• 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

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We know that it is valid to recognize the application of a logical fallacy to support a claim. And equally valid to use that as the basis to reject the claim. But past experience tells me to expect that every effort will be employed to twist this rational and valid action and frame it as an insult.
This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe.

People have asked why bother - you're never going to change any of those minds - and I tell them that I know that and that that is not my purpose. I have referred to it as "tapping the glass" as with an aquarium to see the reaction. You've seen my discussion lately with Cladking. It's clear to me (and probably you and others) that he will never define intelligence or will he address the question of why that is (cognitive blindness of some sort or trolling).
Here is what I have seen.
Claim: I fully understand science, the theory of evolution and the evidence that both supports and is explained by the theory.
Statement: I can't understand how all these miraculous living things could come about based on that theory.
Statement: I reject the evidence, not on scientific and rational grounds that I claim to be fully cognizant of, but on how incredible I find all of this.
Observation: Rejection of the science isn't based on evidence, hypothesis or theory, but upon the grounds of a logical fallacy.

What I don't understand is how all of this can be reconciled. At least one of the above has to be false.
It can't, but that's not an issue for the claimant, and I find that interesting. Do they not see the incoherence? Or do they not care? It has to be one of them, doesn't it, but good luck getting any useful feedback to help decide the matter.

For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge.
An important point to reiterate is that scientists have discovered and reported on other mechanisms of variation and this seems to be something that is ignored with gusto.
Yes, disregarding what has been written and failing to even mention seeing it is one of the commonest techniques.
Further, I don't understand why those rejecting science on fallacious logical grounds would demand further scientific sources that they don't seem to understand any better or with any real interest than the sources that have been previously and regularly provided. The initial rejection wasn't on logical grounds, conditions of the evidence or flaws in the theory. It was based on a believed view unsupported by the evidence and on logical fallacy.
That's a good question. With Yours True, I believe that she is sincerely interested in learning but can't. She brings links here that don't sound like they come from creationist sites suggesting that she is Googling and reading science, but to no avail. Maybe it came from a creationist or JW source anyway.

But I think what's commoner is representing that one cares about reason applied to evidence, since when you or I provide a link, it's generally not looked at. People don't want to say, "I just choose to believe it and don't care if that's unreasonable or contradicts evidence I can't interpret anyway" So they say, "Show me your evidence" but then don't look at it.

But that's fair. I frequently don't look at links provided from such people, but then again, unlike the creationists I just described, I'm not asking for any, either. But those can be fun at times, too - studying the so-called "pious fraud" (aka lying for Jesus) - and trying to identify the misinformation and/or specious argument. Here's one I read a few years back and refer to at times. Scroll down to "One Athiest [sic] Lie After Another" for a fine example of this dishonesty, one which I refer to when explaining why not going to such sites for information is not the genetic fallacy. From DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :

"During the first half of the 20th century, that fact [humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, other apes 24] would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce."

That's a compelling argument to somebody unfamiliar with human chromosome 2. Chromosome dropout would be lethal, but not end-to-end fusing of chromosomes, and it would be difficult to find fault there unless one went to a knowledgeable and reputable source. I would warn Your True not to take information from such sources for just this reason, and continue going to Google
I noticed that the demand to "agree or disagree" has independently come up here as well as it has elsewhere. It is much, much less about coming to understanding than an invitation to go down a semantic rabbit hole of never ending oneupmanship I think.
Maybe rethink your purpose. Forget about teaching such people. It isn't happening. That doesn't mean to stop teaching. Others will read and learn from you. I will.

And now you know both aspects of posting here at what I call humanist school. The teachers are the lecture section and tapping the glass is the lab section. One can learn from both.

