Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

And that is not evidence of anything, It's just a series of assertions,

You dispute chinese telephone!

Billions of children will be crestfallen.

Obviously you also dispute the sky is blue and every experiment shows we see what we believe.

 

[leroy]

Physics?

I will ignore the fact that there are many possible counterexamples in physics.


Physics by definition only applies in the physical world ..... Physics has no bearing in determining the cause of such world.

That is like asking an Egyptologist about the origin of dinosaurs.

 

[cladking]

Anxiously awaiting your definition of intelligence, which you also say doesn't exist.

There is no condition possessed by individuals called fitness and no condition of intelligence. What you mistake for intelligence is an event and what you mistake for fitness is the delay of an event called "death".

Your assumptions and beliefs are showing.

If there were a condition you call "intelligence" then why does it go away with age? Why are most adults about equally intelligent? I can answer such questions, or rather provide consistent hypotheses, but you are blind to such anomalies. Similarly the condition you call "fitness" which is defined as "not dying" existed it, too, goes away with age. Almost every single individual would live longer if kept in a zoo or as a pet; usually much longer. An old rabbit by definition is the fittest but it still dies very young relative one in a zoo.

Reality does not support old wives tales but everything we know is founded on them anyway.

 

[cladking]

You say that what YOU call intelligence DOES'T exist.

There is no referent for intelligence. When I use the word it's a convention because we all must use the same words to communicate. I rarely use the word.

there are habits of thinking and modes of thinking that are faster, more accurate, or more efficient than others but remember language and thought are confused so these conditions are prone to just allow us to reason in circles faster. They can spin off things that are beneficial but all ideas, all progress, and all life are still individual events. It you invent a new theory that makes everyone's life better it is still an event or series of events which led to it. It is still dependent on the greats of the past and many things beyond your control such as your aggregate experience.

You do realize that most major breakthroughs for decades now happen simultaneously in many places. This is caused by speed of light communication of new ideas and processes and not by some perverse trick of nature to make individuals exactly as intelligent as other individuals far away.

You are mistaking thought for a condition that doesn't exist (at least not in homo omniscience circularis rationatio. I kindda like this name; it's very pompous. Hear us boast.

We don't see anomalies. We see what we believe.

 

[blü 2]

You dispute chinese telephone!

Billions of children will be crestfallen.

Obviously you also dispute the sky is blue and every experiment shows we see what we believe.

That the children's game with various names including chinese telephone can demonstrate the unreliability of oral transmission is consistent with, hence supporting, the generalization that oral transmission is unreliable. It does not on its own establish the correctness of the generalization.

As for scientific experiments, they begin as tests of hypotheses. They're repeated to ensure the consistency of the result, since the conclusions of science are inductive.

So what?

 

[cladking]

It doesn't even refer to either of them (I don't believe anything/I believe and Darwin's assumptions right/ all wrong). I'm looking for you to acknowledge that they appear to be contradictions and explain why you think that they are not.

I seriously doubt I ever said "I don't believe anything". If I did I misspoke or it was in regard to some specific case. Like every single member of our species I couldn't think or act without beliefs. I try to have an absolute very small number of foundational assumptions which I usually express as "I believe all people always make sense and reality exists as it appears including cause precedes effect". But I don't really have any beliefs springing from these beliefs. Sure, I might say I believe Moscow exist or even shorten it to "Moscow is in Russia" but I don't believe it but rather I believe that if my assumptions are correct there is a better than 99.9% chance there is a changing city in a changing fast moving country that is called "Moscow". I assume it's spinning around the earth at 1000 miles per hour because that suits all my models and every experiment which imply the sun also rises there, but not at this time.

Language is confused and has been since the "tower of babel". But Moscow most probably reality and exists in some form and is a proper topic of conversation or travel. Everyone believes Moscow exists so it probably does. I do have other knowledge and information confirming this belief of those who always make sense. No matter what confused words I use to express it there is most probably a city of that name.

If you could just remember this when you think I say "I have no beliefs" you would probably parse the words differently.

Of course it's also true that all meaning of both words and ideas spring from context. I might say "I have no beliefs" in a context where it is apparent that the meaning should be parsed in some specific manner.

As I've also many times "acquiring language is acquiring beliefs". It is unavoidable. Modern language forces a mode of thinking that requires beliefs and generates beliefs. I try to suppress this as much as possible by trying to understand reality only in terms of a handful of specific assumptions and then calculating the odds of the nature of reality. This is what my models generate; odds. You roll the dice, you take your chances.

