Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

from the source


The only problem that I see with that defection is that it is restricted to “scientific ideas” which would render the defitnion useless if we what to test a non-scientific idea………….like god, or ghost or historical facts, etc.



But sure, if you what to insist on that definition, I would simply admit that by defection there can´t be evidence for God………………..but there wouldn’t be evidence for anything else ether because all current “scientific theories” where non-scientific ideas at some point in the past.


So the decision is yours, do you take that definition (and accept the implications) or would you twick the definition a little bit, so that it is no longer restricted to “scientific ideas”

Well, the core behind evidence is in effect in part objective and non-subjective.

If you understand that, then non-science becomes in effect to include the subjective as evidence.
So here it is as subjective - You are evil and should die. That is now with evidence because it works for me. It is also without evidence as you don't think so and it doesn't work for you.
So science is about how it is for us all in the objective sense as per evidence and testing. But it has nothing to do with the word science as such. It is what the standard is about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@PureX

Did you want to say something?

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

I said; "I certainly get the impression you believe anything I say is false unless you can cite an expert whom agrees." You replied; I have no reason to consider anything you claim to be factual. You can't provide any support for your claims that isn't itself in need of support. This is...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow a direct clear and unambiguous answer---------, please someone contact the site administrator………………somebody obviously hacked @Subduction Zone s account.


you even corrected an other atheist @SkepticThinker this is obviously not you

..
Lets use the example of dark matter

Observation: there is not enough visible matter to account for the gravity needed to keep the stars attached to their galaxy.

Explanation/hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity

Tests: we measure and see if there is gravitational lensing following the equations and predictions of general relativity…….if there is no gravitational lensing then whatever is keeping the stars attached has nothing to do with gravity

Evidence: there is gravitational lensing // which means that there is something with gravity

Conclusion: therefore the existence of gravitational lensing supports the claim that gravity is keeping stars attached, therefore it is evidence for the dark matter hypothesis.......

Am I understanding the concept of evidence correctly? Am I missing something?

Why did you tag me?
I agree with the poster you're responding to.

 

[leroy]

Well, the core behind evidence is in effect in part objective and non-subjective.

If you understand that, then non-science becomes in effect to include the subjective as evidence.
So here it is as subjective - You are evil and should die. That is now with evidence because it works for me. It is also without evidence as you don't think so and it doesn't work for you.
So science is about how it is for us all in the objective sense as per evidence and testing. But it has nothing to do with the word science as such. It is what the standard is about.

Ok so if we change scientific ideas for objective ideas in that definition, would you still consider it a valid definition for evidence?

The goal is to include objective ideas that are “not scientific”……… like historical events for example .

For example the claim “homer wrote the Iliad” is an objective idea (that is ether objectively true or objectively false) ………….but it is not a scientific idea

 

[leroy]

I think I've more than thoroughly explained what evidence should look like.

ok......then just answer yes or no

From previous post you have said that evidence is something demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable, that supports a hypothesis/proposition/theory etc. that is not a just not a claim …………is this your complete definition of evidence? Or would you add something else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok so if we change scientific ideas for objective ideas in that definition, would you still consider it a valid definition for evidence?

The goal is to include objective ideas that are “not scientific”……… like historical events for example .

For example the claim “homer wrote the Iliad” is an objective idea (that is ether objectively true or objectively false) ………….but it is not a scientific idea

Well, it depends. As far as I can tell, some consider history science and others not.
It can have objective in this sense as a part of its methodology - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
But it is not objective in this one - 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.
Can you spot the difference?

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

 

[cladking]

The Bible writers thought that the rain was leakage from a great body of water resting on a dome with holes for it to leak through.

You may be right but that's because they were as confused as you and I. Where they were confused because they misunderstood ancient science we are still confused because of language and many false premises of reductionistic science caused by ancient confusion that has survived even experimental interpretation.

You simply choose to ignore the fact that your belief in both linear progress and that the ancient Egyptians were far more advanced than the writers of the Bible are at odds. And where do you think the Egyptians gained their knowledge of the hydraulic cycle called "nehebkau" (meaning "gathering together of life forces")? Water came into being as rain from the vapor of water that dried on earth. They said so!!! This made "nehebkau" not a God as we still believe but rather a representation of scientific theory.

