Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[blü 2]

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.

This is the third time I've asked you to specify the post in question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

You don't? The problem for me is that I can't understand much of what you write. The problem for you is that you want to be understood by others but many of them tell you what I told you, and none have had any impact on you. You still see this as an "other people" problem - they just aren't trying hard enough to understand what they tell you is vague (no clear meaning), ambiguous (can mean one of two things), or contradictory (the meanings of two clear statements contradict one another).

"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.

I took your words at face value and understood both statements. They can't both be true. That's one of the problems you don't see. You've never acknowledged this. You've never agreed or disagreed, or tried to explain what you meant that makes sense.

"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."

Not an apt example. That's equivocation leading to ambiguity. I'm discussing contradiction.

I literally believe everyone makes sense and there's no such thing as intelligence.

I believe the opposite of both of those. And no, I can't guess what you mean by intelligence. It can't be what everybody else means, can it? Do you literally believe that you and I aren't manifesting intelligence when we converse?

Every caveman would have agreed with me.

Maybe, but is that the best endorsement?

You want me to choose words that suit not reality itself but rather your beliefs about reality.

I want you to choose words that express your thoughts clearly.

Darwin was wrong about everything because his 19th century beliefs were wrong.

Yes, you said that, which is a clear statement, but you also said, "Darwin was right in terms of his assumptions," which is a contradictory clear statement.

You're not going to try to explain yourself or reconcile that apparent contradiction, are you? You haven't tried yet. Why not?

 

[blü 2]

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.

The question was not simply, "What is your assertion?" but "Where did you post your alleged evidence for it?"

 

[cladking]

This is the third time I've asked you to specify the post in question.

Try clicking the little arrow at the top of the post three times.

It's the post we've been talking about. The one you ignored before ignoring the next two.

 

[cladking]

I believe the opposite of both of those. And no, I can't guess what you mean by intelligence. It can't be what everybody else means, can it? Do you literally believe that you and I aren't manifesting intelligence when we converse?

Yes.

Almost everything is just habit. Habit of action and habit of thought derived from our beliefs. New ideas, new insights, and new observations are just about the only things that aren't habit and every one of those is an event and not a condition. If these were "intelligence" then many animals would be smarter than many people. Some individuals are more prone to experiencing this event but I would call this condition "cleverness" and it plays a tiny role in human progress. It plays relatively small role in the success of individuals as well. ie- several other characteristics are more important to success than cleverness.

What we call "intelligence" doesn't really exist and is a misapprehension of the ability of thinking to understand and manipulate reality. If there were such a thing as intelligence we still wouldn't be nearly so smart as we think we are. We are all much more a collection of beliefs than of understanding. We see what we believe and then want credit for seeing evidence of our collective and individual omniscience. We call this credit "intelligence".

Sure I see some cleverness in most of your posts which is why I converse with you. But I still don't believe that what you call "intelligence" exists. This should become more clear to many people as A"I" takes over. These things have a collective IQ of about zero but will start seeming smarter than people even as they act like imbeciles. They will forever remain utterly worthless since they will never have insights or new ideas.

 

[cladking]

You're not going to try to explain yourself or reconcile that apparent contradiction, are you? You haven't tried yet. Why not?

I've already done it.

If I believe the building is on fire and yell "Fire!" then in my mind I believe everyone should run for his life. This is simply true whether the building is on fire or not. Run for your life!

If the building is not actually on fire because of perhaps a smoke bomb then I was still right in terms of my premises even if people were alarmed needlessly and some were hurt in the evacuation.

We have been needlessly misled by Darwin whom was correct in terms of his false premises. Millions have died needlessly because of beliefs adopted from Darwin. And still he was correct in terms of his false premises. Everybody always makes sense in terms of their premises.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

Almost everything is just habit. Habit of action and habit of thought derived from our beliefs. New ideas, new insights, and new observations are just about the only things that aren't habit and every one of those is an event and not a condition. If these were "intelligence" then many animals would be smarter than many people. Some individuals are more prone to experiencing this event but I would call this condition "cleverness" and it plays a tiny role in human progress. It plays relatively small role in the success of individuals as well. ie- several other characteristics are more important to success than cleverness.

What we call "intelligence" doesn't really exist and is a misapprehension of the ability of thinking to understand and manipulate reality. If there were such a thing as intelligence we still wouldn't be nearly so smart as we think we are. We are all much more a collection of beliefs than of understanding. We see what we believe and then want credit for seeing evidence of our collective and individual omniscience. We call this credit "intelligence".

