Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

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

The latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some ignorance and bias is best left to fester on its own.

 

[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.

Thanks again. I appreciate the "nitpicking" I did here and it really did help a LOT. I see you can't answer the questions, and frankly, neither can scientists, even though they can examine DNA and changes within the genes, etc. So again -- thank you.

 

[cladking]

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.

No!

There is no such thing as intelligence.

Properly assessing conditions such that your actions are consistent with your goals depends on beliefs and models. The better your definitions, beliefs, and models the greater the likelihood of good outcomes. There is no intelligence hence there need be no word to symbolize or represent it.

My friends all agree that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket but this doesn't mean "intelligence" exists either. It only means I can think circles around inanimate objects even if they were at one time alive. Thinking circles around everything is what we all do best.

 

[Pogo]

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.

How about a link so that we can read the "fabulous article"?

 

[YoursTrue]

The latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.

Mutation is considered as absolutely necessary for the process of evolution to occur References upon request. I am truly grateful for the answers I have received here (or lack of them by those claiming to "know").

 

[cladking]

Thinking circles around everything is what we all do best.

I think circles around everything making sense and causality.

To each his own.

 

[YoursTrue]

No!

There is no such thing as intelligence.

Properly assessing conditions such that your actions are consistent with your goals depends on beliefs and models. The better your definitions, beliefs, and models the greater the likelihood of good outcomes. There is no intelligence hence there need be no word to symbolize or represent it.

My friends all agree that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket but this doesn't mean "intelligence" exists either. It only means I can think circles around inanimate objects even if they were at one time alive. Thinking circles around everything is what we all do best.

I don't think IQ tests are given to ants, are they? (or gorillas ... or wolves, etc. )

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What an fantastic phenomenon!

Rocks and picnic baskets don't possess a trait that does not exist in comparison to a person that does have a modicum of that trait that does not exist.

How is this contradiction to be reconciled? How do you demonstrate that something doesn't exist by comparing things that have it with things that don't?

Stay tuned folks.

 

[YoursTrue]

How about a link so that we can read the "fabulous article"?

Nope. It was a gift from God. Too precious for me to allow you to desecrate it. Seek and ye shall find. Maybe. Depending on how God perceives you. Bye for now...

 

[leroy]

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.

I have no idea if my neighbor's dog is male or female. (For all I know the probability is arround 50% 50%)

If I ever ask him and he claims is female......I would (and anyone should) accept his claim as evidence (the probability would be higher than 50%)

In other words the hypothesis it is female" is more likely to be true given the claim of my neighbor.


You know this is true...... but you would reject this truth because you dont like the implications ..... (proving my point)

 

[leroy]

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.

Dont worry. I will tag you evertime I see an atheist doing it

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Apparently, some sort of intelligence test was applied to picnic baskets and other inanimate objects. I can't imagine why given that intelligence is not considered to exist by some that report the test results.

Why would you even look for something that is not believed to be there?

Or is that the intelligence test?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea if my neighbor's dog is male or female. (For all I know the probability is arround 50% 50%)

If I ever ask him and he claims is female......I would (and anyone should) accept his claim as evidence (the probability would be higher than 50%)

In other words the hypothesis it is female" is more likely to be true given the claim of my neighbor.


You know this is true...... but you would reject this truth because you dont like the implications ..... (proving my point)

You have fun with that.

I've done what I set out to accomplish.

 

[Pogo]

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.

OOH, another tiny little doubt so you can hold your position that your absolutely no detail position is still somehow tenable. Good thing you have your god of the gaps to keep you warm.

 

[leroy]

The latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error, I have watched you go to extraordinary effort to divert and avoid admitting errors and personal ignorance of the topics and discussion.

I can quote comments of me admiting errors .... would you accept that as evidence that I do admit errors?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can quote comments of me admiting errors .... would you accept that as evidence that I do admit errors?

This is what you do. No where in my post was there a claim that you don't admit error.

I thank you for the gift of evidence to support my position.

Enjoy this rabbit hole, but you are going into it alone.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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



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

No apologies needed, @leroy. The wabbit hole they dug is deep. Anyway, maybe the thought by some is that humans are rabbits too. lol...sorry, couldn't help that. Sowwy those that like mentioning wabbit holes! Take care y'all. Bye for now...and thank you, too, leroy. I mean that.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what you do. No where in my post was there a claim that you don't admit error.

I thank you for the gift of evidence to support my position.

Enjoy this rabbit hole, but you are going into it alone.

I'll mention for perusal by some that the process of evolution is promoted only by mutation. Only and solely. No other means but mutation. References upon request so no wabbit holes necessary. Deep or not so deep. Mutations are absolutely necessary, according to science, for evolution to occur. Yeah, well, it's been great, folks. Thank you all very much!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm always curious how to handle passive aggression, obvious disrespect of others and backhanded insults from those claiming the high ground of moral superiority for themselves.

Like intelligence tests for picnic baskets, how is this dichotomy to be reconciled?