Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#169585 Jun 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are actually two types of home schoolers. One type home schools because they don't like what is being taught in the schools. The other type doesn't like the fact that the schools aren't teaching enough.
Religious home schoolers tend to do so because they don't want their children exposed to opposing ideas. They want to re-enforce their particular viewpoint and keep their children from really learning about the variety of ways of looking at the world.
In contrast, the non-religious home schoolers tend to do so because they don't like how watered down the curriculum has become over the years. In contrast to the religious type, the non-religious type wants the children to learn *more*, not less.
My ex-wife and I home schooled our daughter until she was ready for high school (when our daughter said she would prefer to go to the public school for the social aspects). By the time she was 12, my daughter was reading and understanding Plato and Shakespeare. She could write a well-reasoned research paper and asked for a book on reptile surgery for her 13th birthday. She has one more year of high school and hopes to become a veterinarian.
Not all home schoolers are poorly schooled. Most are, but not all. Much depends on the motivations and education of the parents.
Interesting and a post well worth reading.

I was beginning to get the impression that home-schooling had a far less positive image in the USA than in the UK. Nice to know it is done successfully there too.

Well-done to you and your bright family and thanks for sharing that.
(No reply necessary)
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#169586 Jun 21, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I’ve read it 3 times, plus chapters, verses etc several times, I did some work on the authenticity of the babble during my first years at uni. All you need to realise is that it is a story book, full of holes, contradictions lies and atrocities that a good christian Jew or Moslim is skilled at filtering out.
Consider that the abrahamic god was the first recorded mass murderer by exterminating the entire human race (bar for 8 people), the first recorded child murderer by killing the Egyptian first born. He advocated slavery, rape and prostitution, gods word –
“as for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”.
Such a role model, but it makes it easy to see why there are so many religious people suffering from funny mental ism.
Humanity was killed in Noahs' flood because they were wicked. Pharoah caused the judgment of the death of the firstborn to fall upon himself by plotting to kill the first born of Israel. If you want to play hardball, God can play hardball.
Anthony Blake

Dural, Australia

#169587 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep invoking Jesus' name in vain, while disregarding His teachings.
Matthew 7:15-20 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
It's all about you, isn't it Clownie? Not about Jesus at all. False prophet. Blasphemer.
I like this guy that is disapproving all T towns comments
Dooma

Dural, Australia

#169588 Jun 21, 2013
I once used the Bible to start my fire...

come at me with your religious shit...

Hehehehe

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#169589 Jun 21, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Humanity was killed in Noahs' flood because they were wicked. Pharoah caused the judgment of the death of the firstborn to fall upon himself by plotting to kill the first born of Israel. If you want to play hardball, God can play hardball.
...and he'll slaughter any innocent baby who gets in his way.

The god of the bible is a sociopath.

“And I won't watch this anymore”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#169590 Jun 21, 2013
Let's remember, however, that the men who wrote the Bible were looking to control and use people-and what better way to do that than by claiming moral superiority in the name of this God figure?

Humans have been using the name of God and other religious figures to approve of dozens of vile and dastardly deeds.

Since: Sep 08

Olney Springs, CO

#169591 Jun 21, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
Let's remember, however, that the men who wrote the Bible were looking to control and use people-and what better way to do that than by claiming moral superiority in the name of this God figure?
Humans have been using the name of God and other religious figures to approve of dozens of vile and dastardly deeds.
Versus the idiot boys and girls getting on here claiming moral superiority in the name of mankind to approve dozens of vile and dastardly deeds.

I find it very difficult to worship mankind, and impossible to worship any man.

But perhaps you can.
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169592 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I don't see how skepticism requires any faith.
Since God can neither be proven nor disproven by humanity, it requires some kind of faith to believe either way. If you don't believe in God, there are reasons to support that conclusion, but you're not 100% certain at all times. The only way to know or believe there is a God is to have an experience that defies all competing arguments. Short of that, it's all a matter of faith for both sides.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#169593 Jun 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Versus the idiot boys and girls getting on here claiming moral superiority in the name of mankind to approve dozens of vile and dastardly deeds.
I find it very difficult to worship mankind, and impossible to worship any man.
But perhaps you can.
A Wo man is lifted up to there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

“And I won't watch this anymore”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#169594 Jun 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Versus the idiot boys and girls getting on here claiming moral superiority in the name of mankind to approve dozens of vile and dastardly deeds.
I find it very difficult to worship mankind, and impossible to worship any man.
But perhaps you can.
Indeed, humans have been responsible for many atrocious deeds throughout history and humans also have a bad habit of not respecting their fellow species-aka, animals. Look at how badly we've treated them. But that is a story for another day.

