texts, Samuel A.B. Mercer tr., at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

So when you say only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations, are you saying that wolves and gorillas do not have that ability? I guess that's what you are saying.

 

[cladking]

Obviously you can't, even when you do hold that burden and duty.

I believe the difference is I don't believe in any supernatural forces. You might say that just as all people make sense so too does mother nature. I believe logic underlies nature, math, etc. Each homo omnisciencis despite being confused still makes sense in terms of his premises.

and how the fossil record supports sudden change in species.

I said this and it does. The fact is that we see virtually identical versions of everything until a sudden change appears and usually at the bottoms of sedimentary layers.

Not only that, but it indicates to me that you don't even understand punctuated equilibrium

I don't believe in punctuated equilibrium and never studied it. I've merely said several times that it is the least wrong of biological belief systems. I have no idea just how wrong it is. I know that I don't know much of anything except the formatting of consciousness, change in species, language, reality, etc. You'll have to ask an expert if you want details or perform experiment. Experts know everything. Ask a linguist why ancient writing breaks Zipf's Law and has no abstractions. They'll tell you.

You claim Darwin was wrong and all his assumptions are false, yet you refuse to name one of those assumptions or demonstrate a false state.

Every single reader here knows I've provided dozens of these many many times.

Another strange and contradictory condition given you claim not to believe species are real.

There is no such thing as "species" because every individual is different, even identical twins. But "species" is a word, an abstraction that has facilitated communication since the Tower of Babel. It's a handy word despite having no real world referent. When someone is adding apples and oranges it especially comes in handy. When someone believes he has determined "The Origin of Species" based not even on reductionistic science but on wishful thinking and old wives tales it's also a very valuable word, if for no other reason to point out that it has no referent.

 

[gnostic]

Forget about god and ghost stuff for a moment ……….

Except that did bring up ghosts in a house, as your example.

It is not strawman when I arguing with your example of including ghosts as your "hypothesis A", and testimonies of people seeing ghosts in "observation B".

If you bring it up, then you can't complain of me using "strawman"...when it clearly wasn't.

There are no metrics to be used in this example of yours.

 

[F1fan]

I've cited numerous facts about the brain but you can't seem to see them.

@Dan From Smithville has a vastly better reputation for factual accuracy and scientific knowledge than you, so your criticism is humorous.

There's also simple logic like why would humans need two speech centers and one isn't even natural since its exact location varies from individual to individual. I've also cited numerous things said by the brains (homo sapiens) I claim existed with a single speech center. Over and over I cite facts like the explosion in the number of brain cells at two years of age and the simple fact tht these tend to all fall into disuse/. In one breath you say the brain requires nature to do extra work to operate and maintain and in the next you simply ignore the fact that young children grow brain cells for nothing at all. I told you what these brain cells were for: They helped in acquisition of metaphysical language that our species, homo omniscirencis, no longer can even understand when it's explained to us.

Can you cite any experts that back you up? I'm skeptical.

ALL the facts and ALL the experiments fit my theory whereas only Darwin's assumptions fit his theory.

Darwin is irrelevant in the 21st century. He's only a historical figure. When people use Darwin as a representative for evolution and 21st century science then it is a big red flag. And your "theory" is not credible. That you call it a theory is also humorous.

I could go on all day with the facts and when I'm done you'd tell me that I have no facts.

Because he's correct.

"Evidence" and "facts" mean nothing at all because every individual sees what he believes and then calls what he sees "evidence". You evidence is irrelevant to reality and only relevant to your premises and assumptions.

This is your problem, and funny you admit it, but still claim you have a theory.

 

[cladking]

So when you say only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations, are you saying that wolves and gorillas do not have that ability? I guess that's what you are saying.

Yes. Exactly.

Apparently humans came into existence when there was a sudden mutation in an individual (we know only as "S3h" which could be the basis of "Adam" in the Bible). This mutation tied the human speech center, the wernickes area to higher brain functions making the language capable of becoming far more complex and allowing much higher level communication between individuals.

Obviously bees ands beaver (et al) have so9me ability to build on the work of previous generations but it is exceedingly limited. There is no real limitation to human ability to climb on the shoulders of giants. Even in our (homo omnisciencis) confused state we can communicate virtually anything though God knows it might take ten thousand attempts.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe the difference is I don't believe in any supernatural forces. You might say that just as all people make sense so too does mother nature. I believe logic underlies nature, math, etc. Each homo omnisciencis despite being confused still makes sense in terms of his premises.



I said this and it does. The fact is that we see virtually identical versions of everything until a sudden change appears and usually at the bottoms of sedimentary layers.



I don't believe in punctuated equilibrium and never studied it. I've merely said several times that it is the least wrong of biological belief systems. I have no idea just how wrong it is. I know that I don't know much of anything except the formatting of consciousness, change in species, language, reality, etc. You'll have to ask an expert if you want details or perform experiment. Experts know everything. Ask a linguist why ancient writing breaks Zipf's Law and has no abstractions. They'll tell you.


Every single reader here knows I've provided dozens of these many many times.



There is no such thing as "species" because every individual is different, even identical twins. But "species" is a word, an abstraction that has facilitated communication since the Tower of Babel. It's a handy word despite having no real world referent. When someone is adding apples and oranges it especially comes in handy. When someone believes he has determined "The Origin of Species" based not even on reductionistic science but on wishful thinking and old wives tales it's also a very valuable word, if for no other reason to point out that it has no referent.

Wait a minute. You believe the account about the Tower of Babel?

 

[F1fan]

So when you say only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations, are you saying that wolves and gorillas do not have that ability? I guess that's what you are saying.

Animals (including humans) evolved to communicate within their biological limits. Whales can communicate in ways humans can't understand. And gorillas can learn language that allows them to communicate with humans. The humans have to teach them a language first, just as children are taught languages that their parents understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Exactly.

Apparently humans came into existence when there was a sudden mutation in an individual (we know only as "S3h" which could be the basis of "Adam" in the Bible). This mutation tied the human speech center, the wernickes area to higher brain functions making the language capable of becoming far more complex and allowing much higher level communication between individuals.

Obviously bees ands beaver (et al) have so9me ability to build on the work of previous generations but it is exceedingly limited. There is no real limitation to human ability to climb on the shoulders of giants. Even in our (homo omnisciencis) confused state we can communicate virtually anything though God knows it might take ten thousand attempts.

oh. So you believe it's a natural type mutation that gives humans the ability to teach language and differences, etc. (right?) But birds and bees do this instinctively without the ability to teach previous generations. I guess that's what you believe. Once again -- the "gap" between the ability of humans and bees and birds in their understanding of life is outstanding. In other words, I believe it is a given from a Higher Power, namely God. But that's me and how I perceive it.
Yet you speak of the Tower of Babel.