Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Does Anyone Know?...............

uncung
Posts: 3,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.
Looncall
Posts: 459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
uncung
Posts: 3,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 3:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

by examining the religion.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?
KwLm
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:39:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

Exactly.

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

How can anyone be sure these people are telling the truth and not making stories up?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

No blood, no pumping heart no life, "Life-force" is sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

That's called being paranoid.

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

That has nothing to do with the original post.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:09:24 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Miracles happening is evidence that miracles happen

2. that each of us has a soul.

We are created in the image and likeness of God. That we are so, has enlightened mankind's intellect sufficiently to understand that we do.

This was confirmed by God's interaction with us.

3. that prophesies are true.

Well they either are or are not fulfilled.

4. that there is an afterlife.

Divine revelation, but related to 2.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:34:39 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:39:26 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

Exactly.

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

How can anyone be sure these people are telling the truth and not making stories up?


Gentorev........How can anybody be sure these people are not telling the truth?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

No blood, no pumping heart no life, "Life-force" is sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

Gentorev.........mumbo jumbo to those who do not know the definition of the soul.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

That's called being paranoid.

Gentorev.........Agreed. Those who believe the prophecies of astrologers are paranoid.

But while we're on the subject of prophecies: Carl Sagan in his old TV program, which I believe was called "The Cosmos", speculated that a two dimensional being having length and breadth would experience his world as a one dimensional world. Having only length and breadth and no height, it would not be able to look down on any two dimensional object in its world and would only see a line which would appear to be the length of the object, irrelevant as to which direction it was seeing that object from. Unless the two dimensional being was lifted up by some unseen force, it would never know that the objects in its world had breadth as well as length.

When referring to the fourth dimension I am speaking of the Minkowskian notion of time as being the fourth dimension. As in the fact that we can move forward and backward,[0ne dimension] sideways, [Two dimensions] up and down [Three dimensions] and through time; [Four dimensions] and not that which is called 4- dimension Euclidean space.

We are fourth dimensional beings who are able to mentally traverse time and yet we experience our world as a three dimensional world. We are fourth dimensional beings, who, in a state of deep meditation or hypnosis, are able to descend into our inner most being where space and time are as one, and relive memories back to and beyond our own birth, and there we are able to merge with a living mind of our past [Who we once were] and experience the life and times of our living ancestor. And while merged with a mind of our living ancestor, [Who we once were] our comatose body in the present will sometimes speak in the tongue of that ancient ancestor, which language is totally foreign to the comatose person in question, while the ancient ancestor in his own time, babbles incomprehensively, sometimes speaking in a strange tongue, in the as yet unknown language of his future descendant in his attempt to give form and terminology to the visions that he is receiving from the mind of his as yet unborn descendant of the future, which terminology to express such visions have not even developed in his point in time. That person is seen as a prophet when speaking of a giant grasshopper that spits fire from its tail, with wings above its head that sound like the roaring of a waterfall, in his attempt to describe a Black Hawk helicopter as seen in a vision while merged with the future mind.


Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

That has nothing to do with the original post.

Gentorev......... people who attempt to contact their loved ones who have passed over and those who believe in ghosts believe in life after the death of the body and are not necessarily religious people as suggested in this thread.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 10:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

How would you define a miracle?

2. that each of us has a soul.

How would you define a soul?

3. that prophesies are true.

I think this is good example of fulfilling prophesy:

First it was said Jews will be scattered and it happened:
I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.

Leviticus 26:33

And it was also said they will be gathered back as it is happening in our time:
It shall happen, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where Yahweh your God has driven you, and shall return to Yahweh your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; that then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If any of your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:

Deuteronomy 30:1-4

So, at least that prophesy was true, which is quite amazing, if we think what has happened to Jews, almost all nations hate them, they were tried to be killed entirely by Nazis and by many other ancient nations. Still they manage to exist. And probably that is the reason many nations want to go and destroy them in the future that seems to be very near. It seems to be quite miraculous history.

