Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Excuse me, but how do you determine what is reliable and what isn’t reliable?

You have only made some more assumptions, nothing to do with what is reliable.

Testimony being well informed, are actually dependent on relevant experiences.

Ok. Let‘s pick a person, and see just how how well informed that person is.

Say, Kent Hovind for an example.

Hovind have for years been trying to rid of the theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology. On what basis does that make him well informed, and therefore authoritative on the subject?

If you looked at his education background, none of them involved science, let alone biology. All his qualifications were about religion, including music, eg master in sacred music. None of them in biology or any biology-related field, like applied science in medicine.

And if you look at his work history, he has never worked at any capacity as a biologist of any type. All he has done was worked as teacher, teaching religious education, or being a preacher.

So nothing in qualifications or experiences make he qualified to speak about Evolution, so hence, none of these would make him well informed on the subject of biology. That would make him unreliable.

Even Answers in Genesis, even rejected him for continuing to used arguments that have already been debunked and discredited…and AiG is creationism organisation.

If Hovind just stick with subject of theology, then sure he might be well informed, but he is out of his depth, when he started to dealt into areas of biology or cosmology. Or that of any other sciences.

Actually, you are more like Hovind, talking about things that you don’t understand.

You are not well informed, nor reliable, as you believe yourself to be. You are like a reflection of Hovind.

Patriot Bible University, Kent Hovind's alma mater,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do have to sleep, mikkel, and it was late last night. You should realize that we might live in different time zones.

Social Science is a broad classification that other sciences fall under, like Natural Sciences is umbrella classification for different sciences which study different aspect of natural phenomena (eg physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, astronomy) along with their respective fields and subfields.

With Social Sciences, is any science that study the societies of humans, and their social interactions with each other.

These sciences in social sciences would include the following:

​

human activities:​

• Archaeology.
• History.
• Linguistics.
• Political Science.
• Law.
• Ethics.
• Economics.
• Demography.
• Management.

human cultures:​

• Sociology.
• Cultural Studies.
• Anthropology.
• Human Geography…or just Geography.
• Archaeology.

human behaviours:​

• Behavioural Science.
• Psychology.
• Psychiatry.

There are actually lot more different sciences in Social Sciences, but these are the ones I can remember right now, as I just awoke up feeling disoriented.

if you have noticed, I mentioned “archaeology”, twice, as this and some other sciences may covered more areas.

Anyway, the science of morals, is called Ethics. If you wanted to study morals at university or college, you would enrol in a subject or course in Ethics. Don’t ask me what teachers teach in Ethics, as I wouldn’t know.

Thanks.
In a sense you acknowledge, that you didn't answer, because you didn't explain what is taught in ethics is descriptive and/or perscriptive/normative.

So the question still stands - can science as a methodology do ethics? Or in everyday words tell what is right/wrong and good/bad?

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks.
In a sense you acknowledge, that you didn't answer, because you didn't explain what is taught in ethics is descriptive and/or perscriptive/normative.

So the question still stands - can science as a methodology do ethics? Or in everyday words tell what is right/wrong and good/bad?

I am thinking--I do not recall Freud or Jung talk about morals. The psychiatrists I have known also do not talk about morals. Most of the psychiatrists just give pills to their patients after they say, "OK, time's up, see you next week."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am thinking--I do not recall Freud or Jung talk about morals. The psychiatrists I have known also do not talk about morals. Most of the psychiatrists just give pills to their patients after they say, "OK, time's up, see you next week."

Well, that is not all of social sciences. And in effect some of it is not as much about right or wrong as much as what is a good or bad life. And what science has to say about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please do not make false claims about others. I have good answers. You are suffering under self imposed ignorance. I cannot force you to understand. Once again, if I was the only one that failed then I might be the one that was a "bad teacher". But almost everyone that has interacted with you has said the same thing. At that point it is rather obvious that the flaw is not with everyone that tries to answer your questions for you. The odds are huge that it is you.

To recap, you said that scientists say that telomeres kind of popped up a long time after abiogenesis. So what's to stop them from descending into the earth and "popping up" again? Maybe yours...or maybe these telomeres just can belong to anybody and transfer from dirt to dirt. Take care...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To recap, you said that scientists say that telomeres kind of popped up a long time after abiogenesis. So what's to stop them from descending into the earth and "popping up" again? Maybe yours...or maybe these telomeres just can belong to anybody and transfer from dirt to dirt. Take care...

