Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm curious, how many others here believe that not only is our own universe perhaps not the only one, but a smaller part of a larger thing in a way similar to how we our made up of individual cells?

 

[Valjean]

Regarding "peer review," I am going to bring out that there are agencies within various countries that test medications. Yet -- some medications are not allowed in countries while they are allowed in others. Scientists ban them. Or allow them. So much for "peer review." And that by highly education people who have different standards. PLUS -- medications can be tested. And, of course, depending on situation, some are banned while the same medication is not banned in other countries.

This has nothing to do with peer review or any conflicting claims about the medications. Everyone agrees on the facts about the medications. Different countries just have different laws and criteria about levels of risk.

There ARE no tests for "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" leading to evolution of fish, for example, leading to -- homo sapiens. It's guesswork based on what is thought by some scientists to be practically irrefutable so-called "evidence" as they see it of flopping fish types that supposedly emerged to land dwelling animals. Absolutely nothing to really support this. But obviously many believe it.

No. Clearly you don't understand the facts or reasoning behind the admittedly odd sounding claim.
The claim is based on evolution being a series of nested hierarchies, and the fact that each generation is an outgrowth of, ie. part of, the original, prototype clade. You can't evolve out of your cladistic ancestry.

So, in common usage and ordinary biology a human is not a fish, but used in the taxonomic, hierarchical sense, our clade is contained in, and remains part of, the fish clade it originally descended from.
You are a fish - and you are not a fish. It just depends on the particular, technical sense in which the word's being used.

This one of those confusing claims/facts we find in science all the time, like the equivalence of time and space. They're different, and they're the same.

I wish biologists would quit tossing these unexplained ambiguities out to an uneducated public who will be confused by them. Other biologists may see the amusing ambiguity immediately, but to the public, the claim just seems idiotic.

 

[Valjean]

I'm surprised you need an example of what medications are literally banned in some parts of Europe because you put so much emphasis on your beliefs and trust science so much. Once again, just so you understand, I am not anti-science, it depends on what is being examined or spoken of as to whether I believe everything scientists may purport. Interestingly enough, we hear in the U.S. sometimes of certain ones arrested when they carry medications in their bags that may be legally prescribed in the United States but banned in Europe. You might take a look at 9 Common Medications That Are Banned in Other Countries for specifics.

Again, they're not banned due to any pharmacological disagreements.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not going to argue this issue, but to me it is perfectly clear that "science" has its problems, and "peer review" may not be that great. OTHERWISE - meds in one country would be "peer reviewed" in other countries and the "scientists" would all agree. But they don't.

But the research findings about them were peer reviewed. Why would they need to do it again, on the same research?
The scientists all do agree, but politicians/regulators in country A might consider one anaphylactic reaction in 5,000 an acceptable risk, and those in country B, an unacceptable level. The scientists in both countries completely agree on the percentage of untoward reactions.

Evolution (the theory of) has not tests like at least medication does.

Yes. It does; far more extensive and consilient tests than anything in medicine. Scientists are not just pulling evolution out of their hats. It's been tested by dozens of different disciplines, all with the same results. Evolution is not conjecture or an anti-religion conspiracy.

Doctors will prescribe medication and in many instances do not warn of side effects which can be deadly. Like I say, you decide what you choose to accept as true, and I choose what I accept.

But evolution, unlike personally acceptable risk levels, is not a matter of choice. It's simplghy a fact.

If I thought evolution was true as posited by scientists I would say so, but I don't, if you want to believe what scientists purport about the theory, obviously it's your choice and reasons others may have behind it do not line up with your way of reasoning. I understand that.
I could go into what tests have ascertained about the various medications and their effectiveness. It's a different situation, however, with something like evolution, which simply has no testing ground anyway, even if doctors or pharmaceutical salespeople do not reveal the possible deleterious side effects of the result of some meds.

Noöne is disputing the fact that you believe what you say. We dispute the facts and the reasoning your beliefs are based it on.
I also dispute your comparison of variances in medical regulations with variances in scientific claims. Apples and oranges.

 

[Valjean]

Here's something I was thinking of...what evidence is there that you know of that God does not exist?

You're shifting the burden, aren't you?
Did you think we wouldn't catch this?

 

[Valjean]

Demonstrably wrong? You mean like there are demonstrable verifications of fish becoming apes??? (other than puzzle pieces, that is...put onto some frame that does not exist...)

Check out the facts and reasoning behind the claim, before declaring it bunk.
Understand a claim before dismissing or denying it.

 

[blü 2]

I'm curious, how many others here believe that not only is our own universe perhaps not the only one, but a smaller part of a larger thing in a way similar to how we our made up of individual cells?

You might enjoy reading Mr Wells' tale "Under the Knife" at http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/2871/

(Apologies for the crude link ─ the more elegant one isn't available for some reason.)

 

[firedragon]

Do you really think Genesis is the earliest creation narrative?

Nope.

