• 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

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
There you go again, failing to specify the "evidence" you're referring to.

In what post did you post it?
I have never seen the evidence in support of any of the claims including the claim of providing evidence.

40,000 year old language. No evidence.

40,000 year old science. No evidence.

Beavers building dams to farm fish. No evidence.

Consciousness claims of any sort. No evidence.

Change in all living things being sudden. No evidence and widely refuted by the evidence that has been presented.

Creating a new species. No evidence.

I could go on, but those are some of the more prominent claims that have not yet had any attempt made with the support of evidence.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
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
Whataboutism does not validate and substitute a personal view by default.

Controversy in science or discussions of science is not denialism.

Rejection of poorly constructed personal opinion without or with limited basis is not denialism.

Rejecting views that are based on the manipulation, selective mining and misinterpretation of facts found by science is not science denialism.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
What is known and understood about the theory of evolution as originally formulated by Darwin has advanced 200 years beyond him, yet the basis he established remains. Denigrating a man 130 years dead is a meaningless effort that seems to hinge on the view that Darwin was some sort of prophet, priest or holy person. His efforts are recognized for their value and utility to the advancement of our understanding, but he is not seen as some holy figure by those accepting science. That is an artifact from science deniers personal positions as nearly as all the evidence indicates.

Science moved on.

The effort to ensure that we remain ignorant and that denial is more widespread seems to be based on distortions of views that are over 2,000 years old. I don't see promoting this is in the interest of God. I don't see that God wants us to remain ignorant. Rather to learn and move on.
 

gnostic

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

Then why “magic” at all?

Figurative, metaphoric, similes, analogy, and so on, these are great literary expressions in poetry, songwriting, fiction, fantasy, religious scriptures, myths, folklore, for any form of narratives, etc, but when trying to use them in a hypothesis or in a theory, they invite confusion and ambiguities, when people attempt to use in science.

Do you know why Irreducible Complexity (IC) could never be scientific theory, Leroy?

It is because Michael Behe had spent too much times on fabricating irrelevant analogies.

Creating a different variation to the Watchmaker Analogy, eg using mousetrap analogy, has nothing to do with biology or biochemistry. Instead of spending times devising alternative to Evolution and providing some falsifiable predictions that can be tested, he wasted his time, trying to be clever with recycled analogies.

Analogies are of no use, when scientists have to test their models.

Behe is supposed to be a professor of biochemistry, but instead he joined the Discovery Institute that made him “stupid“ as the rest of members; he had completely forgotten how to do science.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Whataboutism does not validate and substitute a personal view by default.

Controversy in science or discussions of science is not denialism.

Rejection of poorly constructed personal opinion without or with limited basis is not denialism.

Rejecting views that are based on the manipulation, selective mining and misinterpretation of facts found by science is not science denialism.
Sure ..... And rejecting evidence just because one doesn't like the implications is "bad science" and both theist and atheist in this forum (and elsewhere) do this very frequently
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure ..... And rejecting evidence just because one doesn't like the implications is "bad science" and both theist and atheist in this forum (and elsewhere) do this very frequently
I agree. Rejecting evidence just because one doesn't like the implications is "bad science". But is that what is going on with your opponents?

Is it evidence that is rejected or the conclusions on that evidence? Declaring it "bad science" does not make it bad science. I know that there are many theists that reject evidence and eschew understanding in favor of their personal opinions of the various doctrines of belief, but are there examples of that by atheists on here? Or is it just a personal opinion, because a particular interpretation of the evidence was rejected?

Rejection of an opinion and rejection of evidence are not the same things.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure ..... And rejecting evidence just because one doesn't like the implications is "bad science" and both theist and atheist in this forum (and elsewhere) do this very frequently
Recall that claims are not evidence. Rejection of a claim that is unsupported and apparently will not be supported is not rejection of evidence.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure ..... And rejecting evidence just because one doesn't like the implications is "bad science" and both theist and atheist in this forum (and elsewhere) do this very frequently
I have seen some theists in these discussions claim to reject valid science, because they cannot personally see how it could be. This is in effect, the unwarranted and fallacious elevation of their personal incredulity to be equivalent to expert conclusions based on knowledge, understanding and reasoning.

Do you consider such elevation to be a valid means of drawing a conclusion to reject a theory?
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
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.



I am not implying that they are the same.......I am implying that you can use ether term to respond the question
Many other options, naturalism as a philosophical belief involves many things and sometimes even belief in gods such that then a naturalist would not be an atheist. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods though some may state an active disbelief.

