Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

That is because it is only one of millions of pieces of evidence. One has to be dishonest and ignore all of those other pieces of evidence to be a creationist. And that is why we know that you call your own God a liar.

No, I am not ignoring what you call pieces of evidence. You also need to know that I do not believe each day of creation was 24 hours long. And also, while not quite exactly pertinent to the subject but I find it very interesting, there is no mention of the 7th day ending. (Speaking of days...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not ignoring what you call pieces of evidence. You also need to know that I do not believe each day of creation was 24 hours long. And also, while not quite exactly pertinent to the subject but I find it very interesting, there is no mention of the 7th day ending. (Speaking of days...)

You just did in your previous post. You pretended that Tiktaalik was the on transitional species found in fish to tetrapod.

 

[YoursTrue]

You just did in your previous post. You pretended that Tiktaalik was the on transitional species found in fish to tetrapod.

My, but you either misunderstand or misrepresent. (Which is it?) I did not pretend that Tiktaalik was the transitional species of fish...that is what is said by evolutionists as if the fossil is proof of (OK, evidence, not proof, right?) that the fossil is evidence of the burgeoning transition. But it is not. It is a fossil with certain types of structures that imply to evolutionists it is on its way to becoming a landlubber. But again -- no way is it proof, as you would say, and scientists believe it is evidence of the change from water dweller to land lubber -- but again -- there is no proof. The fossil is not evidence that it was a demonstration or evidence of the evolutionary transition.

 

[YoursTrue]

about sums it up...

 

[blü 2]

...and you are defining objective reality as what you believe.

Reality is independent of what anyone believes.

How then do you define objective reality?

Forget "objective" as this is just inserting yourself into what you believe is reality.

I have no other direct view of reality than my own. I suspect you're in the same boat.

You change reality into something very subjective with a belief a science.

No, I don't change reality. I accept that it's out there, as you demonstrate you also do, since you post here.

I approve of the longstanding efforts of science to explore, describe and try to explain what we find. Objectivity is maximized in this process, but is never perfect.

However, science makes this conversation possible, and religion does not. Science presently has an accepted description and explanation of gravity via Einstein (as you now know, having started with that link I gave you, and continued exploring the scientific position on the topic on your own, as anyone seeking knowledge would do).

Again, science is a tool and should not be mistaken for the job it can and does do.

Again, science makes this conversation possible, modern medicines possible, including vaccines, X-ray machines, ultrasound scans &c, quantum computers possible, materials that add to living quality and making new kinds of machines possible, puts rovers on Mars, and so on.

Neither religion, nor any other form of invoking the supernatural, has done any of these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My, but you either misunderstand or misrepresent. (Which is it?) I did not pretend that Tiktaalik was the transitional species of fish...that is what is said by evolutionists as if the fossil is proof of (OK, evidence, not proof, right?) that the fossil is evidence of the burgeoning transition. But it is not. It is a fossil with certain types of structures that imply to evolutionists it is on its way to becoming a landlubber. But again -- no way is it proof, as you would say, and scientists believe it is evidence of the change from water dweller to land lubber -- but again -- there is no proof. The fossil is not evidence that it was a demonstration or evidence of the evolutionary transition.

You just keep confirming my posts.

Clearly you do not even know what a transitional species is because even you would have to admit that it is one if you understood the concept. Unfortunately you do tend to "not understand' on purpose at times.. Most of the time.

 

[YoursTrue]

You just keep confirming my posts.

Clearly you do not even know what a transitional species is because even you would have to admit that it is one if you understood the concept. Unfortunately you do tend to "not understand' on purpose at times.. Most of the time.

I realize you make false allegations very, very often. Like most of the time. I'm not going to go into detail with you but I will tell you that from what I have seen in your references to my beliefs, you do not know what you're talking about. And because you continue to tell false stories, I leave the matter between you and the One you do not believe in. But! have a nice day...

