Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

All theists believe by faith. That's a breach of reason and an invitation to begin accumulating any number of false and unfalsifiable beliefs. That's a mistake to me. A god belief does nothing for the believer that the atheist doesn't accomplish without one.

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.

Most atheists deny your claim that they claim no gods exist, but that's as bad for you as Harris replacing Biden was for Trump. You need an enemy - in this case, the agnostic atheist's claim that he neither accepts not rejects gods - you think that you can defeat. And apparently, you don't mind looking as addled and divorced from reality as Trump when you do that.

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.

I have no need for a god belief. You describe it as something to hope for. I'm hoping to have a nice day, not to find a way to believe in gods. I'm hoping man reigns in climate change and that Trump loses, not to find a way to believe in gods. I found the way out of that belief, and my life improved.

As I've said before, you and I can agree on much in areas like politics and economics, but when it comes to gods, we're worlds apart, and not just in beliefs - in demeanor and quality of thought. You change completely. You begin making up straw men like the one above and refusing to hear what atheists tell you. You get emotional and begin calling others liars. You turn to hyperbole. That's what a god belief has done for you and something I hope NOT to emulate.

I've defined consciousness numerous times and it is always ignored.

No, not ignored. Just either disagreed with, not understood, or considered useless as a definition.

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:

Here's what I know about your definition of consciousness. It is life and life is it, all life possesses it, it's a gift so that every individual can survive - I presume that includes trees and mushrooms - it's free will, pattern recognition, and memory that that process sensory input logically but not awareness. The last part begins to approach a functional definition of consciousness - what it does and how that benefits the conscious agent - but then you say that that is not awareness ("knowledge or perception of a situation or fact"), now I'm back to ground zero.

not one believer in science will even note that I have addressed this again for God knows how many times.

Your definitions have been and again now are noted. They're just not understood. You describe awareness when defining consciousness - "free will, pattern recognition, and memory" - and then say that that is not awareness. My definition of consciousness wasn't as detailed - "a wakeful state that confers awareness of one's surroundings and possibly of oneself" - but is synonymous with awareness.

"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.

I already have it memorized. It's just that it's not a definition. If you asked me what the basis of science is, my answer wouldn't contain the word metaphysics. And if you asked me to define science, I also wouldn't turn to that word. As I've told you, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and most scientists aren't philosophers, aren't interested in philosophy, and do their jobs with no such concept in mind.

One might argue that metaphysics is the consideration of what lies outside of consciousness and makes consciousness possible but can never be experienced directly, since we can never get outside of our minds. Some might call it the study of what precedes physics, gives it its laws, and makes it appear as it does. Discussions of the nature of time are metaphysical in nature.

But the basis of science? That doesn't define the word for me.

 

[leroy]

That's not my definition of intuition. Intuition is when you just know that something is correct but can't demonstrate it or explain why it is. Do you believe that you have libertarian free will because of a compelling belief that you do, one you can't demonstrate? That's an intuition. Do you believe that there is a reality outside of consciousness because the belief is irresistibly compelling, but you have no way to demonstrate that even to yourself? That's intuition. We might include instincts there and drives.

(I, am still working on the reply to the long post that your worte 2 days ao)



I am curious, are accepting intuition as a source of knowledge? are you granting “free will” on the basis of intuition? Or are you claiming the opposite? (“since we can´t show empirically that there is free will, we can´t conclude that we have free will)”

I apologize if you explained that, I was unable to keep up to the conversation

 

[cladking]

No, not ignored. Just either disagreed with, not understood, or considered useless as a definition.

So what is it with the word "metaphysics" (basis of science)? Do you disagree, not understand, or is it useless?

Again YOU don't get to decide how I use any word AT ALL. I am telling you in plain English what I mean by any word you want.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yes you could go on and probably will, but it is quite obvious that you don't know what an axiom actually is and how they are used in conveying knowledge and understanding.

 

[cladking]

Here's what I know about your definition of consciousness. It is life and life is it, all life possesses it, it's a gift so that every individual can survive - I presume that includes trees and mushrooms - it's free will, pattern recognition, and memory that that process sensory input logically but not awareness. The last part begins to approach a functional definition of consciousness - what it does and how that benefits the conscious agent - but then you say that that is not awareness ("knowledge or perception of a situation or fact"), now I'm back to ground zero.

[sigh]

I've said numerous times IT IS NOT AWARENESS AS WE DEFINE IT. Am I supposed to write a 4000 word essay for every little point or definition because believers will otherwise REFUSE to parse my words as intended? If I said it is "awareness" you'd tell me an acorn is not self aware. If I say it isn't you refuse to parse it properly. Bees are NOT self aware. No animal experiences thought which we believe makes us self aware. Ancient people didn't experience thought. STOP ME WHEMN YOU"VE HEARD THIS BEFORE. Bees think, pyramid builders thought but they were not "aware" of it or the thinker.

