Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

No, I don't assume that I know everything about gravity, but I know what my dog knows about it (and more), and we both manage to understand it well enough. She knows that she will stick to the floor but also can jump up and then return to the floor, or that if she drops a piece of food, to look downward for it.

And I've said many times that animals don't experience consciousness the same way we do. Where I provide actual evidence for this derived from experiment you believe old wives' tales handed down with language acquisition. If we want to communicate with other species we have to teach them English first. This is because we are incapable of learning even the simplest languages. Yet other species can pick up rudimentary English.

And just because we've finally deciphered some small part of the bee's Waggle Dance hardly means we can communicate with bees. Their language is formatted metaphysically and we can't even imagine a metaphysical language. Even after I define it, identify the differences, and provide examples it is invisible to most people.

Old wives' tales underlie not only our every belief but also the definitions and axioms of reductionistic science. Anyone who doesn't accept dogma is either a heretic or a religious zealot. Despite the fact that science is supposed to be based solely on experiment and draw no conclusions practitioners rely on "evidence" and "consensus" while simply ignoring every experiment that contradicts their beliefs and discounting physical evidence like the cave markings.

 

[cladking]

That's not been my experience, and doesn't describe most people I know, either.

Exactly as failure in communication, variation in models, and anomalies are invisible to us we can't see that we see only what we expect. We look past anomalies and truths we don't like in order to see the mundane and explicable. We are all this way by definition. Homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. It's what we do. Experiment shows it again and again. We can't imagine the nature of consciousness without thought or a consciousness formatted the same as reality is formatted. We can't imagine a world with no instinct and even the lowliest of the low always exercising free will.

Many humans forfeit free will by not even accepting its existence. Our minds run on modern language and are infinitely adaptable. Even mass murder in the pursuit of Darwin's beliefs can come to be seen as a societal asset. Our minds can be warped by beliefs in ids or all manner of nonsense. Any lie repeated often enough becomes truth to those who want to believe. We each mold our beliefs as we choose and thereby create a mode and means of thinking which gives rise to our lives and how they transpire.

To paraphrase Cohen, "we are trapped into our suffering and our pleasures are the seal". We create our own prisons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you reject it. that was exactly my point that you reject cavemen being smarter and more knowledgeable than we are. You reject it despite having no evidence and your only reason being you assume that linear progress pertains.

I reject all insufficiently evidenced claims. That doesn't mean that I assert that they're wrong, just that I don't have a reason to believe they're correct. Skepticism for such claims keeps false and unfalsifiable ideas from becoming a part of one's mental map of how reality is and works.

I show actual evidence but you reject the evidence, the logic, and the conclusion based on nothing but language; old wives' tales inherent in modern languages.

Whatever evidence you think you've presented doesn't support your claims according to the rules of inference: "Rules of inference are logical tools used to derive conclusions from premises. They form the foundation of logical reasoning, allowing us to build arguments, prove theorems, and solve problems in mathematics, computer science, and philosophy."

Do you really believe it would be hard to teach a caveman to go when the light turned green or to order an Xray for a compound fracture?

No. Why did you ask that? I'm not calling cavemen stupid, just ignorant.

I've said many times that animals don't experience consciousness the same way we do

No need. That's obviously correct. They lack symbolic reasoning skills. I really can't imagine what my thoughts would be today if I didn't either. I'd still have sensory input, desires and emotions, but without words - it's hard to imagine what that would be like.

Perhaps my dreams are close. I seldom speak, hear, or think in words when dreaming.

And just because we've finally deciphered some small part of the bee's Waggle Dance hardly means we can communicate with bees.

Agreed. I don't know why you wanted to tell me that.

reductionistic science. Anyone who doesn't accept dogma is either a heretic or a religious zealot.

Science has no dogma: "A set of beliefs of an indisputable and obligatory nature" All scientific dicta are tentative and amenable to revision if new evidence suggest it needs to be.

practitioners rely on "evidence" and "consensus" while simply ignoring every experiment that contradicts their beliefs

I find relying on evidence properly evaluated according to rules of inference reliable. Likewise with the consensus of experts. And they and I have these opinions precisely because we AREN'T ignoring empirical data.

Many humans forfeit free will by not even accepting its existence.

What does that mean? I question the existence of libertarian free will, but if I have it, I have it.

"we are trapped into our suffering and our pleasures are the seal". We create our own prisons.