Besides those two, I post for practice constructing and evaluating arguments including identifying and naming fallacies and practice at writing.
Perhaps I did not word it correctly.
What you wrote was incorrect, so I would agree if that wasn't what you meant, although I see (coming up) that you're still making the same mistake.
Reasoning and the information from scientific sources tells me (maybe not you or some others) that evolution occurs only by means of mutations
Then you've misunderstood what you read. Here, you've gone back to using the word "only"
Once again -- "Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution." (I didn't make this up...)
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution
No, I'm sure you didn't make that up, but it also seems like you don't understand what it says. Did you see the word reproduction? That's an essential aspect of evolution, as is natural selection. Those are mechanisms to promote the transmission of genetic information through populations over generations. Mutation is NOT the mechanism that caused you and any sibs you have to be different from your parents and each other.
To @It Aint Necessarily So and others -- we are all free to have opinions. You may disagree with the following, but I see no reason to disagree with it. "Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation." This from www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with what you transformed it into when you tried to paraphrase it.
My discussion about this is basically over.
That's fine. I was hoping to see you acknowledge that "All new genes come from mutations" does NOT mean that only mutation can change populations over time. New genes (mutation) are an important factor but not the only factor. No need to answer again if your answer isn't that you can now see that those are different ideas - one yours, the other from an external source that you quoted.
 
What ideology do atheists have? We just lack belief.

Agreed, though there were times and places when criticism could get one burned at the stake.
What is belief then? A belief can be any cognitive content held as true(some definition goes). looking at this amongst many definitions of the word, this is what I think (I stand to be corrected though)
Atheism in itself is a belief. All I have come to know in this life is that there are two sides to everything; when you believe one is false, the other must be true. To be able to hold on to Atheism, then the fellow should be confident in their stand at least. And that with no doubt is a belief. So then the right statement should be, "The confidence to disbelief is in itself a belief". with that, I can boldly say Atheism is a Religion bound by the reasons they have to disbelieve.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Atheism in itself is a belief ... "The confidence to disbelief is in itself a belief.
My belief isn't that there is no god, which is why I call myself an agnostic atheist. My atheism is the logical product of two beliefs, namely that gods cannot be ruled in or out and that one shouldn't believe anything without sufficient empiric support. If one believes those things, he will conclude that agnostic atheism is the only rational position, which is a thirds belief derived from the first two. The only belief I have that derives from that is that there is no reason to have a religion.
All I have come to know in this life is that there are two sides to everything; when you believe one is false, the other must be true.
If you're saying that one either believes that there is a god or the opposite of that, then I disagree. There is a third position possible: agnosticism, which is neither a claim that something is true or false, but an "I don't know" answer.
To be able to hold on to Atheism, then the fellow should be confident in their stand at least.
I am quite confident that agnostic atheism is the only rational position for a critically thinking empiricist to hold. If you disagree, please explain why. Falsify (rebut) the claim if you think you can.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe.

People have asked why bother - you're never going to change any of those minds - and I tell them that I know that and that that is not my purpose. I have referred to it as "tapping the glass" as with an aquarium to see the reaction. You've seen my discussion lately with Cladking. It's clear to me (and probably you and others) that he will never define intelligence or will he address the question of why that is (cognitive blindness of some sort or trolling).

So many holy people, so little time.

We have a word for "unicorn" despite the lack of evidence that such a thing exists or has existed. We could have a word for the "one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater" too but we don't. Why do you think that is? How would you like to ask your wife to come into "the room with the stove and refrigerator" every time you need her to show you where the can opener is? As a rule we invent words to symbolize things that exist in the real world or for abstractions that apply to the real world.

I used to believe in intelligence many years ago and had a highly complex definition for it that involved everything from visual acuity to spatial relations. But I no longer believe such a thing exists. Sure, many of the parameters I used to use to define it exists; There is still such a thing as "visual acuity" and people differ in their ability to manipulate shapes or objects but this hardly means that even in aggregate these differences constitute a condition we call "intelligence".

I can list the characteristics of a unicorn much more easily than the characteristics of what you still believe in; intelligence. What would be the point since people didn't agree with me even when I used to believe in this unicorn.

Something tells me you don't understand this either.