4. that there is an afterlife.

Not important thing to know.
KwLm
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 10:25:59 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 9:34:39 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:39:26 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

Exactly.

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

How can anyone be sure these people are telling the truth and not making stories up?


Gentorev........How can anybody be sure these people are not telling the truth?

How can anyone prove they had a premonition when it's after the fact?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

No blood, no pumping heart no life, "Life-force" is sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

Gentorev.........mumbo jumbo to those who do not know the definition of the soul.

Ah yeah, I know the definition of the soul, it's a load of hogwash.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

That's called being paranoid.

Gentorev.........Agreed. Those who believe the prophecies of astrologers are paranoid.

But while we're on the subject of prophecies: Carl Sagan in his old TV program, which I believe was called "The Cosmos", speculated that a two dimensional being having length and breadth would experience his world as a one dimensional world. Having only length and breadth and no height, it would not be able to look down on any two dimensional object in its world and would only see a line which would appear to be the length of the object, irrelevant as to which direction it was seeing that object from. Unless the two dimensional being was lifted up by some unseen force, it would never know that the objects in its world had breadth as well as length.

When referring to the fourth dimension I am speaking of the Minkowskian notion of time as being the fourth dimension. As in the fact that we can move forward and backward,[0ne dimension] sideways, [Two dimensions] up and down [Three dimensions] and through time; [Four dimensions] and not that which is called 4- dimension Euclidean space.

I'll leave you with this on the failed works of Minkowskian.
http://phys.org...

We are fourth dimensional beings who are able to mentally traverse time and yet we experience our world as a three dimensional world. We are fourth dimensional beings, who, in a state of deep meditation or hypnosis, are able to descend into our inner most being where space and time are as one, and relive memories back to and beyond our own birth, and there we are able to merge with a living mind of our past [Who we once were] and experience the life and times of our living ancestor. And while merged with a mind of our living ancestor, [Who we once were] our comatose body in the present will sometimes speak in the tongue of that ancient ancestor, which language is totally foreign to the comatose person in question, while the ancient ancestor in his own time, babbles incomprehensively, sometimes speaking in a strange tongue, in the as yet unknown language of his future descendant in his attempt to give form and terminology to the visions that he is receiving from the mind of his as yet unborn descendant of the future, which terminology to express such visions have not even developed in his point in time. That person is seen as a prophet when speaking of a giant grasshopper that spits fire from its tail, with wings above its head that sound like the roaring of a waterfall, in his attempt to describe a Black Hawk helicopter as seen in a vision while merged with the future mind.

All that is unproven babble with opinionated interpretation to words of a sentence.

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

That has nothing to do with the original post.

Gentorev......... people who attempt to contact their loved ones who have passed over and those who believe in ghosts believe in life after the death of the body and are not necessarily religious people as suggested in this thread.

I believe he was referring to the eternal afterlife in heaven as believed by those of faith, but of course that is my interpretation and may be wrong.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:04:13 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 10:25:59 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:34:39 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:39:26 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

Exactly.

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

How can anyone be sure these people are telling the truth and not making stories up?


Gentorev........How can anybody be sure these people are not telling the truth?

How can anyone prove they had a premonition when it's after the fact?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

No blood, no pumping heart no life, "Life-force" is sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

Gentorev.........mumbo jumbo to those who do not know the definition of the soul.

Ah yeah, I know the definition of the soul, it's a load of hogwash.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

That's called being paranoid.

Gentorev.........Agreed. Those who believe the prophecies of astrologers are paranoid.

But while we're on the subject of prophecies: Carl Sagan in his old TV program, which I believe was called "The Cosmos", speculated that a two dimensional being having length and breadth would experience his world as a one dimensional world. Having only length and breadth and no height, it would not be able to look down on any two dimensional object in its world and would only see a line which would appear to be the length of the object, irrelevant as to which direction it was seeing that object from. Unless the two dimensional being was lifted up by some unseen force, it would never know that the objects in its world had breadth as well as length.

