Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

it's rather sad that atheists cannot make up their minds where they stand. they keep shifting goals posts and they finally say one person cannot represent all atheists because of various views that's we cant take you guys seriously.

lets test your resolve here with a question;
is morality objective or relative?

My resolve is not the problem, I have to ask if you know the difference and whether you can point to a factual source for morality that is not just an interpretation of someone else's thoughts or writings?

 

[Pogo]

They don't? You mean like mutations don't happen to individuals?

Well as has been explained numerous times to the point that you have claimed even to understand it. Only mutations in germline cells are transmitted to future generations. Having cancer (a mutation) does not give your children cancer. The differences in genetics between you and your parents are changes in their sperm and eggs. Are you having memory problems?

 

[Pogo]

P.S. Don't certain individuals eventually, as they procreate. evolve? (By morphing, by means of mutations, of course...) Anyway -- do you know which fish started the process of evolving over the long run to become the first ape?

No which is just another reason you should not use the word morph for evolution as you have just tripped yourself over the distinction.
morph is a physical change in an individual over time, it does not describe the changes that lead to evolution.

As seriously as you ask the question having already asked it hundreds of times and being told it is unanswerable in the specific that you seem to think is significant I can just as seriously answer that it was Fred, but he got eaten so we don't have a grave or fossil and the practice of recording genealogies in bibles would have to wait a few million years for someone to collect the stories and write them down.

 

[Pogo]

P.S. Don't certain individuals eventually, as they procreate. evolve? (By morphing, by means of mutations, of course...) Anyway -- do you know which fish started the process of evolving over the long run to become the first ape?

No which is just another reason you should not use the word morph for evolution as you have just tripped yourself over the distinction.
morph is a physical change in an individual over time, it does not describe the changes that lead to evolution.

As seriously as you ask the question having already asked it hundreds of times and being told it is unanswerable in the specific that you seem to think is significant I can just as seriously answer that it was Fred, but he got eaten so we don't have a grave or fossil and the practice of recording genealogies in bibles would have to wait a few million years for someone to collect the stories and write them down.

 

[cladking]

Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?

No. I believe this is a fact.

 

[cladking]

Conscious thought and my internal catalogue is all I'm able to utilize to develop from other data. Thought isn't so mechanical that it doesn't require ability to reason or ability to identify able components (data) for greater development. It's not like a change machine that separates the dimes from pennies and nickels from quarters, although similar principles apply.

I have little doubt you have valid points but it's hard for me to think this way.

 

[Balthazzar]

I have little doubt you have valid points but it's hard for me to think this way.

You're wired a little differently than I am, I guess. I'm not sure if would be able to process information well enough your way.

 

[cladking]

So, if gods exist and affect parts of nature, they too are natural.

Maybe. Perhaps man will someday accidently create God who always will have been.

Personal experience contradicts that. I see things that I wasn't expecting to see - things I didn't believe were true before I saw them.

I think most of us have.

But there are an infinite number of things going on all around us all the time and many of them contradict what we believe. Before we all knew everything a few hundred years ago even though almost everyone was wrong about everything they didn't see many anomalies either. Why would we be any different?

Egyptologists have walked by the Great Pyramid millions of times and seen pictures of it countless millions more. Not one of them ever noticed That there are huge triangular shaped areas of stone at the bottom. A real scientist came in and saw them straight off. We don't see what we don't expect. It's the nature of homo circularis rationatio. We reason is circles and and can't step out of this without changing our beliefs. We all do it.

Reasons has served me well.

And the witch doctor will sing the praises, efficacy, and accuracy of voodoo.

Disagree. As I explained, my dogs generalize experience and demonstrate through their behavior that they expect the future to resemble the past.

This is a characteristic of all consciousness; pattern recognition.

I'm not new at this. I've been developing this theory for nearly 70 years and I not only started with experiment but ALL experiment including Pavlov. I've dome many many experiments myself.

 

[cladking]

"everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature."

All things that are happening or have ever happened are causally connected. There is cause and effect and all things are both cause and effect.

A butterfly in China causes all hurricanes. Our inability to predict where or when are irrelevant. Eventually the butterfly will cause a star to collide and maybe even a universe to spawn from a big bang.

 

[cladking]

You're wired a little differently than I am, I guess. I'm not sure if would be able to process information well enough your way.

Exactly. For me to think like you would require great effort. One of the reasons I think as I do was the conscious decision not to have to think so much and so hard. But the chief reason is I was disillusioned to find out just how little is known and the impossibility of quantifying any of the variables in things I needed to know to live my life through reason. So when I discovered chaos theory in the '50's I simply decided to use intuition to get insights into the big picture.

I'm remarkably lazy but have always found ways to cheat to get the most done. I even kindda made a career of this cheating. Work gave me lots of time to think and to look for short cuts.

I seriously doubt I even could process information like you do any longer.

To each his own.

 

[Balthazzar]

Exactly. For me to think like you would require great effort. One of the reasons I think as I do was the conscious decision not to have to think so much and so hard. But the chief reason is I was disillusioned to find out just how little is known and the impossibility of quantifying any of the variables in things I needed to know to live my life through reason. So when I discovered chaos theory in the '50's I simply decided to use intuition to get insights into the big picture.