Intelligence is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. It is believed to be related to the one eyed flying purple people eater but this has not been established positively as of the time of this writing.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We have a word for "unicorn" despite the lack of evidence that such a thing exists or has existed. We could have a word for the "one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater" too but we don't. Why do you think that is? How would you like to ask your wife to come into "the room with the stove and refrigerator" every time you need her to show you where the can opener is? As a rule we invent words to symbolize things that exist in the real world or for abstractions that apply to the real world.
This has nothing to do with a definition of intelligence.
I can list the characteristics of a unicorn much more easily than the characteristics of what you still believe in; intelligence. What would be the point since people didn't agree with me even when I used to believe in this unicorn.
This at least mentions intelligence.
I used to believe in intelligence many years ago and had a highly complex definition for it that involved everything from visual acuity to spatial relations. But I no longer believe such a thing exists. Sure, many of the parameters I used to use to define it exists; There is still such a thing as "visual acuity" and people differ in their ability to manipulate shapes or objects but this hardly means that even in aggregate these differences constitute a condition we call "intelligence".
From this, we can tell some characteristics you say you no longer believe it has, but at least we can tell that you think it has something to do with the mind.
Something tells me you don't understand this either.
I don't know which "this" you mean - the quote above or the one below - but I understand what they say. I didn't understand the word "this" above, however. It's ambiguous, which makes the sentence self-referential and correct in a literal sense.

What I don't understand is why you think any comment in your reply was relevant to providing a definition of intelligence.

Nor did you want to discuss why that is. I could only think of two reasons - a type of cognitive blindness that keeps you from understanding and cooperating with what is being requested or trolling, which is malicious.
Intelligence is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. It is believed to be related to the one eyed flying purple people eater but this has not been established positively as of the time of this writing.
I said earlier that I thought it was the former, but this looks like trolling. Anyway, the discussion is over. I leave you to your musings.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe. the matter.

For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge.
Sorry that you didn't check the non-religious links, they were educational in the scientific sense. You obviously have your opinion. I am quoting about the absolute necessity of mutations for evolution from science sources.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
From this, we can tell some characteristics you say you no longer believe it has, but at least we can tell that you think it has something to do with the mind.

No. Not really. There is no such thing as "mind" either except as an abstraction to communicate. We think "mind" is the effect of 'brain" but in reality consciousness lies in the brain/ body. If "mind" existed it would be a manifestation of consciousness, not brain. "Intelligence" that you believe in would be another characteristic of consciousness such as pattern recognition, attention, or awareness. Many of the characteristics you believe manifest as "intelligence" don't even take place within what you believe is "mind" per se. Visual acuity, number of types of cones in the eye, and sensitivity to all sensory inputs would be examples. Things that influence thought like many types of learning can be critical to achieving cleverness and its successful application to the real world. Experience is the best teacher and the source of all true knowledge. Building models reflective of reality is equally important or we might end up like Darwin; correct only in terms of false premises.

"Mind" is a construct and an abstraction that has a very different referent to almost all individuals. It is one of those words that gets all twisted and confused in chinese telephone. "Boat" might get twisted into a ship, barge, or UFO but mind can quickly morph into a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.

In a sense everything people believe in is real and this even includes "mind", "intelligence", and "unicorns". But everything people believe in does not have any referent at all. Selling millions of children's' books about unicorns doesn't make them real and standardizing IQ tests does not mean they are measuring anything at all beyond the ability of individuals to answer specific questions.

People, individuals have varying degrees of numerous talents and attributes but the only apparent reason people believe in intelligence is that it is obvious from our ability to think. But consider the definition of thought I keep providing; something that occurs only in our species as we compare sensory input to our models. Thought is produced through this comparison. Being faster in circular reasoning or having more complex models is the result of learning not some innate ability to learn. There is a correlation between the ability to learn and aggregate learning but, again, most of this is more an event and the ability to learn is more associated with habits and modes of thought than with a condition of being "smart".

I don't really understand why this is such a big deal to you. I simply avoid the word "intelligence" because I don't believe in it. I know what you mean if you use it and won't ask you to explain. I believe in consciousness, you in intelligence. I believe consciousness depends on the brain/ body/ mode of existence and you believe people are innately different as defined by their ability to use their brains and this is related to survival of the fittest. Tamato/ tomahto.

