Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you a biblical reference?

I think Ancient Pigeon Chess predates the Bible by 38,000 years.

There may be some reference to it in the works of Ancient Aliens.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not seeing any contradiction. Clarify, please.
Do you understand how evolution works?

Anything that creates variation contributes to a pool that natural selection can choose from. Among single celled organisms mutation is the major driver, but with longer generation organisms, mixing genomes sexually produces more variation more quickly than waiting for mutations.
Of course there are other major and minor mechanisms of evolution. Google.

This argument that if a pop-sci explanation is not entirely complete and thus the theory is compromised somehow while the only alternative presented is magic is just pathetic, but it seems to be what is left to the locals.
I think I would laugh if it wasn't so sad and honestly beneath the presenters.

 

[Pogo]

OK, didn't realize that. Although the first couple of statements there -- hmm, I wonder if it's true in your case...

Meaning what?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It works for other posters too. When you post that mutations are the only source of variation for evolution and that is shown to be wrong, you don't acknowledge that. You move the goal posts and then claim everyone else is wrong.

From my view, this type of tactic says a lot about the person employing it and what they really understand.

Recall that the original statement was that mutations were the only way evolution happens. Since that was falsified, it has evolved into the posts now on heavy rotation.

 

[Pogo]

@Pogo -- Did not realize that was the link, so it was not what I saw, I'll look at it again. But that link starts out near the beginning,
"Most scientists admit they do not know.
But all atheists think they do – all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life. Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance and there is no God." Wonder if that's true. About atheists, that is. Meantime, that was not the link I thought it was, but it makes a good beginning about what atheists think...

I clicked on the blue words, should I have done something else?
I copied it to another window and found what I found.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Meaning what?

It is sometimes difficult to tell if it is passive aggression or just meaningless chatter.

 

[Valjean]

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)

You're asking a question you already know the answer to.
There are lots of modifiers I see today. I used to see just strong vs weak, but more and more I'm seeing explicit-implicit, negative-positive, gnostic-agnostic, antitheist, ignostic, &c.

 

[Pogo]

OK, didn't realize that. Although the first couple of statements there -- hmm, I wonder if it's true in your case...

Which statements? This one?: God had 9 billion years to be formed before Earth even existed.
Excuse me but this is a LOL even by your terms.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Why not? Doesn't understanding something involve understanding causes?

 

[Pogo]

....
Your comment...
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.

Ah here you are again being unable to differentiate between an opinion and a statement of fact.
Which I will argue as a fact based on the post you just made.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, this is the other link. Hope it meets with your approval about -- mutations. I do not believe this is a religiously based link, I apologize for the error in the other link. How about this one?

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution​

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutation is the only way that new alleles can be created within a population. Mutations generate the variation on which natural selection acts.

www.nature.com

(Hope it comes up better than the other did.)
"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. It is easy to understand how a mutation that allows an organism to feed, grow or reproduce more effectively could cause the mutant allele to become more abundant over time."

yes it is essentially correct which does not mean that it is absolutely correct and yes ultimately all genetic information is genetic information and changes by definition are mutations from the source genetic information.

You have been at this long enough that you should recognize this.

 

[Valjean]

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.

No, there are often multiple sides of an issue. An atheist might be someone who's never been exposed to the concept of god. She might deny the possibility or completely reject the existence of god.

Personally I'm not denying god -- or bigfoot, or flying saucers for that matter, I'm just waiting for enough empirical or objective evidence to justify belief; to make belief rational.

Theists make the claim, but so far they have not met their burden of proof, which puts god in the same category as leprechauns or wyverns. Is it rational to believe in them?

 

[Pogo]

You're asking a question you already know the answer to.
There are lots of modifiers I see today. I used to see just strong vs weak, but more and more I'm seeing explicit-implicit, negative-positive, gnostic-agnostic, antitheist, ignostic, &c.

Thank you for justifying my time here today, though I may have seen it before, I now know that &c is an alternative to etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which statements? This one?: God had 9 billion years to be formed before Earth even existed.
Excuse me but this is a LOL even by your terms.

Yeah, you're right about that one. On the other hand -- would you agree with the following statement in that article--

Meaning what?

OK, I guess I'll have to elucidate more clearly for you since you apparently don't understand it: (From the article that was erroneously linked -- )
"--all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life. Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance and there is no God."
Would you agree with that statement or do you need further explanation?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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 aIf claim that something is true or false, but an "I don't know" answer.

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.

If I understand you correctly, you are not sure there is no God, is that right?

 

[John53]

Yeah, you're right about that one. On the other hand -- would you agree with the following statement in that article--

OK, I guess I'll have to elucidate more clearly for you since you apparently don't understand it: (From the article that was erroneously linked -- )
"--all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life. Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance and there is no God."
Would you agree with that statement or do you need further explanation?

False

 

[YoursTrue]

False

Ok ty for a rather forthright answer. So in other words, you say that not all atheists theorize that life began by chance.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, you're right about that one. On the other hand -- would you agree with the following statement in that article--

OK, I guess I'll have to elucidate more clearly for you since you apparently don't understand it: (From the article that was erroneously linked -- )
"--all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life. Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance and there is no God."
Would you agree with that statement or do you need further explanation?

Well considering it is false in all of it's conjectures, no I would not agree, all you need for further explanation is just to read this thread and see what we are actually saying.

I am rather disappointed that you actually spent any time at that website and even considered it, you really ought to know better by now unless you are just in total denial.

 

[Pogo]

Ok ty for a rather forthright answer. So in other words, you say that not all atheists theorize that life began by chance.

take a course in basic discrete algebra and set theory which is normally taught in the first years of HS and come back when you can answer the question for yourself.

 

[John53]

Ok ty for a rather forthright answer. So in other words, you say that not all atheists theorize that life began by chance.

I know I don't. However I don't speak for other atheists.