How do you know anything about the past or the furture as your argument in part rests on, since you in effect deny that we can know anything but the present.
Stop making any argument that involves the past or present as it is unknowable according to you.

 

[cladking]

No argument there. I really don't understand much of what you're claiming, and that much of that which I can understand seems wrong to me.

"I think therefore I am" is both false and a circular argument. Science is based on old wives tales handed down from the confusion that arose with the dust from the tower of babel. We see what doesn't exist. It is illogical to decide ex post facto which individuals are fit and which are not. It is illogical to spend centuries building on a shaky foundation. It's mostly the soft sciences but they all need to get their foundations inspected.

I don't think I'll ever understand what you mean by consciousness. Or sudden. Or metaphysical.

"Metaphysical" means "of or relating to the basis of science". This includes the old wives tales as well as definitions, axioms, and experiment. "Consciousness is a gift bestowed by some means or process on every single living individual. It is pattern recognition and it provides free will which is the chief means by which any individual survives. "Sudden" is self explanatory and is the only way any life or species changes. In reality it's a brief as an instant and as long as two or three generations.

You could just memorize these definitions and what I'm saying would be much clearer to you.

I just refuted that in the post above this one.

It is unrefutable. It is a general widespread observation. If you ask an amoral person why he does not have morals he'll tell you it's a dog eat dog world where only the fit survive. Sound familiar?

If it were untrue then I would be wrong about every single thing I believe because I believe reality is as it appears to people and everyone makes sense. If you start with false premises you'll end up at wrong answers because we ALL REASON IN CIRCLES.

Every human has different beliefs and a different language. Every human operates on his beliefs. Of course there are exceptions to every rule about what humans do, say, and believe. We each reason back to our premises but we don't even share the way we think and reason. You rely chiefly on induction and I can't induce and prefer to deduce. But I still end up reasoning in circles just like everyone. This results from the operation of the brain with symbolic language. In order to communicate and reproduce we have no choice but to reason in circles. Only homo omnisciencis is like this and we have existed for 4000 years.

I don't consider that religion a moral exemplar. I don't take my moral values from there.

I don't either.

I try to have my own moral code which is leave the world a better place and have fun. Lying cheating and stealing is not conducive to leaving the world better off than we found it.

To each his own but those whose only moral code is "greed is good" have destroyed much of the world in their clamor to take everything from the meek. Most such individuals believe ibn Darwin and science as well as their right to purchase science and senators to get what they want.

 

[cladking]

...but the history of mankind and civilization are one of progress in many areas,...

You are simply assuming ancient people were ignorant, stupid, stinky footed bumpkins despite the enormous amount of evidence I've presented that shows otherwise. Meanwhile all this physical evidence and logic has to surmount are tired old chestnuts like "they mustta used ramps"!!! How can I compete with that or "only the fit reproduce the most". This is what the priests of science repeat ad nauseum. It takes in the masses because they are tired old cliches that seem to answer every question and are easy to remember. It's what the amoral most fit want us to believe. How better to keep people in line than to remind them that they have the fruits of science and don't have to drag stones all their lives to make a tomb for a dead king? We all have it great so shut up and do what you're told before you are forced. So we end up in a world where most of the wealth, human potential, and many lives are wasted. We end up in a world where few are happy and must scrape to make ends meet. Meanwhile the leaders believe there are too many deplorables in fly over country and longevity is crashing everywhere.

If you were correct about history you could explain why it didn't even begin until 1000 years after the invention of the means to create it, writing. You could explain why the earliest history all suggests earlier people lived in a golden age where every man was involved and each pulled together. You could explain why they said there was a common universal language and even cave markings are the same all over the world. You could explain why these symbols, ancient words, and Ancient Language can't be understood by anthropologists or those who invented "they mustta used ramps. You could explain all the evidence my theory does like how bumpkins invented agriculture without Darwinian theory.

You could explain the damn facts but you can't because there is no such thing as linear progress anywhere in anything. There are only cycles and processes and all things all processes undergo even mode change like what you call "Evolution". "Progress" tends to be either random or the result of free will like "the Constitution". It NEVER lasts because eventually all parts undergo too much change and something new arises that is not "progress" but some kind of regress or it's so different you have to start over with a new symbol like the symbol "homo omnisciencis". We aren't necessarily better or worse than homo sapiens but we are very very different. And there is still no linear progress.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science is based on old wives tales handed down from the confusion that arose with the dust from the tower of babel. We see what doesn't exist.

