Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[TLK Valentine]

I can say that I believe in more than one, but do not know that anything regarding scientific explanations relies on them. But it does seem like the absence of belief in a supernatural agent would render claims that atheists believe in miracles to be moot given your definition.

Exactly - Science is the explanation of the natural world, so anything "miraculous" couldn't be scientifically explained.

It would be on others to support a claim that what is seemingly a natural phenomenon is in effect a miracle of a supernatural agent. Considering that this was the foundation that collapsed under Intelligent Design, they would have their work more than cut out for them. Personally, I haven't seen an expressed personal view that would lead me to consider any are up to the task. I certainly have nothing to demonstrate that my personal belief is based on more than faith.

To expand on my previous statement, the supernatural could only be considered when every other possibility has been ruled out. But in science, "This must be something we haven't discovered yet" never gets ruled out.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is always so eager to rule that out - they try to impress the rubes with complexity and improbable odds, hoping to force a surrender.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly - Science is the explanation of the natural world, so anything "miraculous" couldn't be scientifically explained.





To expand on my previous statement, the supernatural could only be considered when every other possibility has been ruled out. But in science, "This must be something we haven't discovered yet" never gets ruled out.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is always so eager to rule that out - they try to impress the rubes with complexity and improbable odds, hoping to force a surrender.

I recall watching a creationist video with some young physicist that was explaining genetics to an audience of creationists. My thought was that the PhD in physics was intended as a ruse to lend legitimacy and mask the gibberish about genetics that he went on and on about to this clearly scientifically illiterate audience. Despite the fact that nothing he asserted about genetics in relation to evolution was remotely valid, the audience ate it up, because the dismissal of the actual science was what they wanted to hear anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sure you believe that, but you have not been good at conveying that in any way that is convincing to others. In fact, you repeatedly mentioned that you didn't understand it and merely memorized answers to questions that you expected to find on tests to please teachers and get a good grade. Memorization is useful, but it is not understanding. It may be fundamental to what seems to be your confusion and lack of understanding given your many posts that seem very confused over evolution.

Also, I recall that your main claim of rejection was based on the idea that you personally failed to conceive of reasons to accept the theory.

I don't convey that because I no longer believe it, but that does not mean I don't understand it. Your last statement is basically correct. I have come to the conclusion that the theory is a postulate I no longer accept as the absolute truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't convey that because I no longer believe it, but that does not mean I don't understand it. Your last statement is basically correct. I have come to the conclusion that the theory is a postulate I no longer accept as the absolute truth.

No longer accepting science as an absolute truth is expressing a view of scientific conclusions that is non-existent. Theories as explanations of the evidence are contingent and not rendered as descriptions of absolute truth.

Every post you make indicates that you don't understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't convey that because I no longer believe it, but that does not mean I don't understand it. Your last statement is basically correct. I have come to the conclusion that the theory is a postulate I no longer accept as the absolute truth.

So you reject the evidence that supports that allele frequencies change over time in populations?

You reject the evidence of the fossil record that does more than just demonstrate that something once lived, died and left remains that were fossilized? There is location, dating of the materials (I assume you reject dating for personal reasons as well), associations within the same strata and contrasts with fossils of different strata, similarities to existing populations or lack of any and so forth are all revealed in the fossil record.

You accept things without evidence and seem to reject for much the same arbitrary reasons things that are supported by evidence. How do you reconcile those two contradictory approaches?

I have learned from experience not to expect answers or at least reasonable responses. These are questions raised to aid others that have questions of their own.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I recall watching a creationist video with some young physicist that was explaining genetics to an audience of creationists. My thought was that the PhD in physics was intended as a ruse to lend legitimacy and mask the gibberish about genetics that he went on and on about to this clearly scientifically illiterate audience. Despite the fact that nothing he asserted about genetics in relation to evolution was remotely valid, the audience ate it up, because the dismissal of the actual science was what they wanted to hear anyway.

People are frightened of the unknown and unknowable - which makes perfect sense; what you don't understand can potentially hurt you.

I believe it was John Shelby Spong who said that religion is not a search for "Truth," but for security. I've noticed that religion tends to fill in the "unknowable" with "God," but unfortunately, fills the "unknowns" with Him as well.

Of course, while science has plenty of unknowns, the general philosophy behind it is that nothing is necessarily "unknowable."

 

[YoursTrue]

So you reject the evidence that supports that allele frequencies change over time in populations?

Insofar as changes over time in populations, I understand that genetic changes occur. Some helpful, some not so helpful for survival. Unless I see change in the incremental passages of these organisms, from, let's say, water dwelling fish to Tiktaalik, with their allele frequencies, and although there are similar genes between gorillas and humans, I am not going to say it happened by mutations alone. In other words, I do not agree that there is not a superior force enabling such things to occur.
And yes, so far gorillas are remaining gorillas, bacteria remain bacteria. So even though humans and chimpanzees are said to have 98.6% of their DNA in common, this does not mean to me any more that humans and chimpanzees evolved (by natural selection) from a common ancestor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Insofar as changes over time in populations, I understand that genetic changes occur. Some helpful, some not so helpful for survival. Unless I see change in the incremental passages of these organisms, from, let's say, water dwelling fish to Tiktaalik, with their allele frequencies, and although there are similar genes between gorillas and humans, I am not going to say it happened by mutations alone. In other words, I do not agree that there is not a superior force enabling such things to occur.