This is not how I experience life. You're posting to somebody who is content. My suffering is minimal and infrequent, and I have as much freedom and control of my life as I can use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My interpretation was, that the Dark matter example was good enough for you, that I grasped your concept of evidence correctly ………. If I am wrong then I am wrong ……….we can go back to the dark matter example a correct me if you think that I made a relevant mistake.

Yes, you never have been able to interpret very well. That shows when you mess up and try to apply what you misunderstood.

You still have not acknowledge your error.

 

[leroy]

Yes, you never have been able to interpret very well. That shows when you mess up and try to apply what you misunderstood.

You still have not acknowledge your error.

You still have not acknowledge your error.

Of course not, that is why I am asking……………………….what relevant mistake did I committed when interpreting your concept of evidence? How did the dark matter example failed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not, that is why I am asking……………………….what relevant mistake did I committed when interpreting your concept of evidence? How did the dark matter example failed?

I explained twice already. I am not doing so again.

 

[YoursTrue]

And I've said many times that animals don't experience consciousness the same way we do. Where I provide actual evidence for this derived from experiment you believe old wives' tales handed down with language acquisition. If we want to communicate with other species we have to teach them English first. This is because we are incapable of learning even the simplest languages. Yet other species can pick up rudimentary English.

And just because we've finally deciphered some small part of the bee's Waggle Dance hardly means we can communicate with bees. Their language is formatted metaphysically and we can't even imagine a metaphysical language. Even after I define it, identify the differences, and provide examples it is invisible to most people.

Old wives' tales underlie not only our every belief but also the definitions and axioms of reductionistic science. Anyone who doesn't accept dogma is either a heretic or a religious zealot. Despite the fact that science is supposed to be based solely on experiment and draw no conclusions practitioners rely on "evidence" and "consensus" while simply ignoring every experiment that contradicts their beliefs and discounting physical evidence like the cave markings.

When I leave my residence I see little lizards on the ground. And they are stationary. They don't move. But as I get closer they dart away. (I am glad about that...)

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes the test was the mathematical estimates provided my Roger Penrose.................................He calculated the probability of having low entropy at the big bang……………….given that the probability was so small this serves as evidence against “random chance did it” and in favor of “nonrandom mechanism” did it

Probability isn't definitive.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained twice already. I am not doing so again.

I'd love to see your explanation but maybe for the sake of others you can explain again. Or you can point to the post in which you did explain.

 

[leroy]

I explained twice already. I am not doing so again.

Ok, contact me whenever you what to have an honest conversation……………I honestly thought that the conversation was moving well.

I honestly would like honest feedback on why I failed to understand your concept of evidence in the DM example.

Your words in response to the DM example where “you are pretty close” that doesn’t sound like you where claiming that I was hopelessly wrong at many levels …………..so what changed?.............

I explained twice already. I am not doing so again.

I honeslty think you didnt.....................................you are wrong because I say so is not an explanation

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd love to see your explanation but maybe for the sake of others you can explain again. Or you can point to the post in which you did explain.

The explanations are still there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, contact me whenever you what to have an honest conversation……………I honestly thought that the conversation was moving well.

I honestly would like honest feedback on why I failed to understand your concept of evidence in the DM example.

Your words in response to the DM example where “you are pretty close” that doesn’t sound like you where claiming that I was hopelessly wrong at many levels …………..so what changed?.............


I honeslty think you didnt.....................................you are wrong because I say so is not an explanation

Please, part of having an honest conversation is admitting when you are wrong and you did not do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

The explanations are still there.

I knew you wouldn't do it. And I'm not clairvoyant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew you wouldn't do it. And I'm not clairvoyant.

No, you are wrong. I did do it. I did it twice. I cannot think for others. You have to try to think for yourselves. The explanations of what he did wrong are still there.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you are wrong. I did do it. I did it twice. I cannot think for others. You have to try to think for yourselves. The explanations of what he did wrong are still there.

I must have skipped it, sorry. And at this point I do not expect/hope/look forward to you at least providing the number of the post in question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must have skipped it, sorry. And at this point I do not expect/hope/look forward to you at least providing the number of the post in question.

You do that quite often. Almost everyone has pointed that out to you. If you can change how you post others would gladly help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do that quite often. Almost everyone has pointed that out to you. If you can change how you post others would gladly help you.

So in other words you can't or won't cite the post(s) you are referring to for observers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So in other words you can't or won't cite the post(s) you are referring to for observers.

