Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The ToE represents a regression in human intellectual progress. It's unreasonable to present a hypothesis as a definitive fact to scientific thinkers and still anticipate that they will maintain their independent judgment and rationality. The so-called "Theory" is merely a mythological belief system, rooted in the unfounded idea that interspecies hybrids have ever existed

You're projecting. You've just described Abrahamic religion.

Abrahamic religion has made no intellectual progress since it was invented to try to control storms and diseases, and unlike science, has no accomplishments to show for its efforts. It's still peddling primitive prejudices and promoting faith over reason, both of which do immense harm.

Religion presents its unfalsifiable claims as fact and requires that its audience not bring judgment or rationality to church.

Abrahamic religion is a mythological belief system rooted in nothing at all. Its god is nowhere to be found.

 

[Eli G]

"Hybrids" no the kind wolf-dog, tiger-cat, horse-mule, ...

Those are understandable.

Mythological hybrids of the kind whale-cow, ape-human, fish-bird, ...

Those are invented like the next ones.

Other of these mythological hybrids: centaur, dragon, sphinx, mermaid, unicorn, ...

These ones were the first hybrids ever invented, or not?

With the same evolutionist reasoning, why not?

Imagination does the same things, thousands of years ago and today. The inventors of fables continue doing the same things: brainwashing to make their inventions credible.

Where are the remains of evolutionary hybrids of that kind? They do not exist, they were invented, like the first ones.

 

[blü 2]

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.

You forgot to include the key word "supernatural" before "knowledge and power".

'Supernatural' is from the Latin meaning 'above nature' in the sense 'outside of nature'. Nature is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and miracles are magic performed by a god.

Gods never appear, never say, never do. The only manner in which they're known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

Well, technically I'm an igtheist, but like most atheists, I accept that the manner in which the universe came into existence is presently unexplained.

With us unbelievers (and many believers too, but not you, apparently), 'unexplained' is a spur to further reasoned enquiry, in this case largely but not only in the sphere of cosmology. If the answer's out there, reasoned enquiry will find it ─ and not only just because religion isn't even looking.

 

[Eli G]

Atheists are not more rational than believers.

But God is not an invention. Everything I read in the Bible is history, and it's recounted by eyewitnesses. I trust in those writers.

Jesus did many mighty works in the eyes of the Jews, and even seeing them in person, they despised Him. Seeing that His preaching would have no logical scope in view of the events that were taking place, He said to Jehovah in prayer:

John 12:28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.”

No matter what is said or done now, the outcomes are unlikely to be equitable, until God once more showcases his might directly, similar to his actions in Egypt.

John 15:17 “These things I command you, that you love one another. 18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have observed my word, they will also observe yours. 21 But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know the One who sent me.

The resurrection of Jesus can be considered the key theme, in this sense.

Luke 11:29 When the crowds were massing together, he began to say: “This generation is a wicked generation; it looks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Joʹnah. 30 For just as Joʹnah became a sign to the Ninʹe·vites, so will the Son of man be to this generation.

Matt. 12:40 For just as Joʹnah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

 

[Kfox]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.

No, a Miracle is an event outside the laws of nature.

An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

Atheists don't believe that.

 

[Kfox]

Atheists are not more rational than believers.

But God is not an invention. Everything I read in the Bible is history, and it's recounted by eyewitnesses. I trust in those writers.

What historic evidence do you have that the person you call Jesus was born of a virgin and was Crucified?

 

[cladking]

No, a Miracle is an event outside the laws of nature.

If there were a law of nature it would be a miracle.

And if we recognized that miracle it would be another miracle.

 

[Eli G]

No, a Miracle is an event outside the laws of nature.

What can atheists say about what a miracle is, if they don't understand the reality behind a miracle?
They didn't invent that term.

Atheists don't believe that.

Then, what do atheists say about the origin of the "natural" laws? Isn't it "out of nothing", "out of nowhere"?
When did "natural laws" appear? Do you know that? From where?
Why? Under what determination? Was there any "law" before natural laws?

 

[Eli G]

What historic evidence do you have that the person you call Jesus was born of a virgin and was Crucified?

Maybe the same you have to believe that there were human-apes... from reading about it?

