• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
lets test your resolve here with a question;
is morality objective or relative?
Objective and relative, are not mutually exclusive.

I'm guessing you meant "subjective" instead of "relative".

Morality is definitely relative. What is a moral thing in one situation may not be a moral thing in a different situation. So it's relative to the specific circumstances at hand.

For example, there are situations where it is immoral to lie, but there are other situations where telling a lie would be the only moral thing to do.

As for if morality is objective / subjective... I'ld say it is pseudo-objective.

Pseudo because we start from a subjective goal: that well-being is preferable to suffering and that "acting morally" are those actions that increase well-being / decrease suffering.

Once we agree on that baseline, I'ld say that moral questions can have objective answers.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
From Wikipedia
Causality is an influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future.


Emphasis mine. Consider the implications of those words in larger font size.


Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space

Why are these authors wrong? Why do you claim with such a degree of certanity somethign that is at best controversial among scholars?

Who are these "authors"?

The claim that causality requires time is far from obviously true, you need more than “it is true because I say so”
Your own wiki quote stated for an effect that is causes "all lie in its past" and for a cause that all effects "all lie in its future"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member

Yeah, from philosophers.
The space-time manifold, the nature of time, the origins of the universe,.. = physics. Einsteinian physics.

Why should we care what some philosopher thinks about this?


Í´ll go with THE German philosopher Immanuel Kant´s example

Imagine a heavy ball resting on a soft couch causing a curvature.

Cause: the ball

Effect: the curvature

The cause is gravity pulling on the ball. The cause is the ball "falling" in the direction of gravity pulls. And the indentation occurs due to the force with which the ball is pulled down to the gravitational source.


This is not "simultaneous".

We know that balls cause curvatures in couches we know that curvatures don’t cause balls. …….. it seems to me that this would still be obviously true even if the ball caused the curvature immediately.

It doesn't cause it "immediately".

Obviously Kant has a more detailed explanation, but in my opinion it is not necessary, it seems obvious to me

Because you don't think it through.

And wouldn’t that be an example of simultaneous causation?..........
No
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Each individual flip has a 50:50 chance. A hundred flips has scant chance of all being heads.
I think that what he is saying is that any specified sequence of say 100 coin flips is as likely as any other. Once you pool the data and specify only the total number of heads and tails, the more balanced outcomes like 48 heads and 52 tails predominate. But the exact sequence of those 48 heads and 52 tails is just as unlikely as say all heads or all tails.
its rather unfortunate that atheists call Christians as creationist and what have you telling us what we believe but we cant do the same, double standard
She has one standard for you and herself. Feel free to repeat whatever she's told you, but don't guess what her other thoughts are and say them as fact. She'll do the same for you.
The irony being that 75 years ago "skeptic" meant non-believer and now it means someone who believes, in Peers, Soup of the Day Science, and any twaddle uttered by an expert.
What the term skeptic means to me is one who doesn't believe something just because he's told it. He'll need to be a critical thinker if he's going to have an alternate epistemology to faith (fideism). By implication, he's an empiricist and believes that knowledge comes from reason applied to experience.
Everything you don't believe is unevidenced and everything you do believe is backed up by experiment
Correct, although it is better worded everything unevidenced is not believed and everything with sufficient evidentiary support is believed. This is the result of the epistemological program I just outlined above, and the result is the accumulation of correct beliefs while avoiding false belief and unfalsifiable belief. I always like to add here that I mean unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense as with claims about gods and afterlives. The correct statement we hope to accumulate also cannot be falsified if they are correct.
I leave alternatives for the most part up to others right now.
There are no alternatives to evolution but creationism. Either nature did it blindly or an intelligent designer did. How do we decide? The faith-based thinker just picks one and believes it. The critical thinking empiricist investigates the evidence.
Evidence?
Evidence that you don't understand evolutionary theory? You don't know yet that you don't?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Each individual flip has a 50:50 chance. A hundred flips has scant chance of all being heads.

Huh?

Yes, they developed utilitarian skills. They still didn't know they were on a sphere orbiting the sun. They didn't understand disease, or weather, or chemistry, or geology, or biology.

It wasn't science. It was trial and error, or folklore.


Balderdash.

I affect observed reality. I make no claims of magic, metaphysics or invisible gods.

[sigh]

Just another restatement of your beliefs sans evidence or responding on point. And more semantics and word games.

If you want to actually talk about anything I'll try one more time. It's easy; just show why you believe what you do and talk about why the reasons for my beliefs are wrong. Now you'll ignore the point and tell me you're holier than thou because your beliefs are founded in reality and hence are knowledge rather than beliefs and mine are founded in superstition. I guess you must be be brilliant to come up with such air tight arguments and holier than thou, or at least holier than me.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I did my best………………. Ether

1 you are unable to understand simple stuff

or

2 you are pretending not to understand as a “debate tactic”

or

3 I am too bad in explaining stuff

My best guess is “2”….. but I can take the blaim and assume “3”………..in any case I have no interest in debating this with you
I understand. It's likely frustrating to talk to someone who insists on being clear on definitions and who doesn't simply swallow everything you say because it sounds "sciency".