You probably already know that I disagree. Science is based on skepticism and empiricism, that is, that knowledge about how nature works is acquired through observation and experience. A few other words pop up in the philosophy of science such a falsifiability and reproducibility.

"Metaphysical" means "of or relating to the basis of science"

Didn't you just say that the basis of science is old wives' tales? how do these two relate? Is metaphysics synonymous with old wives' tales. It seems so.

It is illogical to decide ex post facto which individuals are fit and which are not.

We don't decide. Nature selects. The winners are called the fittest.

Consciousness is a gift bestowed by some means or process on every single living individual.

OK. The word means something else to me. Only animals are conscious, and not necessarily all of them.

"Sudden" is self explanatory and is the only way any life or species changes. In reality it's a brief as an instant and as long as two or three generations.

So sudden for you can mean occurring in an instant or over the duration of multiple generations. You once called the collision of galaxies sudden (source)

You could just memorize these definitions and what I'm saying would be much clearer to you.

I don't think that memorizing your definitions will make your thoughts using those words any clearer.

It is unrefutable.

Your claim was, "Lack of morality goes hand in hand with scientism."

Yet I refuted it. What people are calling scientism does not preclude being moral. Nor having an esthetic sense. Nor being spiritual. In fact, I would argue that knowledge of nature facilitates a spiritual mindset, by which I mean a pleasant sense of connection to and of belonging in the world - not a belief in spirits.

If you find fault in my refutation and want to change my mind, you'll need to identify what you consider incorrect and demonstrate that it is.

You and @PureX have used that word scientism to describe me. Does that make me amoral or immoral in your estimation? If not, how do you reconcile the existence of a conscience and moral inclinations with knowledge of science given your comment above?

If it were untrue then I would be wrong about every single thing I believe because I believe reality is as it appears to people and everyone makes sense. If you start with false premises you'll end up at wrong answers because we ALL REASON IN CIRCLES.

I don't see how that follows. I think you need to argue why an empirical epistemology leads to a lack of morals.

To each his own but those whose only moral code is "greed is good" have destroyed much of the world in their clamor to take everything from the meek. Most such individuals believe ibn Darwin and science as well as their right to purchase science and senators to get what they want.

Sorry, but you need to make the case that most greedy people believe the theory of evolution, assuming that that is what your words mean.

You are simply assuming ancient people were ignorant, stupid, stinky footed bumpkins

I am assuming that they knew less about how the world works than we do.

If you were correct about history you could explain why it didn't even begin until 1000 years after the invention of the means to create it, writing.

History began with the big bang, so you must mean recorded human history. The invention of writing would be a fine example of the progress you seem to think hasn't occurred all throughout human history, beginning with making stone tools and cooking with fire.

You could explain why the earliest history all suggests earlier people lived in a golden age where every man was involved and each pulled together.

There was no golden age.

The reason the Garden myth was written in my opinion was to account for the disparity between a hard life and the belief in a god that loved them that could have them living in paradise, or as you called it, a golden age. The myth explains why life was so hard, why people died, why women suffered in childbirth, why there was so much death from disease and accidents. It was attributed to human disobedience and was considered a punishment.

You could explain the damn facts but you can't because there is no such thing as linear progress anywhere in anything.

Except there is. I've seen it in my own lifetime. I've progressed myself from prelinguistic and nonambulatory to an adult who can walk, talk, and even do more.

the Magna Carta

That was progress. It was the beginning of the end of absolute power for the king culminating eventually in modern monarchies and democracies.

 

[cladking]

It NEVER lasts because eventually all parts undergo too much change and something new arises that is not "progress" but some kind of regress or it's so different you have to start over with a new symbol like the symbol "homo omnisciencis". We aren't necessarily better or worse than homo sapiens but we are very very different. And there is still no linear progress.

^The irony here is that most progress last less than a single individual's life time. So can go on longer such as that provided by the Magna Carta or the cooperation of nation states such as Britain and the US.

One of the longest progresses was the progress of ancient science for 40,000 years. This was human progress call "thot" by the Egyptians and no doubt had anatomical repercussions in the genome caused by Darwinian "survival of the fittest". Of course this would all amount to precious little change since there is precious little difference between a troglodyte and a pyramid builder anatomically. Like all real change it came suddenly when the operating system of humans (Ancient Language) became so complex too few understood it for the operation of the nation states.

While Darwin couldn't have been more wrong the fact is that any reasonable argument based in fact will have some correlation to reality. In this case the correlation is incidental.

 

[cladking]

You probably already know that I disagree. Science is based on skepticism and empiricism,...

