• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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.
While I know there are arguments against the Bible, I also note that the order Moses describes creation is in harmony with some of what evolutionists purport, namely that first came water animals (fish and the like), and then came land dwellers. So my question to those who fully believe in evolution rather than God's power to cause/create lifeforms, how did Moses know the sequence of events unless God gave him this knowledge? Doesn't seem to me Moses or anyone living at that time could figure it out by themselves, i.e., without knowledge from God just by looking.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
While I know there are arguments against the Bible, I also note that the order Moses describes creation is in harmony with some of what evolutionists purport, namely that first came water animals (fish and the like), and then came land dwellers. So my question to those who fully believe in evolution rather than God's power to cause/create lifeforms, how did Moses know the sequence of events unless God gave him this knowledge? Doesn't seem to me Moses or anyone living at that time could figure it out by themselves, i.e., without knowledge from God just by looking.
Our completely logical brain is operated with an illogical operating system called language but animals and ancient man may have had a logical language through which the nature of reality could be deduced.

I believe religion arose from these deductions. Of course from our perspective and from the way we think this is invisible and it is not understood in its original form.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Our completely logical brain is operated with an illogical operating system called language but animals and ancient man may have had a logical language through which the nature of reality could be deduced.

I believe religion arose from these deductions. Of course from our perspective and from the way we think this is invisible and it is not understood in its original form.
Well now, I'm not a genius IQ but that doesn't matter, does it. (No, it doesn't as far as I am concerned in reference to this subject, which is basically how do we perceive reality.) So, since you mentioned language, I cannot remember the first word(s) I spoke and why or how I spoke them. Can you?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Well now, I'm not a genius IQ but that doesn't matter, does it. (No, it doesn't as far as I am concerned in reference to this subject, which is basically how do we perceive reality.) So, since you mentioned language, I cannot remember the first word(s) I spoke and why or how I spoke them. Can you?

Every single homo omnisciencis who ever trod the earth believed he knew about the perception of reality. He just looked at the world and it came to him.

If I am right then every single one of them was completely and utterly wrong.

Yes, I even remember composing my first sentence. I didn't talk until I was older because I couldn't enunciate most required sounds. I think a lot of kids understand language before they can speak.

I don't even believe in "intelligence" but "every" human has vast potential and can understand almost anything.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Our completely logical brain is operated with an illogical operating system called language but animals and ancient man may have had a logical language through which the nature of reality could be deduced.

I believe religion arose from these deductions. Of course from our perspective and from the way we think this is invisible and it is not understood in its original form.
You have your thoughts and they are not everybody's thoughts.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles? ;)
"Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest" - John Archibald Wheeler
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles? ;)
As Stephen Hawking said, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. (lol)
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Been away from the forum for a while, but this looks like a place to jump back in. Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating something that's been said.

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
False. It is not an atheist belief that "that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves". In fact, it's not a position I think I've ever seen anybody take. Looks like a straw man.

In fact, since atheism is just lack of belief in any gods, atheists might believe anything else, but let's run with the idea of atheists who just accept science...

A believer believes that some God exists but can't explain why it exists, rather than nothing or a different God (or gods). An atheist believes the universe and natural laws exist but can't explain why those laws and universe exist, rather than nothing or something else.

The difference is that there is evidence for the universe and natural laws.

Note that time is a part of the universe, so this isn't a question of origins in time. "God has always existed" is not an answer as to why it exits and the best tested theory of (space-)time that we have suggests that it is a four dimensional manifold and that time is a direction through it, not something it is subject to. It would be just as timeless ('eternal') as any God. There are other hypotheses, but they must all assume some natural laws.

Mathematically, it is a simple fact that the probability that the universe/natural laws exists must be greater than the probability that the universe/natural laws exists and that it was created by a God. To think otherwise is the conjunction fallacy.

Hence, both believers and atheists have unknowns, but atheists only believe in things for which there is evidence and in the greater of two probabilities.

