Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

Wich includes the typical internet atheist

Most have simply traded one superstition for another.

 

[cladking]

And how many times have I told you that these communication problems exist but people don't see them?

In what post did you post it?

Your post is like reading "Origin of Species" and only seeing the sentence that species change by "survival of the fittest" and then denying there's a whole book written all around it.

Go back and read the post and we can proceed from there. I'm not going to start at the beginning of defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science. Oops, I just did.

You have no experiment so you have no theory.

 

[Pogo]

Don't worry thus is not a beat you wife question......


The question is given the evidence that we have to date.....do you affirm that atheism (naturalism) is More likely to be true than theism?

A very simple yes or no question in my opinion

Again with a false dichotomy or maybe equivocation, they are statements about beliefs.
Not to mention that atheism /= Naturalism.

 

[leroy]

Off to your usual bad start with a bad assumption and false dichotomy, this is not a win-lose statement but a statement about whether your comments are even relevant to the subject.

Lost the thread perder el hilo

I was wrong..... See how easy it is to admit mistakes?

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, no, you have been corrected like 5 times……………..go to any of my posts where used the word universe and change it for “universe that follows relativity” and none of my arguments nor points would be affected.

It would make the options you put forward absurd.

Yes I agree, in my opinion non of those 2 options make sense (and they wouldn’t make snece with Newtonian time ether) …………

At least they'd become things you could reasonably put forward to reject, instead of being meaningless.

I have no alternative but to admit that I have no idea on what are you talking about……….non of your words make sense, it is almost as if you are reading an other post and responding to me

I can only conclude that you just don't get what the space-time is.

You must have seen pictures like this:

Now think about it as a 3D object or sculpture that you could pick up, hold in your hand, and look at from all directions. If you wondered how it (the model) was made, I doubt you'd be wondering if it 'came from nothing' at the one end or why it wasn't infinitely long.

There is much simplification in making a picture like this, but thinking of it as an object is one of the things that is right about it. All of space-time is a 4D object (manifold).

 

[ratiocinator]

Won't help until he learns at least the concepts of the math involved.
Speaking of which, Is there significance to this existence of x or is it just cute and if so what? My one year of college and CC discrete math only gets me part way through.

Happy to try to help out, but what do you mean by 'x'? Might not get back today (not much time) but I'll look out for a reply.

 

[cladking]

This seems to overlook the number of times in the past I've asked you for evidence but all you did was repeat your assertions.

Maybe the problem is you can't recognize simple known fact as being right when it isn't used to support your beliefs. Just like the sky is blue and chinese telephone exists experiment shows that we see what we believe. You refuse to put these simple facts together. Instead you use the idea that communication is flawed as prima facie that it is the origin of superstition and religious beliefs and then imagine that it doesn't affect science because science is always right so every scientist has the same correct understanding of everything. Even, heaven forfend, some scientist ever made a misstatement or believed airplanes can't take off from conveyor belts the problem would correct itself and rightness would return to all sciencedom. So instead you repeat your beliefs in the applicability of the contemplation of the "fossil record" and growing e coli for many generations and calling it a "controlled experiment".

Your belief system is showing. Your beliefs in all manner of miracles is showing. It would be far easier for me to believe in divine origins than to believe that bad assumptions and bad methodology that flies in the face of logic and observation might be theory.

My "assertion" is that all logic and experiment support a different paradigm that needs no Darwin, no survival of the fittest, and no miracles. If we ever do discover a real miracle it will be evidence for divine origin. Until that time we don't really have any evidence either way.

 

[leroy]

Again with a false dichotomy or maybe equivocation, they are statements about beliefs.
Not to mention that atheism /= Naturalism.

Then support your assertion.....if it is a false dichotomy that means that there is a third option. Which option would that be?


The question : given the evidence that we have to date... Do you affirm that naturalism (or atheism, pick your favorite) is more likely to be true than theism?

That seems to me to be a dichotomy, the answers are ether yes or no....... But if you think there is a third option go ahead and share it.

Not to mention that atheism /= Naturalism.

I am not implying that they are the same.......I am implying that you can use ether term to respond the question

 

[leroy]

It would make the options you put forward absurd.