Anyway you did not answer the question directly. You had just gone on the usual narrative and the usual handwaving with no objectivity.

Thanks.

 

[ChristineM]

We don't "know" many things, but theories help us understand how things operate. The physics behind what we know is limited to our knowing. It's what we don't know but aspire to know that makes the difference and is also what makes truth able to be verified so important. The problem comes when we no longer aspire to know more than what we think we already know. So, the I don't knows are great and by this logic, it's ok to be ok with this and place it in the realms of what's unknowable, which in all honesty would equate to God or gods or the universe or the substance of life period. I'm ok with the term God. I'm ok with the term universe. I'm ok with the term cosmos or substance of the all. I agree with much of what you say, but to limit creator gods to only 3800 would be a grossly underestimated number in my opinion.

I define truth by its primary definition

The quality or state of being true in accordance with fact or reality.​

Not

A belief that is accepted as true.​

As for creator gods, exclude hundu gods I understand rhat humanity has worshiped around 4200 gods, 3800 of them being creator gods. Of course, research into religious history may have updated those figures, I'm ok with that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I define truth by its primary definition

The quality or state of being true in accordance with fact or reality.​

Not

A belief that is accepted as true.​

As for creator gods, exclude hundu gods I understand rhat humanity has worshiped around 4200 gods, 3800 of them being creator gods. Of course, research into religious history may have updated those figures, I'm ok with that

Yeah, but a defintion is not truth. So we end in epistemology and not what you define truth as. Rather how do you know as such?

 

[Balthazzar]

I define truth by its primary definition

The quality or state of being true in accordance with fact or reality.​

Not

A belief that is accepted as true.​

As for creator gods, exclude hundu gods I understand rhat humanity has worshiped around 4200 gods, 3800 of them being creator gods. Of course, research into religious history may have updated those figures, I'm ok with that

That's how I define truth also.

Theory as a truth or theory as a method of stringing truths together, believed to best represent most probable scenario? I won't argue your last point.

 

[gnostic]

Moses undoubtedly knew the Hebrew language, although raised as an Egyptian, he was (1) well-educated, (2) knew where he came from, and (3) had contact with Hebrews.

Spoken Hebrew language, probably, Hebrew written language, as the Hebrew would not exist, until somewhere between Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.

No matter what you may think or believe YoursTrue, the writing of the Torah (eg Genesi, Exodus, Numbers, etc) don’t exist at this period; none of the OT books attributed to Moses, as well that of Joshua & Judges, exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1050 BCE). No narratives of the Torah existed in this period, not in any Hebrew scripts, nor Canaanite cuneiform, nor in Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic, during 16th to 14th centuries BCE.

If Moses did write the Exodus, wouldn’t he know the name of the mother who adopted him, or the name of her father, or the name of the king who at the times of the plagues & and the Israelites being freed?

Whoever wrote the Exodus, which is clearly wasn’t Moses, didn’t know Egyptian history as well as you believed the author.

Unlike Israel and Judah, Egypt especially that of the royal families are well-documented texts that were contemporary to respective kings, inscribed on papyri or on stones. Particularly that of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE) & Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE), where the names of their parents, siblings, spouses & children were recorded in palaces, temples, tombs, stone stelae, etc.

You do understand what “contemporary” means, don’t you?

Contemporary writing would mean it was written within a person’s lifetime, or shortly after death, eg 1 to 10 years. In history, the more years that have passed, the less reliable it is.

I don’t just mean autobiography or persona memoirs, as I would doubt kings would write much, but it can be political records, annals, correspondents/letters, biographies, written by third-person, eg royal scribes, priests, etc.

 

[gnostic]

Nope.

Anyway you did not answer the question directly. You had just gone on the usual narrative and the usual handwaving with no objectivity.

Thanks.

Spoken by someone, who never read anything outside of scriptures.

Ok. Try reading some of the translations.

Here are some of the translations from the books in my collection:

Stephanie Dalley, Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford World's Classics, 1991 (revised edition 2000).​

Epic of Gilgamesh (read Tablet 10 about the Flood myth of Utnapishtim)​

​

Epic of Atrahasis (contain both Creation & Flood)​

​

Epic of Creation (also known as the Enūma Eliš)​

​

​

Andrew George, The Epic Of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Penguin Classics, 1999.​

There are Standard Version, where the most complete tablets were discovered at the Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, including the Flood story of Utnapishtim (read Tablet 10).​

There are also older tablets less complete or fragmented, from Old Babylonian period, Middle Babylonian period, and 5 Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh, including the mention of Ziusudra, the Sumerian version of Atrahasis & of Utnapishtim.​

Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once...Sumerian Poetry In Translation, Yale University Press, 1997.​

All Sumerian literature, that include the Story of the Flood (known to scholars as the Eridu Genesis), and different Creation myths.​

​

Simon B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBL (Society of Biblical Literature), 1997.​

​

​

R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford University Press 1998​

R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (v. 1-3), Aris & Phillips, 2004​

