Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

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 see you fitting into that "true believer" category too. This description that you apply to atheists seems tailormade to your specifications as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I don't see this as an us problem.

I think you believe your ideas are the basis of science.

I've come to the conclusion that having a dialog with you is nearly impossible, because you seem to ignore what others tell you, use terminology with either ambiguous and incomplete definitions or secret definitions known only to you and you reference things as fact that are not in evidence. Even professional scientists have explained how your statements are unsupported claims that have no basis in fact never seems to register with you.

If you want to make a belief system based on the things you've posted, that's fine, but you aren't doing that. You are posting the things that you claim as facts. Unfortunately for you, and us too, is that none of them have been established to be facts and often shown to be contrary to the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I find it amusing and generally haven't encountered the same problems with atheists on here that some seem to have to conjure up.

From what I've read and been told, most of the atheists here are agnostic and don't believe, because they have found no reason to believe. I'm not sure I would call that an ideology.

Discussions around science are about science and not about theism or atheism. I can discuss science with anyone that has the knowledge and understanding of the particular topic of science under discussion. It is the discussion of science that I'm most interested in.

I've had more issues with my fellow theists that want to reject any science that conflicts with their personal ideologies. Often from a basis of ignorance of the very thing they reject and a failure to base rejection on scientific grounds. I don't see the current position as being much or even any different from what I've encountered so far.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I find it useless. It isn't accurate. Doesn't explain anything. There is really nothing that claim does to expand itself into a supported position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

Over the years I've looked at some of those other forums and sites myself. I think the sample size is more than large enough to come to a conclusion on where the issues rest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

That is what you claim it means.

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

I don't think anyone has to worry about memorizing your claims. You repeat them on regular rotation. It's like MTV in the 80's.

You don't seem to understand that the words you use have well-recognized and widely used meaning that everyone else seems to understand. They are understood to the point that your alternative meanings jump right out. For instance, you keep talking about speciation occurring at localized bottlenecks using the word bottleneck to mean something it is not recognized to mean. You have had that word defined for you countless times by numerous others on these threads. You don't respond to the correction and just return to using your personal definition for the word. You do this with a number of words and concepts.

From what I have read, your species concept is meaningless, because it seems to be any change in an individual during the life of that individual is a speciation event. Using that as the concept renders species useless and meaningless. Changes in an individual during its life does not constitute speciation despite your wish to believe it does. Changes in species are at the genetic level across populations over time and not seen to be under conscious control as you continually assert.

Then there is your claims about the taxonomy of humans that is just your personal pet names applied to Homo sapiens from different periods in the history of Homo sapiens. Those terminology exist only with you and careful search will not reveal any other source using them and as you use them. They mean something only to you and are not part of science.

 

[McBell]

Over the years I've looked at some of those other forums and sites myself. I think the sample size is more than large enough to come to a conclusion on where the issues rest.

Seems that everyone can see it but them.
I was hoping to maybe get them to see it...

 

[Valjean]

That is why God had the Bible written so we have evidence of him. God tells us how to believe in him until he comes and that is through faith. Faith means believing in what you cannot see right now but hope for in the future of things. 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of Faith lay hold for eternal life. Everything that is happening now, Wars, children out of control and the world getting worse is in the bible. The bible was written before all this started happening.

If God wanted to inspire rational people to believe, an anthology of unevidenced claims, fantastical and tall tales doesn't seem like a very good approach. Add claims that are pretty clearly erroneous, and behavior that most people today would consider outrageous, and you have a work that rational people would rightly question, and the faithful would be forced to cherry-pick.
There's also the problem of competition from the dozens of other religious works making alternative claims -- with equal or superior confidence levels.
Nope, not buying it.

So we're in agreement. Faith is an unevidenced hope. Cool!

 

[Valjean]

The first sentence is fine by itself but the second sentence shows that you consider Science to be established fact; with no evidence and no theory of God It can not exist.

Not sure I'm following. How does skepticism about an unobservable, untestable God indicate that I consider science an established fact? And why can't science exist without 'evidence and theory of God'? What does evidence and theory of God even mean?

 

[cladking]

Believing in observable, tested things is science -- and is reasonable. Believing in God is believing in the unobservable, untestable things -- not so reasonable.

People have to believe in something so believing in the observable and testable is just called empiricism. But the belief that the methodology and the observable is everything that exists is meta-metaphysical. The belief that everything in existence has appeared in every or any experiment is simple nonsense. The belief that at some point enough experiment had accumulated to exclude every belief but the current paradigm is nonsense of the highest possible order.

 

[Pogo]

People have to believe in something so believing in the observable and testable is just called empiricism. But the belief that the methodology and the observable is everything that exists is meta-metaphysical. The belief that everything in existence has appeared in every or any experiment is simple nonsense. The belief that at some point enough experiment had accumulated to exclude every belief but the current paradigm is nonsense of the highest possible order.

And so, what? Us agnostic atheists are not denying the possibility of something else out there, we just ignore the speculation for practical purposes unless someone provides an observable / testable. That doesn't mean we can't and don't speculate, we just don't live our lives as if some unevidenced speculation is true.

 

[cladking]

That doesn't mean we can't and don't speculate, we just don't live our lives as if some unevidenced speculation is true.

Nor do I.

However I don't believe that experiment has covered every base or that we understand reality completely on the basis of whatever experiment we choose to apply to any specific question. Every experiment applies to every question just as surely as everything in existence or has ever been in existence applies to every event.

People are used to reducing what we know to consider all things just as science reduces everything known to exist to experiment. Is it really any wonder that science misses the big picture and no homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio can not see what's in front of his face?

We are blinded by what we think we know. This is the nature of everyone who speaks abstract symbolic language. Unfortunately there exist no words that I can use to force the reader to take my meaning and no reader wants to take the meaning.