At least they'd become things you could reasonably put forward to reject, instead of being meaningless.


I can only conclude that you just don't get what the space-time is.

You must have seen pictures like this:

Now think about it as a 3D object or sculpture that you could pick up, hold in your hand, and look at from all directions. If you wondered how it (the model) was made, I doubt you'd be wondering if it 'came from nothing' at the one end or why it wasn't infinitely long.

There is much simplification in making a picture like this, but thinking of it as an object is one of the things that is right about it. All of space-time is a 4D object (manifold).

I don't disagree.... And I agree on that the 2 options are absurd . ... So I have no idea on what your point is

 

[Pogo]

Happy to try to help out, but what do you mean by 'x'? Might not get back today (not much time) but I'll look out for a reply.

realized it might be confused, chi, I don't have it on my keyboard without looking it up.

 

[cladking]

Even, heaven forfend, some scientist ever made a misstatement or believed airplanes can't take off from conveyor belts the problem would correct itself and rightness would return to all sciencedom.

Science is self correcting and only true until the next experiment that confirms it, right? There can be no error or it would have already been corrected. Peers whom are wrong are quickly excommunicated so their beliefs can't tarnish doctrine or science itself. No paradigm shift can ever affect the correctness and rightness that came before and besides the last such shift is the last because we have achieved perfection and nothing remains but to tie up a lot of loose ends. It's a miracle that humans are so brilliant we could accomplish so much in a mere 2 1/2 million years.

All believers in miracles are saints and our Priests and Peers are demi-Gods. There's never been a better time to know everything.


Science isn't naturally a religion but believers have turned it into one. This isn't so much a miracle as an absurdity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How many times have I used the term "chinese telephone" to prove there is always an ongoing problem with all communication

But I explained to you that I don't have trouble understanding or communicating with articulate and clear-headed thinkers. There are plenty of people that I have trouble understanding and who don't understand me, but the problem is on the other side.

It's not better in science because it is more exact but rather it is worse because it is more complex.

Yet scientists are communicating with one another and with the scientifically literate.

These are ideas are not complex. But you are still ignoring them or feigning an inability to parse them.

Why do you think you know that? How have you ruled out that it's your use of language that is the problem, especially in light of the number of posters who have told you that?

Do you recall these words? I can't tell you what they mean. Do you think I'm lying and should "admit" that I do?

You: "I avoid all belief."
Me: "Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?"
You: "No. I believe this is a fact."

How many times have I defined "metaphysics" as "the basis of science"

Several. I still don't know what you think metaphysics means. For me, the basis of science is skepticism and empiricism, or we might word it hypothesis formation and testing.

You want to believe Darwin had it right all along despite his lousy assumptions and his even lousier methodology.

His assumptions and methods led to a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

So, yes, I tend to believe that Darwin was correct in the main.

You can't address the points I raise and frankly I suspect they are so foreign to what you believe that they are invisible to believers in science. If you admitted seeing them you might also need to admit that those here with a religious perspective often make far better points than those who can do nothing but cite Peers and texts.

You want me to "admit" that I see your point when I tell you that I don't understand what you mean? That would serve neither of us.

Regarding the second sentence, I have no incentive to make radical changes to my worldview or the way I process information just as I have no incentive to trade my car in. Both work. Both do what I need them to do.

 

[gnostic]

Granted, but the magic occurs when they work together……….but yes they are independent mechanisms you can have one without the other

Except magic isn’t a mechanism. Nor are miracles.

For there to be mechanisms, you would to EXPLAIN HOW IT/THEY WORK.

Plus, the explanation to the mechanism has to be testable, and more importantly, rigorously tested. And the only tests accepted, are EVIDENCE & EXPERIMENTS.

For experiments, these have to be reproducible & repeatable.

Meaning, independent scientists anywhere in the world, can perform the experiments as instructed in a theory, and should get similar result. If the test results are contrary either to original result or to the theory, then it must be analysed, to find the errors or anomalies, resolve it, and retest if solutions were found. Should there still be problem, after retesting and double-checking, then the problem is most likely the theory…so the experiments have refuted model the standards and requirements of the Scientific Method.