There is a deep mystery in existence, but just making up a God does nothing to explain it. It adds to the mystery, rather than solves it. A giant leap in the wrong direction....
 

gnostic

The Lost One
While I know there are arguments against the Bible, I also note that the order Moses describes creation is in harmony with some of what evolutionists purport, namely that first came water animals (fish and the like), and then came land dwellers. So my question to those who fully believe in evolution rather than God's power to cause/create lifeforms, how did Moses know the sequence of events unless God gave him this knowledge? Doesn't seem to me Moses or anyone living at that time could figure it out by themselves, i.e., without knowledge from God just by looking.

no, it’s not.

I have noticed that you have conveniently left out the part that the same verses in Genesis 1:20-22, God created birds at the very same time as he had created marine life.

And that would mean birds were created before land animals (1:24-25), so you are ignoring that too.

The matter of birds being created at the same time as fishes, and birds being created before creation of land animals - are both wrong, in the natural life timeline.

And again in 1:24-25, it says God not only created land animals - both wild and domesticated (and the verses only mentioned “cattle” as domesticated, it say nothing about pigs, sheep, goats and poultry) - were created at the same time. Dividing animals into wild and ”cattle” (domesticated), being created at the same time are also wrong.

Humans, not God, started domestication of animals for food, when they started living in permanent settlements (farmlands, villages or towns), and started agricultural farming - sowing crops and vegetables in the fields. Domestication of bovines (oxen, cow, hence cattle), pigs, sheep & goats, and fowls (poultry), these farm animals were grown on farms, as substitutes for hunting wild games as they did during the Palaeolithic periods (prior to 11,600 years ago).

Permanent settlements, agricultural farming and domestication of animals for food were the result of Neolithic Revolution, when the last glacial period ended (Ice Age) in the Pleistocene epoch, around 11,600 years ago.

During the Pleistocene glacial periods, the Palaeolithic humans lived a nomadic lifestyle of that of hunter-and-gatherer cultures for hundreds of thousands of years. These nomadic hunters followed wild animals that seek water source to water source. Although large region, south of the ice sheets, were never covered by high ice sheets, the climate were still colder and very dry, dry enough that most places suffered very long droughts. That’s why farming and liv permanently in one spot for generations weren’t possible, as water were too scarce to support agriculture.

if you don’t understand human history, then you will never learn the cultures of prehistoric times. You certainly cannot learn much from the Bible, as Genesis is just myth.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
no, it’s not.

I have noticed that you have conveniently left out the part that the same verses in Genesis 1:20-22, God created birds at the very same time as he had created marine life.

And that would mean birds were created before land animals (1:24-25), so you are ignoring that too.
Nope. Sorry, scientists sometimes change their posits.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
if you don’t understand human history, then you will never learn the cultures of prehistoric times. You certainly cannot learn much from the Bible, as Genesis is just myth.
I'll leave my life in God's hands. Not what scientists say. By the way, just to say, some medications given freely by docs via science in the U.S. are banned in Europe plus more. I take meds. Just saying. You want to believe science in all their conjecturing or statements? You go right ahead. As for me I know what saved my life...
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I'll leave my life in God's hands. Not what scientists say. By the way, just to say, some medications given freely by docs via science in the U.S. are banned in Europe plus more. I take meds. Just saying. You want to believe science in all their conjecturing or statements? You go right ahead. As for me I know what saved my life...

You keep forgetting that your God didn’t write the Bible.

Nor do what Jewish and Christian traditions say that moses being attributed as the author of the Genesis & Exodus. Neither of these 2 books exist in the late Bronze Age.

the Genesis creation was more than likely based on one of the following Babylonian sources that are known to 6th century BCE Babylon, where royals, aristocrats and priests were exiled at:
  • Enūma Eliš - the Epic of Creation,
  • Epic of Atrahasis - which contains both creation and flood stories.
The order of creation is quite similar to the Enūma Eliš. The primeval watery beginning, the creation of dry lands, creation of sun, moon & stars, creation of animals and then humans.

