Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

Ironically, it is perfectly analogous to your very own example about how the origins of the "first" computer can not be another computer.

It is not analogous, because I am not grating that causation necessarily requires time…………..and I will not accept “because I say so” arguments

 

[Pogo]

It seems you should get your glasses.
1. I never said I didn't know what it meant by creationist but rather said using the right method of approach in terms of writing style will realize not every portion of the Bible is in the Literal Sense and therefore, I don't answer to that name you guys try to impose on all of us (Christians).
That has been my stands from the beginning But it seems that, some of you are just here to criticize but cannot stomach one.
So now you know, next time read carefully and know whose submission you're responding to.

If you do not identify as a christian, I apologize, otherwise, I don't actually understand your position, most Christians do not take all of the Bible literally, but some take certain parts literally which brings them the self described moniker of creationists.

 

[B-psychedelic]

Please if you are an Atheist, and you're trying to engage in theology kindly read carefully so you don't misrepresent anyone because you don't find it funny when we do the same.

we are fine if you say you don't believe in God or the supernatural because of your personal experience with one religion or person that messed up.
but when you want to criticize anyone for believing in them, you automatically open up for criticism. Even when most Atheists' ideologies can't be lived out, some of us don't go berserk around making people feel less intelligent by attacking random people until we are engaged in a debate.

finally, I don't know about the other religions but Christianity has always been open to criticism and will always be. Thanks

 

[leroy]

Yeah, from philosophers.
The space-time manifold, the nature of time, the origins of the universe,.. = physics. Einsteinian physics.

Why should we care what some philosopher thinks about this?

Well yes, the cause of the universe (physical reality) it is a philosophical question ………..science by definition can´t address this question …………..science deal with things inside the universe anything “outside” the universe is beyond the scope of science

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

 

[ratiocinator]

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

No, it's not a different topic. Your options are based on a misunderstanding of the modern view of space-time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The intellectual nudity is always around, the bigger question these days seems to be the number of children vs. adults.

I like to point out the irony of the individual that never provides evidence for their claims complaining that others are not providing evidence. It is doubly ironic given how often those supporting scientific conclusions and explanations actually do provide evidence.

 

[leroy]

No, it's not a different topic. Your options are based on a misunderstanding of the modern view of space-time.

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

 

[Pogo]

No, it's not a different topic. Your options are based on a misunderstanding of the modern view of space-time.

Modern in the sense of the introduction of the Model T in 1908 or the continued existence of the Ford Motor Company ?

 

[ratiocinator]

Modern in the sense of the introduction of the Model T in 1908 or the continued existence of the Ford Motor Company ?

That's it.

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

I've explained it to you in some detail, most of which you've simply ignored or just restated your own position with your Newtonian intuition back in place.

 

[B-psychedelic]

If you do not identify as a christian, I apologize, otherwise, I don't actually understand your position, most Christians do not take all of the Bible literally, but some take certain parts literally which brings them the self described moniker of creationists.

So which part of what I said wasn't clear, well I'm not surprised that someone like you would not understand simple English when spoken. And it's sad enough that you guys are clue-less yet behave as if you know much only to see how confused you are when you speak. I can help anyone sincere and Intellectually honest, but people like you are beyond saving. it is one thing to be deceived but to deceive yourself, that's is mind-boggling.

1. I declared my Religion,
2. I declared my stands clearly,
3. And I gave my premises and all that, yet to look at those Statements and come out with a bald-faced lie that I don't identify as a Christian when what I said is still on the screen, it's just wonderful.
have a nice life, Man.

 

[leroy]

That's it.


I've explained it to you in some detail, most of which you've simply ignored or just restated your own position with your Newtonian intuition back in place.

You addressed a straw man …….. Nobody is denying relativity, nor affirming newton…………You have been corrected many times and you keep repeatign that strawman

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm, maybe you are new here, but creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis. We designate them as such to differentiate them from the majority of Christians who understand reality..

Now you know.

Creationists, as you call them, are NOT a "subset of Christians," etc. Maybe you think others that you call Christian or that call themselves Christian do NOT believe in creation. You have no backup for your assertion and allegations.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you object to gross generalizations and then ask us to agree with one.

At least it seems you admit you made a "gross generalization" about what you think Christians believe. Since you brought it up, why not provide the "evidence" for your gross generalization about what you say Christians believe or don't believe about -- CREATION, ok? How about it since you brought it up. (Hint: you won't do it...that's my take on your opinion. You can't/won't back it up. Just as you don't really back up with actual evidence beyond belief of evolution...) So -- back up your claim about what you think "Christians" believe or don't believe, subset or not, Pogo.

