Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

I was thinking the same thing. How do 'they' know whether I'm male or female? Just because I may claim to be on these forums? hmmm....kind of like the way some people say oh yes, evolution is true because scientists say so. Even though they COULD BE WRONG... And, of course, the evidence is not there. Although they may claim it to be there.

My point is that atleast In this case claims (your claim) is evidence…………….the implication is that at least sometimes claims are evidence……………….which means that one should repeat the meme “claims are not evidence”



In this case you had no reason to lie (nothing to win) and you are obviosly well informed (you know if you are man or a woman) so you get the benefit of the doubt unless someone proves that you lied and that you really are a dude

 

[leroy]

You may be using a false dichotomy. The universe may have existed forever, and still had a beginning.

Only if you use creative vocabulary, where beginning doesnt really means beginning

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My point is that atleast In this case claims (your claim) is evidence…………….the implication is that at least sometimes claims are evidence……………….which means that one should repeat the meme “claims are not evidence”



In this case you had no reason to lie (nothing to win) so you get the benefit of the doubt unless someone proves that you lied and that you really are a dude

Well, then explain the sometimes.

 

[leroy]

You think atheists make this claim?
They don't.

Agree, that is my point (made in my first post in this thread)

Atheist don’t make any claims, they don’t affirm nor deny anything on the origin of the universe (so that they can avoid the burden proof)

But besides the fact that atheist don’t deny nor affirm anything , they know with high degree of certainty that someday somehow science will provide an answer that is consistent with their own philosophical view

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agree, that is my point (made in my first post in this thread)

Atheist don’t make any claims, they don’t affirm nor deny anything on the origin of the universe (so that they can avoid the burden proof)

But besides the fact that atheist don’t deny nor affirm anything , they know with high degree of certainty that someday somehow science will provide an answer that is consistent with their own philosophical view

Now, I am an atheist and not a naturalist or any of that philosophical variants. In effect I am a skeptic and know nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

If the “natural world” (the universe) was caused by something else……………then by definition this “something else” has to be non natural or “supernatural”

Ignorance of cosmology is your downfall, the problem is that you don't accept it.

Here are a few papers that show you are wrong. Feel free to explore them at your leisure or ignore them, whatever... I don't really care, the fact remains that god magic is not required and supernatural is more of a guess then the scientific hypothesis

arxiv multiverse - Google Search

 

[leroy]

Ignorance of cosmology is your downfall, the problem is that you don't accept it.

Here are a few papers that show you are wrong. Feel free to explore them at your leisure or ignore them, whatever... I don't really care, the fact remains that god magic is not required and supernatural is more of a guess then the scientific hypothesis

arxiv multiverse - Google Search

since you didnt explicitly deny my claim I will assume that you grant it

"If the “natural world” (the universe) was caused by something else……………then by definition this “something else” has to be non natural or “supernatural”"


I will interpret your comment as a desperate attempt to change the topic,
Because you alternatives are

1 accept that I am correct (which is forbidden in your cult)

2 show that I am wrong (this would imply accepting a burden proof which is also forbidden in your cult)

…. So given than options 1 and 2 are forbidden in your cult, your only alternative is to call mi ignorant and change the topic

 

[leroy]

Now, I am an atheist and not a naturalist or any of that philosophical variants. In effect I am a skeptic and know nothing.

That is ok

What is not ok is to claim not to know anything, and also claim beyond reasonable doubt that the correct answer is consistent with your philosophical world view

In other words it is not ok to say

“I don’t know if the universe had a cause or a beginning, but I know that the correct answer (whatever it is) would be consistent with my current world view

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t get it. (neither does @gnostic )

You don’t have evidence that @YoursTrue is a woman; all you have is a claim (she claiming to be a woman when she register in the forum)

You and your atheist friends in this forum have been very explicit and very vocal in that “claims are not evidence”………….so by your logic you have no evidence that she is a woman.

Obviously there is an easy solution,

Solution: is likely a woman because claims (at least sometimes) are evidence……..in this case her claim of she being a woman does count as evidence.

The only problem is that by accepting this solution, you have to drop your “claims are not evidence” nonsense.

