Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

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.

Oh really? Give specifics, otherwise your claim is invalid.

 

[Pogo]

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.


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?

Won't help until he learns at least the concepts of the math involved.
Speaking of which, Is there significance to this existence of x or is it just cute and if so what? My one year of college and CC discrete math only gets me part way through.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Oh now it's nuance, hmm. What about mutations. Does all evolution come about by mutation? Thanks. It's kinda like a yes or no answer if you're honest enough.

 

[leroy]

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.

So you have energy to write a nonsense and irrelevant paragraph about relativity………………but you don’t have energy for answering a yes or no question?

My question being

1 given the evidence that we have to date, do you affirm that atheism is more likely to be true than theism?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



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



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

Lol they can't do it, never have except by speculation and never will.

 

[B-psychedelic]

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.

i don't know If you are suffering from dementia or playing dumb.

"If you do not identify as a Christian, I apologize," these are your words, and it seems that you lack comprehensive skills. If you had said "You do not identify as a creationist-Christian" it would have helped your case but to say what you said, and still have to come and defend it, kindly go back and ask your teachers. This sounds rude but I am trying to sound as polite as possible Sir

 

[John53]

Give specifics, otherwise your claim is invalid.

OH! I'm remembering that. In fact I will write it down.

 

[John53]

Lol they can't do it, never have except by speculation and never will.

Give specifics, otherwise your claim is invalid.

 

[Pogo]

Oh really? Give specifics, otherwise your claim is invalid.

About what, that Christians believe their God is responsible for the world we live in or that there are subsets that have variations of this belief?

 

[Pogo]

About what, that Christians believe their God is responsible for the world we live in or that there are subsets that have variations of this belief?

Whoops, forgot one that is relevant and another addition to my discussion with @leroy earlier.

There are also Christians who do not believe in gods but embrace the teachings of Christ. They are known as Christian atheists and are not that uncommon even in the clergy.

 

[Pogo]

So you have energy to write a nonsense and irrelevant paragraph about relativity………………but you don’t have energy for answering a yes or no question?

My question being

1 given the evidence that we have to date, do you affirm that atheism is more likely to be true than theism?

No, I lack information to determine whether my snarky god HS student belief is any less valid than any other belief.

 

[Pogo]

i don't know If you are suffering from dementia or playing dumb.

"If you do not identify as a Christian, I apologize," these are your words, and it seems that you lack comprehensive skills. If you had said "You do not identify as a creationist-Christian" it would have helped your case but to say what you said, and still have to come and defend it, kindly go back and ask your teachers. This sounds rude but I am trying to sound as polite as possible Sir

I still don't really have an idea of your position. " 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."

Other than as I explained a few posts further down, creationist Christian is sort of redundant unless you are an atheist Christian.

 

[Pogo]

Lol they can't do it, never have except by speculation and never will.

It is not that we can't, but that your question is somewhere between wrong and meaningless.

Do you have any idea what the square root of -2 is?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what standard are you proposing?

The one in the post you responded to:

"She has one standard for you and herself. Feel free to repeat whatever she's told you, but don't guess what her other thoughts are and say them as fact. She'll do the same for you."

most atheists call religious believers especially Christians fools and slow-witted bunchs indirectly for "believing myths" without any authentic sourced document refuting the historical authenticities in the Bible yet get emotional when we just generalize atheism and claim we're imposing ideas to it.

I haven't seen that language used. The way I word it is that faith is a logical error, and that I am not a Cristian because I believe reason applied to evidence/experience is the only path to knowledge. Nor have I seen the atheists getting emotional. But you are. Your posting has been pretty much pure grievance - what you don't like about atheists especially one in particular.

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 understand them. If you don't, maybe it's you that is the problem.

I saw a meme recently wherein a gut complained that all feminists are nasty b****es. To which somebody responded that what they all had in common was having just met him.

Do you affirm that given the evidence, one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other? Why are you afraid of answering this question?

