Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

impossible. Leroy made no error of logic. None at all.

Aside from my days at universities with applied science and some maths that goes with them, particularly on logic for computer science, eg the Boolean logic, AND, NAND, OR, NOR, etc, I don’t have any other formal education in logic. So I have to admit, I am no expert.

But if i can see the very obvious errors that you and @leroy have made, logic or otherwise, then your logical reasoning are even worse than mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

in my experience, that is a very typical thing for internet atheist..................but sure not all atheist........................why is it so hard to admit/point to mistakes...............................obviously the assertion that "claims are not evidnce" is wrong .........atleast soemtimes claims could be evidnce

Yes, now explain sometimes.

 

[leroy]

Yes, now explain sometimes.

Please explain more what do you mean ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please explain more what do you mean ?

in my experience, that is a very typical thing for internet atheist..................but sure not all atheist........................why is it so hard to admit/point to mistakes...............................obviously the assertion that "claims are not evidnce" is wrong .........atleast soemtimes claims could be evidnce

Eplain how that sometimes works? How do you know when and not when?

 

[leroy]

LOL! And you still do not understand the burden of proof. Wow! How do you even manage to eat lunch?

Since you didnt explicitly denied my point.......I will assume that you agree.

... I will assume that you reject the meme "claims are not evidence"

 

[leroy]

Eplain how that sometimes works? How do you know when and not when?

There are objective criteria to determine if a claim counts as good evidence....... For example if the claim is made by well informed person and it's unlikely to lie..... This claim counts as evidence.


In this particular case user YoursTrue is well informed (she would know if she is a woman or not) and she is unlikely to lie (most people don't lie in registration forms.)..... Therefore her claim of she being a woman is likely to be true.


Any disagreement? Would you add or remove anything?

 

[leroy]

I don’t know if YoursTrue, is really a man or woman, but when RF was still displaying the Gender in YoursTrue‘s avatar & profile, that’s what I remember about it, whenever I discussed, debated or argued about certain topics with YoursTrue.

This absurd rant where you are demanding evidence, for this trivial issue is. All I did was say was that YoursTrue is a female member. that’s all.

But then go on and on, demanding evidence.

I don’t really care if YoursTrue is a woman or man, or even transgender. If YoursTrue registered herself as being female, but is really male, then that’s his or her problem that YoursTrue would lie when registered.

As to @YoursTrue , if you are really man, then I’d apologise for using the wrong pronouns, but my misunderstanding came from the past RF’s display of gender profile. I don’t think I have done anything wrong, because I was basing on what I knew back then, when it was listed in the avatar’s profile.

You just don't get it....

Yes given that yourtrue claimed to be a woman when she register .... She is likely a woman .... Agree? (Yes) There is good evidence yourtrue is a woman agree? (Yes)


But since atheist assert that "claims are not evidence" then by that logic there is no evidence that yourtrue is a woman......which implies that atheist are wrong .....the truth is that At least sometimes claims are evidence agree? (Yes)

If you don't explicitly disagree I will assume that you agree

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are objective criteria to determine if a claim counts as good evidence....... For example if the claim is made by well informed person and it's unlikely to lie..... This claim counts as evidence.


In this particular case user YoursTrue is well informed (she would know if she is a woman or not) and she is unlikely to lie (most people don't lie in registration forms.)..... Therefore her claim of she being a woman is likely to be true.


Any disagreement? Would you add or remove anything?

Well, it depends on how you understand objective and if there is more than one relevant variation.

 

[leroy]

Btw, @leroy .

How do I know you really are a man, when you could be a woman?

I recalled that you had the “male” sign listed as your gender.

I didn’t lie about my gender when I registered. Did you?

Furthermore, I check yours profile, under the “About” (leroy), and it say it is “male”. But how do I know what you say is true. Your about information also included when you joined RF, plus listed your religion as being a “Christian“. re you a Christian, or are you lying about that.

I am not going to waste my finding “evidence” for something as trivial as a person religion or gender status, not yours, and not YoursTrue…as the profiles don’t include real names. So please stop pestering me about ”evidence” about YoursTrue’s gender.

And lastly, you can always check out @YoursTrue profile for yourself, to see for yourself if she is still a “she”. I don’t need to look, because I am going by memory.

That is the issue ....

If you go by the atheist meme "claims are not evidence"

Then from your point if view there is no evidence that I am a man nor that yourtrue is a woman.

The obvious solution is to reject that meme. ... Do you reject that meme?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is the issue ....

