Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

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

I had never claimed I had evidence that she was a woman, i only corrected you that she is, and you blew out of proportion.

This claim of evidense, only came from you, not me.

Memory or not, I was correct when I first told you that he was really a she. You were the one who twisted my word, falsely claiming that I had evidence.

You keep tell me that I atheist, when I am not. How many more strawman craps are you going to use?

You could have just acknowledge the correction, very earlier on, but you were determined to wasted my times, talking about things that were utter pointless conversation…it simply didn’t go this far.

are you still going to talk about this stupid evidence vs memory crap? or waving the atheist in my face? Can we stop now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Irrelevant.

It is still a fact that

1 you and your atheist friends assert that “claims are not evidence”

2 all you have is a claim that @YoursTrue is a woman

3 therefore by your logic there is no evidence that @YoursTrue is a woman


...
The easy solution is to make a self-correction and retreat from you assertion (claims are not evidence)…………….but you won’t do that because admit mistakes is forbidden in your cult

In this discussion we're having, a person's gender is absolutely inconsequential to the arguments being made.
So we take the person's word for it.

If, in fact, this discussion did hinge upon the poster's gender, we would have to investigate further and seek out more evidence.
But it's not, so we can just take the poster's word for it. Because it doesn't matter, either way.

See the difference?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Except that he did. He reversed the burden of proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Atheists don't assert anything.
They just reject god claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You're ranting about something I've not claimed. I've said nothing about proof anywhere.

I said the evidence (gathered across multiple fields of science, collected by multiple independent groups of scientists over the last 160+ years) all points to the conclusion that evolution is a fact of reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

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?


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

What a bizarre rabbit hole you've gone down with this discussion.

Claims are reasonably good evidence, provided we are talking about trivial, everyday matters that are uncontroversial and there is no reason to think the person making them may be mistaken, lying, or deluded.

If somebody says they are male or female, on an anonymous forum like this I'll accept it because, well.... meh, who cares?

If you think mere claims are good evidence as regards to controversial and contested issues, then you'd end up having to accept endless contradictory claims and that way madness lies....

Surely this isn't hard?

 

[ChristineM]

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

Precisely, irrelevant, so why the hell are you continuing to rant on about it?

You don't have a point. One can only go by what she calls herself, that is not evidence, it is simply accepting that @YoursTrue is not a liar in respect of her gender.

That you question it means not only have you called me a liar you are also calling one of your own a liar.

 

[Pogo]

The Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the origins of religion could go back far further than people imagine. And from whence arose these origins? To assume religious thought is rooted in ancient superstitions is a superstition. Why would religious precepts ring true to so many individuals if they are rooted on nothing but magical beliefs? Are we to believe humans are born with such beliefs? Of what possible biological benefit would superstitions be to ancient people who were wholly ignorant of modern science and modern knowledge? How could they have survived to create us and modern science through superstition?

Because superstitions and gods are the predecessor to science, a way of making sense of perceived (often erroneously) regularities and giving them a why answer that we as humans need. They allow us to transfer this information from one to another without having the recipient go through all the process of noticing the regularities. When we have no answer to the why, we often invent extra powerful causes to "explain" them. Collect these into a culture and you have folklore, give it time and these powerful causes become gods and we strive to not offend them or to appease them. Now you got a religion, add in keepers of the stories and you have the religious control mechanisms we see today.

Think of explaining to a child that these mushrooms are good except the ones with the red dots. Child asks why, you don't want them to find out by trying and they don't have a concept of poison yet so you tell them an evil monster made the red dots. this fits with the general experience that there are things they don't like and so they associate the red dots with that evil thing.
eventually the child might grow up and find a more specific reason that the red dots indicate a poisonous mushroom but until then the imaginary evil entity serves to keep them alive.

 

[Pogo]

If the universe (all physical reality) came from something else, then by definition this “something else” has to be supernatural.

If you don’t understand something as simple as that, then forget about understanding other more complex stuff relevant in these type of discussions

No, @leroy, of course we can come up with other explanations, what is necessary is to support their possibility something you fail to do in your numerous side-trips into false dichotomies.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Two fallacies for the price of one.
False dichotomy and burden of proof fallacies rolled into one. probably more, but these are basic failures.

The burden of proof fallacy involves failing to support one's own assertion and challenging others to disprove it. Although the person making a claim is responsible for providing evidence for that claim, people often commit the burden of proof fallacy by passing that responsibility on to the opposition.May 27, 2024

false dichotomy … occurs when someone misrepresents an issue by offering only two options (when more exist) or by presenting the options as mutually exclusive (when they are not)

 

[cladking]

Because superstitions and gods are the predecessor to science, a way of making sense of perceived (often erroneously) regularities and giving them a why answer that we as humans need.

