Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Audie]

All i ask is valid evidence. If that is impossible to provide then i rest my case.

Yep

 

[Valjean]

Selection denotes consciousness. So if you (and Darwin) think the environment is conscious, that's your (conscious) selection.

No. Things get selected with no consciousness or awareness at all.

 

[Valjean]

Selection denotes consciousness. So if you (and Darwin) think the environment is conscious, that's your (conscious) selection.

No. Things get selected or sorted with no consciousness or awareness at all. Purely mechanical mechanisms can select.

 

[B-psychedelic]

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?

I respect you so much for your Stan's, but there's a little problem with it.
1. one thing some of you get wrong is that God does not catch up to science but science catches up to God
2. The evidence or proofs certain people seek in terms of God shows how insincere we can be. Have we gotten the proof or evidence of a person's thoughts, or expression of love? yet we know it exists and we accept it. why then can't we accept who God is even without proof?
3. The burden of proof is never on the entity of God. Irrespective of the numerous pieces of evidence that point to him, we decide on the most absurd evidence we don't even always provide or receive to accept something. For example, how many of us take the medication we're served at the pharmacy to personal laboratories to test the contents to see if it matches what is prescribed on their containers before consuming them or the food we buy?

if we say till We get all the answers, we ain't going to believe in him and we die and indeed he exists but have failed to honor and serve him, what would be our excuse?

I stand to lose nothing if what we believe in doesn't exist, i have no one to account for but if he does exist and I lived life to please him also good for me. in the end, it's a win-win situation for me.

 

[leroy]

I'm sure. Otherwise no trip down the rabbit hole arguing back an forth over some valid distinction that you don't seem to want to see.

You have a good day now you hear.

I not surprised by your dishonest approach

 

[ChristineM]

1. one thing some of you get wrong is that God does not catch up to science but science catches up to God

In your opinion.

2. The evidence or proofs certain people seek in terms of God shows how insincere we can be. Have we gotten the proof or evidence of a person's thoughts, or expression of love? yet we know it exists and we accept it. why then can't we accept who God is even without proof?

The MRI shows the brains thought and love. It has also been used to show god.

3. The burden of proof is never on the entity of God

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the statement. I.e. whoever says "god exists" then the burden of proof lies with them, similarly, one who says "no gods exist" owns the burden of proof.

 

[B-psychedelic]

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 a 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.

So I get you correctly, but it seems to you there's no third side in this situation. The Bible Capture that in (Revelation 3:16 [So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.])

as nicely put here (“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961.)

If you are never supported, you are simply against and that is where it ends. The human mind always wants to find a loophole in everything but it's only in your head. That's what you believe to be true, relative absolute but we're dealing with an objective absolute.

if you are placed in the position to help only five people but you have ten people available out of which only five supported you, are you going to leave your supporters and save those who never chose sides?

At a point, agnostic atheism can't live out its objectives.

 

[B-psychedelic]

In your opinion.




The MRI shows the brains thought and love. It has also been used to show god.



The burden of proof is on whoever makes the statement. I.e. whoever says "god exists" then the burden of proof lies with them, similarly, one who says "no gods exist" owns the burden of proof.

following your responses;
1. No that's is fact. most of the claims made by the Bible are confirmed by scientific theories. Example the the beginning of the world(whether the world universe is eternal or has a cause). And when there are no findings, "Science will explain later".

2. Are you saying that MRI can now explain your thoughts? ***STAFF EDIT*** bring any authentic scientific source that says so.

3. What are the requirements in court cases to prove if someone is guilty or not?
"Evidence" either through eyewitness accounts, or any documentation of an event being argued upon among many things.
Why do you think the court does not deal with cases involving spirituality or religion? Because the human mind in such cases couldn't be accepted because science can not determine whether its true or not.