 

[ratiocinator]

You addressed a straw man …….. Nobody is denying relativity, nor affirming newton………

Your options implicitly imply the Newtonian (intuitive) version of time and ignore the GR concept of space-time. I guess you don't understand enough to realise it, which is why I keep on trying to explain it.

1 ether nature (originally used the word universe) has always existed

2 nature came from nothing

In another post, you made clear that by "always existed" you mean an infinite past, so the options simply don't make sense in terms of GR space-time.

Do you need me to explain it again?

 

[ratiocinator]

Creationists, as you call them, are NOT a "subset of Christians," etc. Maybe you think others that you call Christian or that call themselves Christian do NOT believe in creation. You have no backup for your assertion and allegations.

Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy, or are you not aware that vast numbers of Christians don't accept the literal creationist cult?

 

[Pogo]

So which part of what I said wasn't clear, well I'm not surprised that someone like you would not understand simple English when spoken. And it's sad enough that you guys are clue-less yet behave as if you know much only to see how confused you are when you speak. I can help anyone sincere and Intellectually honest, but people like you are beyond saving. it is one thing to be deceived but to deceive yourself, that's is mind-boggling.

1. I declared my Religion,
2. I declared my stands clearly,
3. And I gave my premises and all that, yet to look at those Statements and come out with a bald-faced lie that I don't identify as a Christian when what I said is still on the screen, it's just wonderful.
have a nice life, Man.

Reading comprehension sir, I said "IF" you don't.
I then went on to attempt to explain the difference between Christians and the subset referred to as creationists.
I was looking for your position on the matter and recognizing that you are new here, attempting not to make any assumptions. .
Chill.

 

[Pogo]

You addressed a straw man …….. Nobody is denying relativity, nor affirming newton…………You have been corrected many times and you keep repeatign that strawman

What people are trying to explain to you is that accepting relativity is not enough in this discussion if you do not understand the fundamental math behind it. Your intuition based on the prior understanding of time is that of the mathematical genius Newton who like most everybody sees time as a coordinate separate from an objects location in space, but the math that is necessary to understand space-time gives no meaning to coordinates outside of spacetime. Accepting spacetime without the math is not understanding it which is where you are at and until you understand the math, you will never be able to see why your interpretation is impossible. This math is very rare in most peoples education and generally requires a few college courses or at least some serious study to get the concepts if not the ability to work with it.

Relativity is not so much a discovery as it is a recognition that a certain set of mathematical equations can be applied to observations and make sense out of them and even lead to looking for new observations and finding that they also agree. This is a large part of modern science.

 

[Pogo]

Creationists, as you call them, are NOT a "subset of Christians," etc. Maybe you think others that you call Christian or that call themselves Christian do NOT believe in creation. You have no backup for your assertion and allegations.

Believing that the Christian God created this world is not what is meant by creationist, that belief is a generic attribute of Christians, the term creationists was minted by a subset of Christians who wished to identify themselves differently from other Christians by their belief in a literal understanding of Genesis and many of the other myths in the Bible. They are a modern phenomenon and primarily located in the US.

 

[Pogo]

At least it seems you admit you made a "gross generalization" about what you think Christians believe. Since you brought it up, why not provide the "evidence" for your gross generalization about what you say Christians believe or don't believe about -- CREATION, ok? How about it since you brought it up. (Hint: you won't do it...that's my take on your opinion. You can't/won't back it up. Just as you don't really back up with actual evidence beyond belief of evolution...) So -- back up your claim about what you think "Christians" believe or don't believe, subset or not, Pogo.

Seriously, you need to go back and read what was written and try to understand the concept of nuance.

 

[leroy]

Your options implicitly imply the Newtonian (intuitive) version of time and ignore the GR concept of space-time. I guess you don't understand enough to realise it, which is why I keep on trying to explain it.

Again, no, you have been corrected like 5 times……………..go to any of my posts where used the word universe and change it for “universe that follows relativity” and none of my arguments nor points would be affected.

In another post, you made clear that by "always existed" you mean an infinite past, so the options simply don't make sense in terms of GR space-time.

Do you need me to explain it again?

Yes I agree, in my opinion non of those 2 options make sense (and they wouldn’t make snece with Newtonian time ether) …………. What made you think that I would affirm the opposite?...............I have no alternative but to admit that I have no idea on what are you talking about……….non of your words make sense, it is almost as if you are reading an other post and responding to me

Do you need me to explain it again?

What you have to do is explain why is any of your comments relevant to anything that I have said