When referring to the fourth dimension I am speaking of the Minkowskian notion of time as being the fourth dimension. As in the fact that we can move forward and backward,[0ne dimension] sideways, [Two dimensions] up and down [Three dimensions] and through time; [Four dimensions] and not that which is called 4- dimension Euclidean space.

I'll leave you with this on the failed works of Minkowskian.
http://phys.org...

We are fourth dimensional beings who are able to mentally traverse time and yet we experience our world as a three dimensional world. We are fourth dimensional beings, who, in a state of deep meditation or hypnosis, are able to descend into our inner most being where space and time are as one, and relive memories back to and beyond our own birth, and there we are able to merge with a living mind of our past [Who we once were] and experience the life and times of our living ancestor. And while merged with a mind of our living ancestor, [Who we once were] our comatose body in the present will sometimes speak in the tongue of that ancient ancestor, which language is totally foreign to the comatose person in question, while the ancient ancestor in his own time, babbles incomprehensively, sometimes speaking in a strange tongue, in the as yet unknown language of his future descendant in his attempt to give form and terminology to the visions that he is receiving from the mind of his as yet unborn descendant of the future, which terminology to express such visions have not even developed in his point in time. That person is seen as a prophet when speaking of a giant grasshopper that spits fire from its tail, with wings above its head that sound like the roaring of a waterfall, in his attempt to describe a Black Hawk helicopter as seen in a vision while merged with the future mind.

All that is unproven babble with opinionated interpretation to words of a sentence.

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

That has nothing to do with the original post.

Gentorev......... people who attempt to contact their loved ones who have passed over and those who believe in ghosts believe in life after the death of the body and are not necessarily religious people as suggested in this thread.

I believe he was referring to the eternal afterlife in heaven as believed by those of faith, but of course that is my interpretation and may be wrong.

I also believe that he was referring to the eternal after life, which those who attempt to contact their loved ones and those who believe in ghosts seem to believe.

Unlike certain religious bodies who believe in the second death, which is that of the spirit/mind that had developed within the physical body before it died the first death.

Those religious bodies do not believe in an eternal afterlife for ALLthose who have died the first death.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Believe

2. that each of us has a soul.

Believe

3. that prophesies are true.

Believe

4. that there is an afterlife.

Believe

That is how one truly knows anything.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
KwLm
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:24:09 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Believe

2. that each of us has a soul.

Believe

3. that prophesies are true.

Believe

4. that there is an afterlife.

Believe

That is how one truly knows anything.

belief
b=8;G2;liH0;f/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

Believe in falsities is how people become deluded.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:24:09 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Believe

2. that each of us has a soul.

Believe

3. that prophesies are true.

Believe

4. that there is an afterlife.

Believe

That is how one truly knows anything.

belief
b=8;G2;liH0;f/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

Believe in falsities is how people become deluded.

To know is to hold the highest degree of belief. One does not know without believing. One can know something that is not true. In a less synonymous form I prefer to think of it as a degree of trust in my own conviction.

BELIE'VE, verb transitive To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

When we believe upon the authority of reasoning, arguments, or a concurrence of facts and circumstances, we rest our conclusions upon their strength or probability, their agreement with our own experience, etc.

2. To expect or hope with confidence; to trust.

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

KNOW, verb transitive no. preterit tense knew; participle passive known. [Latin nosco, cognosco, Gr. although much varied in orthography. Nosco makes novi, which, with g or c prefixed, gnovi or cnovi, would coincide with know knew. So Latin cresco, crevi, coincides with grow, grew. The radical sense of knowing is generally to take, receive, or hold.]

1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing pre

includes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence. We know what we see with our eyes, or perceive by other senses. We know that fire and water are different substances. We know that truth and falsehood express ideas incompatible with each other. We know that a circle is not a square. We do not know the truth of reports, nor can we always know what to believe.