The big difference is I believe consciousness drives change in species and you believe intelligence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it except in higher species where it could play a small role in an individual's ability to adapt or be naturally selected.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Sorry that you didn't check the non-religious links, they were educational in the scientific sense. You obviously have your opinion. I am quoting about the absolute necessity of mutations for evolution from science sources.
It is quite obvious even to experts that mutation is an important part of change in species resulting in sudden change or as believers say "sudden Evolution". But apparently, even mutant offspring are considered the same species as the parents.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is quite obvious even to experts that mutation is an important part of change in species resulting in sudden change or as believers say "sudden Evolution".
I don't say sudden change or sudden evolution. Maybe scientists do, I don't know if they do.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you think chinese telephone has never been experimented with in the lab?
Irrelevant.
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.
Please cite one clear and relevant contemporary example of this.
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.
So what?
EVERYTHING we see, experience, and observe is evidence.
Only potentially. Until then each sensory perception is simply part of our data, and most of the time very little of it requires a response.
Much of this evidence is anomalous but people don't notice.
Brains tend to pay attention to things relevant to various self-defense instincts or to their wellbeing, and to automatically edit out the rest. Thus sometimes they notice anomalies, and sometimes they miss them. That works well in a Sherlock Holmes story. However, since you're proposing it as a generality, what's an example of it being significantly relevant as a generality?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
yes you do

I don't.

That would be an other objection………you are changing the topic.

I'm not. You're the one who's insisting on a "cause" for the space-time continuum.
I'm pointing out why that is nonsensical.

First agree (or refute) the point that I made and then we can move on to this other topic………….in fact first explain with your own words my point………if you don’t prove to me that you understand you will be ignored
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
 

TagliatelliMonster

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

The nature of causality is not a matter of personal definitions ("defections?" typo? I hope so)

To say that the cause always and necessarily comes before the effect ….is far from uncontroversial

It is not.
At best, it is only "controversial" among "philosophers" who still insist on old "god arguments" that have long been discarded as being nonsensical as a result of improved understanding of the space-time manifold.

……………you need more than ”because I say so”

Physics says so.

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

But, to use your own analogy, whatever created the first computer - it can't be another computer.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well yes, the cause of the universe (physical reality) it is a philosophical question

It is not. It is a scientific question.

………..science by definition can´t address this question

If science can't (n your opinion), what makes you think "philosophy" can?



…………..science deal with things inside the universe anything “outside” the universe is beyond the scope of science

What makes you think that?
Science deals with empirical reality. There is no reason why, say, a multi-verse wouldn't be part of empirical reality
Secondly, it might not even make sense to talk about "outside" the universe.

You are making classic mistakes here.
You are projecting your human mind, which evolved to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa, into a world that is totally divorced from our common sense, from our intuitions.

You are talking about a situation where time and space itself do not exist.
Our minds can't even properly comprehend quantum physics WITHIN space time.

You should humble yourself a bit and realize that your mind can only intuitively deal with medium speeds and medium gravity within the gravitational field of the planet we grew up in. If you think you are going to be able to "reason" from "common sense" about the very origins of space-time, you are beyond delusional.

Time for you to move on from newtonian physics.

*I am aware of the fact that the word “outside” in this context is meaningless…..just didn’t know what word to use instead

Exactly. You don't know. So stop pretending that you do. You don't know, we don't know. Nobody does.
And the same goes for the word "cause". That's also meaningless.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Irrelevant, it has been addressed anyway…… and given that all I get is “you are wrong because I say so” that is a strong indication that I answered successfully
People have been explaining to you exactly why it is wrong. You have been given answers involving physics, relativity, the space-time manifold...

Nobody here said anything remotely like "because I say so".
The fact that you claim otherwise just goes to show how little you are paying attention.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Some people I tire of eventually and place them on "corrections only status".
Since there is no real interest in discussion or learning, that is all I'm left with myself. Adventures down the rabbit hole have become tiresome anyway.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. You ask a question or make a point and the response has little or nothing to do with anything you posted. As with rabbit holes, I've tired of pigeon chess as well.

Ancient pigeon chess?
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Since there is no real interest in discussion or learning, that is all I'm left with myself. Adventures down the rabbit hole have become tiresome anyway.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. You ask a question or make a point and the response has little or nothing to do with anything you posted. As with rabbit holes, I've tired of pigeon chess as well.

Ancient pigeon chess?

I don't believe in communication.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Scientists do not claim sudden evolution or sudden change. Parents do not reproduce offspring that are a different species. There is no evidence of this. The only way it can be demonstrated is to redefine species and make it useless as word to describe different groups of organisms.

Believers in convoluted, syncretic belief systems believe in sudden change and cows giving birth to deer. It is supported only by declaration. There is no evidence to support the claims.

Perhaps it is a manifestation of Ancient Pigeon Chess.
 
Top