Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[B-psychedelic]

It would be far more accurate for you to admit that you do not see how it could make any sense. As you wrote this the burden of proof is upon you to support your clam and I do not believe that you can support this.

1. how do you define love?
2. what causes it?
3. why is it necessary?
4. what does it benefit you as a person?
all answers should not be without a god factor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. how do you define love?
2. what causes it?
3. why is it necessary?
4. what does it benefit you as a person?
all answers should not be without a god factor.

Please, you made the claim, the burden of proof is upon you. And why should any answer have a "god factor"? If you want to claim that there is a god then the burden of proof is upon you for that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What an normal person w0oudl usually do in your place, is explain where the mistake is


ok the correct my mistakes


**mod edit**

I corrected your mistake. And no, all of those claims only apply if one is debating with an honest interlocutor. If you can change your ways and debate properly then the attitude that others show when responding to you will change. If you do not like this treatment then change your ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a tiny doubt. It's an inexplicable in real time, real life, unobservable claims. You know you can't explain it beyond conjecture and neither can anyone else.

There you go again, making apparently false accusations against others. Please prove that it is "conjecture".

 

[Pogo]

1. how do you define love?
2. what causes it?
3. why is it necessary?
4. what does it benefit you as a person?
all answers should not be without a god factor.

So you just want me to make something up?
Is there a reason for this question?

 

[B-psychedelic]

I corrected your mistake. And no, all of those claims only apply if one is debating with an honest interlocutor. If you can change your ways and debate properly then the attitude that others show when responding to you will change. If you do not like this treatment then change your ways.

I made my claims based on evidence known to man at this point in our lives and also from life's experiences. Now to say it's a fantasy, and also shift the burden of proof on me when I came with my evidence.

that's not how it works. when you deny my claims and the evidence provided, the burden of proof now falls on you to provide a better alternative than I did but you guys normally want to say, "Your evidence doesn't satisfy my criteria and therefore you've not proven your claims".
Bro by whose standards are talking about here? You can't go around making your criteria to what is true or not and mind you, there are a lot of knowledgeable people than you and I in various fields of study who affirm what I claim.

therefore, i believe my findings are true and if you think otherwise you have to prove me wrong as simple as that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made my claims based on evidence known to man at this point in our lives and also from life's experiences. Now to say it's a fantasy, and also shift the burden of proof on me when I came with my evidence.

No, you have as of yet to post any evidence. I doubt if you even understand the concept.

that's not how it works. when you deny my claims and the evidence provided, the burden of proof now falls on you to provide a better alternative than I did but you guys normally want to say, "Your evidence doesn't satisfy my criteria and therefore you've not proven your claims".
Bro by whose standards are talking about here? You can't go around making your criteria to what is true or not and mind you, there are a lot of knowledgeable people than you and I in various fields of study who affirm what I claim.

What "evidence"? Empty claims are not evidence. Once again, I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence.

therefore, i believe my findings are true and if you think otherwise you have to prove me wrong as simple as that.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but if you try to claim that your beliefs are correct then you will be required to support them with evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence then I am justified in rejecting them without evidence.

 

[B-psychedelic]

So you just want me to make something up?
Is there a reason for this question?

yes, because if you have the same accepted definition of these things as we do then I can make my case based on that revelation.

I don't want to misrepresent you in my effort to address you properly.

 

[B-psychedelic]

No, you have as of yet to post any evidence. I doubt if you even understand the concept.


What "evidence"? Empty claims are not evidence. Once again, I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but if you try to claim that your beliefs are correct then you will be required to support them with evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence then I am justified in rejecting them without evidence.

you're the one claiming they are "empty claims" To me, they are not. I have scriptural manuscripts going back as far as when some of the miracles took place, and other authentic historical sources that backs my claims.

when say kinds of stuff like that, it is sad to listen. i don't have to do your homework for you and since you're not an unlettered child, you have to go to those sources and read them yourself. This platform does not permit me to help in that way.

 

[cladking]

So, the bottom line is you can't explain any of it, but we are all wrong.
the standard answer of the person whose assumptions have been demonstrated to be invalid.

No. The bottom line is I've explained it all before. Experiment and observation is in agreement with me that change is sudden , Darwin's assumptions are flawed, and pyramids were built with linear funiculars by individuals who invented agriculture with the "Theory of Change in Species".

But whether I'm right or wrong about anything or everything the fact is modern beliefs in science are miraculous and highly misplaced. Science is not supposed to be a belief system. It's one thing to believe in "laws of nature" because such laws are "apparent" to those who practice or learn science but it's entirely different to treat science as an entity that generates truth and understanding. There is no magic until it is shown there is. Even if magic and miracles exist the scientific perspective is to wait for evidence and experimentation to show it. In the meantime we do not jump to conclusions or assume we have answers.

 

[Pogo]

yes, because if you have the same accepted definition of these things as we do then I can make my case based on that revelation.

I don't want to misrepresent you in my effort to address you properly.

Well maybe that goes to the point, the term evidence generally refers to that which both sides have reason to understand due to prior experience.
Revelation that is only known by one is by definition not evidence.
For simplicities sake, your evidence is that which we both can confirm and which you can also convince me logically that your interpretation is rational. I can then take the rest of my knowledge in hand and determine whether I accept it.