The Egyptians didn't wake up one day and decide they'd be many many centuries ahead of their time. They stood on the shoulders of giants all the way back to the very first giant named "Adam" the very first homo sapien born with a mutation that allowed far more complex communication than the world had ever known. Like all greats of the past he was associated with a star when he died and his life was remembered through this mnemonic; the star "S3h" (a star in Orion's Belt). These giants included numerous individuals and each were remembered with his own star and this word for the star represented something in Ancient Language. For instance the Toe Star represented the theory that some gasses are heavier than air so if these accumulated in low lying areas one must tip toe away. It isn't recorded but, no doubt, this star represented the caveman who deduced the theory.

We just take for granted that at saturation water will condense around dust particles in the air. Of course we already know it's far more complex than this but in time we'll find current understanding is most highly simplistic. There is no magic involved probably but then we might never know. If we ever do know maybe there's all sorts of magic at play.

Cavemen could simply see the planet was round and water traveled between the earth and sky after falling along rivers and moving about in lakes and seas. We assume they were stupid and primitive but the reality is they weren't even the same species and we can't understand what they are still telling us. Every man was a scientist and every woman a metaphysician. Of course there was a great deal of overlap between them. It was these people who were remembered in and as the stars, not generals and usurpers.

 

[cladking]

Nor are those words the testimony of cavemen. Cavemen didn't write. Writing appeared with civilization. Those words were written by civilized, ancient Egyptians.

There was no need for writing metaphysical language. Everyone understood every utterance so messages could be relayed without chinese telephone. The only word worth writing were the words that represented theory and they did write them for 40,000 years after Adam right up until the Tower of Babel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow a direct clear and unambiguous answer---------, please someone contact the site administrator………………somebody obviously hacked @Subduction Zone s account.


you even corrected an other atheist @SkepticThinker this is obviously not you

..
Lets use the example of dark matter

Observation: there is not enough visible matter to account for the gravity needed to keep the stars attached to their galaxy.

Explanation/hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity

Tests: we measure and see if there is gravitational lensing following the equations and predictions of general relativity…….if there is no gravitational lensing then whatever is keeping the stars attached has nothing to do with gravity

Evidence: there is gravitational lensing // which means that there is something with gravity

Conclusion: therefore the existence of gravitational lensing supports the claim that gravity is keeping stars attached, therefore it is evidence for the dark matter hypothesis.......

Am I understanding the concept of evidence correctly? Am I missing something?

Not too bad. It would be better to say that the hypothesis of dark matter predicts that we would also observe gravitational lensing. If we did not see that it would be a very good sign that the hypothesis was false. Please note, the observation of gravitational lensing confirms the dark matter hypothesis. That does not mean that it is proven. It is possible that there is another better explanation. But as it stands right now there is evidence for the dark matter hypothesis due to that prediction being confirmed. Now see if you can apply that properly to other ideas. Please note that we had the possibility of a fail with something that was not known ahead of time. Your test is not a proper test if we already know the answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, it depends. As far as I can tell, some consider history science and others not.

Academic history by definition is not science. Academic history uses objective evidence from evidence in compiling historical knowledge. History is applied science. Academic history uses historical records,
not necessarily true or not, but considers them historical records as believed by those that wrote them.

This source goes into considerable detail concerning how evidence is related to history.

Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace | Evidence Explained

www.evidenceexplained.com

Evidence Explained is built on one core principle: We cannot judge the reliability of any information unless we know

• exactly where the information came from; and
• the strengths and weaknesses of that source.

Beyond this, Evidence Explained differs significantly from other citation guides in several ways.