I'm sorry so many of these concepts are new but this is because everyone is so wrong about so much.

Being self aware makes you and me sleep walkers. It does not make us conscious and is not a characteristic of consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I already have it memorized. It's just that it's not a definition.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cladking]

As I've told you, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy,

I have to put you on "ignore".

It is impossible to communicate with anyone who refuses to communicate.

 

[McBell]

I have to put you on "ignore".

It is impossible to communicate with anyone who refuses to communicate.

Do you ever stop to consider that with all the people you have problems communicating with, and I mean not only RF, but also all the other forums and sites where you have problems communicating with pretty much every one, that the issue is not with everyone else, but with you?

 

[cladking]

Do you ever stop to consider that with all the people you have problems communicating with, and I mean not only RF, but also all the other forums and sites where you have problems communicating with pretty much every one, that the issue is not with everyone else, but with you?

I have no doubt some of the problem is me.

I believe most of the problem is that the ideas I'm trying to communicate are alien to most individuals. Shakespeare would have difficulty communicating these ideas. I've always talked funny and have made numerous changes to use words and phrases more conventionally trying to communicate on this site but it's impossible for me to stop 12 times in every sentence and define words that I've literally defined 1000 times before (basis of science). I don't care how people parse my words but when they prove over and over they will not do it as intended then there is no point trying.

The big problem isn't any of the people on my ignore list. Most of these people are actually pretty savvy and smart. The problem is we are all taught numerous falsities that help us acquire modern (confused) language. They are false premises presented as truisms because they look true to people who use modern language to think. These premises are at the very root of human thought so anything that contradicts them is heresy or gobbledty gook. One of these premises that many people have is that words mean what they believe they mean. This leads them to parse ideas that fly in the face of their assumptions incorrectly in every case no matter how many times the speaker points out his definition.

Most of these people still think that I believe magic is the basis of science. Of course they're offended. They are offended far more than I am offended when they say religion is based on magic or pyramids were built by people who believed in magic. They are offended when I say religion was based on ancient science or that religion has a firmer foundation than modern science. They refuse to parse words as intended so even relevant argument is very elusive.

The irony here is that i could be wrong about everything without people showing me where I'm wrong despite the fact I can delineate numerous things they have wrong and state specifics of how they went wrong. But, of course, believers in Science can't even imagine being wrong. They think this is something that can only apply to theists and those ignorant of Science and Peer opinion.

I sometimes open posts by those on ignore but I'm very unlikely to respond to them and when i do it is in general terms. This is necessary for tactical reasons rather than to try to open a dialog.

 

[McBell]

I have no doubt some of the problem is me.

I believe most of the problem is that the ideas I'm trying to communicate are alien to most individuals. Shakespeare would have difficulty communicating these ideas. I've always talked funny and have made numerous changes to use words and phrases more conventionally trying to communicate on this site but it's impossible for me to stop 12 times in every sentence and define words that I've literally defined 1000 times before (basis of science). I don't care how people parse my words but when they prove over and over they will not do it as intended then there is no point trying.

The big problem isn't any of the people on my ignore list. Most of these people are actually pretty savvy and smart. The problem is we are all taught numerous falsities that help us acquire modern (confused) language. They are false premises presented as truisms because they look true to people who use modern language to think. These premises are at the very root of human thought so anything that contradicts them is heresy or gobbledty gook. One of these premises that many people have is that words mean what they believe they mean. This leads them to parse ideas that fly in the face of their assumptions incorrectly in every case no matter how many times the speaker points out his definition.

Most of these people still think that I believe magic is the basis of science. Of course they're offended. They are offended far more than I am offended when they say religion is based on magic or pyramids were built by people who believed in magic. They are offended when I say religion was based on ancient science or that religion has a firmer foundation than modern science. They refuse to parse words as intended so even relevant argument is very elusive.

The irony here is that i could be wrong about everything without people showing me where I'm wrong despite the fact I can delineate numerous things they have wrong and state specifics of how they went wrong. But, of course, believers in Science can't even imagine being wrong. They think this is something that can only apply to theists and those ignorant of Science and Peer opinion.

I sometimes open posts my those on ignore but I'm very unlikely to respond to them and when i do it is in general terms. This is necessary for tactical reasons rather than to try to open a dialog.

So basically, in a nutshell, you want everyone else to learn your personal language in order for you to communicate effectively with them?