I do not worship mankind, I only watch everything that humans do. I'm more or less a spectator who remarks on the world around me. I do not sit back when people are being hurt, however. I'd rather help than sit back and do nothing. My words have a greater life to me so I use them. I am a writer, you see, so to me words are the most powerful tools we can use to further our knowledge.

I have just been frustrated with certain people on other forums who have been nasty to me when I did nothing to provoke them at all. But I am prepared to let that matter go.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#169595 Jun 21, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Since God can neither be proven nor disproven by humanity, it requires some kind of faith to believe either way. If you don't believe in God, there are reasons to support that conclusion, but you're not 100% certain at all times. The only way to know or believe there is a God is to have an experience that defies all competing arguments. Short of that, it's all a matter of faith for both sides.
*jumps back in shock*

A substantive post on Topix with a thoughtful reply! OMG! Prayers DO work! Lol.

Anyway, to your response: There is a difference between declaring that there are no gods of any kind. I agree that would be just as presumptive as those who believe in one or more without objective evidence. But to say that there seems to be no evidence for any deity, and certainly none for those proposed by other people/cultures, doesn't require any faith. It's theoretically possible that invisible unicorns exist, but simply not believing in any because there is no positive evidence for them doesn't require faith.
xianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#169596 Jun 21, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Since God can neither be proven nor disproven by humanity, it requires some kind of faith to believe either way. If you don't believe in God, there are reasons to support that conclusion, but you're not 100% certain at all times. The only way to know or believe there is a God is to have an experience that defies all competing arguments. Short of that, it's all a matter of faith for both sides.
no faith needed once you define what god is

www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169597 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
*jumps back in shock*
A substantive post on Topix with a thoughtful reply! OMG! Prayers DO work! Lol.
Anyway, to your response: There is a difference between declaring that there are no gods of any kind. I agree that would be just as presumptive as those who believe in one or more without objective evidence. But to say that there seems to be no evidence for any deity, and certainly none for those proposed by other people/cultures, doesn't require any faith. It's theoretically possible that invisible unicorns exist, but simply not believing in any because there is no positive evidence for them doesn't require faith.
Oh I understand what you're saying, but I do believe it's a matter of faith either way. Perhaps "faith" isn't the correct word to be debating. Think on this if you will:

Confidence in Probability

I don't know if this is an existing term or not,(if not, you heard it from me first- lol)but allow me to explain my position.

If you're an atheist, and you don't believe there's a God (any God) then there must be a reason. It can be an experiential reason (such as the case with Christine M - my condolences on the way you were treated Christine) or, because the atheist places more priority on other subjects such as science or philosophy, or a combination of both. The atheist consciously makes a choice to not believe based upon his or her respective confidence in competing thoughts, and/or negative experiences within a specific context in their lives.

Likewise, if one is a theist (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) then one also may have a positive experience or find sufficient evidence to make a conscious choice to believe. Again, the choice is influenced by the experiential and/or evidence.

It all comes down to individual priority and confidence in probability. I find there is sufficient evidence to enjoy confidence in the probability that there is a God (yes, the Christian God), while you do not.

Faith is the word used, but in the final analysis, it's how much confidence we have in the probability and it's based upon choice that is rooted in experiences both good and bad.

“And I won't watch this anymore”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#169598 Jun 21, 2013
Forgive me for asking, but where is the evidence? I have not seen any evidence so far that can convince me that the God of the Bible exists. Everything I have read feels like a farce. I read Lewis's book Mere Christianity, and to me it felt like something hollow and artificial.

So far, this God figure has not made any attempts at all to show himself to us since the past 2000 years, if indeed he did at all. Why not? If people are in such a need to know he exists, why does he not appear before them? Why need someone else to tell us that God exists?

Since: Sep 08

Olney Springs, CO

#169599 Jun 21, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, humans have been responsible for many atrocious deeds throughout history and humans also have a bad habit of not respecting their fellow species-aka, animals. Look at how badly we've treated them. But that is a story for another day.
I do not worship mankind, I only watch everything that humans do. I'm more or less a spectator who remarks on the world around me. I do not sit back when people are being hurt, however. I'd rather help than sit back and do nothing. My words have a greater life to me so I use them. I am a writer, you see, so to me words are the most powerful tools we can use to further our knowledge.
I have just been frustrated with certain people on other forums who have been nasty to me when I did nothing to provoke them at all. But I am prepared to let that matter go.
People get sensitized and reactive when they are called idiots and names for their beliefs. That is why I react to these Topix atheist idiots. I started out and made a mistake of not calling theists idiots and they jumped on me. They made me do it.