2. To be informed of; to be taught. It is not unusual for us to say we know things from information, when we rely on the veracity of the informer.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 9:09:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Miracles happening is evidence that miracles happen


For a miracle to be a miracle, it has to happen in a way which is impossible to happen through any other way but through a miracle. Parting the Red Sea for instance would in my book be a miracle, but there is no verifiable evidence that this ever occurred as it is written. I do agree with you that miracles happening would be evidence of miracles but where is this evidence? Can you give one example of a miracle (with exception of the Big Bang) that has happened, that we can prove has happened, and which can not be explained in any other way but for it to have been a miracle?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:54:09 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:09:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Miracles happening is evidence that miracles happen


For a miracle to be a miracle, it has to happen in a way which is impossible to happen through any other way but through a miracle. Parting the Red Sea for instance would in my book be a miracle, but there is no verifiable evidence that this ever occurred as it is written. I do agree with you that miracles happening would be evidence of miracles but where is this evidence? Can you give one example of a miracle (with exception of the Big Bang) that has happened, that we can prove has happened, and which can not be explained in any other way but for it to have been a miracle?

Miracle of Fatima. October 13, 1917 - Fatima Portugal.

I would also argue that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of a miracle. It is in its own way miraculous, because there is no known way for the image to be formed as it was formed.
KwLm
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:09:48 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:44:53 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM, KwLm wrote:

To know is to hold the highest degree of belief.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

One does not know without believing.
Utter nonsense. Is it with unproved belief that tomorrow is Thursday, or do you use evidence to learn what day it is tomorrow?

One can know something that is not true. In a less synonymous form I prefer to think of it as a degree of trust in my own conviction.

Ah no, Knowing something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more than that.


BELIE'VE, verb transitive To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

AKA: Trusting in the word of another person without any proof to back up claims made.

2. To expect or hope with confidence; to trust.

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

KNOW, verb transitive no. preterit tense knew; participle passive known. [Latin nosco, cognosco, Gr. although much varied in orthography. Nosco makes novi, which, with g or c prefixed, gnovi or cnovi, would coincide with know knew. So Latin cresco, crevi, coincides with grow, grew. The radical sense of knowing is generally to take, receive, or hold.]

That is just the pronunciation and word history......

1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing pre

includes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence. We know what we see with our eyes, or perceive by other senses. We know that fire and water are different substances. We know that truth and falsehood express ideas incompatible with each other. We know that a circle is not a square. We do not know the truth of reports, nor can we always know what to believe.

We can study the validity of reports, comparative study of other reports on same subject, test, refute and argue for absolute truth, believe in something without validation of truth is delusion.

2. To be informed of; to be taught. It is not unusual for us to say we know things from information, when we rely on the veracity of the informer.

Yes, information taken from a place of fact, if one does not trust the information given is truthful then research should always be done.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:11:29 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 12:09:48 AM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:44:53 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM, KwLm wrote:

To know is to hold the highest degree of belief.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

One does not know without believing.
Utter nonsense. Is it with unproved belief that tomorrow is Thursday, or do you use evidence to learn what day it is tomorrow?

One can know something that is not true. In a less synonymous form I prefer to think of it as a degree of trust in my own conviction.

Ah no, Knowing something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more than that.

I don't blame you for having that perception. Its what you know.


BELIE'VE, verb transitive To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

AKA: Trusting in the word of another person without any proof to back up claims made.

2. To expect or hope with confidence; to trust.

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

KNOW, verb transitive no. preterit tense knew; participle passive known. [Latin nosco, cognosco, Gr. although much varied in orthography. Nosco makes novi, which, with g or c prefixed, gnovi or cnovi, would coincide with know knew. So Latin cresco, crevi, coincides with grow, grew. The radical sense of knowing is generally to take, receive, or hold.]

That is just the pronunciation and word history......

1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing pre

includes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence. We know what we see with our eyes, or perceive by other senses. We know that fire and water are different substances. We know that truth and falsehood express ideas incompatible with each other. We know that a circle is not a square. We do not know the truth of reports, nor can we always know what to believe.