 

[blü 2]

I realize you make false allegations very, very often. Like most of the time. I'm not going to go into detail with you but I will tell you that from what I have seen in your references to my beliefs, you do not know what you're talking about. And because you continue to tell false stories, I leave the matter between you and the One you do not believe in. But! have a nice day...

When, do you say, did God create the microorganisms? Why did God create millions or billions of different species of them?

When did God create the viruses? Why?

 

[cladking]

How then do you define objective reality?

Forget "objective". There is only reality itself and our search for it using reason and/ or experiment.

I have no other direct view of reality than my own. I suspect you're in the same boat.

Yes!!! For the main part.

It is critical that we each understand this so we don't overestimate what is known. Once you know something it becomes virtually impossible to see the reality where is diverges. The status quo becomes perpetuated by erroneous beliefs. I believe numerous such errors exist at the very foundation of some sciences and that all sciences have sections of their models built in sand. Understanding and building on existing models are good things but they must be rebuilt from time to time. This applies to both all individual models but also the ideal models put forth in text books which we each understand differently.

No, I don't change reality.

I meant that you are trying to change reality with words. Free will can change reality over time but nothing, not your beliefs, not science, and perhaps not even God can affect reality in the here and now. It is fixed and dependent on events and processes we don't even know or understand.

Neither religion, nor any other form of invoking the supernatural, has done any of these things.

Again you are mistaking tools for reality. There's no magical science that created the internet and no magical religion that created itself and the philosophy that invented science. You misapprehend the natures of both science and religion.

It would be more like reality to think of religion as a means to understand reality through thought and science by means of experiment. Both these means are justified by the nature of our species. Science casts off far more technology while religion had a 40,000 year head start. Science is an outgrowth of religion and would have been impossible had religion not been founded in reality as well. No! I am not saying that religion is magical. This would be your belief in the magical nature of science. I am saying religion was founded in non experimental science. Since this is an oxymoron to people who understand science it might be better to say that religion was founded in a different type of science that generated understanding and was based on logic and observation. How else could all those sun addled ancestors come up with ideas like reason and science?

Why do believers almost never answer any questions? You will not answer that one either or even ponder it so I'll answer for you. They are too busy trying to figure out how to enlighten the asker. Believers have always had all the answers and want to spread them among the nonbelievers and heretics. So anything in front of a question mark is brushed off like it doesn't even exist? If science made the internet possible then what is making our conversation impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize you make false allegations very, very often. Like most of the time. I'm not going to go into detail with you but I will tell you that from what I have seen in your references to my beliefs, you do not know what you're talking about. And because you continue to tell false stories, I leave the matter between you and the One you do not believe in. But! have a nice day...

Oh my, where have I ever done this. Your inability to understand does not mean that I have ever done that. In fact you purposefully keep yourself ignorant about the sciences so that you have an excuse for your false claims.

Once again, I will gladly help you to learn those basics. That offer alone refutes most of your claims because you do not understand how you do many of the things that you are accused of and you refuse to learn how we know that you are guilty of those acts.

 

[blü 2]

Forget "objective". There is only reality itself and our search for it using reason and/ or experiment.

You've just affirmed my point. Reality is out there, and we are in our heads, searching to understand it.

It is critical that we each understand this so we don't overestimate what is known.

I don't over-estimate what is known. I give it the esteem my present knowledge thinks it deserves.

And as I spelt out for you twice previously, science doesn't over-estimate what is known. But it doesn't make your error of dismissing it as worthless. Rather it's a vital place to stand as we continue to explore, describe, seek to explain.

Once you know something it becomes virtually impossible to see the reality where is diverges.

That is apparently a problem you have. I'm aware of such possibilities, but happy to act on the basis of what I know is effective.

I meant that you are trying to change reality with words. Free will can change reality over time but nothing, not your beliefs, not science, and perhaps not even God can affect reality in the here and now. It is fixed and dependent on events and processes we don't even know or understand.

So now you're ruling out magic, miracles, gods? If so , that indeed is progress.

Again you are mistaking tools for reality.