 

[cladking]

So basically, in a nutshell, you want everyone else to learn your personal language in order for you to communicate effectively with them?

I use the first definition of "metaphysics" and "intuition". Get a dictionary.

Like everyone else on the planet I use many definitions of many words and expect people can usually parse my meaning from context.

 

[McBell]

I use the first definition of "metaphysics" and "intuition". Get a dictionary.

Like everyone else on the planet I use many definitions of many words and expect people can usually parse my meaning from context.

Your posts appear to be using a host of "alternate" meanings.
By that I simply mean that you use meaning that differ, sometimes drastically, from the way most others mean when using the same word.
You appear to understand what everyone else means when using the words.

So it is not as though you are confused what others mean when using words you have alternate meanings for.

Which makes it appear that you are much more interested in arguing over word definitions than you are anything else.

 

[Pogo]

I have to put you on "ignore".

It is impossible to communicate with anyone who refuses to communicate.

yes and as long as you as the worlds only speaker of Cladking insist on using your own language, we will never understand you an no communication will happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The laws that man follows even athiest, Do not steal, do not kill, do not lie, do not bare false witness against thy neighbor. etc come from the Bible.

Those laws\beliefs actually pre-date the Bible, of course.

I don't practice slavery, even though the God of the Bible condones it. I believe slavery is immoral.

The miracles that man receives from God are the ones he gives to those who truly have faith and believe in him. When we pray God answer us. When God answers us he does not answer us as we expect. God answers us in a way that tells us this is what is best for you.

In other words, this God doesn't answer prayers.

 

[cladking]

Your posts appear to be using a host of "alternate" meanings.

Perhaps you can provide an example?

The fact that I disagree with old wives' tales and ancient assumptions is not the same as using words differently. I am using the same old words to describe things that are very different from assumptions. People believe in linear progress so most teachers say using language in new ways is a good thing. I DO NOT believe in linear progress and believe most change in language is for the worse. Sure, new words are OK even if they are abstractions but other non standard usage is bad.

I say things like "all belief is superstition" but this is a conclusion not a definition. It is experiment that shows we see what we believe. It is I who says what we see is derived not from reality but from our superstitions. The specific words one uses is determined by existing vocabulary. I could easily make up words but there are already enough words in the dictionary that just selecting the most appropriate is sufficient.

People don't like the message because the message is that we are all wrong about everything and there is no choice but to rebuild everything from the ground up. This should be an easy enough process a child could do it. Just change what you believe and you'll reason back around to it; homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. We already have a workable understanding of the little we do understand. There's a lot of work to do and it can't start as long as mystics run Egyptology and old wives' tales rule everything else.

 

[cladking]

yes and as long as you as the worlds only speaker of Cladking insist on using your own language, we will never understand you an no communication will happen.

Are you just ignoring where I said there are eight billion different mutually unintelligible languages or did you not see it?

I might understand you no better than you understand me. But I can tell you your premises.

 

[YellowFeather]

Perhaps you can provide an example?

The fact that I disagree with old wives' tales and ancient assumptions is not the same as using words differently. I am using the same old words to describe things that are very different from assumptions. People believe in linear progress so most teachers say using language in new ways is a good thing. I DO NOT believe in linear progress and believe most change in language is for the worse. Sure, new words are OK even if they are abstractions but other non standard usage is bad.

I say things like "all belief is superstition" but this is a conclusion not a definition. It is experiment that shows we see what we believe. It is I who says what we see is derived not from reality but from our superstitions. The specific words one uses is determined by existing vocabulary. I could easily make up words but there are already enough words in the dictionary that just selecting the most appropriate is sufficient.

People don't like the message because the message is that we are all wrong about everything and there is no choice but to rebuild everything from the ground up. This should be an easy enough process a child could do it. Just change what you believe and you'll reason back around to it; homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. We already have a workable understanding of the little we do understand. There's a lot of work to do and it can't start as long as mystics run Egyptology and old wives' tales rule everything else.

If that is the way you believe then live your life that away. When God comes down and only saves those who have faith in him and obey him then dont cry like a baby wanting someone you did not believe in to save you. He will not save the unbeliever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

There is no atheist ideology.

Please stop trying to speak on behalf of others. You continually get it so wrong and you miss what we're actually saying.

 

[Pogo]

Are you just ignoring where I said there are eight billion different mutually unintelligible languages or did you not see it?

I might understand you no better than you understand me. But I can tell you your premises.

Yeah I missed it and it doesn't excuse you from using a language that is generally mutually common to 8 billion minus 1.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

This is a believer's mentality.

You're just projecting it onto others.