The moment i make claims in court and are backed by eye witnesses accounts, archaeological findings, and many more, if I am sane, the burden of proof is no longer on me not matter if you are satisfied or not. If the court claims I'm justified based on what I provided, I am vindicated, your opinion doesn't matter anymore because you will never be satisfied with what ever you're given that's why there are stipulated criteria to meet.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Things get selected or sorted with no consciousness or awareness at all. Purely mechanical mechanisms can select.

So it's random. Etc and etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Things get selected or sorted with no consciousness or awareness at all. Purely mechanical mechanisms can select.

Oh I got it. Maybe it's magnetism.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Conscious intent is not needed.
Pups in Siberia born with short fur freeze. Those with long fur thrive. Pups in Brazil born with long fur overheat, and their short furred brothers thrive. Where is the intent?

Again,they don't select how the genes work.

 

[Valjean]

I respect you so much for your Stan's, but there's a little problem with it.
1. one thing some of you get wrong is that God does not catch up to science but science catches up to God

Science researches how the world works. It appears to operate through the blind laws and constants of physics and mathematics. No evidence of intention or manipulation -- or need of same -- has been found. No evidence of any god.

2. The evidence or proofs certain people seek in terms of God shows how insincere we can be. Have we gotten the proof or evidence of a person's thoughts, or expression of love? yet we know it exists and we accept it. why then can't we accept who God is even without proof?

These are not the physical facts, objects or forces science studies. Purpose, value, right & wrong and meaning are not science's domain.

3. The burden of proof is never on the entity of God. Irrespective of the numerous pieces of evidence that point to him, we decide on the most absurd evidence we don't even always provide or receive to accept something.

Do you understand burden of proof?
The burden's on claimants. If you claim there's a dragon in your garage, or that you climbed Mt Everest, or that Jesus walked on water, it's not up to me to disprove it, its up to you to support the claim with evidence.

For example, how many of us take the medication we're served at the pharmacy to personal laboratories to test the contents to see if it matches what is prescribed on their containers before consuming them or the food we buy?

That's not a burden-of-proof issue. That's a regulation and oversight issue. It's a government responsibility.

if we say till We get all the answers, we ain't going to believe in him and we die and indeed he exists but have failed to honor and serve him, what would be our excuse?

Our excuse for what? Is it rational to believe in the imperceptible, unnecessary and unevidenced? Do you believe in Unicorns or laprechauns?
If, in fact, a god exists, how are we to choose which to follow without objective, distinguishing evidence -- which you appear to discount.

I stand to lose nothing if what we believe in doesn't exist, i have no one to account for but if he does exist and I lived life to please him also good for me. in the end, it's a win-win situation for me.

Pascal's wager? Really?
It's not a matter of winning or loosing. It's not a gambling game. If there's a god, and you bet on the wrong one you loose, but you discount any rational means of choosing. If there's no god, noöne looses.

This is a matter of pure, ontological Truth. Some of us value truth -- for its own sake, not as a means to an end.

 

[ChristineM]

No that's is fact. most of the claims made by the Bible are confirmed by scientific theories.

That is nonsense,
You make the claim of fact, the burden of proof is yours

Are you saying that MRI can now explain your thoughts?

No, i am saying that your thoughts can be seen by an mri scan

***STAFF EDIT***

What are the requirements in court cases to prove if someone is guilty or not?

That is irrelevant, we are talking burden of proof, not income for lawyers

 

[Valjean]

In your opinion.




The MRI shows the brains thought and love. It has also been used to show god.



The burden of proof is on whoever makes the statement. I.e. whoever says "god exists" then the burden of proof lies with them, similarly, one who says "no gods exist" owns the burden of proof.

And one who withholds belief till convincing evidence emerges has no burden. He makes no claim.

 

[Valjean]

So I get you correctly, but it seems to you there's no third side in this situation. The Bible Capture that in (Revelation 3:16 [So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.])

That passage doesn't clarify anything. Do you not see the difference?
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
3. I don't know whether there's a god or not.

as nicely put here (“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961.)

OK. Inspirational, but what does that have to do with the question?

