Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

What is believing in 40,000 year old science or language without any evidence of it?

Just like everything else I've said there is ample evidence. This is the only possible answer to explain every experiment and known fact. The best single piece of evidence is the fact that humans suddenly began acting human 40,000 years ago and obviously had a universal language as evidenced by the same markings being found in caves all over the world.

The alternative in magic, miracles, and survival of the fittest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like everything else I've said there is ample evidence.

And yet you do not demonstrate this language, show that it existed 40,000 years ago or do anything to convince anyone that this notion is more than just your personal wishful thinking.

This is the only possible answer to explain every experiment and known fact.

So nothing then.

The best single piece of evidence is the fact that humans suddenly began acting human 40,000 years ago

Another thing you provide no evidence to demonstrate.

and obviously had a universal language

Speculation based on no evidence ever offered.

as evidenced by the same markings being found in caves all over the world.

Marking may indicate a language, but are not demonstrated to be a language. It could be the markings are just symbols that some groups of humans liked and others copied.

The alternative in magic, miracles, and survival of the fittest.

Like much of what you post, I can't find any sense in this statement. Did you mean "is" and not "in"?

Because the alternative to your claims is knowledge, study, research and actual evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like everything else I've said there is ample evidence. This is the only possible answer to explain every experiment and known fact. The best single piece of evidence is the fact that humans suddenly began acting human 40,000 years ago and obviously had a universal language as evidenced by the same markings being found in caves all over the world.

The alternative in magic, miracles, and survival of the fittest.

There may be evidence for the things you claim, but you never really provide any. Repeating claims is not evidence for the claims.

I've seen lots of people ask you repeatedly for evidence and never seen you provide any. I don't even expect it anymore.

Cheap Chinese agar and and a graphic representation of some symbols found on caves constitute the only attempts at providing evidence I can recall and neither of those was evidence that supported or explained your claims.

I can't recall seeing anything you speak of as fact that you have established to be a fact.

 

[Pogo]

So what does one apple plus one orange, plus one idea equal?

There can never be any possible answer that lists the specific characteristics of any of the fruit or idea. Your answer is by definition meaningless as is the answer to what is one apple plus one apple plus one apple because each of the three apples is unique.

Well so much for any mathematical terms in common with anyone else. things that we call quantities are obviously meaningless like 40,000 years because no two years are identical even in length let alone in make up. Talk about epistemic nihilism, lol,.

You may think you have a logical structure to your ideas, but you keep shooting yourself down.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't believe much of anything.

Except that you don't believe much of anything. And much more.

I find it to be mostly an egocentric waste of time.

Egocentric waste of time? I've spent decades curating my belief set in an effort to accumulate knowledge about how the world works including how to function in it. And maybe it was all just luck, but I got to where I wanted to be - hardly a waste of time.

Nor do I care much if I'm "right" or not.

That's unfortunate.

I ran to the store because I intuitively determined that that was then next thing for me to do.

I don't BELIEVE that. You ran into the store because you BELIEVED that there are items there that you BELIEVED you wanted because you BELIEVED that they would facilitate you achieving your immediate goal. All of that was based in empirical knowledge acquired from prior experience. Your choices were deductions based in applying inductions to specific situations. For example, you've enjoyed chocolate ice cream several times, and your induction is, "Chocolate ice cream tastes good to me." You arrive at a store and realize that you can buy some right now. sing that generalization, and deduce the specific conclusion, "This is going to be good."

"The Earth is flat" is demonstrably correct given a specific information set and practical objective.

No, it's not demonstrably correct. All you can say is that wherever you're standing seems flat more or less, and it does, and that error might be a close enough approximation that it works for you most of the time, but that does not make the earth flat.

Most humans do not expend so much time and energy worrying about the correctness of what's happening in their brains.

I know, but many that I know do, especially other physicians and bridge players.

we ARE ALL biased

That's a good think if the biases are rational, but not so good when irrational. Knowledge is rational bias. Preferring that chocolate ice cream to a flavor that you haven't liked in the past as well is a rational bias. You might want to reconsider ... never mind. You don't have beliefs or care about being correct. Carry on.

"New math" is as irrelevant as "old math"

I'll bet banking and doing taxes is a nightmare around your home.

It's always the same thing ... "Come stand before me in my kangaroo court so I MAY JUDGE THEE AND DISMISS THY "EVIDENCE"!!!

That's what trained, analytical minds do well. Besides evaluating evidence, they evaluate the claims and arguments of others. And if they do it faithfully according to the laws of inference (reason/logic), they can arrive at ideas that are demonstrably correct and can be used to anticipate outcomes, like the experience of eating chocolate ice cream - what I call knowledge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you ever use a real dictionary?

That's the only kind I use.

I almost never have used the word to mean what you say it means to you. Doesn't this disturb you in the least?

No. Why would it? What disturbs be is to see you struggle to be understood. I would love to help you there and have tried often, but with no success.