It is impossible for anyone to be skeptical about the obvious. Things like the belief in linear progress is obvious to almost everyone and is passed down through language during its acquisition. It is fundamental to homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. It is in error.

 

[cladking]

Didn't you just say that the basis of science is old wives' tales?

NO!!!!

I said that science is a methodology and the basis of this methodology is called "metaphysics". It is unfortunate that old wives' tales are included in the definitions and foundational beliefs that gave rise to the methodology.

Science absolutely requires experiment to test hypotheses and it is the sole means of excluding the effects of individual beliefs in the practice of science. However every experiment and theory is still dependent on the axioms, definitions, and old wives' tales that underlie it. Everything in science must be defined even before it is studied; reduced to experiment. Nothing our species does can be wholly independent of the beliefs of the experimenter or thinker. Even when we think outside the box we take our brain and symbolic language with us.

Experiment underlies science and this is called "metaphysics" but definitions, axioms, theory, and old wives tales underlie paradigms and models created by experiment.

The problem isn't in science it is in the observer. Observation and experiment are science so anything that impacts the observer impacts scientific results and models.

 

[cladking]

We don't decide. Nature selects. The winners are called the fittest.

Who decided that it's OK to declare the fittest based on unknowns like which individuals will reproduce the most? Who decided that you can study species and ignore individuals? Who decided that we don't even need a definition for "consciousness" to study how "species" change? Who decided that the "fossil record" contains a clear path of subtle changes leading to a new species? Who decided that each fossil was just like every member of its species based on the way deposition occurred in its bones to create it? Who decided that experiment was not required to show gradual change?

Who decided to ignore the facts that ancient people and even insects invented agriculture? Who decided that even though we see only sudden change in life and in species that "Evolution" must be as gradual as geologic change?

If your definitions and assumptions are wrong you will end up at the wrong answer virtually every single time.

 

[PureX]

You and @PureX have used that word scientism to describe me. Does that make me amoral or immoral in your estimation? If not, how do you reconcile the existence of a conscience and moral inclinations with knowledge of science given your comment above?

So far what I am seeing is that you are very confused. On the one hand you talk about all this moral humanism, and on the other you talk as if only science can possibly discern reality and truth, while science couldn't care less about moral humanism.

I don't see how that follows. I think you need to argue why an empirical epistemology leads to a lack of morals.

By itself, it doesn't. But when it's combined with philosophical materialism, and the worship of science as the source of all truth and understanding, it's hard to see how it wouldn't become amoral. Especially when instead of being skeptical, as your sacred science would dictate, you are dogmatically defensive. and so are the other scientism cultists on here. Seems they are skeptical only of any view that dares to contradict their own. If I were a scientist, I would see that as an observation needing investigation. But not so the scientism cultists.

 

[cladking]

OK. The word means something else to me. Only animals are conscious, and not necessarily all of them.

I once saw a butterfly use my bonfire as an elevator to the tree tops to begin its annual migration. At least it was the right time of year and I know no other reason it would head up high.

I've watched as individual flies learn to flee a swatter or land under furniture.

I see yew trees that release pollen not based on the violence caused by the wind but rather on wind direction.

You can throw acorn shaped objects that often land on their ends but acorns usually land in the orientation they use to grow an oak tree.

All through nature you can see the exercise of free will. Perhaps I'm exaggerating the nature of acorns a little but I believe a well crafted experiment might show it. I do far too many experiments to be bogged down with a single incidental one. I simply don't care exactly how conscious an acorn is and how much it can affect reality. I'm sure its consciousness is highly limited and even a squirrel sometimes can't tell a bad acorn from a living one and they are the experts. All we can do is plant them and pronounce the ones that grow into mighty oaks the fittest.

 

[firedragon]

In sciences, evidence are used to test any model, in order to mitigate any human biases, lies, embellishments, etc, because testimonies are considered unreliable.

Science carries a fundamental bias. Naturalism as an axiom.

 

[ppp]

Science carries a fundamental bias. Naturalism as an axiom.

There is nothing about science that asserts that the natural is all that can exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What we know is that he dislikes both atheists and critically thinking empiricists who reject his implication that they are myopic, and that he sees further using his special way of knowing.

I think it falls under the umbrella of 'if you are not with me, you are against me'. Milk for the ego is what I see. Pet ideas held in such fragile esteem and, as you say, gathered by some special means of knowing. Even Christians like me are not allowed to accept science.