You may say you are not implying equivalence, but your comment implies otherwise.

The problem is again, our inability to use your language because it may or may not mean to you what it means to us and so asking these questions which you think are clear to us is just a muddle and as with your interpretation of a common idiom that seems the same in Spanish, you come up with an interpretation that no-one else would even have considered or at least asked for clarification. You assume that you know far more than you do and are seemingly unwilling to do any further study when people say your conception/definition is not correct.

These differences in understanding are why we we will not "affirm" your statements, not because we assume you are wrong, but we do not know even what they mean to you. Your requesting "affirmation" all the time is evidence that you do not understand how this situation is handled amongst the educated where the question is better posed as "this is what I think you mean, do you agree? If not, how and why?"

That said, you are by no means the worst here or you would be on a lot more ignore lists.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I'm not going to start at the beginning of defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science. Oops, I just did.

if you are trying to be funny…you have failed…miserably so.

You are still barking up the wrong tree, as this - "metaphysics as the basis of science” - is nothing more than empty rhetoric, it has no meaning.

Yes, you have said this many times, but it is utterly meaningless.

I could say the following:

Methodological Naturalism is the basis of science.​
Logic is the basis of science.​
Empiricism is the basis of science.​
Experiment is the basis of science.​
Van Gogh’s self portrait is the basis of science.​
Mozart’s piano concerto is the basis of science.​
My pet dog is the basis of science.​
The Bible is the basis of science.​
The Great Spaghetti Monster is the basis of science.​

All you are doing is making one-sentence assertion about metaphysics, but offer no explanation to clarify WHAT you might mean by this, nor HOW you can demonstrate this.

making this same motto of yours, over and over again, only demonstrated that you never understood science or logic.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I want you to parse my words as I intend and respond on point.
Then you'll need to change your words to something more precise when that doesn't happen.
You do this more than most but you still can't seem to see points that are extremely alien to your beliefs.
No, I can't understand some of the things you write, but I disagree with your reason for that. I don't understand what it is you believe in those moments enough to compare them to my own or rebut them. That won't change unless your writing style does.
Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong.
Do you think that this is intelligible? Whatever it is that you are thinking, these aren't the right words to express it. And no, I don't say that because it is " extremely alien to [my] beliefs." I say that because you've just violated a basic law of reason if we assume that these words mean to you what they do to others.
I addressed this. Somehow you must have missed it.
That was in reference to:

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

I saw it (here). You didn't address the apparent contradiction. It has the same defect as the comment above.

You've seen this before, correct: "In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Formally, this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case", holds."

That means that one can't both avoid all beliefs while holding beliefs, nor call Darwin's assumptions both "right" and "all wrong." And when you do, you shouldn't expect to be understood. You ask others to assume that words make sense to those speaking or writing them, and to try to parse their probable meaning, but hopefully, you can see that that would just be guessing which of the contradictory positions you actually hold and what you meant by the other if not what it seems to say.

Please feel free to try and explain this again in a way that clearly expresses what you were trying to say, but this time, address the apparent contradiction. If you do, please let me know that you see it, that you understand why it's a problem, and what you meant to write instead using plain language.
Is it evidence that is rejected or the conclusions on that evidence?
Good point. Evidence isn't rejected. It's experienced (becomes evident as the word implies) then interpreted to times, first, what are the implications based on reason applied to prior experience (memory) and the comes any affective component (how we feel about that implication).
Recall that claims are not evidence.
Here's where I have agreed with Leroy. Claims are evidence, because they are evident. They are apprehended and usually understood. From a reliable source, they're pretty good evidence. I'm going to assume that anything you say about entomology is correct, and it will be either always, or at worst, almost always. But even from the most unreliable of sources, the claim is still evidence that somebody asserted it. Some of the claims we've been seeing from the creationists are evidence that they don't understand the science.

I would reword your comment as 'claims alone aren't evidence that the claim is correct.' Even when I say that I would believe you in your field of expertise, I have more than your claim to go by. I have prior experience with you that assures me that you are a person of character and integrity, you're well educated and know both your field and the limits of your knowledge, and therefore are unlikely to provide incorrect information.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
No, I can't understand some of the things you write, but I disagree with your reason for that. I don't understand what it is you believe in those moments enough to compare them to my own or rebut them. That won't change unless your writing style does.

I'm sorry but I don't know what the problem is.

"Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong."

Darwin's theory (beliefs) reflects his assumptions just like everyone else's beliefs. People don't try to be wrong but many of our beliefs are not consistent with reality. This means our conclusions won't be consistent with reality; they are consistent with our beliefs and assumptions. If reality existed in Darwin's terms then the best explanation for all experiment and observation would be the "Theory of Evolution". But just as no world exists with an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps no world exists where linear progress is the reality. No world exists where consciousness doesn't factor into virtually all change in species therefore his assumption that consciousness and individuals could be excluded from his calculations is false. No reality exists where Darwin can be right.

But just like all homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio* he always made perfect sense in terms of his premises. He not only made sense but then he ran with it and expanded on it. Since then others have built on the same foundationless construct.

"Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong."

If you parse every one of my words literally and try to select meanings that fit logic and common sense you should have no trouble taking my meaning. When I turn phrases or use hyperbole I'd like to think it's always obvious. I don't always write strictly to my audience but to hypothetical individuals who might try to extract meaning similarly to the means I used to understand Ancient Language. We all say far more than we think we're saying. Our beliefs are laid bare in every utterance. I often try to affect this equation and choose words to fool search engines. But the literal meaning is STILL the intended meaning. I literally believe everyone makes sense and there's no such thing as intelligence. Every caveman would have agreed with me.





* all knowing circularly reasoning man.

Homo sapiens are extinct, long live homo sapiens. See that right there can't be literal can it? It's a turn of phrase. If you assume I'm wrong you'll parse every word wrongly.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Were I not already familiar with the assumptions underlying Darwin's proposition of a theory of evolution, I would never know of them based on the claim they are all wrong that has been made on these threads so frequently. The general reader doesn't even know those assumptions from the claims made about them on these evolution debate threads. They are never presented and nothing is ever presented to show that they are wrong. Just a sort of pseudo-religious chant that they are wrong.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
No evidence or supporting explanation has ever been provided to support the claim that consciousness is involved in speciation. No evidence exists to my knowledge that consciousness is involved in speciation. I've made this known several times and it has been ignored.

Based on what I have seen and my own understanding of the theory and evidence, the inclusion of consciousness is part of a belief system. A rather obscure and syncretic belief system that mixes mention of philosophy, mention of Darwin and mention of conscious involvement as it's basis. For that is all that there really is. Mention of these things in claim form.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but I don't know what the problem is.

"Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong."

Darwin's theory (beliefs) reflects his assumptions just like everyone else's beliefs. People don't try to be wrong but many of our beliefs are not consistent with reality. This means our conclusions won't be consistent with reality; they are consistent with our beliefs and assumptions. If reality existed in Darwin's terms then the best explanation for all experiment and observation would be the "Theory of Evolution". But just as no world exists with an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps no world exists where linear progress is the reality. No world exists where consciousness doesn't factor into virtually all change in species therefore his assumption that consciousness and individuals could be excluded from his calculations is false. No reality exists where Darwin can be right.

But just like all homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio* he always made perfect sense in terms of his premises. He not only made sense but then he ran with it and expanded on it. Since then others have built on the same foundationless construct.

"Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions. His assumptions were all wrong."

If you parse every one of my words literally and try to select meanings that fit logic and common sense you should have no trouble taking my meaning. When I turn phrases or use hyperbole I'd like to think it's always obvious. I don't always write strictly to my audience but to hypothetical individuals who might try to extract meaning similarly to the means I used to understand Ancient Language. We all say far more than we think we're saying. Our beliefs are laid bare in every utterance. I often try to affect this equation and choose words to fool search engines. But the literal meaning is STILL the intended meaning. I literally believe everyone makes sense and there's no such thing as intelligence. Every caveman would have agreed with me.





* all knowing circularly reasoning man.

Homo sapiens
are extinct, long live homo sapiens. See that right there can't be literal can it? It's a turn of phrase. If you assume I'm wrong you'll parse every word wrongly.
What were these assumptions and what or how or why were they wrong?

Otherwise I don't know what you are actually talking about.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
That means that one can't both avoid all beliefs while holding beliefs, nor call Darwin's assumptions both "right" and "all wrong."

[sigh]

"The judge gave him a long sentence" might mean that he got 25 years of hard labor or it might mean the judge told him "In light of the fact no individuals were harmed by your illegal actions and your intentions were not in the least dishonorable I sentence you to six months probation so that you might better consider your actions before the fact in the future.". Both of these are long sentences and both could be even longer but they have very very different meanings and very very different effects on the individual's life.