​

E A Wallis Budge, Legends of the Egyptian Gods: Hieroglyphic Texts and Translations, 1912​

Several Egyptian creation myths.​

But if you don’t want to buy the books, or borrow books from the libraries. Below are some links from the website on Sumerian literature:

ETCSL (Electronic Texts Corpus of Sumerian Literature) (ETCSL:ETCSLcorpus)​

​

1.1.2 Enki and Ninmah (The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) - creation of humans​

​

1.7.4 The Flood Story (The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) - story of creation/flood (Ziusudra)​

​

1.8.1.4 Gilgmec, Enkidu and the Netherword (https://etcsl.orinst.owx.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4&charenc=j) - a very brief creation story in the prologue.​

​

1.8.1.3 The Death of Gilgamec (The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) - only mention of Ziusudra​

​

5.6.1 The instructions of Curuppag (The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) - wisdom dialogues between Ziusudra and his father​

​

2.1.1 The Sumerian king list (The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) - mention of the Flood​

​

There are lot more, but it is late, so I am going to bed.​

​

Follow these sources, or don't. I don't care if you want to remain ignorant.​

 

[SkepticThinker]

From my experience, atheists ( meaning “internet atheist”) don’t believe that things come from nothing, (nor they deny it ether) they keep an ambiguous and flexible view where they don’t claim nor deny anything , so that they can avoid the burden proof and “win” the debate with semantics

Actually it's more simple than that.

We don't know if there was something or nothing or whatever. We don't know. Nobody knows.

So the honest answer is, "We don't know."

But you point is true, atheist believe in more amazing things than theist (weather if they label it as miracle or not is irrelevant)

Such as?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you quote an actual example of @YoursTrue beign wrong? (quote his words)

Go back and read the post I was responding to where I said it's all wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I decide who I believe and what medical action I will take.
Doctors certainly can be wrong but that usually goes unheralded in the press. For instance, one particular medication I researched that is popular in the United States is banned in certain parts of Europe. There are others. Why do you think that is?

This was in response to, "Did you just say that you need science to live ("I take meds") and then follow it up by saying there's no good reason to "believe science?"

I have decided that under the presentation of the Darwinian theory of evolution, there simply is nothing more than puzzle pieces that (some) scientists want to make it fit the framework as if it means these organisms evolved by mutation leading to "natural selection," etc. But there is nothing to verify that.

All evidence across multiple fields of science collected over 150+ by multiple groups of independent scientists across the world, all demonstrate that evolution is a fact of life. No evidence has ever been found that could falsify evolution. Why do you think that is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not going to argue this issue, but to me it is perfectly clear that "science" has its problems, and "peer review" may not be that great. OTHERWISE - meds in one country would be "peer reviewed" in other countries and the "scientists" would all agree.

Peer review is the self-correcting mechanism that we use to weed out bad science. It's the best we've got. It's designed to assess the validity, quality and originality or articles for publication. It's an independent assessment of research by experts in the field.

You're conflating "allowed in a country" with "peer review." Those are separate things. The governmental bodies of countries are the ones who make the regulations about what medications are banned or not, depending on whatever criteria they're relying upon.

But they don't. Evolution (the theory of) has not tests like at least medication does.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

We know that viruses mutate. We can observe and measure them. Why do you think the flu vaccine needs to be updated every year? How do you think the various COVID variants evolved, if you don't believe in evolution?

Doctors will prescribe medication and in many instances do not warn of side effects which can be deadly.

Which doctors? Where? They should be reviewed by their medical boards if that's the case.

Like I say, you decide what you choose to accept as true, and I choose what I accept.
If I thought evolution was true as posited by scientists I would say so, but I don't, if you want to believe what scientists purport about the theory, obviously it's your choice and reasons others may have behind it do not line up with your way of reasoning. I understand that.

I don't "choose what I accept as true."
I accept it what is true when it's demonstrated to be true.

I could go into what tests have ascertained about the various medications and their effectiveness. It's a different situation, however, with something like evolution, which simply has no testing ground anyway, even if doctors or pharmaceutical salespeople do not reveal the possible deleterious side effects of the result of some meds.

This is nonsense. Medicine is a wonderful testing ground for evolution. That's how we know it works.

 

[firedragon]

Spoken by someone, who never read anything outside of scriptures.

See, this kind of cheap statements just show your character. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks for the cut and paste. Very well done. Cutting and pasting is a fantastic achievement. Especially for someone so well read enough to insult others at their pleasure to feel good.

So now, can you provide "evidence" that Noah's episode was without doubt copied from Gilgamesh, not that they were both copied from an older source from Iraq? Not conjecture, but "evidence".

Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean there are no verifications beyond fairy tales that fish became (evolved to) humans. Got it and thank you again.

No. There are genetics and a fossil record.

 

[YoursTrue]

You did not answer my question. I answered your poorly asked one. It is rather amusing that you do not even know how you screwed up.

You keep making vague unfounded charges. Anyway, take care and hope your mind gets better. Thank you.