I see that you still do not understand the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you use creative vocabulary, where beginning doesnt really means beginning

Nope, now you are making an unjustified assumption. Actually more than one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Simple logic

That is most definitely not simple logic.

If the “natural world” (the universe) was caused by something else……………then by definition this “something else” has to be non natural or “supernatural”

You've just restated the exact same thing again.

Why and how are you claiming that the "something else" the universe was caused by was something supernatural?

Maybe our universe sprang from another universe. Or maybe a cosmological turtle vomited up our universe.

Who is ready for 100+ post of you pretending that you dont understand this simple and uncontroversial statement?

You've not made an uncontroversial statement. Just asserted it as "simple logic" as though that makes it so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is ok

What is not ok is to claim not to know anything, and also claim beyond reasonable doubt that the correct answer is consistent with your philosophical world view

In other words it is not ok to say

“I don’t know if the universe had a cause or a beginning, but I know that the correct answer (whatever it is) would be consistent with my current world view

Well, you were not correct about atheists. Can you admit that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Agree, that is my point (made in my first post in this thread)

Atheist don’t make any claims, they don’t affirm nor deny anything on the origin of the universe (so that they can avoid the burden proof)

Atheists don't have the burden of proof when it comes to god(s). That would be the god believers.

But besides the fact that atheist don’t deny nor affirm anything , they know with high degree of certainty that someday somehow science will provide an answer that is consistent with their own philosophical view

Individual atheists affirm and deny things about all kinds of other claims. But you'd have to ask them about those, because you're going to get a different answer, depending on the atheist you ask.

AGAIN, atheism speaks to a single claim about god(s). That. Is. It.

 

[ChristineM]

since you didnt explicitly deny my claim I will assume that you grant it

"If the “natural world” (the universe) was caused by something else……………then by definition this “something else” has to be non natural or “supernatural”"


I will interpret your comment as a desperate attempt to change the topic,
Because you alternatives are

1 accept that I am correct (which is forbidden in your cult)

2 show that I am wrong (this would imply accepting a burden proof which is also forbidden in your cult)

…. So given than options 1 and 2 are forbidden in your cult, your only alternative is to call mi ignorant and change the topic

What claim? All I've seen you do is rant on about how atheists claim.

You are limiting yourself to the universe, as you can see by all the Google links, there are many hypothesis on a multiverse so no supernatural woo was required. You mean that claim?

I've shown you are wrong, get over yourself

 

[YoursTrue]

My point is that atleast In this case claims (your claim) is evidence…………….the implication is that at least sometimes claims are evidence……………….which means that one should repeat the meme “claims are not evidence”



In this case you had no reason to lie (nothing to win) and you are obviosly well informed (you know if you are man or a woman) so you get the benefit of the doubt unless someone proves that you lied and that you really are a dude

Thank you, leroy. It stymies me why people would continue making up stories about what happened "in-between" fish, for example, and apes. As if they know...

 

[John53]

Thank you, leroy. It stymies me why people would continue making up stories about what happened "in-between" fish, for example, and apes. As if they know...

And that statement shows your complete lack of understanding of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

What claim? All I've seen you do is rant on about how atheists claim.

You are limiting yourself to the universe, as you can see by all the Google links, there are many hypothesis on a multiverse so no supernatural woo was required. You mean that claim?

I've shown you are wrong, get over yourself

Are you sure, with all the hypotheses purporting possibilities as to how the universe may have come about that no God was involved (as our dear friend Dr. Hawking contended)? I don't have to produce evidence that God was involved since there is absolutely no evidence that God was NOT involved. Oh, and Dr. Hawking et al also had nothing but possibilities. Maybe not 32 of them, not sure how many possible scenarios he thought up.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that statement shows your complete lack of understanding of evolution.

So you know what, when, where and how particular fish morphed eventually to become apes, huh?

 

[YoursTrue]

And that statement shows your complete lack of understanding of evolution.

You're just making it look worse for yourself...have a good one..

 

[John53]

So you know what, when, where and how particular fish morphed eventually to become apes, huh?

Like I said yesterday and numerous other times, no fish ever morphed into an ape. Maybe you should jot that down and you won't need to ask me again.