No belief, no model, no theory is either right or wrong but rather they are both. Words are even more prone to being both and on many more levels because any utterance can be parsed in an infinite number of ways. Darwin's beliefs and definitions did him in. He chose poor definitions like "species" and even poorer assumptions like "populations vary little" and "consciousness is irrelevant". Such a reality doesn't exist where the definition of "life" even includes the word "species". A "rabbit" is first, foremost, and principally an individual and not a symbol of mammals that hop. Rabbits can't think but each individual rabbit does. Science doesn't think and can't create progress with or without Peers. Individuals perform science and individual ideas drive progress. Life is individuals and every individual is conscious. When scientists die science progresses because we are social animals and consensus has a pecking order. There is no change until the pecking order evolves.


The problem is reductionistic science. It only works to the degree individuals understand its metaphysics but consensus is independent of any understanding of science because one must accept what he believes everyone else believes. Opinions too far outside of consensus (what each individual assumes is consensus) results in loss of rank. This makes experts almost cookie cutter copies in some instances. Obviously every individual will not kowtow equally to Peer pressure (see, another turn of phrase).

You want me to choose words that suit not reality itself but rather your beliefs about reality. I avoid beliefs about reality other than those derived from experiment.

Darwin was wrong about everything because his 19th century beliefs were wrong. Reality is not deterministic and not harmonic. Every experiment for two centuries says Darwin was wrong.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Good point. Evidence isn't rejected. It's experienced (becomes evident as the word implies) then interpreted to times, first, what are the implications based on reason applied to prior experience (memory) and the comes any affective component (how we feel about that implication).
Thank you. I agree with your summation here. I think that what we are told is a rejection of evidence is often the rejection of a conclusion in part or whole.
Here's where I have agreed with Leroy. Claims are evidence, because they are evident. They are apprehended and usually understood. From a reliable source, they're pretty good evidence. I'm going to assume that anything you say about entomology is correct, and it will be either always, or at worst, almost always. But even from the most unreliable of sources, the claim is still evidence that somebody asserted it. Some of the claims we've been seeing from the creationists are evidence that they don't understand the science.

I would reword your comment as 'claims alone aren't evidence that the claim is correct.' Even when I say that I would believe you in your field of expertise, I have more than your claim to go by. I have prior experience with you that assures me that you are a person of character and integrity, you're well educated and know both your field and the limits of your knowledge, and therefore are unlikely to provide incorrect information.
I see your point and your 'claims alone aren't evidence that the claim is correct' is a much more complete and accurate wording. My expression of 'claims are not evidence' is too general and would include instances where the claim is evidence without being evidence for the object of the claim itself.

It is evident that a given claim was made. It is evidence of a position in relation to the claim. But it is not evidence that the claim is correct.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
What were these assumptions and what or how or why were they wrong?

Otherwise I don't know what you are actually talking about.
I've asked and asked and never gotten any meaningful response.

In a similar query about claims made regarding the Lenski experiment, I finally was told that the experiment fails because cheap agar is available in bulk from Chinese vendors. I'll have to find that. It was very entertaining diversion from providing valid responses.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
From Britanica online Homo sapiens | Meaning, Characteristics, & Evolution

"Homo sapiens, the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct. See also human evolution. (Bolding added by me)

The name Homo sapiens was applied in 1758 by the father of modern biological classification (see taxonomy), Carolus Linnaeus."

If the name Homo sapiens was first applied to the existing species, then Homo sapiens cannot be extinct as it has been repeatedly claimed. And considering Homo sapiens extinct for no particular reason makes no sense. It seems to be evidence only of a unique belief system that is a hodgepodge of misused technical jargon, empty assertions, mention of philosophy, mention of consciousness, mention of universal ancient languages of man and other animals, mention of biblical stories, mention of ancient mythology, pyramids, repeated mantras and a dislike of Egyptologists that seems to border on the obsessive.

No mention of Homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio or similar arbitrarily applied designations exist outside of these or similar online boards from a singular source and I must conclude it is meaningless window dressing to imply a knowledge that is much broader in scope and understanding than it actually is.

They are not based on any hypothesis regarding the classification of the human species and offer no value in any technical discussion of science and only have meaning to the originator of these terms and their arbitrary usage. And I am unaware of the application of quadrinomial nomenclature in taxonomy.
 
Last edited:
Top