Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[shunyadragon]

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.

View attachment 94967

Up until the Tower of Babel Myth?

Yes they are not random scribbles, The evolution of written languages around the world are similar, because humans are similar and relate to the things in the world around them, Humans migrated carrying their symbolic characters with them, asin those that migrated to the Americas. Chines characters were found on the West coast of Latin America.

Languages spoken and written evolved naturally all over the world for thousands of years regardless of any mythological belief in Genesis, world flood or the Tower of Babel.

 

[GoodAttention]

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.

I can understand this, however the words faith, trust, and hope I read as synonymous with acceptance.

No belief required, before or after.

How do you define belief?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

How is that science? By the way, I took the covid vaccines, did you?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

You don't think/believe/ or realize that mankind is ruining the earth? I am not going to argue about deadliest humans, although gorillas have not invented plastics and other products that are literally ruining the environment.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I realize from reading all the posts from those like yourself that you say there is no "proof" in science. It's all conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

We finally agree on something. It's a miracle.

While there is no "proof" of what cladking says, some of her viewpoints make sense. Who knows? Maybe "scientists" will say one day, "Oh, yes, we found some evidence that backs up her ideas." I'm not saying I believe everything that cladking says, but it makes more sense to me than imagining that fish evolved by "natural selection" to become Tiktaalik and emerged to become (after a long time of mutations, of course) land dwellers.

 

[shunyadragon]

I realize from reading all the posts from those like yourself that you say there is no "proof" in science. It's all conjecture.

It is neither "proof" nor "conjecture" it is science as science is.

The problem remains your intentional ignorance in science based on an ancient tribal agenda, and ignoring objective evidence presented to you on this forum.,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I'm sorry you don't understand. I wish I could help, but I don't have time to translate your own posts for you.

I'm not buying into your belief that you are the final arbiter of all truth. You have opinions. I've observed they are not always very well-founded. You can call your judgement of others matter of fact, but that is just an attempt to dress up bad behavior and convince yourself that you are the greatest.

I don't think we have much to discuss, since your bar is agreement with you or else you get these ham-handed ramblings about how it is everyone else that is wrong.

Good luck. I'll pray for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is neither "proof" nor "conjecture" it is science as science is.

The problem remains your intentional ignorance in science based on an ancient tribal agenda, and ignoring objective evidence presented to you on this forum.,

Sorry, sir, that is not true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, sir, that is not true.

Sorry!

It is neither "proof" nor "conjecture" it is science as science is.

The problem remains your intentional ignorance in science based on an ancient tribal agenda, and ignoring objective evidence presented to you on this forum.,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said; "I certainly get the impression you believe anything I say is false unless you can cite an expert whom agrees."

You did, but I haven't requested experts to testify for you.

I've repeatedly, constantly, regularly and continually asked you for the support of your claims and for which you have repeatedly, constantly, regularly and continually avoided, diverted from and run off from providing. Many others have asked this too. We get nothing or claims that you provided this support millions and billions and trillions and quadrillions of times. It must be invisible.

Do you consider such claims to be rational or within the confines of reasonable debate and discussion?

You replied;


This is exactly the problem not only with our discussion but virtually every discussion in confused language. We not only pick and choose how to interpret evidence but we pick and choose what is or isn't evidence. Homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. I use different evidence than you because I have different beliefs than you. I don't recognize as relevant much of what you believe is factual and properly interpreted.

I believe I started with better assumptions and I reasoned to beliefs that are closely tied to experimental results. Darwin's faulty reasoning led to centuries of beliefs in survival of the fittest where my faulty reasoning led to a paradigm which better approximates the logic of reality and the means by which ancient people invented agriculture.

The nature of modern confused language precludes sound reasoning.

The problem is that you make claims that you refuse to back up, explain, or support in any reasonable way that fits the context of your claims and the requests that you constantly receive.

By the way, it has only been a 164 years since proposed a theory of evolution. It has been modified over time, but it has held up. No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has falsified the theory of evolution then or since.

What you claim you believe about your assumptions and those of Darwin is MEANINGLESS, since you never say what those assumptions are or explain them in any way. You never provide the experiments you claim support you. You just repeat these claims as if they are revealed truth that others should accept without question. That is religious position and it isn't science. Since you are here to discuss your beliefs and I'm interesting in discussing science, there is nothing for us to discuss.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but here it is once again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry!

It is neither "proof" nor "conjecture" it is science as science is.

The problem remains your intentional ignorance in science based on an ancient tribal agenda, and ignoring objective evidence presented to you on this forum.,

No Proof in science you say. And, of course, others conversant with science think-say the same thing. Anyway, I'm more or less done with this because I have been keenly looking into the theory of evolution and how the posits are made (conjectured) by some scientists. Just as mutations cause changes and the conjecture is that they also caused dinosaurs to become birds. Of course they are going to look at what they consider to be evidence backing up their conjectures, but there is nothing that makes it true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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

In my personal opinion, it was the best thing that I've read from that source.

 

[gnostic]

In my personal opinion, it was the best thing that I've read from that source.

well, thank you, kind sir.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

well, thank you, kind sir.

You're welcome, but I'm a little confused. I thought what I read (or what wasn't there for anyone to read) came from another source.

 

[PureX]

I can understand this, however the words faith, trust, and hope I read as synonymous with acceptance.

More with willingness, I think.

How do you define belief?

Presuming that we know something that we don’t actually know. If we knew it we would say that we know it. But instead we say we believe it, which means that we presume to know it so but don’t actually know it’s so.

 

[gnostic]

No Proof in science you say.

As I said to you man times before, proofs are often seen as maths, like equations that contain numbers, variables, const, etc, or seen as formulas, like used in chemistry, with chemical symbols to represent the atoms, elements, molecules, compounds or chemical reactions.

These so-called proofs - whether they be used as formulas or equations, are parts of the explanations or predictions. And these proofs, like the explanations of hypotheses, are only provisional proposals that are not true, until scientists have tested the hypotheses. If a hypothesis has failed the tests, like the evidence or experiments don’t support the hypothesis, then those equations or formulas have also failed and been refuted.

Equations and formulas can be used in scientific theories or hypotheses, but they are not true until they have been rigorously tested.

Do not confuse proof with evidence…they are not synonymous with one another in science. Evidence are independent of any explanation and of any maths.

 

[shunyadragon]

e

That last is a good point, as knowledge comes from direct experience. And when people act on their faith, and gain the hoped for results, they take this experience as knowing. But in truth, it's not. Not really. It's belief masquerading as knowledge.


I do not believe that God exists because I do not and cannot know this to be so. But I can choose to act on the hope that a God of my grandest imagination does exist, and to live my life according to that hope. And in so doing, I find that my experience of life is much improved. But that does not make me a believer in anything but the fact that faith can work for us when nothing else can.

If you do not believe God exists you need to change your choice of belief on you page to Atheist.

 

[PureX]

I can understand this, however the words faith, trust, and hope I read as synonymous with acceptance.

More with willingness, I think.

How do you define belief?

As presuming that we know something that we don’t actually know. If we knew it we would say that we know it. But instead we say we believe it, which means that we presume to know it’s so but don’t actually know that it’s so.

 

[GoodAttention]

More with willingness, I think.

Presuming that we know something that we don’t actually know. If we knew it we would say that we know it. But instead we say we believe it, which means that we presume to know it so but don’t actually know it’s so.

So you have separated the zealous from the humble.