There is no need. An honest person could check out my claims. What you and @leroy do not seem to understand is that one has to be an honest interlocutor to demand evidence. Far too often it looks as if both of you purposefully keep yourselves from understanding. When you do that no one wants to help you.

Just this once I will do your homework for you:

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

www.livescience.com

 

[gnostic]

In fact hypotheses are usually just one sentence long

no scientists in scientific communities and no peer-review publishers will accept a single line declaration (which is nothing more than a claim) as an entire hypothesis.

A 1-liner claim isn’t a hypothesis, as you are not explaining anything, not WHAT it is, and not HOW it work. Plus a hypothesis would require some PREDICTIONS, some expected criteria that tests (observations from experiments or from evidence, or from both) would meet.

Scientists would expect that each models (models in a hypothesis or in a theory) will have their own full explanations, accompanied with 1 or more predictions. A full explanation would be full of details.

Your 1-line claim, isn’t an explanation at all, hence it doesn’t qualify as being a hypothesis.

Charles Darwin wrote a whole book on Natural Selection with On the Origin of Species, followed by more books in the next couple of decades. These were his hypothesis on Natural Selection.

Likewise, Darwin’s contemporary, Gregor Mendel wrote paper on the Law of Inheritance (often called the Mendelian Inheritance), which formed the basis of modern genetics. His paper, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), included his test results from experiments from garden at St Thomas’ Abbey ( yes, Abbey, as he was a Augustinian friar at that time), Brno, Moravia, a city in what is now the Czech Republic.

This paper was submitted to the Natural History Society of Brno, 1865, but published in 1866. Unfortunately it didn’t gain much attention from many scientists, so even when he presented his works at lectures, it wasn’t appreciated, nor understood by his fellow-biologists. Darwin wasn’t aware of his paper.

Eventually, Mendel gave up all scientific pursuits and researches, when he became the new Abbot at this Abbey, and his work were lost and forgotten, until it was rediscovered in 1900 by several biologists, that recognised Mendel’s astute insight on genetics.

Mendel’s hypothesis wasn’t a one-liner claim.

The works of Michael Faraday and of James Clerk Maxwell weren’t 1-liner hypotheses on electromagnetism. Albert Einstein wrote 4 papers on 4 different subjects - Brownian Motion, Photoelectric Effect, Special Relativity & the Mass-Energy Equivalence - that he submitted together in 1905...and none of these 4 papers were 1-sentence long. A decade later (1915), he submitted his paper on General Relativity, which became the new model on gravitation, also wasn’t a 1-sentence paper.

You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Leroy, if you think 1-liner claim is a hypothesis.

If you were to submit a 1-line sentence as a hypothesis to some peer-reviewed journal publishers, they wouldn’t bother to send it to any independent scientist to review your work…they wouldn’t even bother to send you a rejection letter, because you have wasted their times, as it is not even worth a stamp and envelope to return your paper back to you. Your so-called hypothesis would have just end up in a trash bin.

You really are absurd, as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.


It is apparent they understood it just as they knew about germs. They said what they knew but we ignore it;

1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

We decided they were stinky footed bumkins because we decided the Bible writers were ignorant and believed rain came from a firmament above. We never considered that the Bible writers confused ancient knowledge OR that there is no such thing as linear progress. By the same token it would never occur to us that Darwin flushed the toilet that homo omnisciencis is now spiraling downward within because we've been killing in his name for over a century while ignoring all forms of common sense.

We don't get to decide reality. Not even experiment can decide reality. Reality was decided long before our species existed and is still being decided based on forces and processes we hardly begin to fathom. Our job isn't to understand reality because we never will: It is to understand experiment and the current paradigms have all FAILED utterly to do so. We can't even explain how the hydrologic cycle was understood many thousands of years before the Bible and why Egyptologists never noticed the characteristics of a language they claim is gobbledty gook!!!

Every belief that has been handed down to us through confused language (every belief) is wrong and these beliefs underlie modern science, its definitions, and its axioms. They underlie Darwin because he believed in linear progress. Beliefs provide fear and ego whether that means eternal damnation or the certainty that we are masters of reality. Whether we believe in salvation or annihilation at the hands of others it is a form of hubris that makes us close our eyes to the reality before us.

You are fearful of losing your faith in linear progress so you parse my words wrong and call them irrelevancies. The reality is your premises are wrong so you attack the messenger rather than deal with the message.

The message doesn't make any sense or have any evidence. Just as it didn't the first time it was delivered.