EVIDENCE EXPLAINED VS. TRADITIONAL CITATION GUIDES​

TRADITIONAL GUIDES​	EVIDENCE EXPLAINED​
Primary focus on published materials; limited treatment of academic papers	Primary focus on original records not treated in traditional guides: 9 chapters (532 pp.) cover local, state, and federal government records, business & institutional records, ecclesiastical records, vital records, materials in private possession, and other archival resources and artifacts in the U.S. and other western nations 3 chapters (282 pp.) cover published materials more extensively than the traditional guides (The 2 introductory chapters teach the fundamentals of citation and analysis.)
Emphasis on stylistic matters	Dual purpose; EE provides not only citation styles but instruction in the use and analysis of each type of historical source material
Citation models (varying quantities) for bibliographic, full reference note, shortened reference note, and in-text formats	Citation models for 1100+ record types and 161 diagrammed templates Each in bibliographic, full reference note, and short reference note formats (In-text formats are not suitable for typically complex citations to original historical documents and digital materials.)
Limited treatment of digital materials	Extensive treatment of digital materials—including original records of all types reproduced online and in other media print publications reproduced or archived online or in other media new publications created online or in other digital media
Very limited coverage of legal works and published government documents	Extensive discussions and models of legal publications and published government documents
Emphasis on output—i.e., the minimum details needed at publication to enable readers to relocate a source.	Emphasis on input—i.e., the details researchers need to capture while using a record, in order to understand (a) the nature of the source and (b) the strengths and weaknesses of the information that source provides.

It can have objective in this sense as a part of its methodology - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
But it is not objective in this one - 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.
Can you spot the difference?

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

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And where do you think the Egyptians gained their knowledge of the hydraulic cycle

Did you mean the hydrologic cycle?

I doubt that they understood that, but even if they did, my comment about not knowing where the rain came from refers to the biblical writers and what they wrote about their beliefs. They got it wrong. They didn't know where the rain came from.

Where do you think they believed that the sun went at night? Their cosmology didn't allow for a spherical, rotating earth. Their earth was flat, edged, immobile, and supported by pillars, and that the sun, moon, and stars were fixed in a moving dome.

This is how the biblical writers imagined their world to be as well - the snow globe earth. Where do you suppose they thought the sun was at night given this?

I just read the following by an Abrahamic literalist here on RF in another currently active thread:

"the world is only about 6000 yrs old ... since there is nothing on the face of the earth that can be proven to be billions of years old there is no reason to believe that the earth is billions of years ... there is no immense deep space deep time universe out there ... the earth does not orbit the sun and it does not rotate at 1.3 times the speed of sound [about its axis]. the sun orbits the earth ... the celestial sphere rotates once every 24 hrs. when you look at the night sky you are looking at the inside of an immense sphere which is called the celestial sphere and is inside of the first heaven. 9 concentric spheres: hell, earth and the seven heavens each one superior to each other in sanctity and the presence of God."

Cavemen could simply see the planet was round

I don't believe that, but it's just as irrelevant to rebutting my claim as your last comment.

There was no need for writing metaphysical language.

I don't know what you mean by metaphysical language. I'm referring to the writing of words as symbols with conventional (artificial and agreed upon) meanings.

It seems that you don't want to address what I actually wrote, which was, "The Bible writers didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, nor that bats aren't birds nor that insects are hexapods." I'll accept that as tacit agreement. If you disagreed with those words and had a counterargument, you'd have presented it rather than deflect to the Egyptians, cavemen, and the Tower of Babel, right?

 

[leroy]

Not too bad. It would be better to say that the hypothesis of dark matter predicts that we would also observe gravitational lensing. If we did not see that it would be a very good sign that the hypothesis was false. Please note, the observation of gravitational lensing confirms the dark matter hypothesis. That does not mean that it is proven. It is possible that there is another better explanation. But as it stands right now there is evidence for the dark matter hypothesis due to that prediction being confirmed. Now see if you can apply that properly to other ideas. Please note that we had the possibility of a fail with something that was not known ahead of time. Your test is not a proper test if we already know the answer.

Please note that we had the possibility of a fail with something that was not known ahead of time. Your test is not a proper test if we already know the answer.

I am not sure if I understand , but it seems to me that gravitational lensing (GL) would be evidence for dark matter , even if GL would have been discovered, before anyone proposed the concept of dark matter

 

[Valjean]

So, can we demonstrate or measure how miracles happen?
And if not , can we verify that just because of that , they don't happen?

For me for example , a miracle is something like this.

Icon of Christ survives devastating church fire (+VIDEO)

Although the altar suffered the most, at the same time, the fire completely bypassed an icon of Christ the Savior that was hanging in the High Place.

orthochristian.com

I would ask myself why that icon was untouched.That's the first thing i would think and go into research.
Let's see what you think

It' not a miracle. It's an unusual event. Unusual and unexplained events happen all the time.