Again you don't appear to grasp the relationship between the external world and each individual's internal world, which is informed by the external.

It would be more like reality to think of religion as a means to understand reality through thought and science by means of experiment.

Historically, attribution of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning, flood, drought, famine, disease, good and bad luck &c, to invisible entities and explaining the external world using just-so stories, seems to be a reasonable theory supported by sociological / anthropological evidence.

Science replaces those stories with alternative ideas derived from observation, evidence, repeatable experiment and induction. That's why and how science has shaped our modern world, achieved things religion was never equipped to do.

Science is an outgrowth of religion and would have been impossible had religion not been founded in reality as well.

Science is arguably an outgrowth of one branch of Greek thought. The great gift of Aquinas and the Schoolmen to Western thought was the shift from book learning and the final authority of the bible to the idea that there must be independent arguments to demonstrate the reality of God. Natural philosophy ─ early science ─ grew from such seeds.

I am saying religion was founded in non experimental science.

You mean, not on what we'd consider science.

 

[cladking]

You've just affirmed my point. Reality is out there, and we are in our heads, searching to understand it.

Then we agree.

And as I spelt out for you twice previously, science doesn't over-estimate what is known.

Again we agree. Real scientists have a reasonably good estimation of what is known and what we believe.

It's those who practice scientism and believe in supernatural forces like Mother Nature and human omnipotence who do not.

That is apparently a problem you have.

Hardly. I'm am exceedingly good at seeing anomalies. I'm even better at this than I am at experiment design or inventing hypothesis.

Where I am very weak is in unlearning things.

So now you're ruling out magic, miracles, gods?

I'm not ruling anything out. I can't even rule out the possibility that you're right for the main part.

Again you don't appear to grasp the relationship between the external world and each individual's internal world, which is informed by the external.

Is that new age speak?

There is one reality and we are each a part of it whether we believe in the supernatural science or not. IMO

Historically, attribution of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning, flood, drought, famine, disease, good and bad luck &c, to invisible entities and explaining the external world using just-so stories, seems to be a reasonable theory supported by sociological / anthropological evidence.

Irrelevant.

Science replaces those stories with alternative ideas derived from observation, evidence, repeatable experiment and induction. That's why and how science has shaped our modern world, achieved things religion was never equipped to do.

NO. How many times do I have to tell you science is experiment and experiment is science? Science doesn't think,. explain, or shape anything. It is reason and experiment that is supposed to guide us and our leaders. That science gave us the internet after disproving the existence of God is supernatural thinking. This is not the way science works. Technology s a magic trick usually performed by those with an understanding of scientific principles. All life, all thought, all consciousness is individual and science is neither an individual nor a definable set of individuals.

You mean, not on what we'd consider science.

Yes! Exactly. My opinion is that there are many different types of science and metaphysics, or at least two of them. One used by modern humans and one used by all other species including our predecessor species; homo sapiens.

 

[cladking]

You've just affirmed my point. Reality is out there, and we are in our heads, searching to understand it.

Perhaps I should add that only our species "homo omnisciencis" live in our heads. All other species are out there with the rest of reality. They are different than we are in the way they think. We model what we believe and they model reality itself as understood through genetics and experience within the natural logic of their brain.

 

[blü 2]

There is one reality

But each of us looks out at it from inside our individual head.

How many times do I have to tell you science is experiment and experiment is science? Science doesn't think,. explain, or shape anything.

Science is what scientists do. They think, hence thinking is intrinsic to science. They interpret and seek to explain, hence interpretation and explanation are intrinsic to science.

 

[cladking]

But each of us looks out at it from inside our individual head.

Good. We still agree.

They think, hence thinking is intrinsic to science.

Ah... ...no.

Due to the way humans think today it is necessary to think to study reality or even to peel an orange (at least for the first time). I don't want to turn this into a semantical argument and this is not my intent here. And I agree "They interpret and seek to explain, hence interpretation and explanation are intrinsic to science". However it is still true and relevant that ALL ideas, ALL consciousness, ALL thinking is individual. It seems like science thinks because all Peers agree on their models and don't notice the slight differences from one peer to the next.