 

[cladking]

It doesn't even refer to either of them (I don't believe anything/I believe and Darwin's assumptions right/ all wrong). I'm looking for you to acknowledge that they appear to be contradictions and explain why you think that they are not.

I seriously doubt I ever said "I don't believe anything". If I did I misspoke or it was in regard to some specific case. Like every single member of our species I couldn't think or act without beliefs. I try to have an absolute very small number of foundational assumptions which I usually express as "I believe all people always make sense and reality exists as it appears including cause precedes effect". But I don't really have any beliefs springing from these beliefs. Sure, I might say I believe Moscow exist or even shorten it to "Moscow is in Russia" but I don't believe it but rather I believe that if my assumptions are correct there is a better than 99.9% chance there is a changing city in a changing fast moving country that is called "Moscow". I assume it's spinning around the earth at 1000 miles per hour because that suits all my models and every experiment which imply the sun also rises there, but not at this time.

Language is confused and has been since the "tower of babel". But Moscow most probably reality and exists in some form and is a proper topic of conversation or travel. Everyone believes Moscow exists so it probably does. I do have other knowledge and information confirming this belief of those who always make sense. No matter what confused words I use to express it there is most probably a city of that name.

If you could just remember this when you think I say "I have no beliefs" you would probably parse the words differently.

Of course it's also true that all meaning of both words and ideas spring from context. I might say "I have no beliefs" in a context where it is apparent that the meaning should be parsed in some specific manner.

As I've also many times "acquiring language is acquiring beliefs". It is unavoidable. Modern language forces a mode of thinking that requires beliefs and generates beliefs. I try to suppress this as much as possible by trying to understand reality only in terms of a handful of specific assumptions and then calculating the odds of the nature of reality. This is what my models generate; odds. You roll the dice, you take your chances.

 

[Pogo]

Bla bla bla

But you haven't shown that my question is a false dichotomy....... What you have to do is show that there is a third option that would exclude the other 2 options.

No, you haven't understood that the question is unanswerable as is.
The world is rarely Black or White so all of these statements you make where if it is not this then it is this other thing which usually turns out to be your desired conclusion are false dichotomies to begin with and allowing for a trichotomy hardly improves the situation.

Your question amounts to if I look out of my window is what I see a tree or a forest. Well neither or both or something else for many reasons.
I see a Yew, which could be a bush, shrub or tree. This one has survived the deer eating it in bad winters long enough that it now looks on one stalk like a tree but the other grows horizontally. I see a maple and an oak and a walnut and poplars, or are they aspens as these are not native. I have corkscrew willows that look more like a bush than a tree and not like typical willow at all. Sumacs and quince that are definitely bushlike rather than treelike, cedars next door grown as bush and tree. If I look to the left, I see the edge of a forest that extends for 20 miles or so till it ends at a lake with occasional farm fields on the nearer side and more farm cut into it on the next lake shore. Etc. etc. etc.

Anyhow, to sum up with an idiom which I hope you will recognize as not intended to be read literally and a few Spanish translations that convey the same idea as far as I can read Spanish.

You often; can't see the forest for the trees.
perderse en los detalles.
ahogarse en los detalles.
darle importancia a lo secundario.
los árboles no dejan ver bosque.

And finally my answer is "my lawn".

 

[Pogo]

Ok so how should I call a person who thinks that the evidence supports atheism (there is no God) over Theism (there is a God) ? ...... I would call him and atheist but if I am using the wrong word please let me know

Are you that type of person (however you want to call it)

There is no evidence for either position, they are just subjective beliefs.

 

[cladking]

As for scientific experiments, they begin as tests of hypotheses. They're repeated to ensure the consistency of the result, since the conclusions of science are inductive.

Do you think chinese telephone has never been experimented with in the lab? There is a continuing breakdown in communication as can be seen in models. Every time two experts get different numbers or results it demonstrates a variation in their models which is usually caused by having different understanding of written or oral communication. Yes, sometimes one is right and the other wrong but sometimes one model works better and sometimes the other. Meanwhile 3% of physicists can't correctly predict the outcome of such a simple physics question of whether a plane can take off from a conveyor belt. Of course in the real world maybe 3% hadn't had their coffee yet.

EVERYTHING we see, experience, and observe is evidence. Much of this evidence is anomalous but people don't notice. All evidence and all experiment are always relevant and theory (progress) derives from experiment invented to explain anomalies. Closing your eyes to anomalies is closing your eyes to progress. It's hard enough to see them without ignoring them too.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anxiously awaiting your definition of intelligence, which you also say doesn't exist

There is no condition possessed by individuals called fitness and no condition of intelligence. What you mistake for intelligence is an event and what you mistake for fitness is the delay of an event called "death".