Bottom line: you are invoking temporal conditions to explain the origins of temporal conditions.
This makes your entire case nonsensical.

Ironically, it is perfectly analogous to your very own example about how the origins of the "first" computer can not be another computer.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
What the term skeptic means to me is one who doesn't believe something just because he's told it. He'll need to be a critical thinker if he's going to have an alternate epistemology to faith (fideism). By implication, he's an empiricist and believes that knowledge comes from reason applied to experience.

Same here.

I probably took it too far and didn't believe anything until it fit my models. Of course I always force fit experiment and experience and rebuild the models as necessary.

Correct, although it is better worded everything unevidenced is not believed and everything with sufficient evidentiary support is believed.

It was sarcasm.

The problem with your view is that every experiment shows that we see what we believe. It follows that we interpret all evidence in terms of what we believe and are unlikely to be able to see evidence that contradicts it. This is shown over and over in science yet most people are still whistling past the graveyard and they see the exact same thing until a new hole is started.

The correct statement we hope to accumulate also cannot be falsified if they are correct.

There can be no "correct" statement. Every known in science is tentative and pending the results of the next experiment devised to test it. Certainty is always misplaced but this is most true in science.

If science ever does generate a truth we can't express it in English and there's absolutely no certainty we could express it in any currently known mathematics. The meaning of English is always ephemeral and dependent on the parser, the observer. It is widespread certainty that creates the status quo, impedes progress, and results in science changing only as former whistlers see the new graves being dug.

This is just human nature; the nature of reality; the nature of language; and the nature of science. Everything changes suddenly in bounds and leaps.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There can be no "correct" statement.
I call an idea correct if it allows me to anticipate outcomes correctly. After a time living in a given neighborhood, one has experienced enough restaurants that he knows where to find a good Italian meal if one can be found there. After several experiences there, he knows what day's they're closed and if besides good food, they have good parking, good service, good ambiance, good prices. He forms an opinion (idea) through induction. If that idea is correct, it will help him find a nice Italian meal (deduction).
we interpret all evidence in terms of what we believe
Yes, and if we are critical thinkers and empiricists, what we believe is largely correct. That's a good thing, and a reason to train oneself to process information that way.
and are unlikely to be able to see evidence that contradicts it.
Not true for the critical thinker, or at least much less likely. You're describing a faith-based confirmation bias.

And to contradict this assertion that we only see what we believe, let's return to the Italian restaurant. If the food or service goes downhill say after a change in management, he will notice that even if he wasn't expecting it, and he will modify his now incorrect idea to a new correct one.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Of course I always force fit experiment and experience and rebuild the models as necessary.

I am defining "Experiment" is a microcosm of reality as devised by others and "Experience" as muscle memory, direct observation, and direct learning with reality as feedback. I believe all true knowledge is experience this is why I have repeated some of others experiments for myself; to make them experience.
 
I think that what he is saying is that any specified sequence of say 100 coin flips is as likely as any other. Once you pool the data and specify only the total number of heads and tails, the more balanced outcomes like 48 heads and 52 tails predominate. But the exact sequence of those 48 heads and 52 tails is just as unlikely as say all heads or all tails.

She has one standard for you and herself. Feel free to repeat whatever she's told you, but don't guess what her other thoughts are and say them as fact. She'll do the same for you.

What the term skeptic means to me is one who doesn't believe something just because he's told it. He'll need to be a critical thinker if he's going to have an alternate epistemology to faith (fideism). By implication, he's an empiricist and believes that knowledge comes from reason applied to experience.

Correct, although it is better worded everything unevidenced is not believed and everything with sufficient evidentiary support is believed. This is the result of the epistemological program I just outlined above, and the result is the accumulation of correct beliefs while avoiding false belief and unfalsifiable belief. I always like to add here that I mean unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense as with claims about gods and afterlives. The correct statement we hope to accumulate also cannot be falsified if they are correct.

There are no alternatives to evolution but creationism. Either nature did it blindly or an intelligent designer did. How do we decide? The faith-based thinker just picks one and believes it. The critical thinking empiricist investigates the evidence.

Evidence that you don't understand evolutionary theory? You don't know yet that you don't?
1. if you paid attention to my earlier submission, you would know I asked what her stands were on atheism. so I would be able to represent him/her when answering which she/he didn't say properly (did so but later) but went ahead to cite various stands within the atheists and I spoke in that regard. But even when I corrected the misrepresentation of my stands by calling me a creationist, he/she still went ahead with what was planned. So what standard are you proposing?