Where Genesis is most likely composed in the 6th century BCE, the Enūma Eliš was composed in the mid 16th century BCE, and the Epic of Atrahasis, is even older still, as it was originally composed in 17th century BCE, as the oldest version was written in Old Babylonian.

Moses seemed to have lived in the 15th century BCE, but the Hebrew alphabet didn’t exist until after the 11th century BCE (Paleo-Hebrew). What scholars called Biblical Hebrew referred to 10th century BCE, and yet no biblical books exist in that century.

What Genesis stories of creation & flood are based on Mesopotamian myths, which never happened the ways they say it did.

But then again, I shouldn’t be surprised by attitude of rejecting science, as I always thought you were anti-science.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
You keep forgetting that your God didn’t write the Bible.

Nor do what Jewish and Christian traditions say that moses being attributed as the author of the Genesis & Exodus. Neither of these 2 books exist in the late Bronze Age.

the Genesis creation was more than likely based on one of the following Babylonian sources that are known to 6th century BCE Babylon, where royals, aristocrats and priests were exiled at:
  • Enūma Eliš - the Epic of Creation,
  • Epic of Atrahasis - which contains both creation and flood stories.
The order of creation is quite similar to the Enūma Eliš. The primeval watery beginning, the creation of dry lands, creation of sun, moon & stars, creation of animals and then humans.

Where Genesis is most likely composed in the 6th century BCE, the Enūma Eliš was composed in the mid 16th century BCE, and the Epic of Atrahasis, is even older still, as it was originally composed in 17th century BCE, as the oldest version was written in Old Babylonian.

Moses seemed to have lived in the 15th century BCE, but the Hebrew alphabet didn’t exist until after the 11th century BCE (Paleo-Hebrew). What scholars called Biblical Hebrew referred to 10th century BCE, and yet no biblical books exist in that century.

What Genesis stories of creation & flood are based on Mesopotamian myths, which never happened the ways they say it did.

But then again, I shouldn’t be surprised by attitude of rejecting science, as I always thought you were anti-science.
Moses seemed to have lived in the 15th century BCE, but the Hebrew alphabet didn’t exist until after the 11th century BCE (Paleo-Hebrew). What scholars called Biblical Hebrew referred to 10th century BCE, and yet no biblical books exist in that century.
And Moses didn't know the Hebrew language, he knew Egyptians as he was raised in them from his infancy, right, please?
And Moses was given 10 commandment even as per Torah- a product of the clergy, one must say, right, please?:

"According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tablets of the Law (also Tablets of Stone, Stone Tablets, or Tablets of Testimony; Biblical Hebrew: לוּחֹת הַבְּרִית lūḥōt habbǝrīt "tablets of the covenant", לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן luḥōt hāʾeḇen or לֻחֹת אֶבֶן luḥōt ʾeḇen or לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים luḥōt ʾăbānīm "stone tablets", and לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת luḥōt hāʿēdut "tablets of testimony"; Arabic: أَلْوَاحُ مُوسَى āl-wāḥ Mūsā "the tablets of Moses") were the two stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments when Moses ascended Mount Sinai as written in the Book of Exodus.[1]

According to the biblical narrative, the first set of tablets, inscribed by the finger of God, (Exodus 31:18) were smashed by Moses when he was enraged by the sight of the Children of Israel worshiping a golden calf (Exodus 32:19) and the second were later chiseled out by Moses and rewritten by God (Exodus 34:1)."


The clergy, I understand, were "smart" they , likely, would have copied, as one has suggested above, right?;
"Enūma Eliš was composed in the mid 16th century BCE, and the Epic of Atrahasis, is even older still, as it was originally composed in 17th century BCE, as the oldest version was written in Old Babylonian."

Right?

Regards
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
But they do know - based on the information they have.

Then they get new information.
Then they demonstrate the humility to say they were wrong.
Then they fix it.
So present teachings can be wrong. There is nothing to really say otherwise.
 
Top