 

[Pogo]

yes, because if you have the same accepted definition of these things as we do then I can make my case based on that revelation.

I don't want to misrepresent you in my effort to address you properly.

Who is we and what evidence do you have for your revelation? Is it particular to people who believe as you do or can you give me evidence that would cause me to believe it without prior belief?

BTW, welcome to the fray.

 

[Pogo]

you're the one claiming they are "empty claims" To me, they are not. I have scriptural manuscripts going back as far as when some of the miracles took place, and other authentic historical sources that backs my claims.

when say kinds of stuff like that, it is sad to listen. i don't have to do your homework for you and since you're not an unlettered child, you have to go to those sources and read them yourself. This platform does not permit me to help in that way.

yes, because if you have the same accepted definition of these things as we do then I can make my case based on that revelation.

I don't want to misrepresent you in my effort to address you properly.

Who is we and what evidence do you have for your revelation? Is it particular to people who believe as you do or can you give me evidence that would cause me to believe it without prior belief?

BTW, welcome to the fray.

As I said before if not then soon, software willing, evidence is that which both of us can consider valid. Statements on one person's part are considered assertions. Thus far you have not presented any of the former.

 

[Pogo]

No. The bottom line is I've explained it all before. Experiment and observation is in agreement with me that change is sudden , Darwin's assumptions are flawed, and pyramids were built with linear funiculars by individuals who invented agriculture with the "Theory of Change in Species".

Until you demonstrate this sudden change in a way that is incompatible with current theory this is at best a strawman and more likely just absurd.

But whether I'm right or wrong about anything or everything the fact is modern beliefs in science are miraculous and highly misplaced. Science is not supposed to be a belief system. It's one thing to believe in "laws of nature" because such laws are "apparent" to those who practice or learn science but it's entirely different to treat science as an entity that generates truth and understanding. There is no magic until it is shown there is. Even if magic and miracles exist the scientific perspective is to wait for evidence and experimentation to show it. In the meantime we do not jump to conclusions or assume we have answers.

The rest of this is a diatribe against the anti-science that pervades much of the religious subculture and unfortunately has become popular in political circles. It is not science as anyone who is familiar with the subject would claim.

You are arguing against science, not how it is practiced but against a misrepresentation that seems all too common in the general parlance to the point that we have people arguing that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything and conclusions are the final be all and end all.

Ultimately, you are arguing against a modern redefinition that Burtt would have agreed with in his desire to maintain the validity of metaphysics as a serious field of study.
IMHO

And I won't go into disagreements on Egyptology or whether high energy physics has stalled especially since the discovery of the Higg's boson though that the standard model is incomplete is not even questionable.

 

[Pogo]

No. The bottom line is I've explained it all before. Experiment and observation is in agreement with me that change is sudden , Darwin's assumptions are flawed, and pyramids were built with linear funiculars by individuals who invented agriculture with the "Theory of Change in Species".

Sudden, on what scale?

 

[leroy]

I made my claims based on evidence known to man at this point in our lives and also from life's experiences. Now to say it's a fantasy, and also shift the burden of proof on me when I came with my evidence.

that's not how it works. when you deny my claims and the evidence provided, the burden of proof now falls on you to provide a better alternative than I did but you guys normally want to say, "Your evidence doesn't satisfy my criteria and therefore you've not proven your claims".
Bro by whose standards are talking about here? You can't go around making your criteria to what is true or not and mind you, there are a lot of knowledgeable people than you and I in various fields of study who affirm what I claim.

therefore, i believe my findings are true and if you think otherwise you have to prove me wrong as simple as that.

@Subduction Zone suporting accepting a burden proof? Jaja good luck with that……………..

 

[Pogo]

@Subduction Zone suporting accepting a burden proof? Jaja good luck with that……………..

When either one of you understands what the burden of proof relative to a claim and the definition of evidence is, our luck will change.

 

[Pogo]

I made my claims based on evidence known to man at this point in our lives and also from life's experiences. Now to say it's a fantasy, and also shift the burden of proof on me when I came with my evidence.

that's not how it works. when you deny my claims and the evidence provided, the burden of proof now falls on you to provide a better alternative than I did but you guys normally want to say, "Your evidence doesn't satisfy my criteria and therefore you've not proven your claims".
Bro by whose standards are talking about here? You can't go around making your criteria to what is true or not and mind you, there are a lot of knowledgeable people than you and I in various fields of study who affirm what I claim.

therefore, i believe my findings are true and if you think otherwise you have to prove me wrong as simple as that.

No it is not incumbent on anyone to disprove beliefs, only to present if they desire to do so, proof is a matter not of beliefs but of evidence.

As someone once said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Beliefs and desires are not evidence.

welcome to the fray.

 

[Pogo]

yes, because if you have the same accepted definition of these things as we do then I can make my case based on that revelation.

I don't want to misrepresent you in my effort to address you properly.

Well since you bring up the subject of revelation I will paraphrase a math teacher of mine. Revelation is worthless, I will teach you to understand.
A very good lesson when it comes to reading a text vs understanding the concept.

 

[leroy]

When either one of you understands what the burden of proof relative to a claim and the definition of evidence is, our luck will change.

Can you quote anywhere where I have used the term “evidence” or burden proof incorrectly? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NO ………..so how do you know that I don’t understand those concepts?