Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

please, help me understand this;

1. What type of faction of Atheism do you belong to?​

Non-Southern Non-Baptist.

2. Which view Atheism are you using in this debate (Implicit or Explicit)?​

let me give you a clue "Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism."​

the only way to reject religion is to prove it unreliability with logic and the only tool "outside religion" is science.

You really do not get to make up your own definitions. Most atheists here are of the "I lack a belief because they have never seen any reliable evidence or rational argument for a God. And no, it is easy to "reject religion" once one realizes that they do not meet their burden of proof. For the same reason that you do not believe in other Gods atheists reject yours too. Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. The null-hypothesis when a claim is made is to lack a belief, not to automatically believe.

Also any occurrence that defies logic and reasoning is termed as a Miracle even according to atheism.

Do you have anything specific that is probably not a myth?

Many claim they are atheists and yet you will realize their reasoning is flawed in terms of practicality and the only way out of it is to say, science will discover the truth in the near future.

Really? So far you have failed to justify your beliefs. So why should anyone believe them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am here to learn, therefore kindly give evidence on your claim about Science other than miracles which are not actual science.

That is fine. If I say that evolution is true I need to be able to support it. But I have also found that as a rule that creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. So we must first start with a short discussion upon the nature of evidence. Do you agree to that?

 

[leroy]

Such as whom, exactly, and how do they propose to have causation without time? Also, how do you cause something that is, as a whole, timeless (did not in any sense begin to exist), and that contains time?

This paper argues for simultaneous causation, (cause and effect happening without time between each other)

The point is not that paper is right and you are wrong (who knows) the point is that your statement of “causation requires time” is far from uncontrovertibly true, and I need more than “it’s true because I say so”

"We propose that all actual causes are simultaneous with their direct effects, as illustrated by both everyday examples and the laws of physics. We contrast this view with the sequential conception of causation, according to which causes must occur prior to their effects. We find that the key difference between the two views of causation lies in differing assumptions about the mathematical structure of time. "

https://philpapers.org/archive/HUECAS.pdf/1000#:~:text=The%20simultaneous%20theory%20of%20causation,with%20temporally%20extended%20cause%20C.

In relativity (which is the best tested relevant theory we have, backed up by endless evidence), the causal structure is such that a cause must be within the past light-cone of what is caused. Obviously, that can only apply within space-time. There is no past light-cone for the whole manifold, it wouldn't even make sense.

This would only apply to objects that are constrained by relativity……… why would a cause of the natural law (God) be constrained by the laws of physics?.................

Not sure what you're asking for. An alternative to something incoherent? The alternative, and more sensible, question to ask is why does physical reality exist, rather than getting stuck in causation. But I said that before, too

Sure, my answer to that question is “because it was caused by a nonphysical cause, ……………..what alternative do you suggest? And why is that alternative better?

 

[B-psychedelic]

No, you have set yourself up a bunch of false dichotomies in an attempt to pretend that your predetermined conclusion is correct.
First atheism is a lack of belief in gods just as theism is a belief in one or more gods. Interestingly most theists are predominantly atheist in their thinking.
There are strong atheists who believe there are no gods, but I and most are not them, I personally believe that it is possible that we are the product of a snotty kid in God high school universe creation lab who created this universe and us humans just to see what we would do like focusing the sun on an ant maze with a magnifying glass to watch the ants. It explains the world every bit as well as the Christian god.

As to your claims about those you obviously don't really know, I will ignore them except to ask you for this definition of practicality and some evidence for whatever it is you are claiming for it?

Getting your understanding from creationist websites is a sure way to find yourself misinformed about reality.

it's rather sad that atheists cannot make up their minds where they stand. they keep shifting goals posts and they finally say one person cannot represent all atheists because of various views that's we cant take you guys seriously.

lets test your resolve here with a question;
is morality objective or relative?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Morph" is inaccurate since that usually applies to individuals. And as you have been told countless times individuals do not evolve.

They don't? You mean like mutations don't happen to individuals?

 

[leroy]

I wrote, "everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature."

Why call an aspect of reality that can interact with other real things by a different name than nature? Why isn't reality outside of our universe not also nature? I would call it extra-universal nature whether that be a multiverse, a deity, or something else.

OK.

Here's where we part ways. I'm calling that something be it a multiverse or a deity (extra-universal) nature, too.

