Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

see @Pogo

This is how the burden proof works…………….I made a claim, and then I showed that the claim is true.............why can´t you do the same?

A freebie to help you understand that I do not object to your belief in a god, but consider them to be as they are, a faith position, not a rational position.
For your edification I will again let chatGPT speak to the matter.

What is a faith position vs a rational position?

A "faith position" and a "rational position" represent two different approaches or attitudes towards beliefs or claims:

1. Faith Position:
   • Definition: A faith position is one where belief is based primarily on faith, which typically involves trusting in something without requiring empirical evidence or logical proof.
   • Basis: Belief in a faith position often stems from religious or spiritual convictions, personal experiences, or trust in authority figures or traditions.
   • Nature: Faith positions often involve accepting certain propositions as true because of their perceived importance, spiritual significance, or cultural upbringing rather than through evidence-based reasoning.
   • Example: Believing in the existence of a deity or in the moral teachings of a religious scripture based on faith rather than empirical evidence.
2. Rational Position:
   • Definition: A rational position is one that is supported by evidence, reason, logic, or empirical observation.
   • Basis: Belief in a rational position is grounded in verifiable data, logical arguments, scientific findings, or critical thinking.
   • Nature: Rational positions are subject to scrutiny, open to revision based on new evidence or arguments, and typically strive for coherence and consistency with established knowledge and principles.
   • Example: Accepting the theory of evolution due to the overwhelming evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, and biology.

Comparison:

• Evidence and Reasoning: A rational position relies on evidence and reasoning to support its claims, whereas a faith position may rely on personal belief, tradition, or revelation.
• Openness to Revision: Rational positions are generally open to change based on new evidence or arguments, whereas faith positions are often resistant to revision because they are grounded in unchanging beliefs.
• Scope: Rational positions are more broadly applicable and can encompass scientific, philosophical, ethical, and other domains, whereas faith positions are typically centered around religious or spiritual beliefs.

In summary, the distinction between a faith position and a rational position lies primarily in the basis of belief—faith versus evidence and reason. Understanding these distinctions can help in navigating discussions about beliefs and worldviews in a respectful and informed manner.


And in case you are going to question bias because of the order of the question.

What is a rational position vs a faith position?

A rational position and a faith position represent contrasting approaches to forming beliefs or viewpoints:
Rational Position:

1. Basis: A rational position is grounded in evidence, reason, logic, and empirical observation.
2. Method: It relies on critical thinking, the scientific method, logical deduction, or philosophical analysis to arrive at conclusions.
3. Openness: It is open to revision based on new evidence or arguments.
4. Examples: Accepting the theory of evolution, belief in the laws of physics, or conclusions drawn from empirical studies are rational positions because they are supported by observable evidence and logical reasoning.

Faith Position:

1. Basis: A faith position relies primarily on faith, which is belief without empirical evidence or logical proof.
2. Method: It often involves trust in religious teachings, personal spiritual experiences, or acceptance of traditions and authority.
3. Stability: It tends to be resistant to change or revision, as beliefs are often based on doctrines or revealed truths.
4. Examples: Belief in the existence of a deity, the truth of religious scriptures, or adherence to moral teachings based on faith rather than empirical evidence fall under faith positions.

Comparison:

• Evidence vs. Faith: Rational positions are based on observable evidence and logical reasoning, while faith positions rely on trust, personal experiences, or spiritual beliefs.
• Methodology: Rational positions utilize methods like experimentation, observation, and critical analysis, whereas faith positions may draw from revelation, tradition, or intuition.
• Certainty: Rational positions can change with new evidence or arguments, whereas faith positions often involve a strong conviction in the absence of empirical proof.
• Scope: Rational positions are broader, encompassing scientific, philosophical, and other domains, while faith positions are typically focused on religious or spiritual beliefs.

In summary, the key distinction lies in how beliefs are formed: through evidence and reason (rational position) or through trust and spiritual conviction (faith position). Understanding these differences is crucial in discussions about beliefs, knowledge, and worldviews.

 

[shunyadragon]

1 Both the Odesy and the books in the new testament (and any other historical document) has to be judged according to the standards commonly used by scholars

True

2 each document stands or falls by its own merits

Well ah , , , there is more to every ancient document than just the merits of the documents themselves, there are different types, but OK maybe

3 the reason for I/we would accept the NT (say the gosples) and not the Odesy is because we think that the NT meets the standards and the odesy doesn’t

The Odyssey cannot be compared to the Bible, because it has different genre and context. The Odyssey was not written as an accurate history. It was written more as a Hero's epic play to be performed on stage,, set in history. A common theme in Greek plays and literature.