If you go by the atheist meme "claims are not evidence"

Then from your point if view there is no evidence that I am a man nor that yourtrue is a woman.

The obvious solution is to reject that meme. ... Do you reject that meme?

No, and I need that you are objective in how that is obvious and explain it in objective terms. But first you have to explain what objective is

 

[ChristineM]

Then from your point if view there is no evidence that I am a man nor that yourtrue is a woman.

Who cares what you are? Oh you do...

 

[gnostic]

You just don't get it....

Yes given that yourtrue claimed to be a woman when she register .... She is likely a woman .... Agree? (Yes) There is good evidence yourtrue is a woman agree? (Yes)


But since atheist assert that "claims are not evidence" then by that logic there is no evidence that yourtrue is a woman......which implies that atheist are wrong .....the truth is that At least sometimes claims are evidence agree? (Yes)

If you don't explicitly disagree I will assume that you agree

no, you have been ranting on and on, that I must have evidence that she is a woman.

it is a very stupid request that you are demanding, because the question of YoursTrue’s gender have absolutely nothing do with atheist’s position that lack of belief in the existence in god…and YoursTrue is not a god.

Atheism has nothing to do with people’s gender.

So your requests are not only stupid, they are pointless.

Furthermore, I am agnostic, not atheist. Again more pointless arguments from you.

All I did was correct you about she being a her, not a him. So please, stop continuing these stupid & pointless demands.

 

[gnostic]

That is the issue ....

If you go by the atheist meme "claims are not evidence"

Then from your point if view there is no evidence that I am a man nor that yourtrue is a woman.

The obvious solution is to reject that meme. ... Do you reject that meme?

more pointless claims and useless questions.

do you like being irrational and petty?

I am not atheist, Leroy…I am agnostic.

A - G - N - O - S - T - I - C​

 

[leroy]

Well, it depends on how you understand objective and if there is more than one relevant variation.

Granted, my assertion is that at least sometimes claims are evidence (sure it depends)……….like in this example where yourstrue claimed to be woman is good convincing evidence that she is a woman.

The implication is that the meme “claims are not evidence” is wrong……………..do you reject that meme? If you don’t assert that meme explicitly I will assume that you agree and that you reject that meme

 

[leroy]

No, and I need that you are objective in how that is obvious and explain it in objective terms. But first you have to explain what objective is

Sounds like an excuse for changing the topic.

support your assertion.............why isent my claim of me being a man or yourtrue claim of being a woman "evidence"

 

[leroy]

Who cares what you are? Oh you do...

Irrelevant,

Why don’t you grant or refute my point? Why this annoying tendency of changing te topic and making random unrelated comments?

You are blinded by your fanatism, your cult told you that “claims are not evidence (never ever)” and you decided to believe in that by faith, despite the fact that it is demonstrably wrong

 

[leroy]

no, you have been ranting on and on, that I must have evidence that she is a woman.

it is a very stupid request that you are demanding, because the question of YoursTrue’s gender have absolutely nothing do with atheist’s position that lack of belief in the existence in god…and YoursTrue is not a god.

Atheism has nothing to do with people’s gender.

So your requests are not only stupid, they are pointless.

Furthermore, I am agnostic, not atheist. Again more pointless arguments from you.

All I did was correct you about she being a her, not a him. So please, stop continuing these stupid & pointless demands.

Ok given that you didn’t explicitly disagree, I will assume that you grant that meme “claims are not evidence” is wrong

 

[leroy]

more pointless claims and useless questions.

do you like being irrational and petty?

I am not atheist, Leroy…I am agnostic.

A - G - N - O - S - T - I - C​

Irrelevant,

All I am saying is that the meme “claims are not evidence” is wrong

The gender of yourstrue is an example, in this case her claim of she being a woman ………IS good EVIDENCE in favor of she being a woman



Is this so hard to understand?...........honestly what part is so hard to understand?

I am not atheist, Leroy…I am agnostic.

that is just a claim (not evidnece according to the meme)

 

[cladking]

Evolution is true because that's what the EVIDENCE demonstrates.

Now that's a miracle. All you have to do is look at "evidence" and you've not only shown what it demonstrates but that your opinion of what it demonstrates is "true".

This is not how science works. Nothing is proven, nothing is true in science. The assumptions and methodology are always relevant and there is no cause o believe the "fossil record" shows anything except that everything changes. It does not show how or why such changes occurred. This is the province of interpretation which is necessarily rooted not in science but opinion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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...

Nobody is making that up. Scientists follow where the evidence leads. Unlike yourself.