We can study the validity of reports, comparative study of other reports on same subject, test, refute and argue for absolute truth, believe in something without validation of truth is delusion.

2. To be informed of; to be taught. It is not unusual for us to say we know things from information, when we rely on the veracity of the informer.

Yes, information taken from a place of fact, if one does not trust the information given is truthful then research should always be done.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:28:35 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:56:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:54:09 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:09:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Miracles happening is evidence that miracles happen


For a miracle to be a miracle, it has to happen in a way which is impossible to happen through any other way but through a miracle. Parting the Red Sea for instance would in my book be a miracle, but there is no verifiable evidence that this ever occurred as it is written. I do agree with you that miracles happening would be evidence of miracles but where is this evidence? Can you give one example of a miracle (with exception of the Big Bang) that has happened, that we can prove has happened, and which can not be explained in any other way but for it to have been a miracle?

Miracle of Fatima. October 13, 1917 - Fatima Portugal.

I would also argue that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of a miracle. It is in its own way miraculous, because there is no known way for the image to be formed as it was formed.

Thank you for your response, I looked it up and I find it a very interesting example. Of course there have been several explanations to how it could have happened without it being a miracle, but it is too easy to simply brush it away and say that nothing extra-ordinary happened. I am not sceptical by nature and I am not going to go on the sceptical tour now because the implications of the event do not fit with the worldview that I have. To do so would be an injustice to myself. Something happened there that something was unusual enough to be called a miracle.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:55:09 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

Response:
1. because it is an event that supersedes natural occurrence.

2. Because we have feelings and emotions and none at death

3.Because they are not false or ambiguous and accurate

4. Because Allah says so
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:02:50 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 12:55:09 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

Response:
1. because it is an event that supersedes natural occurrence.

2. Because we have feelings and emotions and none at death

3.Because they are not false or ambiguous and accurate

4. Because Allah says so

Good thing you put "response" before every one of your responses. Otherwise we may not know you are responding.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:15:39 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 12:09:48 AM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:44:53 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM, KwLm wrote:

Bear in mind this is just one definition, but it is a true one.

To know is to hold the highest degree of belief.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

Do I hold fortified conviction behind my wording? Yes I do.

One does not know without believing.
Utter nonsense. Is it with unproved belief that tomorrow is Thursday, or do you use evidence to learn what day it is tomorrow?

I believe without doubt that tomorrow is Thursday. I know that tomorrow is Thursday.

One can know something that is not true. In a less synonymous form I prefer to think of it as a degree of trust in my own conviction.

Ah no, Knowing something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more than that.

[Fully Believing] something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more then that.

You might say I know better, or just hold a better belief with complete confidence.



BELIE'VE, verb transitive To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

AKA: Trusting in the word of another person without any proof to back up claims made.

This may come as a shock to you, but belief and thus knowledge is not necessarily based on proof. This is evidenced by the fact that people disbelieve things that are proven, and believe things that are not.

2. To expect or hope with confidence; to trust.

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

KNOW, verb transitive no. preterit tense knew; participle passive known. [Latin nosco, cognosco, Gr. although much varied in orthography. Nosco makes novi, which, with g or c prefixed, gnovi or cnovi, would coincide with know knew. So Latin cresco, crevi, coincides with grow, grew. The radical sense of knowing is generally to take, receive, or hold.]

That is just the pronunciation and word history......

This is a real dictionary. Its not uncommon to hold reference to origins.

1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing pre

includes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence. We know what we see with our eyes, or perceive by other senses. We know that fire and water are different substances. We know that truth and falsehood express ideas incompatible with each other. We know that a circle is not a square. We do not know the truth of reports, nor can we always know what to believe.

We can study the validity of reports, comparative study of other reports on same subject, test, refute and argue for absolute truth, believe in something without validation of truth is delusion.

2. To be informed of; to be taught. It is not unusual for us to say we know things from information, when we rely on the veracity of the informer.

Yes, information taken from a place of fact, if one does not trust the information given is truthful then research should always be done.

