Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

No. I would say that more accurate results will do a better job at reflecting objective reality then subjective senses.
And the more accurate the tool, the more accurate the measurement.

I agree except my only real axiom is that people make sense all the time in terms of their premises and when these premises are correct the sense they make of reality is accurate. Hence we use reason and experiment to try to make sense of the world. There are no short cuts and expert opinion is the worst possible shortcut unless there is no alternative. Deference to expert opinion is a dangerous this to make a habit of and this is what you are saying with your quote. It takes a miracle for ANYONE to see reality and this most assuredly includes experts and their opinions.

I don't know why children are being taught now days that science is correct by definition but it certainly makes us easier to control.

 

[cladking]

You don't offer facts, arguments, or counterarguments, just fantastical speculations in vague language. You aren't going to change my mind without sound, evidenced argument.

It's a stupid human trick. Get used to it. I'm sure you had some kind of ability others don't even if you never found it. A photographic memory perhaps? If I had to think like you I'd have to have such a trick. I couldn't think and live with induction unless I had a photographic memory.

I had an excellent memory but I didn't want to tax it. Now I don't need no stinkin' memory at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree except my only real axiom is that people make sense all the time in terms of their premises and when these premises are correct the sense they make of reality is accurate. Hence we use reason and experiment to try to make sense of the world.

And the way to verify if they are correct is by objective testing thereof with more accurate tools then their subjective senses.
Sounds like you agree but for some reason insist on continuing the argument.

I don't know why children are being taught now days that science is correct by definition but it certainly makes us easier to control.

They aren't.

 

[cladking]

The scientific community and the enlightened lay community disagree, but for what it's worth, you've got the support of the creationists.

No, I don't. We're civil to one another because that's what we do when we disagree. I don't believe in God (nor do I disbelieve) and I don't believe the Bible came from the hand of God (nor do I disbelieve). Few religious people believe that the Bible is literally true any longer but I do. I believe every word in the Bible derives from ancient science and retains literal truth though much of it will never be discerned because it has layers of confusion.

It's believers in science who attack, lecture, gainsay, and play wordgames. They even attack one another when their models don't agree. It's rare two religious people come to blows because of such disagreements. But the devout of science can tolerate no heresy.

 

[cladking]

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including concepts such as being, existence, and the universe."

Welcome back to my ignore list.

 

[shunyadragon]

Welcome back to my ignore list.

Dodging the welcome to dialogue.

 

[cladking]

And the way to verify if they are correct is by objective testing thereof with more accurate tools then their subjective senses.
Sounds like you agree but for some reason insist on continuing the argument.

We use reason to make sense of the world but reason has no basis in science. It is impossible for homo circularis rationatio to reason to the correct answers without experiment to keep him on the straight and narrow. Without experiment we start going in circles faster that the cart before the horse. This is just the nature of our species. No other species has ever been like this and it began ~2000 BC.

 

[cladking]

Dodging the welcome to dialogue.

I want dialog but when people refuse to parse words the way they are intended, dialog becomes impossible. I will define any word I use in context such as the word "impossible" in the last sentence means that in every case I use a specific word the sentence will be understood to mean something completely different. By "dialog" I mean "the exchange of ideas through words" and dialog isn't possible where meaning isn't taken.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a stupid human trick. Get used to it.

Not because you say so. What you're telling me is that you don't find value where I and others do.

I'm sure you had some kind of ability others don't even if you never found it.

We all do, or maybe almost all.

A photographic memory perhaps?

I have a good memory, but it isn't photographic, or as one poster once humorously wrote, it isn't a photogenic memory.

If I had to think like you I'd have to have such a trick. I couldn't think and live with induction unless I had a photographic memory.

But you do make inductions. Somehow, you are unaware of that.

I had an excellent memory but I didn't want to tax it. Now I don't need no stinkin' memory at all.

But you do use your memory. Are you unaware of that as well?

Incidentally, that comment included two inductions and a number of remembered words.

No, I don't. We're civil to one another because that's what we do when we disagree. I don't believe in God (nor do I disbelieve) and I don't believe the Bible came from the hand of God (nor do I disbelieve). Few religious people believe that the Bible is literally true any longer but I do. I believe every word in the Bible derives from ancient science and retains literal truth though much of it will never be discerned because it has layers of confusion.