But that's not the point,because there are countless similar stories.To seek if all of them are true is absurd.Only one needs to be however..
The point is that something can be true even if it is not demonstrated , measured or repeated.
That's not a thing even to be proven , miracles just happen sometimes.
The issue of who or if someone/something is responsible for that is a separate topic of discussion.

Every religion and cult cites such evidence.
People are naturally apophenic, and people trying to evidence an objectively unevidenced mythology can find patterns and significance in a cloud of smoke. When they, perhaps unconsciously, realize their beliefs are unfounded, they become very zealous in their defense.

 

[Valjean]

Depending on the degree of isolation. Would a one man or woman alone in the universe contemplate a god-concept?

Not likely. Not God as personage.

I would consider these people non-theists.

Didn't I describe them as such?
Atheist / Non-theist -- same same.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not likely. Not God as personage.

Didn't I describe them as such?
Atheist / Non-theist -- same same.

I do not believe they are same .. . same. Non-Theists include Agnostic, Deist, and maybe a few other Non-Theists.

 

[GoodAttention]

Whereas faith was just our choosing to trust in an idea that we hope to be true, but don't know to be true, enough to act on it.

And in so doing, we may actually make it true. Or we may not. The key difference being that with faith, we understand that we DON'T know. But that we are just choosing to trust in and act on our hope.

What do you mean when you say "act on it" or "act on our hope"?

 

[GoodAttention]

Didn't I describe them as such?
Atheist / Non-theist -- same same.

You also said "There are various subtypes, of course, but all have in common a lack of belief."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not believe they are same .. . same. Non-Theists include Agnostic, Deist, and maybe a few other Non-Theists.

My usage of these words agrees with @Valjean 's. Everybody that believes in a god or gods is a theist by my reckoning, and everybody else is an atheist.

Most agnostics are atheists, and a minority are theists. Likewise with gnostics (gnostic theists and gnostic atheists). Most are theists, but a minority are

Deists are theists - monotheists to be precise, like the Zoroastrians and Abrahamics.

Polytheists are also theists as their name suggests. For me, it doesn't matter what kind or how many gods one believes in, if he doesn't reject them all, he a theist of some sort, and if he does, he's an atheist.

I can't see a reason to assign meanings to these words any other way.

You also said "There are various subtypes, of course, but all have in common a lack of belief."

Yes. Just as there are many types of theists (monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, panentheist, henotheist), not all atheists are alike after their position that they don't believe in gods.

Most are agnostic, but some assert that there are no gods (gnostic).

Most are explicit atheists - they answer "no" to the question of whether they have a god belief - but some are implicit, such as people that never heard of gods or are too young understand the concept. They have no god belief, but haven't rejected the concept.

And some atheists are also ignostic, some apatheists, some antitheists, etc., but all lack a god belief.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes. Just as there are many types of theists (monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, panentheist, henotheist), not all atheists are alike after their position that they don't believe in gods.

Most are agnostic, but some assert that there are no gods (gnostic).

Most are explicit atheists - they answer "no" to the question of whether they have a god belief - but some are implicit, such as people that never heard of gods or are too young understand the concept. They have no god belief, but haven't rejected the concept.

These "implicit" atheists are best described as non-theist.

And some atheists are also ignostic, some apatheists, some antitheists, etc., but all lack a god belief.

I presume you reject the notion "Atheist / Non-theist -- same same".

 

[PureX]

What do you mean when you say "act on it" or "act on our hope"?

Depends on what we’re hoping for, but as an example I would say that it means acting as if what we hope to be true is or will become or be shown to be true In the end.

Let’s say in the case of a Christian placing his faith in the revelation and promise of Christ that if we will allow ourselves to become the embodiment of God’s divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity within us, that this spirit acting within us and through us, to others, will heal us and save us from ourselves, and help us to help others do the same.

He doesn’t know that this is so, but he chooses to trust in his hope that it is. So he lives his life “as if” it is true. And because he lives this way, he soon discovers that at least for him, it does work out that way. He is being saved from his own fear and selfishness and his mindless pursuit of momentary desires. And he does see that he is helping others to do the same. So his faith in his version of God worked for him.

No belief required, before or after.