These are different things in my estimation and represents his solution to two separate problems. I've speculated with him a few times in the past as to what those were, but he has repeatedly declined to discuss it, so I'm assuming that I hit a little too close to home for his comfort.

Maybe, but doing good for others wasn't my only purpose in choosing clinical medicine. I liked the human interaction, and didn't like the research experience I had as an undergrad. Those labs taught me what the cubicles in the Army taught me about the kind of work I DIDN'T want to do.

I also liked the instant and automatic respect, as well as being self-employed.

There was another big benefit. The good income allowed us to travel the world, eat out every night, perform musically at no charge, which made us welcome everywhere and allowed us to play what we liked, and then retire early and comfortably.

I don't. I told you already that though I have many beliefs, I believe in nothing.

All fallacious thinking is undesirable.

Fallacious thinking is what I see. A claim at the beginning of a paragraph that is contradicted by the end of the same paragraph and all held up as revealed truth gathered, yet again, by some mysterious means of knowing.

Why did you want to tell me that in response to my comment, "Like I said, my ways work for me." Is that what you are calling circular reasoning? It's not even an argument, so how can there be a fallacy there? We can make it an argument by adding the rest: "... therefore, I have no incentive to change those ways." I still don't see circularity or any other logical fallacy there.

Our refrigerator-freezer came from Tio Sam's. It's about fifteen years old now and going strong. It's a Maytag that looks like the Sub-Zero we used to have, that is, very wide with double doors on the top and a pull-out freezer below.

I've got one like that except there is a special refrigerated drawer between the double doors and the slide out freezer compartment. It's a handy way to store and retrieve frequently used items without having to open the double doors as often.

It's not revealed truth and it isn't sudden by the common definition or any secret one I might have, but it works for me.

Why would our chicken be contaminated with Chinese chemicals or water? Because we live in Mexico?

It's probably that cheap, bulk agar that somehow, magically and inexplicably, refutes the Lenski Experiment.

Probably the same way you do. One thing about this lifestyle is the it is village life, and what's not withing walking distance is less than a five mile drive. Our car is a year 2000 model with under 80,000 miles on it. A tank of gas is good for about 3-4 months. Our carbon footprint is less than zero, since we burn so little gas, use propane only for the range top and outdoor grill (water is heated from the roof and the sun. Since we put up twelve panels when eight would do the trick, we send the local utility a lot of free power that they sell to other customers without having to burn fossil fuels to generate it.

I don't avoid paying taxes, and I pay them gladly.

You have a strange idea of how we live here.

Among many other ideas that I find strange.

Disagree. Right now, a lot of Americans want to change their country into a dictatorship run by a strongman.

And I have no idea why except that they must think that it will be their 'kind' that benefits and retains power in perpetuity.

Kind of interesting how some of these discussions end up being debates with people that have the same mindset in my opinion. Just different views.

Disagree again. We left the States because we considered the move to be an improvement in our lives, and it was. While it's still a better country to live in for the first two stages of life - education and career - America has nothing to offer retired people

You keep saying we. Are you on such a road? I'm not.

Are you happy? Are you safe? Are you free from privation? Do you have freedom? Do you do things you like to do?

If so, why so much negativity about the world? I'm aware that many live terrible lives and that many have few of those things, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that many do, nor does it prevent me from feeling grateful that my life was and is better.

MAGA all seem to be miserable people what with them being fed an endless litany of lies and grievances and them accepting them uncritically, but you're not that, are you?

Jehovah's Witnesses also seem to have a similarly bleak outlook on reality but aren't as angry as MAGAs. Are you from that camp?

If neither, who taught you to think like that?

That is a very interesting set of questions and comparisons, but I am growing increasingly less confident that there will be any sort of reasonable answer that is direct and on point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No argument there. I really don't understand much of what you're claiming, and that much of that which I can understand seems wrong to me.

I don't think I'll ever understand what you mean by consciousness. Or sudden. Or metaphysical.

I just refuted that in the post above this one.

I don't consider that religion a moral exemplar. I don't take my moral values from there.

Not always in the short term, but the history of mankind and civilization are one of progress in many areas, most notably in knowledge (what many call science) and moral theory. I just addressed that with you in another recent post.

What you call scientism I call empiricism and the idea that it alone is the path to knowledge about reality, although you might have a definition of knowledge that includes intuitions and faith-based beliefs. Mine doesn't.

My existence refutes acceptance of science going hand in hand with amorality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Patriot Bible University, Kent Hovind's alma mater,

Ah, I remember well those hallowed halls of academia. The Old Mill.