That comment wasn't written to me, but I answered that question. Wasn't that enough? You didn't disagree.

Creationists, as you call them, are NOT a "subset of Christians

I agree, but he made himself clear. He first wrote, "creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis." That should have said young earth Christian or biblical fundamentalist, but he also wrote, "creationist Christian is sort of redundant unless you are an atheist Christian."

Someone else here pointed out that the term creationism really cannot be properly applied to all who believe in a higher source that has intelligence over and beyond the creation.

I call anybody who believes that our universe was made by an intelligent designer a creationist.

do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?

No. The are other mechanisms involved named by @gnostic and repeated below:

"In population genetics, the Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include genetic drift, mate choice, assortative mating, natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene flow, meiotic drive, genetic hitchhiking, population bottleneck, founder effect, inbreeding and outbreeding depression."

when the odds of something exceed some level we are all prone to call it "correct" or some synonym.

Yes. That's a pragmatic approach to knowledge. If the idea reliably anticipates outcomes, it is a useful (pragmatic) idea, becomes a keeper, and can be called demonstrably correct until that is no longer the case.

Most people simply strive to have their thinking approach state of the art. "State of the art" is very good but it's not right and it's not correct.

Once again, I don't understand what this means. Is this a complaint? Very good thinking ought to be good enough.

We don't so much employ science because it is "largely correct" but because it's the only game in town.

We employ it because it works. You write as if we are settling on something inadequate.

there may be crackpots, holistic healers, heretics, priests, and mystics who are completely correct.

Then they should be able to demonstrate as much and shed those labels.

I am using standard English with standard definitions and you play word games by refusing to parse them as intended.

You've been told by many of us that we often just don't understand you and why - your idiosyncratic usage of language. I still don't know what YOU mean by "all change is sudden" or "metaphysics," for example, Tower of Babel 2.0. And your usage of "state of the art" is a bit ambiguous. I have suggested using less jargon and lingo and switching to plain language.

@Pogo just wrote the following to you: "those definitions are very different than anyone else here is using. The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion."

And I should add that other scientifically literate critical thinkers, empiricists, and humanists almost never ask me what I meant nor them. We may disagree, but there's no communication problem

Pogo suggested autocorrect. I'll go one further: try subjecting your words to AI to paraphrase them. I'll bet that you find the paraphrasing either different from what you meant or confused. This site uses a program called Copilot. Or, there's ChatGPT. If the computer doesn't understand you, nobody else will, either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Give specifics, otherwise your claim is invalid.

I am hard pressed to reconcile claims of understanding evolution with inconsistencies that reveal a lack of understanding of evolution.

Mutations do not cause evolution. They generate the variation on which selection can occur and drive the evolution of a population.

That is an honest answer and implying that honest answers to a poorly constructed and useless question are what will be received seems like passive aggression and I find that insulting.

 

[leroy]

Lol they can't do it, never have except by speculation and never will.

Wow you have supernatural powers, You can predict the future…… I will quote this every time someone asks me for evidence for the supernatural

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow you have supernatural powers, You can predict the future…… I will quote this every time someone asks me for evidence for the supernatural

Erroneous predictions based on desire rather than evidence are hardly supernatural.

 

[leroy]

No, I lack information to determine whether my snarky god HS student belief is any less valid than any other belief.

does that include natrualism ?..............I assume yes

 

[leroy]

Whoops, forgot one that is relevant and another addition to my discussion with @leroy earlier.

There are also Christians who do not believe in gods but embrace the teachings of Christ. They are known as Christian atheists and are not that uncommon even in the clergy.

Do you expect an answer from me? I am not following the conversation and have no idea on what you are talking about

 

[leroy]

Erroneous predictions based on desire rather than evidence are hardly supernatural.

Well so far the prediction is true.................but granted Predicting atheist behavior is not very impressive, they all do and say the same things