Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

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?

Ok so at least sometimes claims are evidence…………….as you just explained……..we agree…………the next time an atheist asserts that “clams are not evidence” (never ever) I will tag you so that you can correct him

 

[leroy]

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.

No? No what? Can you please tell me specifically and unambiguously what is that part that you reject?

 

[leroy]

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:



I had replied with:



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?

. I recalled correctly that she was a woman. I never claimed I had evidence that she is

yes your memory of her claim IS the evidence, that she is a woman. ............therefore you do have evidnce.............that is my only point.......this is not suppose to be hard not controvertial.

Does that clear thing up?

it was never unclear............but thanks

 

[YoursTrue]

pick pick pick

 

[YoursTrue]

yes your memory of her claim IS the evidence, that she is a woman. ............therefore you do have evidnce.............that is my only point.......this is not suppose to be hard not controvertial.





it was never unclear............but thanks

they will pick on ANYTHING...lol. Interesting what was Paul's response to some people --

 

[YoursTrue]

I know. Maybe (some think) evolution of HUMANS will lead to everlasting life...

 

[gnostic]

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

i have already mentioned that you should check her profile, as I had also checked your profile (which stated the date of registration, religion and gender). I told you in the earlier post to look at her profile. You’re not reading my post.

but I had known @YoursTrue before that, under her avatar’s name on the left of each posts. RF used to listed members’ gender in the posts of threads.

 

[YoursTrue]

i have already mentioned that you should check her profile, as I had also checked your profile (which stated the date of registration, religion and gender). I told you in the earlier post to look at her profile. You’re not reading my post.

but I had known @YoursTrue before that, under her avatar’s name on the left of each posts. RF used to listed members’ gender in the posts of threads.

So what? Do you believe all humans are apes?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Whether you read this or not, you still don't get the point. If I have to explain the point to you, like, forget it. Anyway, have a good one! Christine is usually a female's name. But there was a man who became a woman and his/her name was Christine. So?

 

[John53]

I'm going to wait for the English translation.

 

[gnostic]

So what? Do you believe all humans are apes?

Apes are not taxon classifications of superfamily (Hominoidea, "apes"), family (Hominidae, "great apes"), subfamily (Homininae, "African apes"), tribe (Hominini), but not that of genus (Homo, "humans") or species (Homo sapiens, "wise humans", for the anatomical modern humans).

The superfamily Hominoidea ("apes") is a superfamily of the order Primates, and Primates of the class Mammalia ("mammals").

So yes, the current subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens belonged to both Homo ("humans") and Hominidae ("great apes"), as well as being among many primates, and that of mammals.

Mammalia are one of classes that fall under the phylum Chordata (eg having notochord & the spinal cords that are covered by vertebrae) and that phylum falls under the kingdom Animalia.

So not only humans are mammals, we are vertebrates (that would include fishes, amphibians, reptiles & birds). We are also -

• tetrapods (having 4 limbs) and
• amniotes (animals that reproduce embryos, and the fetuses grow inside female wombs before birth (eg most mammals) or animals that lay their fertilized eggs (zygotes) on dry lands, eg reptiles and birds).)

Are we not mammals? tetrapods? vertebrates? ainimals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Or, to be intellectually honest about it: they don't claim to know how the universe originated and thus don't make claims about it and just say "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)

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Did he make that claim?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Demonstrably wrong? You mean like there are demonstrable verifications of fish becoming apes???

Genetics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So why is it hat you do not believe in a higher intelligent person with power that you cannot see?

Because there is no reason to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And all of those 32 hypotheses (if they really exist) ether: claim that the universe came from nothing or that it has always existed, (or are open for both possibilities)

My point is that for the there are only 2 possibilities

1 it has always existed

2 it came from nothing

3. it came from something else. a multi-verse comes to mind.

So a false dichotomy at best.

Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.

Why? Because you say so?

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe.

How convenient.
Special pleading though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you forgetting that according to believers every individual is the same species as its parent and therefore it follows that no fish can even morph into another fish!!!

Gradualism.

It's the same as in development of language.
Every individual in history spoke the same language as the people it was raised by and its peers.
And yet Latin turned into spanish, portugese, french and italian.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No.

Also, the "universe" is not "all physical reality". It's rather the space-time continuum.
When talking about "all that actually exists", physics refers to that as "cosmos" if I remember correctly.

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

There is no reason at all to assume that "nature" is restricted to just the space-time bubble we happen to occupy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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”

Why do you restrict the "natural world" to just the space-time continuum we inhabit?
How have you determined that there is nothing natural beyond that?

I'm not saying there is, but I certainly can't exclude that there isn't.
A multi-verse for example, would be part of the natural world. So would the potentially infinite amount of universes such produces.

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

We understand it just fine. We also understand how it is not correct / doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

False.


It's rather simple really........
"The universe has always existed".

With our current understanding of the nature of the universe, that is actually a factual and true statement.
"Always" is a period of time. ALL of time, to be exact.

The universe started at T = 0. It's the space-time continuum. Time is literally a dimension of the universe, inherent to it.
At any point in time the universe existed.

Go back in time. Pick any point in time. Did the universe exist then? The answer is "yes", isn't it?

The start of the universe IS the start of time (as we know both the universe AND time).
So how then is it incorrect to say that the universe has always existed?

Was there a time when the universe didn't exist? If you think there was, then when was this?

I say that there was no such time.
Any point in time you can point to, the universe existed.