Your assumptions and beliefs are showing.

If there were a condition you call "intelligence" then why does it go away with age? Why are most adults about equally intelligent? I can answer such questions, or rather provide consistent hypotheses, but you are blind to such anomalies. Similarly the condition you call "fitness" which is defined as "not dying" existed it, too, goes away with age. Almost every single individual would live longer if kept in a zoo or as a pet; usually much longer. An old rabbit by definition is the fittest but it still dies very young relative one in a zoo.

Reality does not support old wives tales but everything we know is founded on them anyway.

There is no referent for intelligence. When I use the word it's a convention because we all must use the same words to communicate. I rarely use the word.

there are habits of thinking and modes of thinking that are faster, more accurate, or more efficient than others but remember language and thought are confused so these conditions are prone to just allow us to reason in circles faster. They can spin off things that are beneficial but all ideas, all progress, and all life are still individual events. It you invent a new theory that makes everyone's life better it is still an event or series of events which led to it. It is still dependent on the greats of the past and many things beyond your control such as your aggregate experience.

You do realize that most major breakthroughs for decades now happen simultaneously in many places. This is caused by speed of light communication of new ideas and processes and not by some perverse trick of nature to make individuals exactly as intelligent as other individuals far away.

You are mistaking thought for a condition that doesn't exist (at least not in homo omniscience circularis rationatio. I kindda like this name; it's very pompous. Hear us boast.

We don't see anomalies. We see what we believe.

You never defined intelligence there.

Allow me: the ability to recognize and exploit opportunities and to recognize and avoid pitfalls by recognizing and solving problems as well as the ability to do that better over time through experience (learning). Is this what you say doesn't exist?

I'm looking for a yes or no answer, and if the answer is, "No, that's NOT what I'm calling intelligence," then saying what it is that you are calling intelligence instead. When I earlier asked you, "What is intelligence to you that what you see around you doesn't qualify as intelligence," @Dan From Smithville wrote, "I'm curious to find out, but with no expectation that I ever will."

I'm losing hope as well, and don't know why you haven't already. All I see above is some words about what intelligence is not, and some irrelevant comments about fitness. You refer to rabbits, reality, habits of thought, speed of light communication, and anomalies, but there is no definition of intelligence there.

Please start with my definition of intelligence and modify it to become yours. Dan doesn't think you ever will.

I seriously doubt I ever said "I don't believe anything"

I paraphrased you there but quoted you earlier. You said that you avoid all belief, which I paraphrased as "I don't believe anything" to contrast with "I believe this is a fact," which I paraphrased as "I believe":

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

Please define intelligence using words that say what it is to you rather than what it is not. Will you do that?

 

[Pogo]

There is text that I can quote where you said or implied that:

1 NS doesn't act just upon random mutations (implying that there are other mechanisms )

2 organisms evolved just by these 2 mechanisms (RM and NS)


So obviously there is a contradiction in your words.........which one is it 1 or 2,?

This stupid nitpicking that you and @YoursTrue do, is ridiculous and another example of the paucity of your argument. It relies totally on a lack of understanding rather than an intelligent position.

 

[leroy]

No, you haven't understood that the question is unanswerable as is.
The world is rarely Black or White so all of these statements you make where if it is not this then it is this other thing which usually turns out to be your desired conclusion are false dichotomies to begin with and allowing for a trichotomy hardly improves the situation.

Your question amounts to if I look out of my window is what I see a tree or a forest. Well neither or both or something else for many reasons.
I see a Yew, which could be a bush, shrub or tree. This one has survived the deer eating it in bad winters long enough that it now looks on one stalk like a tree but the other grows horizontally. I see a maple and an oak and a walnut and poplars, or are they aspens as these are not native. I have corkscrew willows that look more like a bush than a tree and not like typical willow at all. Sumacs and quince that are definitely bushlike rather than treelike, cedars next door grown as bush and tree. If I look to the left, I see the edge of a forest that extends for 20 miles or so till it ends at a lake with occasional farm fields on the nearer side and more farm cut into it on the next lake shore. Etc. etc. etc.

Anyhow, to sum up with an idiom which I hope you will recognize as not intended to be read literally and a few Spanish translations that convey the same idea as far as I can read Spanish.

You often; can't see the forest for the trees.
perderse en los detalles.
ahogarse en los detalles.
darle importancia a lo secundario.
los árboles no dejan ver bosque.

And finally my answer is "my lawn".

