Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Indeed, it is the meek who will come to see the earth always belonged to us and the usurpers are the anomalies.

God is going to give the earth to those who (1) respect Him, and (2) will treat the earth and each other with love and respect. Revelation 21:1-5 is one of my favorite scriptures. Take care.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed, it is the meek who will come to see the earth always belonged to us and the usurpers are the anomalies.

I don't know that is supposed to mean or that you even know what you want it to mean. It isn't invisible, it just doesn't have any context or relatable meaning and you have shown no interest in filling in those gaps.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some things just make sense. It makes sense to me that humans are intellectually vastly different and by different I can use the word superior but with different qualities than bonobos. Bees and beavers have their own fabulous qualities, but the didn't write books of their history. Men are ruining the earth since the time of Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

 

[John53]

I think I understand cladking's ideas. And she (?) makes sense in many of them. to me, that is.

You've gone and spoiled the moment

 

[John53]

Some things just make sense. It makes sense to me that humans are intellectually vastly different and by different I can use the word superior but with different qualities than bonobos. Bees and beavers have their own fabulous qualities, but the didn't write books of their history. Men are ruining the earth since the time of Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Wrecking the earth makes us superior. Great.

 

[YoursTrue]

You've gone and spoiled the moment

I'm ONLY trying to tell the truth...

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrecking the earth makes us superior. Great.

I think you're misunderstanding...but at least you realize mankind is ruining the earth. Aside from tectonic plate movements -- and tsunamis, etc. which can kill people. I looked up about air conditioning which we must have where we live (it's hot -- ), wondering if the atmosphere is being hurt because of a/c. And yes, it is. Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels? Oh, I have to look that up, too. I put my trust in the fact that the Bible says God is going to make this earth better. And remove all causes of greed and wickedness. One reference to this is at Revelation 21:1-5.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrecking the earth makes us superior. Great.

The Bible says that God put Adam in charge of naming the animals. And cultivating the Garden He placed him in.

"15Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.
16And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
18The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.”
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field."

That is what the Bible says. Adam certainly lost that privilege, along with his wife. After many thousands of years we see the results of what Adam did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is nonsense, then thing that is suppose to be repeatable is the alleged evidence, not the hypothesis……………….but Ok then by that standard genetic similarities between chimps and humans are not evidence for common ancestry…………………..because nobody can repeat the ancestor

Hypothesis A: If a person in a heavy enough gravity flield in free fall achivies a high enough speed and lands on a hard enough surface the person will die.
That is universal and can be observed for all cases and not just for one person.
Do we agree?

We will take the rest later.

 

[John53]

I'm ONLY trying to tell the truth...

The thing you hate so much about science... go figure

 

[John53]

I think you're misunderstanding...but at least you realize mankind is ruining the earth. Aside from tectonic plate movements -- and tsunamis, etc. which can kill people. I looked up about air conditioning which we must have where we live (it's hot -- ), wondering if the atmosphere is being hurt because of a/c. And yes, it is. Fossil fuels. Fossil fuels? Oh, I have to look that up, too. I put my trust in the fact that the Bible says God is going to make this earth better. And remove all causes of greed and wickedness. One reference to this is at Revelation 21:1-5.

At least I realise. What's that supposed to mean?

I live in the country that supposedly has killer animals and I've come across most of them but the deadliest animals I've encountered are humans.

 

[PureX]

I am not claiming (nor rejecting) that testimonies are evidence……………………all I am asking is for a way to test if something counts as evidence or not.

Forget about god and ghost stuff for a moment ………. Generally speaking how can someone test objectively if given observation “A” counts as evidence for a given Hypothesis “X”

OK, So evidence is something that is not a claim……………what else? What else would you add to your definition of evidence such that one can measure objectively is something is evidence or not

I am accepting the challenge to provide evidence for God………….all I need are clear and objective rules on what counts as evidence before I provide such evidence……….why is this so hard and problematic for you ?

The answer is; "does it support what I already believe to be true". I call it the "kangaroo court of the biased mind". And this is the overwhelmingly popular choice for how most atheists determine that there is "no evidence" supporting the proposition that God/gods exist.

 

[PureX]

Your response meets my expectations. You dole out criticism of everyone, but don't handle it at all well yourself.

You didn't post any criticism. You just posted insults, so I responded in kind. To post an actual criticism, you would have had to understand the concepts being discussed. But you didn't.

You make myriad judgements of others, attack anything that is related to science or the acceptance of it, but when questioned and challenged all that you seem capable of responding with is angry nonsense that amounts to "nut-huh, YOU did!"

You seem only to want to criticize me, instead of the concepts I post. Again, I have to assume it's because you don't actually understand them, and you don't like this, so you attack me.

 

[PureX]

The problem with the history of your posts is anyone that does not accept your belief and world view does not understand your belief and world view.

There is a severe egocentric problem with this line of reasoning.

I am not a 'believer'. If you've ever paid attention to my posts you would have long ago understood this. And yet here you are complaining that I pointed out that you don't bother to understand the concepts that you want to argue with me about. And even now, as I point it out to you yet again, you will not recognize it. And you will continue to accuse and insult me because you can't be bothered to read and understand my posts.

 

[leroy]

"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?

Again I am not claim nor implying that they are synonyms

 

[leroy]

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.

I did my best and you still don't understand......



Just provide an objective way to test if something counts as evidence or not...........why is this so hard for you?

 

[leroy]

Hypothesis A: If a person in a heavy enough gravity flield in free fall achivies a high enough speed and lands on a hard enough surface the person will die.
That is universal and can be observed for all cases and not just for one person.
Do we agree?

We will take the rest later.

Agree

 

[leroy]

The answer is; "does it support what I already believe to be true". I call it the "kangaroo court of the biased mind". And this is the overwhelmingly popular choice for how most atheists determine that there is "no evidence" supporting the proposition that God/gods exist.

Yes that seems to be the definition of evidence

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agree

Then for a ghost it is so that since a ghost is indepedent of the belief of any person, it can be described as so that it can be observed by any human and explained how it works as a ghost and not something else.

Agree?

And I haven't forgotten the last part of your post about ancestor, but one thing at a time.

 

[Pogo]

The answer is; "does it support what I already believe to be true". I call it the "kangaroo court of the biased mind". And this is the overwhelmingly popular choice for how most atheists determine that there is "no evidence" supporting the proposition that God/gods exist.