That is different than what you claimed before. Now it seems you accept change in allele frequency over time (evolution), but are qualifying it as the result of a changer entity. I know you will automatically see this criticism as personal attack, whether truly believed or not, I cannot say, your rejection seems to move like a goal post.

And yes, so far gorillas are remaining gorillas, bacteria remain bacteria. So even though humans and chimpanzees are said to have 98.6% of their DNA in common, this does not mean to me any more that humans and chimpanzees evolved (by natural selection) from a common ancestor.

And it has been explained to you countless times by now that such changes of gorillas or bacteria or whatever living thing you pick into other living things is not a claim, expectation or prediction of the theory of evolution. Thus reinforcing my prior recognition that you don't really understand the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Insofar as changes over time in populations, I understand that genetic changes occur. Some helpful, some not so helpful for survival. Unless I see change in the incremental passages of these organisms, from, let's say, water dwelling fish to Tiktaalik, with their allele frequencies, and although there are similar genes between gorillas and humans, I am not going to say it happened by mutations alone. In other words, I do not agree that there is not a superior force enabling such things to occur.
And yes, so far gorillas are remaining gorillas, bacteria remain bacteria. So even though humans and chimpanzees are said to have 98.6% of their DNA in common, this does not mean to me any more that humans and chimpanzees evolved (by natural selection) from a common ancestor.

Since morphology is the expression of genes, significant changes in morphology (fully aquatic to littoral reflected in subsequent morphological change) would be evidence of that change in gene frequency that you demand you need to see.

There are other mechanisms of allele change in populations, but mutation is the most significant. The others are equally supported by evidence and not any indication of an unseen hand guiding their activity.

The genetic similarity is evidence among other evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry. That you choose to reject it on ideological grounds does not change that fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

Begging the question.

That's it!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Insofar as changes over time in populations, I understand that genetic changes occur. Some helpful, some not so helpful for survival. Unless I see change in the incremental passages of these organisms, from, let's say, water dwelling fish to Tiktaalik, with their allele frequencies, and although there are similar genes between gorillas and humans, I am not going to say it happened by mutations alone. In other words, I do not agree that there is not a superior force enabling such things to occur.
And yes, so far gorillas are remaining gorillas, bacteria remain bacteria. So even though humans and chimpanzees are said to have 98.6% of their DNA in common, this does not mean to me any more that humans and chimpanzees evolved (by natural selection) from a common ancestor.

The evidence of a natural process like evolution that is accepted by both theists and atheists is not evidence that it is a supernatural miracle or that atheists believe in it as a miracle. As far as I am aware, the supernatural renders no ready explanation, while the theory of evolution does.

That literalist theists wish that the natural phenomena revealed through the diligent study of the evidence using the scientific method and sound and transparent reasoning were somehow dismissible as some sort of false nontheistic or atheistic religious experience does not make that wish come true simply by the empty assertion of it.

If the claim is that these things are miracles without evidence, then the complete failure has been in demonstrating that. No serious attempt has even been made. By serious I mean attempts made based on what the science actually says and not on straw man versions that can't be taken seriously, for their obvious fallacious nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is different than what you claimed before. Now it seems you accept change in allele frequency over time (evolution), but are qualifying it as the result of a changer entity. I know you will automatically see this criticism as personal attack, whether truly believed or not, I cannot say, your rejection seems to move like a goal post.

And it has been explained to you countless times by now that such changes of gorillas or bacteria or whatever living thing you pick into other living things is not a claim, expectation or prediction of the theory of evolution. Thus reinforcing my prior recognition that you don't really understand the theory.

I don't believe I intimated anything in the past about allele frequencies. If you want to keep saying that because I don't believe genetic similarities or changes in populations equate to darwinian type evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest) that's up to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence of a natural process like evolution that is accepted by both theists and atheists is not evidence that it is a supernatural miracle or that atheists believe in it as a miracle.

I am not the OP but I do believe it is outstanding in many respects that so much information can be packed into one or two cells. From which bodies grow. If you think you can explain that scientifically, please do so.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence of a natural process like evolution that is accepted by both theists and atheists is not evidence that it is a supernatural miracle or that atheists believe in it as a miracle. As far as I am aware, the supernatural renders no ready explanation, while the theory of evolution does.

That literalist theists wish that the natural phenomena revealed through the diligent study of the evidence using the scientific method and sound and transparent reasoning were somehow dismissible as some sort of false nontheistic or atheistic religious experience does not make that wish come true simply by the empty assertion of it.

If the claim is that these things are miracles without evidence, then the complete failure has been in demonstrating that. No serious attempt has even been made. By serious I mean attempts made based on what the science actually says and not on straw man versions that can't be taken seriously, for their obvious fallacious nature.