Wow all this truble and unrelate nonsense just to avoid a yes or no question

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence for either position, they are just subjective beliefs.

Is this a valid representation of your answer?

Leroy The answer to your question ís question NO.....There is no evidence for either position, they are just subjective beliefs

.

 

[YoursTrue]

This stupid nitpicking that you and @YoursTrue do, is ridiculous and another example of the paucity of your argument. It relies totally on a lack of understanding rather than an intelligent position.

Actually not. And many of my questions have been answered by you and people like you -- I have just read a fabulous article about organisms that scientists have no real "evolutionary" answer for -- so once again -- I thank you for all your answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes claims , at least sometimes, are evidence. For example some people adkowlege that @YoursTrue is female because she made that claim in the past (in her profile information) ....... I would say that in this case her claim is good and strong evidence that she is a woman.

It is evidence that someone is claiming to be female. It is not evidence that they are that particular gender.

Frances Clayton claimed she was a man. She even disguised herself as a man to support her claim. She was not a man. Her claim was not evidence that she was. Her claim was evidence that she wanted to be considered as a man.

Sorry yourstrue , this is not a" Deja Vu " we literally are having this conversation again.

You brought it up. I didn't.

And thanks, this is a perfect example of "rejecting" just because you don't like the implications........ You do want to admit that claims are sometimes are evidence..... Because it is very easy and convenient to repeat the meme "claims are not evidence" instead of dealing with the argument

But sadly for you it isn't an example of rejection for disdain of the implications. It is an example of overgeneralizing. In a subsequent post with @It Aint Necessarily So I further specified that a claim is evidence, but not of what is claimed. All you have posted indicates that your desire is that claims are evidence of what is claimed and that is not so. That is basis of my overgeneralization that needed to be further refined and clarified.

What we have here is an example of a bias to see claims be evidence of what is claimed in order to use claims as evidence for what is claimed. You have made it clear that is what you want.

It could also be an example of cherry picking, since you did not include the later refinement of my statement. But I'll be more considerate than what I get and conclude that you may not have read that far.

I'm not sure if you don't understand, don't want to understand or it is a combination of ignorance and a desire to find any straw that will support what you believe.

I'm done going down rabbit holes with you.

 

[Pogo]

Is this a valid representation of your answer?

Leroy The answer to your question ís question NO.....There is no evidence for either position, they are just subjective beliefs

The other half of your poorly formed question would be that you call them what they want to be called.

 

[leroy]

This stupid nitpicking that you and @YoursTrue do, is ridiculous and another example of the paucity of your argument. It relies totally on a lack of understanding rather than an intelligent position.

I identified 2 contradictory answeres in you and valjean ...... why is it wrong to simply ask wich of the 2 is the correct representation of your view?

The amazing part is your inability to accept mistakes even when you could realistically argue that it was just a typo

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it is not valid ...... And both theist and atheist do it

You claim that both do it. That is evidence that you think both do it or that you want everyone to think both do it. It is not evidence for what is claimed.

I have seen the evidence of other theists doing it. I have yet to see the evidence that atheists do it equally. I won't hold my breath and will avoid another race down a rabbit hole. A conclusion for which there is ample evidence found all over this thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is evidence that someone is claiming to be female. It is not evidence that they are that particular gender.

Frances Clayton claimed she was a man. She even disguised herself as a man to support her claim. She was not a man. Her claim was not evidence that she was. Her claim was evidence that she wanted to be considered as a man.

You brought it up. I didn't.

But sadly for you it isn't an example of rejection for disdain of the implications. It is an example of overgeneralizing. In a subsequent post with @It Aint Necessarily So I further specified that a claim is evidence, but not of what is claimed. All you have posted indicates that your desire is that claims are evidence of what is claimed and that is not so. That is basis of my overgeneralization that needed to be further refined and clarified.

What we have here is an example of a bias to see claims be evidence of what is claimed in order to use claims as evidence for what is claimed. You have made it clear that is what you want.

It could also be an example of cherry picking, since you did not include the later refinement of my statement. But I'll be more considerate than what I get and conclude that you may not have read that far.

I'm not sure if you don't understand, don't want to understand or it is a combination of ignorance and a desire to find any straw that will support what you believe.

I'm done going down rabbit holes with you.

Sooo interesting, and I thank you for that. I believe in God. I don't know how it all came about in detail. However, I just read a fabulous article (imo, of course) in a prestigious publication (not giving the reference, don't feel like putting them up for ridicule by some but it's there to be found) recently about how scientists simply cannot figure certain things...I really enjoyed reading their take on it -- I will say that the answers I have received here have really helped.