The tests (“testing the hypothesis” is a very important stage of the Scientific Method) will determine the model “scientific-validity”, or it will debunk it.

 

[cladking]

But I explained to you that I don't have trouble understanding or communicating with articulate and clear-headed thinkers. There are plenty of people that I have trouble understanding and who don't understand me, but the problem is on the other side.

I've heard you say it.

My experience and knowledge tells me you are incorrect.

Yet scientists are communicating with one another and with the scientifically literate.

Every individuals models vary. This is why experts don't agree, second opinions exist, physicists can misthink simple mechanics, and no two experts ever make the same predictions.

I can understand virtually any jargon but I could never communicate with anyone else about its meaning or communicate directly in real time with the author. It can take me hours to plow through a page or two of medical or legal jargon. If you think any two lawyers agree you've got several more thinks coming.

Why do you think you know that? How have you ruled out that it's your use of language that is the problem, especially in light of the number of posters who have told you that?

I make very simple statements with every word defined and believers dispute the definitions rather than what I said. These are word games but I don't doubt "everyone's" sincerity. I doubt they can parse words that are alien to their beliefs. Most of them can't even parse this paragraph.

You: "I avoid all belief."
Me: "Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?"
You: "No. I believe this is a fact."

I addressed this. Somehow you must have missed it.

Until you accept every word has many meaning and every individual uses all these meanings you might not be able to parse anything with which you disagree.

For me, the basis of science is skepticism and empiricism, or we might word it hypothesis formation and testing.

I'm talking about reality and your talking about abstractions. It's not that you're wrong but that you're using terms with no hard and fast meaning and no means to apply to reductionistic science. Why use definitions that can't be applied to the referent? They are fine for learned discussions around brandy and pipe smoking but they can never properly define science. As was done by Burtt in "The Metaphysics of Modern Science" or as I have been trying to do and being ignored. I read Burtt as a child and have moved beyond it. Or more appropriately perhaps "around it" since I have generalized it. I have added a century of experiment to his analysis.

Every time I hear the word "skeptic" I have come to hear its new definition that has arisen in the last 75 years; he who accepts anything if it's purported to be "science'. It used to be religious people could be skeptics but no longer, we're all heretics or superstitious bumpkins BY DEFINITION.

ONLY EXPERIMENT UNDERLIES SCIENCE. Everything else is puffery and assumption of the conclusion.

You want me to "admit" that I see your point when I tell you that I don't understand what you mean? That would serve neither of us.

NO!!! I want you to parse my words as I intend and respond on point. You do this more than most but you still can't seem to see points that are extremely alien to your beliefs.

 

[leroy]

Except magic isn’t a mechanism. Nor are miracles.

For there to be mechanisms, you would to EXPLAIN HOW IT/THEY WORK.

Plus, the explanation to the mechanism has to be testable, and more importantly, rigorously tested. And the only tests accepted, are EVIDENCE & EXPERIMENTS.

For experiments, these have to be reproducible & repeatable.

Meaning, independent scientists anywhere in the world, can perform the experiments as instructed in a theory, and should get similar result. If the test results are contrary either to original result or to the theory, then it must be analysed, to find the errors or anomalies, resolve it, and retest if solutions were found. Should there still be problem, after retesting and double-checking, then the problem is most likely the theory…so the experiments have refuted the theory.

You do understand that I didn't meant magic in the literal sense right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wich includes the typical internet atheist


For example denying that the universe is FT or that the universe had a beginning or denying biogenesis is very typical from atheist... I see no difference between the atheist that denies that the universe (or multiverse) had a beginning and the creationist that denies that the earth is billions of years old......... Both go against the current scientific evidence because they don't like the implications of such evidence.

I'm not going to let you drag me into further meaningless debate. I'll simply say that I would recommend learning about the things you seem to consider yourself an expert at, improve your debating skills and recognize your own biases.

You have a wonderful day

 

[cladking]

His assumptions and methods led to a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

So, yes, I tend to believe that Darwin was correct in the main.

Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong. Being far ahead of your time does not make you right. Luck, good assumption, good deduction, and experiment makes you right. Indeed drop all that because what you really need is luck. Serendipity is a manifestation of luck not genius. Being lucky your assumptions are correct is the first requirement. Being lucky you have the experience to see an anomaly is the second piece of luck you need. Then being lucky enough to invent hypothesis through anomalous and non-anomalous evidence requires an event that people mistake for "intelligence" but has more in common with more luck.