4 more specifically I think there are good reasons to think that the gospels where written by well-informed people that where honestly trying to report what actually happened………….and we cannot say the same thinks about the odesy…………………if you disagree and would affirm the opposite, then build your case.

Both were written by informed people.. True, because the Odyssey is not the same type of composition, There are better choices for comparison. Though both were not compiled by first hand witnesses

Is this really that hard to understand?.................................which of the 4 points do you have problems with?

Yes problems comparing the Bible to the Odyssey is like comparing apples and Oranges. There are better comparisons, Each comparison needs to compared on its merits and you did not achieve this.

I studied theater to a degree and Greek Theater. Yes in general most Greeks believed in Gods particularly the common people. Intellectual Greeks like Homer and others it was yes and no. Gods were viewed in more human terms, and not all powerful figures to be feared.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, your and @B-psychedelic's claim is that the Bible is proof of God, you have not demonstrated it to be true. I only asked if Homer's Odessy was not then evidence for the existence of Zeus etc. I said nothing about scholarly or otherwise evaluation.
In fairness, nobody else has proved the claim either in the last 2000+ years so don't feel too bad.
In response to your shifting the burden I will let chatGPT answer.

What is the burden of proof fallacy?

The "burden of proof fallacy" refers to a mistake in reasoning where someone asserts a claim and then shifts the burden to others to disprove it, rather than providing evidence to support their own assertion. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that their claim is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
Here’s how it typically works:

1. Shifting the Burden: Instead of providing evidence or support for their claim, the person asserts it and expects others to disprove it.
2. Misunderstanding Burden of Proof: In debates or discussions, the burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. It's their responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning to support their assertion.
3. Logical Flaw: If someone says "X is true unless you can prove it's false," they are committing the burden of proof fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that a claim is true until proven otherwise, which is not logically sound.

Example:

• Person A: "Aliens definitely exist because you can't prove that they don't."
• Person B: "But you haven't provided any evidence that aliens exist."
• Person A: "It's up to you to prove they don't!"

In this example, Person A is committing the burden of proof fallacy by asserting that aliens exist and then shifting the burden onto Person B to disprove it. Instead, Person A should provide evidence or reasons to support their claim that aliens exist.
Understanding this fallacy is important in critical thinking and debates because it helps to correctly assign the responsibility of proof and avoid logical errors in arguments.

I do not agree with your statement that the Bible is proof of God or that I claim it is proof of God. It is rather a history of God's dealings with men. Obviously you don't agree with that. But it is not "proof" of God. Many have read the Bible and do not think it is true. I believe the Bible is inspired of God. To me it is meaningful and helpful. But that does not mean it is proof of God. I still think the writings were inspired and preserved by the spirit of God. That doesn't mean it's proof of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even ignoring your semantic trick

I made no semantic trick. My statement stands without need of such trickery.

…………..you are still making an unsupported accusation

There was no accusation and the support I used for my assessment was your posts. Even this one of the recent series demonstrates that you seem unable to admit error or take criticism.

……………where is your evidence that I don’t admit errors in general?,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I did not say that you don't admit errors. I say you do not seem able to admit errors. It stands as a valid assessment and the post I'm responding to is further evidence supporting my observation.

It is still dishonest to make unsupported accusations

It is dishonest to make unsupported accusations. But the only accusations on this thread regarding me are not accusations I made. They are yours and that @YoursTrue person's to me.

Perhaps it is a language issue. I note that you do not seem to have a full grasp of English or spelling, though this could be exacerbated by the device you use to access this forum with and only seem to be a personal difficulty.

Anyway, still not going down a rabbit hole with you. You can try all you like, but I have said all I am going to on this subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

I made no semantic trick. My statement stands without need of such trickery.

There was no accusation and the support I used for my assessment was your posts. Even this one of the recent series demonstrates that you seem unable to admit error or take criticism.

I did not say that you don't admit errors. I say you do not seem able to admit errors. It stands as a valid assessment and the post I'm responding to is further evidence supporting my observation.

It is dishonest to make unsupported accusations. But the only accusations on this thread regarding me are not accusations I made. They are yours and that @YoursTrue person's to me.

Perhaps it is a language issue. I note that you do not seem to have a full grasp of English or spelling, though this could be exacerbated by the device you use to access this forum with and only seem to be a personal difficulty.

Anyway, still not going down a rabbit hole with you. You can try all you like, but I have said all I am going to on this subject.

Implications, of course, are not proven accusations. Implications may be construed as such. It's part of this thread also based on answers from some folks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was thinking about the absurdity of what has been occurring here and on numerous threads for the last year. If I were in a thread about cars and someone had a sound knowledge of them and was interested in discussing them, what would be the relevance of asking them to explain and defend their personal religious beliefs?