I wrote that you have the support of the creationists in your assessment that evolution and Darwin are nonsense. Your reply became nonresponsive after three words. Nothing you wrote after that addresses my comment that, "The scientific community and the enlightened lay community disagree, but for what it's worth, you've got the support of the creationists."

It's rare two religious people come to blows because of such disagreements. But the devout of science can tolerate no heresy.

I notice that you like to invoke religious concepts like devout and heresy when describing science. But there are large differences between the two traditions and their ways of "knowing":

[1] Religious people don't care about being demonstrably correct. Scientists do.
[2] Religious people occasionally kill, torture, and imprison one another and others to settle theological disputes. Scientists rarely do that.

Welcome back to my ignore list.

It isn't necessary or even helpful to me that you respond to or even see my replies. Maybe you didn't understand or take seriously my explanation of why and to whom I write. If this conversation were private, I would have ended it long ago, as I don't expect my words to have any impact on you.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It isn't necessary or even helpful to me that you respond to or even see my replies. Maybe you didn't understand or take seriously my explanation of why and to whom I write. If this conversation were private, I would have ended it long ago, as I don't expect my words to have any impact on you.

Why do you think some people make a public announcement about placing other members on ignore? Is it boasting?

When I decide to put another member on ignore, I just do it. I don't make a public announcement about it.

 

[cladking]

Why do you think some people make a public announcement about placing other members on ignore? Is it boasting?

I don't want anyone to think I have no response to someone's argument. I don't see their arguments because I tire of word games.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you think some people make a public announcement about placing other members on ignore? Is it boasting?

When I decide to put another member on ignore, I just do it. I don't make a public announcement about it.

There is some value to pointing out to people you have been "discussing" with that their conversation has dropped below a minimum rational value. The "public" may well have been wondering why you didn't do it before.

 

[Pogo]

I don't want anyone to think I have no response to someone's argument. I don't see their arguments because I tire of word games.

Yes we understand that you don't see the arguments because as you say, you tire of word games while others strive to use words in a consistent manner and don't understand the game you are playing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you think some people make a public announcement about placing other members on ignore? Is it boasting?

I assume that they're offended and want to strike back by rejecting a given poster. I don't know what set that poster off at that time and likely never will. I quoted a standard definition of metaphysics - "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including concepts such as being, existence, and the universe" - and his response was, "Welcome back to my ignore list." How can we understand that?

You might know that when asked what his definition of metaphysics is, his answer has always been that it's the basis of science and nothing more (here, here, and here). In that second link, he explains that he will put people on ignore for not accepting his definition of metaphysics, but I still don't know why he would or what the problem is that sets him off. Maybe he saw my words as a slap in his face. I can only guess.

I don't mind at all. As I explained to him, I'm not looking for a response from him for information, nor are the posts addressed to him written to benefit him. They could if he'd read them and take them seriously, but that never happens. As I've indicated, my intended audience is others - people like you. I will continue to respond to his words even if I know for a fact that he never sees those responses.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There is some value to pointing out to people you have been "discussing" with that their conversation has dropped below a minimum rational value. The "public" may well have been wondering why you didn't do it before.

It makes sense to me to inform another member that I'm no longer interested in participating in a discussion with them, but I wouldn't tell them that I'm placing them on my ignore list if our debate becomes pointless to continue with. I'm not sure if this is the right way to handle it or not, but it's what I do.

 

[Pogo]

It makes sense to me to inform another member that I'm no longer interested in participating in a discussion with them, but I wouldn't tell them that I'm placing them on my ignore list if our debate becomes pointless to continue with. I'm not sure if this is the right way to handle it or not, but it's what I do.

It is not so much for the other member who has already demonstrated their irrelevance as to be reminded myself why the board software does not annoy me with their posts but only a little reminder of why I would have been annoyed by their posts. I still get to read responses to their posts and occasionally a response will get me to read what I had ignored for my personal mental health.
While I indulge in many self-destructive behaviours, this seems to me a reasonable way to not spend time reacting to street corner preachers. Again, it is not something resorted to without great experience.