Darwin's only "luck" is everyone else was far more wrong than he.

Every single theory ever invented by religion or science has anomalous evidence. We tend not to see such things. The observation (number) of such anomalies continually increases until someone sees a new pattern that better fits ALL the known evidence. No theory can ever be a perfect fit because of the complexity of reality. Even after massive paradigm shifts there are still anomalies. Darwin's "theory" was highly incomplete at best and just plain wrong at worst. That it better explained evidence notwithstanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But I explained to you that I don't have trouble understanding or communicating with articulate and clear-headed thinkers. There are plenty of people that I have trouble understanding and who don't understand me, but the problem is on the other side.

I don't recall having any major difficulty understanding you and several other here.

If I recall correctly, the times that we had issues understanding each other, we discussed those difficulties and came to understanding.

Yet scientists are communicating with one another and with the scientifically literate.

I agree. The progress in research and the success seen in the application of knowledge from science is a testament to that.

Nothing ever came from claims of 40,000 year old super science and fish-farming beavers. Especially evidence.

Why do you think you know that? How have you ruled out that it's your use of language that is the problem, especially in light of the number of posters who have told you that?

I see no evidence that any effort has been made in support of that position. It is just a believed view from all I have ever seen. It seems like a tactic to blame others for the failings of a claimant.

Do you recall these words? I can't tell you what they mean. Do you think I'm lying and should "admit" that I do?

You: "I avoid all belief."
Me: "Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?"
You: "No. I believe this is a fact."

I don't recall that one, but it is a good example for what I have seen.

Several. I still don't know what you think metaphysics means. For me, the basis of science is skepticism and empiricism, or we might word it hypothesis formation and testing.

I long ago came to the conclusion that explanations of meaning and evidence never would be provided. It's an historically valid position based on the evidence of these threads.

His assumptions and methods led to a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

So, yes, I tend to believe that Darwin was correct in the main.

Winner!

You want me to "admit" that I see your point when I tell you that I don't understand what you mean? That would serve neither of us.

It would serve some to have an unsupported, baseless position validated by someone that recognizes what those with unsupported positions cannot achieve on the merits of their claims.

Regarding the second sentence, I have no incentive to make radical changes to my worldview or the way I process information just as I have no incentive to trade my car in. Both work. Both do what I need them to do.

I agree. Doing so would not seem to be very rational.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But I explained to you that I don't have trouble understanding or communicating with articulate and clear-headed thinkers. There are plenty of people that I have trouble understanding and who don't understand me, but the problem is on the other side.

Yet scientists are communicating with one another and with the scientifically literate.

Why do you think you know that? How have you ruled out that it's your use of language that is the problem, especially in light of the number of posters who have told you that?

Do you recall these words? I can't tell you what they mean. Do you think I'm lying and should "admit" that I do?

You: "I avoid all belief."
Me: "Except the belief that you avoid all belief, right?"
You: "No. I believe this is a fact."

Several. I still don't know what you think metaphysics means. For me, the basis of science is skepticism and empiricism, or we might word it hypothesis formation and testing.

His assumptions and methods led to a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

So, yes, I tend to believe that Darwin was correct in the main.

You want me to "admit" that I see your point when I tell you that I don't understand what you mean? That would serve neither of us.

Regarding the second sentence, I have no incentive to make radical changes to my worldview or the way I process information just as I have no incentive to trade my car in. Both work. Both do what I need them to do.

The only person I have seen list Darwin's assumptions on these threads has been me. And no one has shown that any or all of those assumptions are wrong.

I would think that someone claiming they were wrong would know and be able to present the assumptions and show why they believe they are wrong.

Yet. Nothing!

 

[leroy]

I'm not going to let you drag me into further meaningless debate. I'll simply say that I would recommend learning about the things you seem to consider yourself an expert at, improve your debating skills and recognize your own biases.

You have a wonderful day

Have a nice day too....


Just saying that there are science deniers on both sides........ It is naive to say that only theist deny or misuse science