You are making the same assumption despite my showing it is illogical. Superstition does not provide "fitness" to a population. Quite the contrary it is makes people unfit individually and collectively. In a competition between a superstitious tribe and a nonsuperstitious tribe the latter would always eat the former's lunch.

When we have no answer to the why, we often invent extra powerful causes to "explain" them.

Yes, we do. This is how ideas like "survival of the fittest" and "gradual evolution with every individual being the same species as its parents" arose. Despite being highly illogical it is miraculously believed by all those who don't understand science or how it works. Science is magic to explain what can't be seen and it never changes and is only improved upon over time. Kuhn was a kook, Planck was an idiot, and every experiment has always fit in seamlessly with what was already known. No matter who dies reality remains unchanged so science is unaffected as it miraculously already has every answer.

 

[cladking]

...every experiment has always fit in seamlessly with what was already known.

For most practical purposes every experiment actually rewrites science. "Experiments" that confirm prevailing beliefs have little usefulness and are soon forgotten. It's the ones that change existing beliefs that are remembered and cited. It's the ones that defy interpretation in terms of belief that are important. It is anomalies that lead to progress and change.

 

[gnostic]

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".

no, it’s not a miracle.

evidence are independent of what we believe or don’t believe, what we like or don’t like.

Evidence is true regardless of how we feel, it has no biases.

This is why we rely on evidence to test new hypotheses or test current theories, because it will demonstrate whether a hypothesis or a theory is probable or improbable, correct or incorrect…that’s the most objective way to refute or verify them.

it is very important to be able to determine which of the hypothesis is weak, flawed or incorrect…too weed them out.

That’s why the Falsifiability, Scientific Method & Peer Review are in place, to weed out weak or incorrect or fraudulent hypotheses, by having them tested, rigorously.

The problems that I can see, hypothetically, a scientist might analyse the evidence incorrectly, eg overlook something, or didn’t understand the evidence. In that case, it would be the scientist’s fault, not the problem with evidence.

Scientist can make mistakes, and there are history of errors. What really matter if scientists can learn from their errors.

Take for example, the Big Bang theory vs Steady State theory in the late 1940s. Both of them are 2nd versions, as the original Expanding Universe model and William Duncan MacMillan’s Steady-State model were from the 1920s.

Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold & Fred Hoyle proposed that once the Universe formed, it doesn’t change.

Those of George Gamow, Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman added to the Hubble-Lemaître Law (eg the Friedman Equations & metric, and the Redshift), proposing hot beginning (hence the Hot Big Bang model), Primordial Nucleosynthesis (where the cooling plasma formed the earliest atomic elements, hydrogen, helium & lithium), and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The discovery of CMBR in 1964, lead to the Steady-State model.

The Big Bang theory would go on, with 2 newer models - in 1980s (Inflationary model) & in the 1990 (Lambda CDM model), as did Steady-State model, in which Hoyle will played part a newer models, but with a different team of partners: The Quasi-Stead-State (QSS) Cosmology in 1993. This new model tried to explain some of new discoveries, but like his early model, new flaws popped, made QSS also untenable, as scientists found too many inconsistencies.

The point in this example about Hoyle and his Steady-State models, is that failed the first time, and then failed to demonstrate again with the new model. While I can admire Hoyle for his persistence, but he apparently didn’t learn from errors.

people, including scientists, should learn from their errors or from their failures, Hoyle didn’t.

 

[gnostic]

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

Except my memory were correct. I recalled correctly that she was a woman. I never claimed I had evidence that she is…you were the one who brought up evidence…

You are pissing me off, as if I had erred, when I didn’t.

Here are the original posts:

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

I had replied with:

It’s “her” words…”he” is really a “she”.​

Those last 3 words of yours “quote his words”…was what I was replying to.

All I was doing correcting you about that! That’s all.

Then you went about proving YoursTrue is woman, asking if I did DNA!!! What in the hell were talking about…DNA???

YOU BLOODY BLEW MY CORRECTION THAT YoursTrue is a “her”, not “his”, OUT OF PROPORTIONS!

You misunderstood my meaning and my intention.

Does that clear thing up?