I say one thing and you hear something else!

Often, I hear nothing at all except word salad. When you say consciousness or metaphysics, I still don't know what you mean. You can't mean what I mean when I use those words. For example, you wrote, "You are trying to reduce logic incarnate without even so much as defining it and then denying it to everything except the human brain for which you have quite obviously put the cart before the horse." I don't know what that means. You seldom write in plain, unambiguous language, while frequently saying that no such thing exists, yet I'll bet you understand what I'm saying here.

the FIRST definition of "metaphysics" is the one I mean; a way of knowing without reasoning or doing the calculations

It seems you've changed your definition, but maybe not to you.

you don't get to define how other people use words

Agreed. I'm telling you how I use them - what they mean when I write or speak them.

If I say "metaphysics" is the basis of science that becomes the only possible definition in THAT sentence.

OK, but if you were trying to tell me something, it didn't come through. Most scientists are uninterested in metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy, not science.

I've said all living things are conscious.

Yes, I remember, and I said that there was no evidence of consciousness outside of the animal kingdom if you mean by that word what I and most people mean.

I've shown several times now that "reason" is what we believe and that "evidence" is confirmation of what we believe.

You've not shown that to me. You must know I disagree. I've defined both of the words you placed in quotes.

 

[Jimmy]

Gorillaville would make a nice name for the silverback section at the zoo.

 

[cladking]

You can't mean what I mean when I use those words.

"Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

You could just memorize this so you don't have to get out the unabridged every time I use it.

 

[cladking]

Most scientists are uninterested in metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy,

"Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

You could just memorize this so you don't have to get out the unabridged every time I use it.

 

[cladking]

While you're working on remembering the first definition of metaphysics and intuition you might try remembering that I've defined consciousness numerous times and it is always ignored.

I've defined it in such a way as to make every experiment meaningful in terms of consciousness. This is the nature of good definitions; they enlighten rather than obfuscate.

 

[cladking]

While you're working on remembering the first definition of metaphysics and intuition you might try remembering that I've defined consciousness numerous times and it is always ignored.

I suspect it is ignored because believers in Science see it as a means to shoehorn the concept of a Creator into a reality they already understand utterly. But the definition neither includes nor excludes the possibility of any Creator(s).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While you're working on remembering the first definition of metaphysics and intuition you might try remembering that I've defined consciousness numerous times and it is always ignored.

You have? Perhaps it is invisible. That seems to be your usual reason that everyone misses what you don't ever seem to have provided. Or it was some useless definition based on personal, secret meaning that is never fully or often even remotely divulged.

Let me guess, consciousness is life. That isn't a definition. It's a claim.

I've defined it in such a way as to make every experiment meaningful in terms of consciousness.

Again, really?

This is the nature of good definitions; they enlighten rather than obfuscate.

They should. But I always find your efforts come off as diversionary and obfuscating. Your definitions often end up to be nothing more than unsupported claims repeated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suspect it is ignored because believers in Science see it as a means to shoehorn the concept of a Creator into a reality they already understand utterly.

I suspect that anyone that recognizes unsupported claims and presses for that missing support is labeled a believer in science. I think there is more than enough evidence to support that conclusion.

But the definition neither includes nor excludes the possibility of any Creator(s).

Definitions that are just claims don't do that or much else.

Consciousness is life doesn't tell me anything except what you believe.

Ancient science doesn't tell me anything except what you believe.

Adult scarabs killed by cars teaching their offspring that live in soil and never encounter cars there how to avoid cars doesn't explain anything except that you come to conclusions on very incomplete information and what you want the conclusion to be.

 

[cladking]

It is axiomatic that life is consciousness and consciousness life. It is axiomatic that consciousness is a gift bestowed on every individual so that they can survive and prosper. "Consciousness" is free will, pattern recognition, and memory that serves to in real time process sensory and other input in a logical way such that the individual can respond such as to maximize its chances of success. Consciousness is not "awareness" as homo omnisciencis thinks of it but is rather a one to one correspondence between the individual and reality: Reality is modeled in the mind so that the individual can act accordingly based on experience and knowledge. As such it is the primary driver of individuals and species. It is the largest driver of survivability.

The wiring of the brain is logical and reflects the logic that is reality itself. This wiring also creates a metaphysical language in species which must communicate to reproduce. Just as the brain reflects reality this language reflects the brain.

I could go on and on but not one believer in science will even note that I have addressed this again for God knows how many times. This is my definition where science has none. There are many characteristics and features of consciousness and they must be deduced from experiment and observation. Not observation of humans because we are like sleep walkers.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness is not "awareness" as homo omnisciencis thinks of it but is rather a one to one correspondence between the individual and reality: Reality is modeled in the mind so that the individual can act accordingly based on experience and knowledge.