If the discussion and debate were about plumbing, dogs, art, Mesopotamian history, the Battle of the Bulge, snakes, toasters, the historical texts regarding Napoleon or any of a myriad of subjects, like science, the personal religious beliefs of the participants is irrelevant. Chasing someone around for a year making snide remarks and moaning and groaning how they need to explain themselves and their beliefs is ridiculous, rude, absurd, irrelevant to any discussion other than those that actually involve religious belief. The discussions I have largely been interested in are about science, so spending time relating my faith is not germane to such a discussion. Demanding that I explain my faith to someone that seems to want to tear it apart so they can justify their own position doesn't seem like a sincere exercise of the faith they claim for themselves.

If a person has made it clear that they will not be brow beaten or bullied into such a discussion, a rational, reasonable and thoughtful person will abide by the wishes of the other person. I haven't seen that happen over the last year, but I should have. I don't think I will see that sort of consideration and humility going forward either.

This should be the end of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea what you are babbling about. I think you don't either.
Sounds like you are mixing things up. Not sure if it's on purpose or not.



Yes, yes, it's a "miracle" that the individual who can outrun a lion is more likely to outrun a lion then the individual that can't.
Uhu.









View attachment 94072

I understand, but my conclusion is that it is mostly rambling and nonsensical. It isn't based on any facts that I have been shown or that I know of. Lions don't reach speeds of 50 mph for instance and the speeds they do reach, they cannot sustain for long. So, there is an element of hyperbole in these posts as well. Hence, the use of "sigh" so regularly I would say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not agree with your statement that the Bible is proof of God or that I claim it is proof of God. It is rather a history of God's dealings with men. Obviously you don't agree with that. But it is not "proof" of God. Many have read the Bible and do not think it is true. I believe the Bible is inspired of God. To me it is meaningful and helpful. But that does not mean it is proof of God. I still think the writings were inspired and preserved by the spirit of God. That doesn't mean it's proof of God.

If you want to say that you still have the burden of proof to show that the Bible is reliable. That it does not get history wrong (by the way, it does), that it is scientifically sound (of course it is not). If one is too literal with the Bible one ends up refuting it.

 

[Valjean]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then in the next breath you'll say that the entire universe poofed into existence from a dimension we don't even recognize as a dimension because it is so small that nothing can exist there except an abstraction. But it's OK that the universe poofed into existence from nothing because we can't extrapolate all the way back to the origin which occurred a few nanoseconds earlier. "Poofing" is OK so long as it's done by science and has cute names like "abiogenesis" or "big bang" and it happened accidently or without intent.

Science as practiced by billions today is layers of miracles of many sorts and types. It's even a miracle that everything in the Bible is wrong and for the first time ever everything believed by science is right. We live in an age of miracles and the net is proof positive even though most of those who say this don't have a clue how even one computer works.

Physics unfolds as its laws dictate. The steps and mechanism of the BB are unknown, but no magic is claimed. A natural, understandable mechanism is assumed.
Abiogenesis? This is just basic chemistry. We know more about it than I think you realize, though the details remain unknown. For some reason the religious seem to assign it a special significance, as if there were some magical component to it.

What Makes you think there's some magical force behind life or the universe? It's a special pleading.
We used to attribute divine agency to thunderstorms and earthquakes, too, till we began to understand the natural mechanisms responsible. Now the theists have retreated to the current vanguards of science, still claiming intentional magic.

There is nothing miraculous about science. There are natural, explainable mechanisms. Nobody's claiming everything in the Bible is wrong, or that everything believed by science is right, but science, unlike religion, is evidence based and tested. No magic is claimed.

 

[Valjean]

1 Both the Odesy and the books in the new testament (and any other historical document) has to be judged according to the standards commonly used by scholars

2 each document stands or falls by its own merits

3 the reason for I/we would accept the NT (say the gosples) and not the Odesy is because we think that the NT meets the standards and the odesy doesn’t

No, you don't. You feel the NT meets the standards. It can be pretty easily demonstrated that it does not.

4 more specifically I think there are good reasons to think that the gospels where written by well-informed people that where honestly trying to report what actually happened………….and we cannot say the same thinks about the odesy…………………if you disagree and would affirm the opposite, then build your case

Is this really that hard to understand?.................................which of the 4 points do you have problems with?

We don't know who wrote the gospels. We do know the claims are unsupported and sometimes fantastical. Fantastical claims demand extraordinary supportive evidence. There is none.

 

[John53]

I was thinking about the absurdity of what has been occurring here and on numerous threads for the last year. If I were in a thread about cars and someone had a sound knowledge of them and was interested in discussing them, what would be the relevance of asking them to explain and defend their personal religious beliefs?