If you are never supported, you are simply against and that is where it ends. The human mind always wants to find a loophole in everything but it's only in your head. That's what you believe to be true, relative absolute but we're dealing with an objective absolute.

I don't see what this has to do with the issue. If a thing is unknown it's unknown. If it's poorly evidenced the reasonable conclusion is "I don't know," is it not?

if you are placed in the position to help only five people but you have ten people available out of which only five supported you, are you going to leave your supporters and save those who never chose sides?

So it's back to a utilitarian issue? Are your supporters more deserving of life than the others? You're playing favorites.
Do you really think God plays these self-serving games?

At a point, agnostic atheism can't live out its objectives.

What objectives does atheism have???

 

[Valjean]

Oh I got it. Maybe it's magnetism.

How can you have been posting on these threads so long and still not grasp the mechanisms of evolution?

 

[Valjean]

Again,they don't select how the genes work.

Huh? Explain, please. I don't see the relevance.
The pups' features are a roll of the dice, but once born, they'll determine the pups individual fitness in their particular circumstances -- all automatically, without plan or intent.

 

[B-psychedelic]

That passage doesn't clarify anything. Do you not see the difference?
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
3. I don't know whether there's a god or not.

OK. Inspirational, but what does that have to do with the question?

I don't see what this has to do with the issue. If a thing is unknown it's unknown. If it's poorly evidenced the reasonable conclusion is "I don't know," is it not?

So it's back to a utilitarian issue? Are your supporters more deserving of life than the others? You're playing favorites.
Do you really think God plays these self-serving games?

What objectives does atheism have???

see you making the same assumptions;
1. Why do Christians evangelize?
if you don't know then i will tell you. Because, they want you to know about God. Now the only position you can take after this is either you accept or not. if you later say you don't know after being told, i thing that would be intellectual dishonesty.

2. The other thing I've realized about people like you "agnostic atheists" is that, you pretend not to understand even when you are told these things, but because you believe that you are more intellectual and see yourselves as more rationale people, you do not even want to admit if the so called "numb-skulls" are making good and rationale points. and thats the same ideologies that has lead our society to the point where we determine what species or gender we are utter-chaos. (2Timothy 3:2 [For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy])

we can all sit here pretend your concepts about life is more rational knowing for a fact that your so called rationale ideas can not be lived out by you yourselves.

the moment we said there's no God, we started saying even morality should be relative because the Bible talks about objective morality. Everything the Bible had ever said we will attack it with our reasoning and when we cannot comprehend, we rule it out as a myth.

You can make us seem as we don't understand what we are saying but you are not in the right state to even fathom it.

 

[Audie]

see you making the same assumptions;
1. Why do Christians evangelize?
if you don't know then i will tell you. Because, they want you to know about God. Now the only position you can take after this is either you accept or not. if you later say you don't know after being told, i thing that would be intellectual dishonesty.

2. The other thing I've realized about people like you "agnostic atheists" is that, you pretend not to understand even when you are told these things, but because you believe that you are more intellectual and see yourselves as more rationale people, you do not even want to admit if the so called "numb-skulls" are making good and rationale points. and thats the same ideologies that has lead our society to the point where we determine what species or gender we are utter-chaos. (2Timothy 3:2 [For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy])

we can all sit here pretend your concepts about life is more rational knowing for a fact that your so called rationale ideas can not be lived out by you yourselves.

the moment we said there's no God, we started saying even morality should be relative because the Bible talks about objective morality. Everything the Bible had ever said we will attack it with our reasoning and when we cannot comprehend, we rule it out as a myth.

You can make us seem as we don't understand what we are saying but you are not in the right state to even fathom it.

Ig city

 

[Pogo]

No. Conscious intent is not needed.
Pups in Siberia born with short fur freeze. Those with long fur thrive. Pups in Brazil born with long fur overheat, and their short furred brothers thrive. Where is the intent?

Mysterious ways.