It is important to note that consciousness occurs in real time but that the individual can observe not only from the here and now but can project from other perspectives in time and space. A fox will not rush into a forest fire to nab a tasty rabbit because it can project the fire's growth in time. This is not "awareness" as we think of it. It is pattern recognition and experience. Just as the medulla blocks input from other consciousness within the body consciousness blocks the perception of "self" in terms we would recognize. An animal knows it's a moving platform because it needs to know but it's not contemplating the means by which it came into existence and lacks the tools (language) to build on the work of past greats who had worked on the same question. It is completely aware of its body and surroundings but does not take anything for granted: It can see only what it knows and experienced before. If a bird chances upon an unfamiliar species of tree it can see only those parts needed to navigate its branches. It can not generalize it as a "tree". Natural languages have no abstractions just like Ancient Language had no abstractions because logic can not exist with abstraction.

The ramification of these definitions are profound and widespread but this doesn't mean they aren't the best possible definitions for studying everything from astronomy to cosmology to zoology.

 

[PureX]

This is certainly not true of all or even most atheists, but most of the atheists that post on this site are very much 'true believers' in the righteousness of their atheist beliefs. Namely, that all theists are wrong. That theism is wrong. And that no gods exist.

They will all deny this, of course, but every time they post they will continue to assert these beliefs without any willingness to doubt or question them. Because they are true believers in the righteousness of their atheist ideology. And as we all know, true believers are locked into their beliefs. Right or wrong, they are steadfast.

 

[cladking]

This is certainly not true of all or even most atheists, but most of the atheists that post on this site are very much 'true believers' in the righteousness of their atheist beliefs. Namely, that all theists are wrong. That theism is wrong. And that no gods exist.

They will all deny this, of course, but every time they post they will continue to assert these beliefs without any willingness to doubt or question them. Because they are true believers in the righteousness of their atheist ideology. And as we all know, true believers are locked into their beliefs. Right or wrong, they are steadfast.

I concur.

I think there are two reasons they reject my definitions and facts and they are both related to your point. One is I know no other way to describe how consciousness arises other than to call it a gift. As surely as human parents bestow life on a baby some thing or some process bestows consciousness on all living things. Just as all change in life is sudden so too is consciousness. It blinks in and out of existence.

Of course believers in Science can't tolerate the idea that every 19th century scientist was wrong and that all work based on their premises is wrong. The concept offends their sensibilities. Then to rub salt in the wound is the fact that the one making these claims is an uneducated laborer who isn't qualified to clean up the conference room used by Peers. He might leave it a shambles with one of the wastebaskets still containing a clean trash bag with a single gum wrapper in it!!!

With the world spinning down the toilet created by Darwin et al we certainly don't need any sort of fundamental change. So they double down on believing in the omniscience and efficacy of Science.

 

[cladking]

He might leave it a shambles with one of the wastebaskets still containing a clean trash bag with a single gum wrapper in it!!!

Never mind that the trashcan under the clean bag had never been cleaned in 30 years and sported all the spills, filth, and aromas of every liquid ever dumped in a waste receptacle. What's offensive is the clean trash bag and the gum wrapper which might cause disease or covid 19 to the unvaccinated. Never mind that the conference room is so dirty that ants parade in and out carrying the spoils of some ancient lunch. Never mind it stinks because the only thing that matters to those who know everything is that the wastebaskets get dumped every night whether they are used or not.

 

[cladking]

It's funny how people get used to stinks. Of course they smell something that's powerful and they quit noticing after a little while but even places like conference or hospital rooms grow a stink over time when they aren't properly cleaned. You just don't notice it because you think hospital rooms smell that way for some other reason. Then after it is cleaned properly everyone familiar with the smell will say they don't know what's different but it smells "clean".

Just like cleaning the ice cream machine in the ice cream parlor won't really be noticed by anyone but then sales suddenly increase dramatically.

People think they notice subtle changes but in point of fact we don't even notice profound change.

"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" can neatly be reduced to 'Clean and Oil". Our world is dirty and sticky with 19th century crud.

 

[PureX]

I concur.

I think there are two reasons they reject my definitions and facts and they are both related to your point. One is I know no other way to describe how consciousness arises other than to call it a gift. As surely as human parents bestow life on a baby some thing or some process bestows consciousness on all living things. Just as all change in life is sudden so too is consciousness. It blinks in and out of existence.

Of course believers in Science can't tolerate the idea that every 19th century scientist was wrong and that all work based on their premises is wrong. The concept offends their sensibilities. Then to rub salt in the wound is the fact that the one making these claims is an uneducated laborer who isn't qualified to clean up the conference room used by Peers. He might leave it a shambles with one of the wastebaskets still containing a clean trash bag with a single gum wrapper in it!!!

With the world spinning down the toilet created by Darwin et al we certainly don't need any sort of fundamental change. So they double down on believing in the omniscience and efficacy of Science.

Having no ability to hope in God, science is all they have left to hope in. So they have to protect it by any means.