If you define nature as I have, either 1 or 2 must be correct. What are your good arguments against them?

From a previous post about the origin of the universe. These are all of the logical possibilities in my estimation. Everything listed, if it exists, is an aspect of nature, one being the universe and two being putative extra-universal sources of it. Why do you want to say otherwise?:

I. The universe has no cause

It has always existed​

It came into existence uncaused​

II. The universe has a prior cause

It is conscious (a deity)​

It is an unconscious substance (multiverse, for example)​

That was a response to "An agnostic is somebody who says he doesn't know regarding any question, not just about gods. A religious agnostic doesn't need to give a likelihoods for gods existing, and in fact, has no way to do that. I addressed that yesterday in this post"

OK. Definitions are an aspect of semantics, as it is about the meaning of words. Our discussion about the meaning of the word nature is also semantics:

Semantics - "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."

It wasn't obvious to me that you aren't certain a god exists, but if that expresses your position, yes, by modern reckoning, you would be considered both a theist and an agnostic - an agnostic theist. You're a theist because you are a believer but agnostic because you don't claim that your god belief is correct. In my experience, most theists are gnostic theist. They claim to know that their god exists. In fact, many if not most Christians say that they have a personal relationship with their god. You're doing better than they are, but believing in something that you say you don't know exists is a logical error albeit a comforting one for many. Maybe a better word would be that you hope or suspect a god exists.

This, too, is semantics.

I hope you understand now that that doesn't mean that I think you're not a theist.

Sure if you want to label everything , as natural then gods and angels and ghosts would be natural……then what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's rather sad that atheists cannot make up their minds where they stand. they keep shifting goals posts and they finally say one person cannot represent all atheists because of various views that's we cant take you guys seriously.

We do not have sects. We do not have dogma. There are countless different kinds of atheists. But by your standards you should not be taking Christianity seriously either.

A general disbelief in a god or gods is rather similar to Christianity's general belief in the resurrection.

lets test your resolve here with a question;
is morality objective or relative?

Definitely relative, it is so even for the Christian God. The question then becomes whose morality is better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They don't? You mean like mutations don't happen to individuals?

They do happen, but that is not morphing or evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Morph" is inaccurate since that usually applies to individuals. And as you have been told countless times individuals do not evolve.

P.S. Don't certain individuals eventually, as they procreate. evolve? (By morphing, by means of mutations, of course...) Anyway -- do you know which fish started the process of evolving over the long run to become the first ape?

 

[B-psychedelic]

That is fine. If I say that evolution is true I need to be able to support it. But I have also found that as a rule that creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. So we must first start with a short discussion upon the nature of evidence. Do you agree to that?

first of all what type of material are we dealing with, it is mostly historic,
secondly, science has no understanding of the spiritual
finally, their many events where peoples' health have been declared as impossible to recover from and yet they do and up till now, science is still finding excuses for their occurrence. so it seems you have to define evidence you are providing a historic miracle like feeding thousands with just a few.
but sadly, skeptical people like you never enter a laboratory to examine the medications you are served at the pharmacy to verify the contents written on them before use.

 

[YoursTrue]

They do happen, but that is not morphing or evolution.

They do happen?? Aren't mutations necessary so that fish, for example, would have "evolved" in the long run, to be humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. Don't certain individuals eventually, as they procreate. evolve? (By morphing, by means of mutations, of course...) Anyway -- do you know which fish started the process of evolving over the long run to become the first ape?

No, that is still not evolution. How many times do you have to be told that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. One of the definitions of evolution to remember is that evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population. An individual is not a population. If the changes in allele frequency are limited to one individual that is not evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do happen?? Aren't mutations necessary so that fish, for example, would have "evolved" in the long run, to be humans?

They are necessary for evolution to occur, but a mutation in an individual is not evolution. See above.

 

[leroy]

TBH you seem to be, partially at least, making the same mistake as @leroy. The whole space-time—even if it's much bigger than 'the universe' that we observe, say an "eternal inflation" type multiverse—cannot "came into existence". Things can only "came into existence" within a space-time.

The same goes for causation (at least from the scientific, relativistic point of view). There are also some rather strange options when one ditches Newtonian time and considers the options available when time becomes just a coordinate.
four-dimensional object.

What about quantum mechanics? (Entanglement)

What about space time singularities?