Here's part of what I am saying: the Bible says many things. Science (not all of it) does not necessarily support what the Bible says in many respects. So when you say theists accept the natural process of evolution it makes me wonder. Many do not believe the timetable from Adam on to now. They do not believe the historical accuracy of the Bible. So the question is, why does a theist believe in God especially if he goes to church or synagogue but yet believes in the process of evolution?

 

[gnostic]

People are frightened of the unknown and unknowable - which makes perfect sense; what you don't understand can potentially hurt you.

I believe it was John Shelby Spong who said that religion is not a search for "Truth," but for security. I've noticed that religion tends to fill in the "unknowable" with "God,"

That’s why these are call “superstitions”.

It is the same with other ancient religions, where they filled the mysteries of nature or the natural wonders that they don’t understand with that of gods or spirits with certain attributes.

For instances, people in ancient time to the 19th century didn’t understand lightnings and thunders, so they attributed these natural phenomena to their respective deities. From ancient Mesopotamia, the god whose name in cuneiform was , which transliterated to Išhur in Sumerian & Adad in Akkadian in the 3rd millennium BCE (and continued in the 2nd & 1st millennia BCE with the Akkadian dialects of Babylonian & Assyrian). Adād was so popular in the Semitic people, that it spread west into Levant and Anatolia. So in northwest Syria and eastern Anatolia , the Hurrians used the same cuneiform for their thunder god Teshub, but among the Hittites, he was called Tarḫunna. While the Amorites brought Adad from Babylonia to the Ugarit that in Ugaritic cuneiform it became Hadad , which became the same god among the Canaanite pantheon; the Hadad was known by another name in Ugaritic and Canaanite, Ba’al.

Adād was depicted in Babylonian & Assyrian arts, holding thunderbolts in his hand, the same iconographic image in ancient Greek Zeus (Ζεύς) and Roman Jupiter. I don’t know if there are any connection between the Near Eastern thunder deities and Zeus. And of course, we cannot forget the Norse Thor (Þórr in Old Norse, and ᚦᚢᚱ (þur) in runic), whom the Vikings worshipped, but he was known by other Germanic names, like Donar (Old High German), Thunar in Old Saxon, Þunor in Old English, etc.

In India, Indra (Sanskrit इन्द्र) was god of rain & thunder, have been around at least 2nd millennium BCE, eg the Rigveda.

In Book of Job, God spoke to Job, claiming he was responsible for thunder and lightning, as well as rain, see Job 38:24-25, 38:35, 40:9 (thunder being God’s voice).

They are more, some of them I have not even heard about. But they all have in common of not knowing what really cause thunder and lightning, so the easier thing to do, was to attribute these natural phenomena with some deities…hence superstitions.

it was only in the 20th century, that scientists have fully understood these phenomena.

edit:

sorry, but cuneiform doesn’t work on this forum, so I cannot post any cuneiform. Ancient Greek alphabet, runes & Sanskrit work fine.

 

[danieldemol]

And science is still in the making, right, please?

Regards

That's the benefit of science that some Abrahamic holy books don't have in my view, it is open to correction by the evidence.

Are you open to correcting either the Quran or the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad if contradictory evidence comes up?

 

[danieldemol]

Who programs the bots here?

Can't say with 100% certainty about the others since I've never been to the US to confirm, but I'm 100% real and I believe your posts are programmed by an untruthful indoctrination.

ETA My profile pic is really me by the way

 

[danieldemol]

Begging the question.

Trump calls migrants vermin. You call atheists that. Who's being toxic here? Who's the cockroach now?

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

I agree with Ms. Marcotte. I cringe in sympathetic embarrassment when I read comments like yours, like the religious person who calls science a religion as if that were an insult, like the guy who says he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist and sees that as an insult.

You're wrong, and if your Bible says so, it's wrong, too. Again.

Thanks. My wife and I went out for breakfast and then did some grocery shopping in anticipation of her making orange and chocolate ice cream for tonight, which we'll enjoy with white wine on the terraza this evening to Season 6 Episode 9 of the Sopranos followed by videos of our band. How about you? Church?

Happy Steely Dan Day, May 19, named in honor of the song Hey Nineteen.

And here's a song for you to enjoy. That's the wife and me singing and playing lead and bass guitar, with a rhythm guitarist and a digital drummer.

One needs to be diplomatic, which is why neither you nor I will ever be asked. Staff members can't be snarky or passive-aggressive like we are. Have a blessed day, will ya?

Nice singing

 

[danieldemol]

Ignore lists are for toxic people. I am glad that exists in all forums online.
These people are like cockroaches, dirtying every place they pass.
Better to keep them locked up, and only take them out to play with them from time to time ... to let them drink their own tea..

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you think people who believe in the science of evolution should be locked up I strongly suggest you don't try it in the real world as there are penalties for unlawful detention (or at least there are in Australia, can't speak for other countries) in my view.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, Lord!!!!

Now I know why I still keep coming back. They need a savior here.

Science, Go back to school.