Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

You didn't post any criticism.

I did. Your interest in attacking anyone that challenges you was noted.

You just posted insults,

No. I pointed out that you judge others quickly, harshly perpetually without regard to what they have said. Yet seem to reserve personal accolades for yourself without any judgement while often posting in ways that need the very judgement you cast on others. I find it typical that this all seeing eye doesn't see so much, especially not the actions and behaviors of its origin source.

so I responded in kind.

No. You responded as usual and as expected. This has become typical of what I see of the evidence here. You claim to have done nothing wrong. You claim you are correct. When challenged, it isn't you, it is everyone else that is wrong and behaving badly.

To post an actual criticism, you would have had to understand the concepts being discussed. But you didn't.

I understand the concepts and there is nothing in the facts that I have pointed out that would indicate otherwise. Nothing you have done to demonstrate it factually or rationally. Yours has just become a typical response that I fully expected. Much as I expected you couldn't let my words go. You couldn't move on without your usual line of comment.

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.

There is no seem to it. I do want to criticize how you are going about things. Considering that you criticize anyone else that responds to you and with what I consider to be veiled venom and vitriol, it seems to be you that has put that on the table for everyone else. I note that I'm not the first to make these observations and point them out to you. Since you don't seem to be able to separate the person from their words, I think it is germane to the topic and fitting with the discussion. You clearly don't seem to understand that. I don't find you any different than any street preacher or religious true believer that rejects what others say only because it is different and not for any special knowledge or understanding.

I predict that you will respond to this with much the same material and judgements that all have seen here before. If you don't, I would consider that an act against type. If you do meet prediction, it won't be anything different or more than it has been.

Either way, it is a win/win for me.

You have great day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I don't find anything to indicate a lack of attention and understanding from @shunyadragon.

I agree with his assessment based on the evidence available.

Do you think that it could be your limitations and delivery that are being correctly described?

It is possible that a person can be misunderstood by all, but it isn't very likely. Given the evidence, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

If your position is so good, then it should be simple to explain and defend logically without all the histrionic and theatrical responses blaming and insulting others.

Bear in mind that I don't expect anything like that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some things are almost like figuring that Tiktaalik proves or certifies or verifies fish coming out of water little by little. By, of course, mutational situations by chance and then by confirmation by some scientists because -- (although there's no real true verification) it seems logical to them. As if -- it's true -- that mutations happened causing water dwelling fish to move to live on the land.

There is no such thing as "mutations by chance." There is no such thing as "proof' in science.

The rest represents intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I am a Theist and the fact that "that there is "no evidence" supporting the proposition that God/gods exist." is a very valid belief by atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not a 'believer'.

You have clearly stated many times you are a believer in God, and continuously make acrid pejorative accusations againdt atheists for not understanding your beliefs or the reasons for your beliefs or the reason to believe in God.

I have paid very close attention to your continuous mindless rants against atheists.

 

[PureX]

I did. Your interest in attacking anyone that challenges you was noted.

No. I pointed out that you judge others quickly, harshly perpetually without regard to what they have said. Yet seem to reserve personal accolades for yourself without any judgement while often posting in ways that need the very judgement you cast on others. I find it typical that this all seeing eye doesn't see so much, especially not the actions and behaviors of its origin source.

No. You responded as usual and as expected. This has become typical of what I see of the evidence here. You claim to have done nothing wrong. You claim you are correct. When challenged, it isn't you, it is everyone else that is wrong and behaving badly.

I understand the concepts and there is nothing in the facts that I have pointed out that would indicate otherwise. Nothing you have done to demonstrate it factually or rationally. Yours has just become a typical response that I fully expected. Much as I expected you couldn't let my words go. You couldn't move on without your usual line of comment.

There is no seem to it. I do want to criticize how you are going about things. Considering that you criticize anyone else that responds to you and with what I consider to be veiled venom and vitriol, it seems to be you that has put that on the table for everyone else. I note that I'm not the first to make these observations and point them out to you. Since you don't seem to be able to separate the person from their words, I think it is germane to the topic and fitting with the discussion. You clearly don't seem to understand that. I don't find you any different than any street preacher or religious true believer that rejects what others say only because it is different and not for any special knowledge or understanding.

I predict that you will respond to this with much the same material and judgements that all have seen here before. If you don't, I would consider that an act against type. If you do meet prediction, it won't be anything different or more than it has been.