 

[AppieB]

God is not magic.

He is a real powerful spirit person who decided to create a universe full of life and to which he dedicated a lot of love when he made it. We have an existence with purpose, starting from a Father who gave us life.

That is not magic, nor a miracle, because the power and knowledge of the Creator exceeds our limited human understanding. He could, and so he did.

Good evening to all readers...even those who I ignore.

So explain to me: how did God create the universe?

 

[PureX]

People have to believe in something so believing in the observable and testable is just called empiricism. But the belief that the methodology and the observable is everything that exists is meta-metaphysical.

Yes. It is a metaphysical axiom. An "uber-belief" that determines how one then presumes to understand everything else.

The belief that everything in existence has appeared in every or any experiment is simple nonsense. The belief that at some point enough experiment had accumulated to exclude every belief but the current paradigm is nonsense of the highest possible order.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it amusing and generally haven't encountered the same problems with atheists on here that some seem to have to conjure up.

From what I've read and been told, most of the atheists here are agnostic and don't believe, because they have found no reason to believe. I'm not sure I would call that an ideology.

...

While not an ideology you will find that some atheists in effect will demand objective evidence when it suits them and settle for subjective reasons for their worldview, when it suits them.

While I consider it reasonable to ask for evidence, I have never seen evidence that it is reasonalbe to ask for evidence. Rather it is as far as I can tell a social/cultural/psychological norm to ask for evidence.
But it is not all atheists and I have seen it worse on other fora.

 

[PureX]

What about theists that accept science?

What about them? Science us not the antithesis of theism. And only the most zealous religionists think they are. The vast majority of theists do not.

There are at least 3 of us on here and all three of us practice or practiced science professionally too. Just because the atheists, that you don't seem to like, accept and defend science doesn't make that science null and void by default of your bias.

That's just petty and stupid. I think you could do much better than this with a few moments of honest thought.

 

[PureX]

I see you fitting into that "true believer" category too. This description that you apply to atheists seems tailormade to your specifications as well.

Again, stupid and petty. The "nut, huh, YOU did" retort. What is this, the fourth grade?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the belief that the methodology and the observable is everything that exists is meta-metaphysical. The belief that everything in existence has appeared in every or any experiment is simple nonsense. The belief that at some point enough experiment had accumulated to exclude every belief but the current paradigm is nonsense of the highest possible order.

I've never seen anybody express that as their belief, but I have seen it trotted out as a straw man repeatedly.

An "uber-belief" that determines how one then presumes to understand everything else.

That was a reply to the comment above.

You seem to have a problem with empiricism and the idea that it is the only path to demonstrably correct ideas (knowledge), yet you don't even try to rebut that. You have yet to produce a single such idea acquired using your special way of knowing that you imply transcends empiricism and causes you to use the word scientism to refer to the position you reject.

Again, stupid and petty. The "nut, huh, YOU did" retort. What is this, the fourth grade?

I agree with him. You use the term "true believer" about others while proceeding on your crusade against atheists and strict empiricists. You use the term kangaroo court in reference to others judging as you judge without restraint. You call others cultists even as you have formed your own cult and seem to have attracted at least one other interested customer.

 

[leroy]

The word is preferred, or likeliest to be correct. The most parsimonious hypothesis is not necessarily correct, but if a simpler one accounts for all known evidence, it's the preferred one. If, however, some new discovery falsifies that simpler narrative, we modify it to something that accounts for the new evidence.

Right now the theory of evolution is the preferred explanation for the evidence we find today in support of the theory. But suppose something new was discovered that falsifies the theory. If we cannot modify it to account for that falsifying find, we move to the next simplest narrative that does. We would be into deceptive intelligent designer territory now. Something created our world to look like evolution had occurred, but we now know that it hadn't.

Even then, we'll go with the more parsimonious account: a naturalistic one. An extremely technologically advanced extraterrestrial race of aliens who evolved from an abiogenetically created life form were the deceivers, not a supernatural one.

That's a good question that I can't answer other than to say that it's an assumption that has never failed. Here's a discussion of that if you're interested. The laws of physics WERE different in the earliest universe before symmetry breaking occurred and the particles and forces we know today first appeared, but not since to our knowledge.

If the science works, that's demonstration enough that the assumptions and conclusions underlying it are valid for now. Like I said, new discoveries may require some modification to old answers. Newton's treatment of gravity, though incomplete, was adequate to send man to the moon and back. The Einstein predicted that gravity could bend the path of a massless light beam - something that Newton could not account for. The update to Newton's theory of gravitation was not accepted until this was demonstrated.

Yes. I said as much: "I define knowledge as the collection of demonstrably correct ideas, which only comes from experience (empiricism) or pure reason (mathematical knowledge, where demonstration is in the form of proof, not sensory experience)." We can know that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle equal the square of the hypotenuse through pure reason. We can also determine that empirically by making such triangles, measuring their sides, and confirming the Pythagorean formula.

which only comes from experience (empiricism) or pure reason (mathematical knowledge, where demonstration is in the form of proof, not sensory experience)."

Sure, if by pure reason you include logic philosophy personal experiences testimonial evidence and other things beyond the empirical method…………..then my question and my concern was answered.

I had the impression (wrong impression apparently) that you where an empiricist in the sense that you only accept knowledge that comes as a result of the empirical sciences and as a result of following the scientific method.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about them? Science us not the antithesis of theism.

For some it is. It is the message I get from you.

And only the most zealous religionists think they are.

Again, if the shoe fits.

The vast majority of theists do not.

Perhaps.

That's just petty and stupid.

I've lowered my expectations of what I get.

I think you could do much better than this with a few moments of honest thought.

I know I can. That thought and honesty is the basis of posting.

Physician heal thyself keeps coming to mind when I read what you post.