But, back to worshiping men, which Topix atheists do, I haveone question I would like them to answer.

Given that every government has a chief executive, a top dog that runs it, even democracies, I would like to know what man or woman alive today would they trust their lives and happiness to by giving them absolute authority over such. Such an individual, or small group of individuals, will determine morals, correct thinking, and all other aspects deemed NECESSARY at the time for smooth social advancement. Those leaders will be answerable only to themselves.

Who is their Superhero?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#169600 Jun 21, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>

Faith is the word used, but in the final analysis, it's how much confidence we have in the probability and it's based upon choice that is rooted in experiences both good and bad.
More specifically, it depends on what type of information one places their confidence in. An atheist or agnostic will presumably be relying on objective and repeatably testable evidence which is falsifiable (i.e., scientific method, or something like that). A theist will be placing their confidence in their feelings, intuition, and tradition.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#169601 Jun 21, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
Forgive me for asking, but where is the evidence? I have not seen any evidence so far that can convince me that the God of the Bible exists. Everything I have read feels like a farce. I read Lewis's book Mere Christianity, and to me it felt like something hollow and artificial.
So far, this God figure has not made any attempts at all to show himself to us since the past 2000 years, if indeed he did at all. Why not? If people are in such a need to know he exists, why does he not appear before them? Why need someone else to tell us that God exists?
If you seek God, you will find it. Actually, you will find any god you seek.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#169602 Jun 21, 2013
What if you were raised in a society that has no god? Where god is never even mentioned in any way shape or form?

Your argument fails.
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I understand what you're saying, but I do believe it's a matter of faith either way. Perhaps "faith" isn't the correct word to be debating. Think on this if you will:

Confidence in Probability

I don't know if this is an existing term or not,(if not, you heard it from me first- lol)but allow me to explain my position.

If you're an atheist, and you don't believe there's a God (any God) then there must be a reason. It can be an experiential reason (such as the case with Christine M - my condolences on the way you were treated Christine) or, because the atheist places more priority on other subjects such as science or philosophy, or a combination of both. The atheist consciously makes a choice to not believe based upon his or her respective confidence in competing thoughts, and/or negative experiences within a specific context in their lives.

Likewise, if one is a theist (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) then one also may have a positive experience or find sufficient evidence to make a conscious choice to believe. Again, the choice is influenced by the experiential and/or evidence.

It all comes down to individual priority and confidence in probability. I find there is sufficient evidence to enjoy confidence in the probability that there is a God (yes, the Christian God), while you do not.

Faith is the word used, but in the final analysis, it's how much confidence we have in the probability and it's based upon choice that is rooted in experiences both good and bad.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#169603 Jun 21, 2013
As society grew more literate and able to better pass along information and data god seems to have vanished.

He can't appear now because he is camera shy and fears TMZ.
Lelouch0 wrote:
Forgive me for asking, but where is the evidence? I have not seen any evidence so far that can convince me that the God of the Bible exists. Everything I have read feels like a farce. I read Lewis's book Mere Christianity, and to me it felt like something hollow and artificial.

So far, this God figure has not made any attempts at all to show himself to us since the past 2000 years, if indeed he did at all. Why not? If people are in such a need to know he exists, why does he not appear before them? Why need someone else to tell us that God exists?
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169604 Jun 21, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
More specifically, it depends on what type of information one places their confidence in. An atheist or agnostic will presumably be relying on objective and repeatably testable evidence which is falsifiable (i.e., scientific method, or something like that). A theist will be placing their confidence in their feelings, intuition, and tradition.
Not always. Some of us (myself specifically) are convinced by the historical evidence. Intuition does play a part of it without a doubt. But I don't trust human emotions as a general rule. They can be very misleading.

Intuition is that small voice that speaks to us inaudibly. It speaks to us on a different level than that of emotion. The same goes for our conscience. I'm sure you'll disagree, saying that it's all a product of chemical reactions within the human brain. I disagree, but I'll leave that debate for another day. It's been an interesting dialogue. Thank you.=)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Wardaddy 1,173,817
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 27 min Trojan 28,734
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr End is Not Yet 308,033
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr HitMan 201,321
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 4 hr LonePalm 3,161
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Jan 27 Pinoyboyguy 734
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
More from around the web