 

[Pogo]

You are making the same assumption despite my showing it is illogical. Superstition does not provide "fitness" to a population. Quite the contrary it is makes people unfit individually and collectively. In a competition between a superstitious tribe and a nonsuperstitious tribe the latter would always eat the former's lunch.



Yes, we do. This is how ideas like "survival of the fittest" and "gradual evolution with every individual being the same species as its parents" arose. Despite being highly illogical it is miraculously believed by all those who don't understand science or how it works. Science is magic to explain what can't be seen and it never changes and is only improved upon over time. Kuhn was a kook, Planck was an idiot, and every experiment has always fit in seamlessly with what was already known. No matter who dies reality remains unchanged so science is unaffected as it miraculously already has every answer.

You have data on non-superstitious tribes meeting superstitious ones?

The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour​

Abstract​

"Superstitious behaviours, which arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect, receive considerable attention in psychology and popular culture. Perhaps owing to their seeming irrationality, however, they receive little attention in evolutionary biology. Here we develop a simple model to define the condition under which natural selection will favour assigning causality between two events. This leads to an intuitive inequality—akin to an amalgam of Hamilton's rule and Pascal's wager—-that shows that natural selection can favour strategies that lead to frequent errors in assessment as long as the occasional correct response carries a large fitness benefit. It follows that incorrect responses are the most common when the probability that two events are really associated is low to moderate: very strong associations are rarely incorrect, while natural selection will rarely favour making very weak associations. Extending the model to include multiple events identifies conditions under which natural selection can favour associating events that are never causally related. Specifically, limitations on assigning causal probabilities to pairs of events can favour strategies that lump non-causal associations with causal ones. We conclude that behaviours which are, or appear, superstitious are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including ourselves."

 

[cladking]

"Superstitious behaviours, which arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect, receive considerable attention in psychology and popular culture. Perhaps owing to their seeming irrationality, however, they receive little attention in evolutionary biology. Here we develop a simple model to define the condition under which natural selection will favour assigning causality between two events. This leads to an intuitive inequality—akin to an amalgam of Hamilton's rule and Pascal's wager—-that shows that natural selection can favour strategies that lead to frequent errors in assessment as long as the occasional correct response carries a large fitness benefit. It follows that incorrect responses are the most common when the probability that two events are really associated is low to moderate: very strong associations are rarely incorrect, while natural selection will rarely favour making very weak associations. Extending the model to include multiple events identifies conditions under which natural selection can favour associating events that are never causally related. Specifically, limitations on assigning causal probabilities to pairs of events can favour strategies that lump non-causal associations with causal ones. We conclude that behaviours which are, or appear, superstitious are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including ourselves."

This isn't science until you can show any experiment that supports any of the assumptions. Operant conditioning is not superstition but rather simple pattern recognition which is what consciousness (other than homo omniscience) is.

Without abstraction there is no superstition.

 

[cladking]

Their definition of "superstition" is highly questionable and it can't be studied scientifically without a definition of it and of consciousness.

You have data on non-superstitious tribes meeting superstitious ones?

This is a dictate of logic. Just because superstition can save instead of kill this doesn't make superstition a survival characteristic. It is a liability regardless of the effect in any specific case. A bomb disposal technician who always cuts the right wire is fine until he shouldda cut the one on the left.

 

[Pogo]

This isn't science until you can show any experiment that supports any of the assumptions. Operant conditioning is not superstition but rather simple pattern recognition which is what consciousness (other than homo omniscience) is.

Without abstraction there is no superstition.

Yes, superstitions are abstractions, letting you children sample toxic fungi so that they develop a distaste for them is operant conditioning.
one leaves you with reproductive success, the other doesn't. superstitions can have fitness benefits.

 

[gnostic]

It is a liability regardless of the effect in any specific case. A bomb disposal technician who always cuts the right wire is fine until he shouldda cut the one on the left.

how is this bomb example is “superstition”?

 

[leroy]

I had never claimed I had evidence that she was a woman, i only corrected you that she is, and you blew out of proportion.

This claim of evidense, only came from you, not me.

Memory or not, I was correct when I first told you that he was really a she. You were the one who twisted my word, falsely claiming that I had evidence.

You keep tell me that I atheist, when I am not. How many more strawman craps are you going to use?

You could have just acknowledge the correction, very earlier on, but you were determined to wasted my times, talking about things that were utter pointless conversation…it simply didn’t go this far.

are you still going to talk about this stupid evidence vs memory crap? or waving the atheist in my face? Can we stop now?

Whait………….we do have good evidence that yoursture is a woman, her claim in her profile page would be that evidence………agree?