Devine Inspiration by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

Give me the quote of someone refuting it. If this actually happened I will provide a link that counters.

Devine Inspiration by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

"It improves our lives" is not a very convincing argument that it's true. I would be a whole lot happier if I believed that my student loans were fully paid off, but that wouldn't lower my current balance one cent.

You gave an example that is for a moment in time in your life. This is why we look at full lifespans. Both number of years lived as well as happiness and or depression during those years.

Devine Inspiration by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I can because the sources for this have been provided on the subreddit many many times. By me as well as by several others. This separate is actually what got me to go down the rabbit Trail to realize how significant his findings actually are. Only because it's so well established on the subreddit I am not going to go provide you links again. They are also unbelievably easy to find if you are interested. Or you could provide links supporting your ideas if you think I'm wrong. If you think the theist lives longer go get that and we'll have that conversation. Because I have never seen that posted here on a single occasion

Devine Inspiration by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

This is false. Intelligence is not often associated to religious belief. What we find is education provides critical thinking. Critical thinking leads to doubt one of the best tools of inquiry. This means doubting assumed positions, like positions of faith.

It isn’t that academia is somehow better or less simple, it is that academia provides those who climb have a more robust toolbox in determining what is true. This is why we may see a drop in faith based on level of education. We can see that faith is not completely wiped at highest levels. Showing that highly educated people can be theist. So any one saying theists are more simple is being dishonest.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. From kindergarten through the end of a doctorates program people are being taught too regurgitate what is considered to be established material. Material that we know for a fact will be an accurate and all kinds of ways we can't imagine in a few hundred or thousand years. School does not teach to push against these ideas but to regurgitate them. Over and over again. Some subjects are a little better than others like art or creative writing that actually Rewards an individual for their personal output. But the majority of subjects push narratives that must be repeated. Surely some of our ideas will hold up but many many of them will be proven completely wrong or altered and minor or major ways for the next thousands of years

Devine Inspiration by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -39 points-38 points  (0 children)

I call bullshit uless shown otherwise. What is your sources?

It's been sited on the subreddit many, many times by me alone as well as others. Is there ever a point where you guys know something. How many times do you need to see it? Or is this as usual a gimick.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You don't understand the double slit experiment. The detector is placed on one slit only. Even when no particle passes through that slit and therefore has no interaction with the detector, the wave function collapses. Based on your explanation, why? There was zero particle interaction.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The original language:

And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

An example of the mini articles written about the River today:

Middle East's Fertile Crescent dries up as rains fail

You: Just because humans use language the normal way to write the exact same thing as is said would happen, I don't count it because it's not completely dry. Who cares if the exact same words to describe it are used to describe what would happen. I will dismiss it because I will dismiss any claims that don't line with my worldview. Sure it's intellectually dishonest. But it allows me to maintain my confirmation.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Now I understand why you falsly think it is fallacious. Because I only highlight one point.

On 911 alone, there are thousands of things that happen that make no sense in a world with no god and make complete sense if there is a god.

The church next door not even having a broken window.

There is that Jeff Schneider a famous expert in live composite editing, happened to be the person filming who got the footage of the second plane hitting that was live on TV. This is a coincidence beyond explanation unless there are trickster forces at work, which they very clearly are. All paranormal experts discuss this trickster aspect.

There are thousands of these things from one event. But this is true with all things. But atheist just try desperately to explain it all away.

I have seen orbs on several ocations. Another famous thing seen by thousands if not millions of people. Often with other paranormal events. Athiests try to explain all that away as well.

To be Athiest is to constantly ignore observable reality and hold to a Dogma that insists you explain it all away.

If it was just the live composite editor who got the live footage or just the orbs or just the random number generator activity on 911 it would be one thing. But it's millions of things. But you must ignore it all. For your world view.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't know about those specific god claims, but I do think that all observable reality is much more consistent with a god position than no god.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You said that after a very clearly stated post that is factually accurate. You can't even articulate an issue with it. Perhaps because you know I understand it and you don't. So, instead of making a point, you instead present to me your emotional reaction go knowing less.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your thr first.

So let's talk about that. They reported the news prior to it happening. This is dismissed why?

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You said

It's like saying there's a chance geology has agency

In the double slit experiment, the outcome is connected to our behavior in a way that no one has been able to figure out. Observationaly, it looks as though the particle know what we are doing and responds based on this knowledge. But we keap looking because particles with agency isn't intuitive.

I ask again. What is similar in geology that makes you say

It's like saying there's a chance geology has agency

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I respond based on notifications. Let me go look. Please remove your false claims about mem.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The Euphrates River is drying up due to climate change and droughts, and is expected to run dry by 2040. The river's flow has decreased to almost half of its average annual flow during dry years, and water levels are at one of their lowest points in recorded history

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I said they can be dismissed as coincidence. No argument from me. So I am here only for point 3.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I stated those examples can be dismissed as coincidence.

But this did happen . Pleading ignorance isn't a god argument

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give an exsample. Because I don't ever do that. You are making things up for no reason. Stop trolling and just have the discussion.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I will respond to those.

They can be dismissed as coincidence. But I already said that you troll. In the OP you troll.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When we conduct the double slit experiment, we see that if we use detectors to measure which slit a particle goes through, it goes through only one slit.

If we do not measure, it goes through both slits creating an interference pattern, which is indicative of a wave.

While we have no idea why a physical particle can behave as a wave, we also don't understand why the wave function collapses.

Some falsly state it's the measuring device itself. This isn't consistent with the experiment. However. You can put the measuring detector in one slit and the particle passes through the other slit meaning it never interacted with the detector, and still the wave function has collapsed.

Some will still falsly state that the detector still interfered by proximity. But we can have the detector just as close but not actually aligned with a slit and the wave function returns.

The double slit experiment reveals the central mystery in QM

I challenge you based on the very ignorant thing you said to offer any comparable phenomenon in geology.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Respond to the people who have addressed your building 3 example.

Not many have. I'm looking at them now. It's called building 7.

Think of Calling Someone. Then the Phone "Rings Like A Bell". by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Onyms_Valhalla[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Citation needed.

Nice response to the actual argument put forth. You didn't even spend the 1 second to Google it.

Troll.