What you accept as knowledge is perceived as fact, independently of reality. This kind of sounds insulting, but its how we all are. Its why sometimes, we find out we were wrong, and others we hold our entire lives [fully believing] we are right, whether we are or not. The fact that what we hold as true does not necessarily relate to the reality of the world we live in means they are independent variables. They do not depend on one another.

Assuming you are rational, what you hold as true, is relative, uncontradictory with other things you hold as true. That's not to say it is in actuality.

This is evidenced by your grasp of the word "know". You thought it was true, and it did not contradict with anything, until I brought in a contradictory principle. Now you must either discard my definition, or your own previous standard.

Assuming my viewpoint was always right.

Yours was always wrong....But you still knew [Fully Believed]; Now you just know better. Its a matter of confidence, and perspective really in the context of conversation. We don't say people "know" things that are false, because in our minds they aren't something we (I ME) can know. We say the more encompassing term, believe, which makes it okay for my unconfident perspective of your knowledge. This is merely a quirk of our language, and our approach to it.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:48:06 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:54:09 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:09:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

Miracles happening is evidence that miracles happen


For a miracle to be a miracle, it has to happen in a way which is impossible to happen through any other way but through a miracle. Parting the Red Sea for instance would in my book be a miracle, but there is no verifiable evidence that this ever occurred as it is written. I do agree with you that miracles happening would be evidence of miracles but where is this evidence? Can you give one example of a miracle (with exception of the Big Bang) that has happened, that we can prove has happened, and which can not be explained in any other way but for it to have been a miracle?

Concerning the parting of the Red Sea: Around that time the volcanic Island of Santorini or Thira as it is also known, which was situated in the Aegean-sea, on the Anatolian plate, which is subject to the forces of the over-riding African Plate that grinds against the Arabian plate in its Northern migration, exploded with many times the force of Krakatoa, which was a volcanic island that exploded in 1883, and that explosion was heard 5,000 kilometres away, and caused a tsunami that killed at least 36,000 people. It has been estimated that when the island of Santorini exploded, 35,000 kilometres of material was lifted into the heavens, and that the explosive force would have created tidal waves of anything up to 130 ft high which would have travelled at speeds of around 150 miles per hour.

A cloud, that turned day into night around 1,500 BC, has been recorded in Chinese history, and would have covered all of north Africa. The African and Arabian plates intersect in a line that runs through the Red Sea and up the Jordan valley through the Dead Sea which was created hundreds of years before the explosion of Santorini, when violent underground activity destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were then situated in the Jordan valley and in the days of Lot, that area was described, as like unto the garden of the Lord, with abundant fresh water flowing through it.

Look at the strange phenomenon that was occurring at the time of the Exodus. The cloud that blanketed north Africa and most of Europe, and turned day into a night so dark that a man was not able to recognise his own brother who was standing at arms-length from him. The rain of sulfuric acid that caused so much crop failure and the death of the livestock which were forced to feed on the polluted pastures, the following series of shock waves along the great rift valley and the fractures in the Sini peninsular which is situated on the Arabian plate, the bulging of the earth"s crust beneath the Red Sea which caused a highway to rise from the waters, with its following tremor when it collapsed and tidal waves that rolled in like two walls of water on either side of where the highway had been.

Wisdom of Solomon 19: 7-8, "Then was beheld the cloud that shadowed the camp, and dry land rising up out of what was before water, Out of the Red sea an unhindered highway, and a grassy plain rising out of the violent surge."
Look even where the Israelites camped on the shore of the Red sea, which was smack bang in the middle of a major coal field in Egypt.

The bulging earth rising from the surging sea before them, pressurised gas screaming from the opening fissures creating towering pillars of fire to burn behind them, a strong east wind blew all that night causing the thick smoke to blind the pursuing Egyptians while lighting up the camp of the Israelites on the eastern side of those wild fires.