Either way, it is a win/win for me.

You have great day.

You really don't seem to have any idea how to address the concept without attacking the delivery. That's too bad. You can't learn much of anything that way.

 

[PureX]

I am a Theist and the fact that "that there is "no evidence" supporting the proposition that God/gods exist." is a very valid belief of atheists.

Then you are a blind theist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then you are a blind theist.

Expected. More acrid pejorative accusations of others without a coherent reasonable responses to posts.

 

[GoodAttention]

Then you are a blind theist.

He is a voluntary theist.

You are an involuntary theist.

 

[PureX]

You have clearly stated many times you are a believer in God,

I have never once stated that I am a believer in God/gods. Nor would I. You simply read whatever you Presume to be so and ignore whatever has actually been written, and consider it. And it's why you have little to no understanding of anything I post.

and continuously make acrid pejorative accusations againdt atheists for not understanding your beliefs or the reasons for your beliefs or the reason to believe in God.

And once again you justified every complaint I've made.

I have paid very close attention to your continuous mindless rants against atheists.

Had you paid any attention at all. You would know that I am not a believer, and that I consider belief to be little more than an ego-driven bias. And that includes the belief that no gods exist just as it includes the belief that gods do exist. All belief ever really is, is the belief that "I am right" when we have no way of actually knowing this to be so. And I have posted about this many, many times.

 

[PureX]

He is a voluntary theist.

You are an involuntary theist.

You have no idea whatever of what I think theologically.

 

[GoodAttention]

I have never once stated that I am a believer in God/gods. Nor would I. You simply read whatever you Presume to be so and ignore whatever has actually been written, and consider it. And it's why you have little to no understanding of anything I post.

And once again you justified every complaint I've made.

Had you paid any attention at all. You would know that I am not a believer, and that I consider belief to be little more than an ego-driven bias. And that includes the belief that no gods exist just as it includes the belief that gods do exist. All belief ever really is, is the belief that "I am right" when we have no way of actually knowing this to be so. And I have posted about this many, many times.

If you see belief as a conclusion to be stated rather than a question to be answered, then your definition of belief differs significantly from mine.

 

[gnostic]

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?

No, you don’t understand, that the evidence is both the test and the observations.

You are so utterly ignorant, that the evidence ARE THE TESTS!

It is the evidence that are needed TO THE HYPOTHESIS or TO TEST THE THEORY…

The evidence are used to determine whether a hypothesis is science or not science.

And the evidence will determine whether a current existing theory should be amended/updated or should be replaced by better theory.

Evidence are evidence. And a scientific theory is only valid as science, if the theory is based on the evidence, and not the other way around.

That‘s what you don’t understand. Your ignorance are just staggering…and that you refused to see that you repeating the same errors and make the same faulty claims, make it blind ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not a 'believer'.

This statement needs an explanation, because it is an unresolved contradiction of the history of your posts.

 

[PureX]

If you see belief as a conclusion to be stated rather than a question to be answered, then your definition of belief differs significantly from mine.

Almost no one would ever define belief as "a question to be answered". Mostly because a question to be answered already defines itself, and does not need some weird abstract presumptive addendum for other people to understand it.

 

[PureX]

This statement needs an explanation, because it is an unresolved contradiction of the history of your posts.

I have explained this many times in my posts to many of the participants here. It is the difference between faith and belief. But that's a step too complex for those that come here just look to support and serve their own bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have explained this many times in my posts to many of the participants here. It is the difference between faith and belief. But that's a step too complex for those that come here just look to support and serve their own bias.

Your page here states you are a "Philosophical Taoist/Christian." Contradictions abound without a coherent explanation of anything.

No you have not explained anything. You just use the shoot gun approach of acrid pejorative accusations of what others believe claiming they do not understand what you believe.

 

[GoodAttention]

Almost no one would ever define belief as "a question to be answered". Mostly because a question to be answered already defines itself, and does not need some weird abstract presumptive addendum for other people to understand it.

Belief is defined as either acceptance (conclusion) or faith/confidence/trust (question to be answered).

Yours is the former whilst mine is the latter.

 

[leroy]

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.

Agree

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agree

Okay. The past it is. In general the natural assumption about the past is that overall regularities are the same for the past and the present.

Now that is a part of in effect methodlogical naturalism. Look it up if you have to.