If the discussion and debate were about plumbing, dogs, art, Mesopotamian history, the Battle of the Bulge, snakes, toasters, the historical texts regarding Napoleon or any of a myriad of subjects, like science, the personal religious beliefs of the participants is irrelevant. Chasing someone around for a year making snide remarks and moaning and groaning how they need to explain themselves and their beliefs is ridiculous, rude, absurd, irrelevant to any discussion other than those that actually involve religious belief. The discussions I have largely been interested in are about science, so spending time relating my faith is not germane to such a discussion. Demanding that I explain my faith to someone that seems to want to tear it apart so they can justify their own position doesn't seem like a sincere exercise of the faith they claim for themselves.

If a person has made it clear that they will not be brow beaten or bullied into such a discussion, a rational, reasonable and thoughtful person will abide by the wishes of the other person. I haven't seen that happen over the last year, but I should have. I don't think I will see that sort of consideration and humility going forward either.

This should be the end of it.

You can't talk about cars without believing in the God Holden.

The Bible

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can't talk about cars without believing in the God Holden.

The Bible

View attachment 94088

Why are you refusing to explain your personal views about dogs in this discussion of cars?

 

[John53]

Why are you refusing to explain your personal views about dogs in this discussion of cars?

What I don't understand is why you have to explain something you have already explained a few times.

Maybe you did it in a post with too many sentences. They don't read long posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I don't understand is why you have to explain something you have already explained a few times.

Maybe you did it in a post with too many sentences. They don't read long posts.

I agree. I shouldn't have to explain it at all. Let alone several times. But circumstances seem to demand it, since, what I would consider common understanding and curtesy doesn't seem to be so common or courteous.

I am always amused at the moral position some seem to hold for themselves, while engaging in behavior that belies that self-evaluation of condition. Irony is real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I don't understand is why you have to explain something you have already explained a few times.

Maybe you did it in a post with too many sentences. They don't read long posts.

Thinking about it, you may be onto something. My posts about this were rather long.

I find the obvious and expected application of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". It makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi, Hockeycowboy.

With bees, some are workers, some are drones, and some are queens. That statement doesn't imply that it's 1/3 each: "Honey bees are social insects that live in colonies. Honey bee colonies consist of a single queen, hundreds of male drones and 20,000 to 80,000 female worker bees."

And yes, there are inconsequential mutations. You seem surprised at the claim (you used an exclamation mark).

Who wrote this? Somebody who was correct.

Who peer reviewed it? That term refers to scientific research. The passage you cited might have been reviewed by nobody, or perhaps an editor.

Hey IANS.

You must have missed the umbrella topic being described here: “….when it [the process resulting in mutations] goes awry…”

When the process “goes awry”, the majority of mutations are deleterious.

If they’re “inconsequential”, like blonde parents having blacked-haired progeny, there’s nothing “awry” about it.

Are you picking a fight where there is none? That’s unlike you.

I can’t help it if the author is wrong. Or at least worded it wrong.

Best wishes, my cousin.

 

[danieldemol]

Are you picking a fight where there is none?

Are you beating your wife? That's unlike you

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you beating your wife? That's unlike you

It sure is.

 

[danieldemol]

It sure is.

The same is true for @It Aint Necessarily So
In my view

 

[Pogo]

Hey IANS.

You must have missed the umbrella topic being described here: “….when it [the process resulting in mutations] goes awry…”

Good job of mangling even your own edited quote. this is the original from Harvard.

The precise transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next is fundamental to life.

Most of the time, this process unfolds with remarkable accuracy, but when it goes awry, mutations can arise—some of them beneficial, some of them inconsequential, and some of them causing malfunction and disease.

The process under discussion is "The precise transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next"
It is not a "the process resulting in mutations]"
Awry refers to the normal precision of the proceess.

When the process “goes awry”, the majority of mutations are deleterious.

If they’re “inconsequential”, like blonde parents having blacked-haired progeny, there’s nothing “awry” about it.

Are you picking a fight where there is none? That’s unlike you.

Why are you picking a fight? That mutations have good, bad and otherwise effects is HS biology though blonde to black is not within the biological definition of inconsequential. Inconsequential are those changes in which though the DNA is not a precise replica, the product is unchanged.
This is all HS biology and the sentences are just a introductory recapitulation to remind you of some very basic facts.

I can’t help it if the author is wrong. Or at least worded it wrong.

Best wishes, my cousin.

The author is not wrong and the wording is fine, your interpretation is awry. Apparently you need a refresher on basic genetic processes.
Evolution 101
A good place to start.