Sure I see some cleverness in most of your posts which is why I converse with you. But I still don't believe that what you call "intelligence" exists. This should become more clear to many people as A"I" takes over. These things have a collective IQ of about zero but will start seeming smarter than people even as they act like imbeciles. They will forever remain utterly worthless since they will never have insights or new ideas.

I was just looking at pictures of dams that beavers make. Talk about miracles, that they do these things and don't go to school to learn how to build these things can be considered on the miraculous side.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Natural selection is not just random mutation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection is not just random mutation.

Mutations are the basis for evolution. And the only way evolution happens.
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection can act." Mutation - Wikipedia.
"Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur." DNA and Mutations.

 

[cladking]

I was just looking at pictures of dams that beavers make. Talk about miracles, that they do these things and don't go to school to learn how to build these things can be considered on the miraculous side.

Exactly! It's more habit than intelligence. Beavers are also clever sometimes and will invent new means of building or overcoming problems. This cleverness is one of the gifts of nature/ God (smoke 'em if you gottem) that is just one aspect of consciousness. They see patterns and can make deductions and inferences from these patterns.

People don't observe animals enough to see this ongoing cleverness. We expect crackpots on the internet and beavers to be stupid and this is what most people see. No matter how "intelligent" a beaver behaves people look right past it and never notice the real miracles that occur all of the time with all consciousness. Instead they believe in miraculous science that now knows everything there is to know.

 

[Valjean]

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?

There are several modifiers commonly applied to atheists: Strong, weak, agnostic, positive, negative, &al.
A definition involves a single feature common to all examples or sets. The one single feature applying to all varieties of atheism is lack of belief.
Lack of belief is the definitive feature. Unmodified, "atheist" means one who lacks belief. Subsets require modifiers if clarification is needed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the third time I've asked you to specify the post in question.

Good luck. I grew tired of asking for evidence and explanation. Now I just correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I clicked on some arrows, but all I found was a bunch empty assertions that I'm convinced are part of an obscure syncretic belief system.

 

[Pogo]

I was just looking at pictures of dams that beavers make. Talk about miracles, that they do these things and don't go to school to learn how to build these things can be considered on the miraculous side.

You sure it wasn't homeschooling?

 

[Valjean]

Really, so I am wrong, just because I am not using your own personal favorite defections?


To say that the cause always and necessarily comes before the effect ….is far from uncontroversial……………you need more than ”because I say so”

If the universe (all physical reality) didn’t had a cause………..what other alternative do you suggest?

Physics?

 

[blü 2]

Try clicking the little arrow at the top of the post three times.

It's the post we've been talking about. The one you ignored before ignoring the next two.

Just state the number of your relevant post. That will help to temper the impression that you're ducking and weaving and worse.

 

[Valjean]

Please if you are an Atheist, and you're trying to engage in theology kindly read carefully so you don't misrepresent anyone because you don't find it funny when we do the same.

we are fine if you say you don't believe in God or the supernatural because of your personal experience with one religion or person that messed up.
but when you want to criticize anyone for believing in them, you automatically open up for criticism. Even when most Atheists' ideologies can't be lived out, some of us don't go berserk around making people feel less intelligent by attacking random people until we are engaged in a debate.

What ideology do atheists have? We just lack belief.

finally, I don't know about the other religions but Christianity has always been open to criticism and will always be. Thanks

Agreed, though there were times and places when criticism could get one burned at the stake.

 

[Valjean]

I like to point out the irony of the individual that never provides evidence for their claims complaining that others are not providing evidence. It is doubly ironic given how often those supporting scientific conclusions and explanations actually do provide evidence.

The default is not a claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly! It's more habit than intelligence. Beavers are also clever sometimes and will invent new means of building or overcoming problems. This cleverness is one of the gifts of nature/ God (smoke 'em if you gottem) that is just one aspect of consciousness. They see patterns and can make deductions and inferences from these patterns.

People don't observe animals enough to see this ongoing cleverness. We expect crackpots on the internet and beavers to be stupid and this is what most people see. No matter how "intelligent" a beaver behaves people look right past it and never notice the real miracles that occur all of the time with all consciousness. Instead they believe in miraculous science that now knows everything there is to know.

Habit? You mean ingrained habit? I am sure they are clever.

 

[blü 2]

Try clicking the little arrow at the top of the post three times.

It's the post we've been talking about. The one you ignored before ignoring the next two.

Just state the number of your relevant post. That will help to temper the impression that you're ducking and weaving and worse.