 

[Pogo]

Those are understandable.

Those are invented like the next ones.

These ones were the first hybrids ever invented, or not?

Imagination does the same things, thousands of years ago and today. The inventors of fables continue doing the same things: brainwashing to make their inventions credible.

Where are the remains of evolutionary hybrids of that kind? They do not exist, they were invented, like the first ones.

Was this a conversation with yourself where you realized that evolution makes sense, but the rest of your scenarios where like other mythology of floods and regurgitating fish that never really were made sense and then realizing that evidence and examples of evolutionary hybrids exist while not so much for the mythical ones you grew up with.

It is a first step, keep talking to yourself and comparing your thoughts to things that actually have evidence beyond words in old books.

 

[Eli G]

I don't waste time trying to reason with people who aren't interested in reasoning. I put them in my ignore list, and they know it.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Maybe the same you have to believe that there were human-apes... from reading about it?

What's a "human-ape"?

 

[Kfox]

If there were a law of nature it would be a miracle.

No; Gravity is an example of a law of nature. Gravity is not a miracle.

 

[Eli G]

What's a "human-ape"?

A hybrid that evolutionist invented...

 

[Pogo]

I don't waste time trying to reason with people who aren't interested in reasoning. I put them in my ignore list, and they know it.

Then why are you talking to yourself?

 

[Eli G]

No; Gravity is an example of a law of nature. Gravity is not a miracle.

Gravity is not a miracle, but its appearance seems like it to evolutionists.
Or, was there gravity before the "Big Bang"?

 

[Pogo]

What's a "human-ape"?

A strawman made up to support a deniers version of evolution.

 

[Kfox]

What can atheists say about what a miracle is, if they don't understand the reality behind a miracle?
They didn't invent that term.

Scientists (many who are atheists) came up with the term "laws of nature".

Then, what do atheists say about the origin of the "natural" laws? Isn't it "out of nothing", "out of nowhere"?

No. Atheism is not about claiming an origin of natural laws.

When did "natural laws" appear? Do you know that? From where?
Why? Under what determination? Was there any "law" before natural laws?

"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable response to any question one does not have an answer

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not because you say so. What you're telling me is that you don't find value where I and others do.

We all do, or maybe almost all.

I have a good memory, but it isn't photographic, or as one poster once humorously wrote, it isn't a photogenic memory.

But you do make inductions. Somehow, you are unaware of that.

But you do use your memory. Are you unaware of that as well?

Incidentally, that comment included two inductions and a number of remembered words.

I wrote that you have the support of the creationists in your assessment that evolution and Darwin are nonsense. Your reply became nonresponsive after three words. Nothing you wrote after that addresses my comment that, "The scientific community and the enlightened lay community disagree, but for what it's worth, you've got the support of the creationists."

I notice that you like to invoke religious concepts like devout and heresy when describing science. But there are large differences between the two traditions and their ways of "knowing":

[1] Religious people don't care about being demonstrably correct. Scientists do.
[2] Religious people occasionally kill, torture, and imprison one another and others to settle theological disputes. Scientists rarely do that.

It isn't necessary or even helpful to me that you respond to or even see my replies. Maybe you didn't understand or take seriously my explanation of why and to whom I write. If this conversation were private, I would have ended it long ago, as I don't expect my words to have any impact on you.

I don't come over to this thread much anymore. I no longer see much point in reading what I find to be nonsense based both on my views as a scientist and a Christian. To me, many of the posts here just get more and more bizarre with each passing day. More imaginary taxonomy, words games by people claiming to be tired of word games, hybrids of mythological creatures, blaming others for not understanding baseless claims and contorted illogic and, as you have said in another post, "fantastical speculations in vague language". If you are trying to determine how people come to unusual views, there is almost too much data here.

I see it is still active and I assume with the same deniers offering nothing substantial but more of that "fantastical speculations in vague language". Perhaps the language of the upside down fly translated to beaver by bees? Who can know, when the person making wild claims doesn't seem to.

 

[Eli G]

The atheist world conception is empty of reality. Everything it has seems to be myths and miracles. Where is the superiority?
No explanation for the origin of life, for the origin of consciousness, for the origin of natural laws, ... Anything real there?