2. I am not only talking to one person so at a point I hardly notice who said what, so sorry if it seems this is only to you but to who it may concern

3. lastly most atheists call religious believers especially Christians fools and slow-witted bunchs indirectly for "believing myths" without any authentic sourced document refuting the historical authenticities in the Bible yet get emotional when we just generalize atheism and claim we're imposing ideas to it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There are no alternatives to evolution but creationism. Either nature did it blindly or an intelligent designer did. How do we decide? The faith-based thinker just picks one and believes it. The critical thinking empiricist investigates the evidence.
Someone else here pointed out that the term creationism really cannot be properly applied to all who believe in a higher source that has intelligence over and beyond the creation. But that is not what I'm here to necessarily discuss.
So I have a question of you and possibly some others, do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I call an idea correct if it allows me to anticipate outcomes correctly. After a time living in a given neighborhood, one has experienced enough restaurants that he knows where to find a good Italian meal if one can be found there. After several experiences there, he knows what day's they're closed and if besides good food, they have good parking, good service, good ambiance, good prices. He forms an opinion (idea) through induction. If that idea is correct, it will help him find a nice Italian meal (deduction).

I don't disagree. I do use different terms in most instances. Obviously when the odds of something exceed some level we are all prone to call it "correct" or some synonym.

Yes, and if we are critical thinkers and empiricists, what we believe is largely correct.

I believe this is where you go wrong.

Most people simply strive to have their thinking approach state of the art. "State of the art" is very good but it's not right and it's not correct. If it were right each peer, each knowledgeable observer would apply it the same way to events and predictions but they don't because their models are all different and... drum roll please... ...their models are not accurate. They are wrong.

"State of the art" is very important since we must proceed without hard and fast answers all of the time. We must roll the dice and take our chances. When something is principally the province of science we should go with state of the art in virtually every instance. But science is ill suited to many questions.

We don't so much employ science because it is "largely correct" but because it's the only game in town. We don't go to the doctor because we know he can help or that he may be largely correct, we go because there is nowhere else.

Meanwhile there may be crackpots, holistic healers, heretics, priests, and mystics who are completely correct. Life is rolling the dice.

Of what value to patients was the belief of surgeons in the 1860's that early surgery saved lives so it wasn't worth the time to wash their hands? Even the surgeons who worked at the pyramids knew to wash their hands and their patients survived. Of course the patients who mostly died in the 1860's from minor surgeries could tell Saint Peter that at least his surgeon was "mostly correct". It must have been especially comforting for the bereaved. If I'm curious I might ask Siri but if I need to know something I often study it myself. The search engines are so bad and so misleading that I wish I hadn't tossed out two sets of encyclopedias. Out of date data is FAR FAR superior to the garbage being spewed by search engines. They all get a little worse every day and most already have no value at all unless you like ads or to look up Sonny and Cher.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
There are no alternatives to evolution but creationism.

Yet I believe change in species is principally about consciousness.

Unlike Darwin I won't jump to conclusions like God created consciousness or even that God is conscious. I won't jump to the conclusion that God or Gods exist at all.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You may have not understood it, though Britannica is not the best of sources.
You don't think Encyclopedia Britannica is the best of sources. In the future if you have a statement, it would be good for you and others to corroborate your statements with what you believe is a reliable source. Thank you.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
leroy said:
Us? Who is us? The only one in this forum that affirms that the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection is you

interesting

1 day ago you said the oposite

your words
"No, not just random mutation. And the sequences are well evidenced, even in existing species. The whole sequence is right there, under our noses.
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers"



so one day you claim that organisms evolve by many mechanisms acting upon natural selection and the next day you claim that NS acts upon “just random mutations”

so which one is it?

Ar you going to admit your mistake? At this point you can argue that it was just a typo, and it would be believable……………..just kidding I know that you don’t have the honesty of admitting mistakes


There is. The information is at your fingertips. Google.
grate....................then you have no problem in supporting your claim
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
hhhhhmmmmmm, its rather unfortunate that atheists call Christians as creationist and what have you telling us what we believe but we cant do the same, double standard
Hmm, maybe you are new here, but creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis. We designate them as such to differentiate them from the majority of Christians who understand reality..

Now you know.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
An agnostic which is a person who does not know if there are gods has a probability of 100% of being an agnostic.
An atheist which is a person who does not believe in the existence of one or many gods has a probability of 1 of being an atheist.

There are also agnostic atheists who are also who they are.
Not to mention ignostics, apatheists and others.

BTW, the a prefix means not, it is binary.
Remains me to the LGBTQ+ community……………..you have more names than people,,,, but that is ok, I will stick to your definitions. I don’t care

Will you ever answer my question…………

¿do you think that one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?.........will you ever answer this question?
 
Top