All these events were caused from pressures that had been built up over tens of thousands of years and would have occurred in their proper time, irrelevant of the Israeli situation. Where the miracle lay, was in the fact that an unseen deity [Perhaps a mind from the future] was able, through his prophet Moses, to organise the events leading up to and including the exodus itself at the precise time in history that this cataclysmic event occurred.

In the book "The Wisdom of Solomon, 16" Solomon has much to say about the days of Moses; he speaks of the strange hails that fell from heaven. Burning balls of frozen gases, some with the ability to burn even in water, some which burned with a heat so intense that they incinerated anything they came in contact with, while other hail, burned with a cold fire through which animals could walk unharmed.

Solomon also speaks of the cloud that covered the Israelites in the desert and of the Manna that fell from heaven during the night. According to Solomon, the heavenly covering was a cloud by day and a host of stars by night, (a night sky ablaze with falling balls of burning hail stones). Then concerning the heavenly Manna, he says, "And that which was not injured by fire, [Burning hailstones] simply warmed by a faint sun beam melted away.

Each morning the desert floor was covered with a film of a flaky cellulose substance which looked like coriander seed, and would melt and breed worms and stink if left out in the sun, and yet could be preserved when cooked, and tasted like biscuits mixed with the purest of olive oils.

Carbohydrates are any of a group of chemical compounds, including sugars, starches, and cellulose, containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen only, [of which there was an ample supply in the cloud from the volcanic explosion] with the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen atoms usually 2 : 1. Perhaps, if our scientists could simulate the same conditions that occurred in the stratosphere when the island of Thira exploded, they may come up with an inexpensive and environmentally friendly source of food production to feed the starving millions on the earth.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 8:59:51 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

And how many of those people have had a premonition of a coming disaster that did not eventuate?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

No, but I suspect that people of a certain disposition will believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, religion, or a combination of any of these.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 9:41:33 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 8:59:51 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

And how many of those people have had a premonition of a coming disaster that did not eventuate?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

No, but I suspect that people of a certain disposition will believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, religion, or a combination of any of these.

You are of course including atheists among those of a certain disposition, who believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, or a combination of any of these.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 10:21:53 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 9:41:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:59:51 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

And how many of those people have had a premonition of a coming disaster that did not eventuate?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

No, but I suspect that people of a certain disposition will believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, religion, or a combination of any of these.

You are of course including atheists among those of a certain disposition, who believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, or a combination of any of these.

With few exceptions, atheists do not believe in anything supernatural.
KwLm
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 10:30:48 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 1:15:39 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 12:09:48 AM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:44:53 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:29:50 PM, KwLm wrote:

Bear in mind this is just one definition, but it is a true one.

To know is to hold the highest degree of belief.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

Do I hold fortified conviction behind my wording? Yes I do.

One does not know without believing.
Utter nonsense. Is it with unproved belief that tomorrow is Thursday, or do you use evidence to learn what day it is tomorrow?

I believe without doubt that tomorrow is Thursday. I know that tomorrow is Thursday.
That doesn't answer my question.

One can know something that is not true. In a less synonymous form I prefer to think of it as a degree of trust in my own conviction.

Ah no, Knowing something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more than that.

[Believing] something that is not true, is called having wrong knowledge, it is nothing more than that.

No difference, so you agree.

You might say I know better, or just hold a better belief with complete confidence.



BELIE'VE, verb transitive To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

AKA: Trusting in the word of another person without any proof to back up claims made.

This may come as a shock to you, but belief and thus knowledge is not necessarily based on proof. This is evidenced by the fact that people disbelieve things that are proven, and believe things that are not.

No it's not a shock that people will believe information without evidence or proof, just look at religion.

Also not a shock that people will disbelieve proof, EG: Theists and evolution.

2. To expect or hope with confidence; to trust.

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Psalms 27:13.

KNOW, verb transitive no. preterit tense knew; participle passive known. [Latin nosco, cognosco, Gr. although much varied in orthography. Nosco makes novi, which, with g or c prefixed, gnovi or cnovi, would coincide with know knew. So Latin cresco, crevi, coincides with grow, grew. The radical sense of knowing is generally to take, receive, or hold.]