I'm remarkably lazy but have always found ways to cheat to get the most done. I even kindda made a career of this cheating. Work gave me lots of time to think and to look for short cuts.

I seriously doubt I even could process information like you do any longer.

To each his own.

Intuition is not a thing to be discarded.

 

[leroy]

Non-Southern Non-Baptist.


You really do not get to make up your own definitions. Most atheists here are of the "I lack a belief because they have never seen any reliable evidence or rational argument for a God. And no, it is easy to "reject religion" once one realizes that they do not meet their burden of proof. For the same reason that you do not believe in other Gods atheists reject yours too. Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. The null-hypothesis when a claim is made is to lack a belief, not to automatically believe.


Do you have anything specific that is probably not a myth?

Really? So far you have failed to justify your beliefs. So why should anyone believe them?

It would be nice if you provide an objective metric………….what exactly do you mean by reliable evidnece? Or good argument?

What objective method would you use to differentiate between an event that we can´t explain and a miracle?

A very specific example

1 which premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (say WLC version) do you think is likely to be wrong?

2 what evidence/observation would convince you that this premise is likely correct

 

[Valjean]

before you claim it a myth you should give me evidence that suggests it is

No. You're the claimant. You have the burden of proof.
Can you disprove leprechauns or Zeus?

and it's hypocritic to accept the history of your grandparents or Alexander the Great because it meets certain premises and when the same is provided for the source materials of the Christian beliefs then it suddenly becomes a myth.

Some histories have substantial evidence from disinterested sources. Some are uncorroborated folklore.
Some make familiar and reasonable claims, others make fantastical, or even physically impossible claims.

so before you make the claim that God according to the Christian belief, Jesus and his deeds are myths, provide evidence to proof otherwise. (your proof as against over 5000 greek manuscripts that has verified over years of it authenticity and many more)

Myths and legends frequently have multiple sources. A good story gets passed around. Ancient manuscripts without corroborating objective evidence are suspect. Numbers verify nothing.

 

[Valjean]

OK, so now mutations are necessary for evolution to occur, is that right?

No.

 

[Pogo]

but sadly, skeptical people like you never enter a laboratory to examine the medications you are served at the pharmacy to verify the contents written on them before use.

No need, that is why we have the FDA who was responsible for my and others daily laboratory analysis of the drug we were producing to guarantee that the process produced what we said it did and nothing else, It took years, but that process that all drugs go through is the rational skeptics reason for not questioning unnecessarily things that we have established procedures for. Have you ever done any HPLC or Mass Spec or even chromotography on anything? Skeptic does not mean gullible.

 

[YoursTrue]

The science supports your doubt. The universe began expanding some 13.7 billion years ago followed by the formation of stars to cook heavy elements and then explode to distribute those elements to nebulae (gas clouds), one of which collapsed some 4.6 billion years ago to form our solar system. Earth began forming after the sun, and grew by accretion for some 20 million years into a red-hot planet, which subsequently cooled and hardened on its surface. Later, oceans and an atmosphere appeared, and one fateful day came earth's first rain.

But you believe the Genesis version, correct?

Yes. It doesn't give specifics as to exactly how God formed it. But it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It goes on to briefly describe the things that happened on the earth before men appeared.

 

[YoursTrue]

No which is just another reason you should not use the word morph for evolution as you have just tripped yourself over the distinction.
morph is a physical change in an individual over time, it does not describe the changes that lead to evolution.

As seriously as you ask the question having already asked it hundreds of times and being told it is unanswerable in the specific that you seem to think is significant I can just as seriously answer that it was Fred, but he got eaten so we don't have a grave or fossil and the practice of recording genealogies in bibles would have to wait a few million years for someone to collect the stories and write them down.

So you are saying that individual organisms, such as fish, mutate spontaneously and over a loonngg period of time mutate to the point that caused fish to be a land dwelling animal. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

No need, that is why we have the FDA who was responsible for my and others daily laboratory analysis of the drug we were producing to guarantee that the process produced what we said it did and nothing else, It took years, but that process that all drugs go through is the rational skeptics reason for not questioning unnecessarily things that we have established procedures for. Have you ever done any HPLC or Mass Spec or even chromotography on anything? Skeptic does not mean gullible.

I take medication when I want to. But you brought up the FDA and analysis. The FDA approved the diabetes drug Rezulin (troglitazone) although data showed it could cause liver failure. The FDA also approved Vioxx (rofecoxib), which was later withdrawn due to unacceptable risks to patients. So just because an agency says it's ok does not mean it works out in the long run.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but I am not going to continue until you own up to the fact that you do not understand evolution at all.

Ohhh, you don't want to answer. Got it. (That's ok, I know you don't like being boxed in...) But thanks for helping, you did a great job of answering my questions in the loonnnggg run. No insult intended, just facts, as the saying goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well as has been explained numerous times to the point that you have claimed even to understand it. Only mutations in germline cells are transmitted to future generations. Having cancer (a mutation) does not give your children cancer. The differences in genetics between you and your parents are changes in their sperm and eggs. Are you having memory problems?

I realize that there are differences in offspring when two humans mate. The offspring is a mixture of genes. The children do not look exactly like either parent.