Science (the vector sum total of thought) changes when any peer dies. Eventually the paradigm always changes and then there is a new model among peers and each one still varies. Science doesn't think, act, invent, or learn. It is a methodology with a distinct metaphysics. It is not some supernatural being that gives homo omnisciencis every answer by reading the text books.

 

[blü 2]

Good. We still agree.

Ah... ...no.

Then we disagree.

Over and out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although evolutionists do not mention it much, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only have 23.

What makes you think "evolutionists" do not mention it much?
It's in fact one of the best evidences of common ancestry with the other great apes...

Check this out for example:

You might think that it is not much, but a difference of a single pair affects hundreds of genomic characteristics that make both species completely different from the beginning from the physical to the ability to think.

If it were true that humans came from apes, this difference of -2 chromosomes would have constituted a serious anomaly that would have destined the supposed new specimen(s) to non-survival, as proven by all known examples of chromosomal anomalies.

Down syndrome (trisomy 21), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13), Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18), Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY), Turner syndrome (45, X), are some examples of chromosomal abnormalities in humans. Imagine that a pair of chromosomes ceases to exist or "change configuration", as evolutionists say happened to apes to become humans.

Przewalski’s horses has different chromosome count then other species of horse.
Are they not horses?

 

[cladking]

Then we disagree.

Over and out.

The belief that two people can be in complete agreement on complex idea is also "supernatural".

 

[YoursTrue]

Good. We still agree.


Ah... ...no.

Due to the way humans think today it is necessary to think to study reality or even to peel an orange (at least for the first time). I don't want to turn this into a semantical argument and this is not my intent here. And I agree "They interpret and seek to explain, hence interpretation and explanation are intrinsic to science". However it is still true and relevant that ALL ideas, ALL consciousness, ALL thinking is individual. It seems like science thinks because all Peers agree on their models and don't notice the slight differences from one peer to the next.

Science (the vector sum total of thought) changes when any peer dies. Eventually the paradigm always changes and then there is a new model among peers and each one still varies. Science doesn't think, act, invent, or learn. It is a methodology with a distinct metaphysics. It is not some supernatural being that gives homo omnisciencis every answer by reading the text books.

You make some very good points as far as I am concerned. Because to the best of my knowledge, gorillas, monkeys, and salmon apparently and evidently do not seek to explain anything.

 

[cladking]

You make some very good points as far as I am concerned. Because to the best of my knowledge, gorillas, monkeys, and salmon apparently and evidently do not seek to explain anything.

Thank you.

People who believe in science believe in the supernatural.

For every practical purpose anyone who studies or understands science does believe in it at least a little. While I try very hard not to the simple fact is there are numerous scientific principles and interpretations without experimental underpinnings I take at face value. But I do not believe that nature must obey any laws just because experiment shows commonalities between various aspects of reality. I do not believe there is a law that something the size and weight of the earth must attract things at 32'/s/s at its surface. It just does. This is probably true everywhere and at every time in the universe but this too is hardly certain.

Humans have no choice but to believe. We must believe in order to learn language and to seek patterns by which we live our lives and create progress. Any belief not derived from every experiment is thus supernatural and most extrapolation of experiment require leaps of faith. This isn't to say science must be wrong or is bad merely that there is no basis for the holier than thou attitude. Until such time as we can define and study consciousness there is little reason to think we know much of anything at all. Reality is infinitely complex and reductionistic science has hardly begun to unravel every law and is virtually blind to the big picture. Yet somehow or other so many believers in science are just certain of their every belief and that there is no God and that religion is founded in superstition, greed, stupidity, or ignorance. Every individual is very different and each is a highly complex amalgam of both similar and highly disparate beliefs.

Reason underlies most peoples actions and beliefs but we each define reason differently and use different models to gauge what is reason and what is not.