That is just the pronunciation and word history......

This is a real dictionary. Its not uncommon to hold reference to origins.

My point being it has no definition of the word.

know
nəA0;/Submit
verb
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

1. To perceive with certainty; to understand clearly; to have a clear and certain perception of truth, fact, or any thing that actually exists. To know a thing pre

includes all doubt or uncertainty of its existence. We know what we see with our eyes, or perceive by other senses. We know that fire and water are different substances. We know that truth and falsehood express ideas incompatible with each other. We know that a circle is not a square. We do not know the truth of reports, nor can we always know what to believe.

We can study the validity of reports, comparative study of other reports on same subject, test, refute and argue for absolute truth, believe in something without validation of truth is delusion.

2. To be informed of; to be taught. It is not unusual for us to say we know things from information, when we rely on the veracity of the informer.

Yes, information taken from a place of fact, if one does not trust the information given is truthful then research should always be done.

What you accept as knowledge is perceived as fact, independently of reality.
False, What I accept as fact, would be found factual otherwise it would be false.

This kind of sounds insulting, but its how we all are. Its why sometimes, we find out we were wrong, and others we hold our entire lives [fully believing] we are right, whether we are or not. The fact that what we hold as true does not necessarily relate to the reality of the world we live in means they are independent variables. They do not depend on one another.

Assuming you are rational, what you hold as true, is relative, uncontradictory with other things you hold as true. That's not to say it is in actuality.

This is evidenced by your grasp of the word "know". You thought it was true, and it did not contradict with anything, until I brought in a contradictory principle. Now you must either discard my definition, or your own previous standard.

Neither, you unfortunately have the wrong idea, Ie: false knowledge.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,931
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:09:59 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 10:21:53 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:41:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:59:51 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

And how many of those people have had a premonition of a coming disaster that did not eventuate?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

No, but I suspect that people of a certain disposition will believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, religion, or a combination of any of these.

You are of course including atheists among those of a certain disposition, who believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, or a combination of any of these.

With few exceptions, atheists do not believe in anything supernatural.

Please provide proof, that atheists in the main, do not believe in ghosts, astrology or alternative healing.
tarantula
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:18:24 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

So called miracles have a natural cause, imo.

A 'soul is only another name for consciousness.

'Prophecies' can be interpreted in a lot of different ways to suit the beliefs of those who think they have meaning.

There is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:20:45 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 11:09:59 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:21:53 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:41:33 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:59:51 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:06:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:49:13 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:36:09 PM, uncung wrote:
At 11/23/2016 2:39:28 PM, Willows wrote:
1. that miracles happen.

2. that each of us has a soul.

3. that prophesies are true.

4. that there is an afterlife.

By religion for sure.

These claims come from religion, sure. How does one verify that the claims are true, especially since religions are clearly made by people?

How many non-religious people have had a premonition of a coming disaster and cancelled their flight on a plane that crashed or the ocean cruise on the Titanic? Would these people not see that inner warning as a miracle?

And how many of those people have had a premonition of a coming disaster that did not eventuate?

The soul is simply the life-force: The animating principle that pervades the entire universe. No soul---no life.

How many non-religious people read their horoscope each morning and then plan their day around the prophecies made by their astrologer?

Are you honestly suggesting that only religious people believe in ghosts?

No, but I suspect that people of a certain disposition will believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, religion, or a combination of any of these.

You are of course including atheists among those of a certain disposition, who believe in the supernatural, whether it be ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, or a combination of any of these.

With few exceptions, atheists do not believe in anything supernatural.

Please provide proof, that atheists in the main, do not believe in ghosts, astrology or alternative healing.

Although there are, of course, many atheists who are so, simply out of ignorance, I am merely speculating that, because atheists who have made an educated choice not to believe, they are typically critical thinkers and would not have a bar of believing anything to do with the supernatural.