What about simultaneous causation ?

What about platonic objects (like numbers?)

What about other universes (with other laws)

What about supernatural entities (gods, gohsts etc.)

these are all examples of things that would not be restricted by “relativity”………… obviously non of these objects are uncontrovertibly real, but they might excist….. how did you discarded the existence of all these with such a degree of certainty?

Do you understand how rich and famous would you be, if you could conclusively show that none of these are real?

 

[B-psychedelic]

Non-Southern Non-Baptist.


You really do not get to make up your own definitions. Most atheists here are of the "I lack a belief because they have never seen any reliable evidence or rational argument for a God. And no, it is easy to "reject religion" once one realizes that they do not meet their burden of proof. For the same reason that you do not believe in other Gods atheists reject yours too. Once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. The null-hypothesis when a claim is made is to lack a belief, not to automatically believe.


Do you have anything specific that is probably not a myth?

Really? So far you have failed to justify your beliefs. So why should anyone believe them?

before you claim it a myth you should give me evidence that suggests it is
and it's hypocritic to accept the history of your grandparents or Alexander the Great because it meets certain premises and when the same is provided for the source materials of the Christian beliefs then it suddenly becomes a myth.

so before you make the claim that God according to the Christian belief, Jesus and his deeds are myths, provide evidence to proof otherwise. (your proof as against over 5000 greek manuscripts that has verified over years of it authenticity and many more)

 

[YoursTrue]

They are necessary for evolution to occur, but a mutation in an individual is not evolution. See above.

OK, so now mutations are necessary for evolution to occur, is that right?

 

[firedragon]

Somebody else who needs their money back from the fake mind-reading course.

I read far more than I reply to, and it's actually quite difficult to even imagine a context in which asking for information about a common ancestor is not disingenuous, since any such question can easily be answered from publicly available sources.

Maybe you are looking for something to help yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

first of all what type of material are we dealing with, it is mostly historic,

So what? If claimed miracles are only "historic" then they lose a lot of credibility. When they occur during an event that people are fairly sure that never happened then the miracles would never have happened either. Remember if you claim that miracles happened the burden of proof is upon you.

secondly, science has no understanding of the spiritual

It does not need one. It has no opinion on the spiritual either way.

finally, their many events where peoples' health have been declared as impossible to recover from and yet they do and up till now, science is still finding excuses for their occurrence. so it seems you have to define evidence you are providing a historic miracle like feeding thousands with just a few.

Human health is still not fully understood. Many events are of low probability, but we have a population of roughly 5 billion people. That means that every day

but sadly, skeptical people like you never enter a laboratory to examine the medications you are served at the pharmacy to verify the contents written on them before use.

That would not do most people any good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so now mutations are necessary for evolution to occur, is that right?

Sorry, but I am not going to continue until you own up to the fact that you do not understand evolution at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

before you claim it a myth you should give me evidence that suggests it is

I already did. In the case of Moses the event involved so many people that the utter lack of evidence for the story indicates that it is a myth. Have you ever heard the saying "The lack of evidence is not evidence against"? That is actually incorrect. The proper saying is "The lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence against". I can give you examples that demonstrate that. You should be able to think of a few yourself.

and it's hypocritic to accept the history of your grandparents or Alexander the Great because it meets certain premises and when the same is provided for the source materials of the Christian beliefs then it suddenly becomes a myth.

No, the evidence that we accept when it comes to Alexander the great is meets the qualifications that your Bible does not provide. There is no hypocrisy at all. In fact the burden of proof is much much higher for your claims because they involve a magical being.

so before you make the claim that God according to the Christian belief, Jesus and his deeds are myths, provide evidence to proof otherwise. (your proof as against over 5000 greek manuscripts that has verified over years of it authenticity and many more)

I did not say that God is a myth. We can be very sure that certain events in the Bible never happened. If God cannot lie then you cannot read the book of Genesis literally. When you do so you are actually claiming that God is a liar. That is why most Christians do not read Genesis literally. That Genesis can be shown to be wrong does not refute Christianity. Atheists do not believe evolution because it "refutes God". That is the argument of weak faithed Christians and Muslims.

As to Jesus, he probably did exist, born in Nazareth, got a following of Hebrews, raised enough of a stink for the Romans to take him seriously and crucify him. But that is probably where his story ends.