Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
165,581 - 165,600 of 226,145 Comments Last updated 34 min ago

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172480
Jul 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.
Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
Then it's a damn good thing Carbon Dating is **never** used by scientific community to study fossils.

Isn't it?

Fossils-- or prehistoric bones converted into minerals (rock) are pretty much too old for the limited usefulness of carbon dating, which has a max of about 50,000 years or less (if memory serves).

The vast majority of fossils are **millions** of years older than **that***. Much too old for the very narrow carbon dating methods.

No-- carbon dating is best served for **archeology** to discover how old **human** artifacts are.

Fossil dating pretty much never depends on carbon dating anyway...

.. so you are objecting about something that isn't even an issue!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172481
Jul 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.
Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
Do you have an idea how scientists figured out how old the earth is?

Hint: it has nothing to do with carbon dating.

Not even close.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172482
Jul 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!
Using all of the above?

Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.

More to the point?

DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.

Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.

There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.

Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.

To deny this?

Is to deny reality.

And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--

-- that is the nature OF reality.

There is **no** faith involved at all.

It just is.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172483
Jul 18, 2013
 
Religion cannot even get the gospels to match up.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.

1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!

Notice my emphasis on point #4? There's a very good reason for that.

I have two items of interest for you to consider:

1)In 1953, Stanley Miller tried to prove that amino acids can come about naturally. He used a constant flow of electricity to replicate lightning in the earth's atmosphere. But, lightning isn't constant, so that's flaw #1. Then Miller compounded his error by using the wrong gases. He used carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor which is no longer believed to be the atmosphere of early earth; flaw #2.

2) In 1997, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin made a shocking confession in The New York Book Review:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.

So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.

blacklagoon wrote, "You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support."

I don't see how you can say I'm making sweeping statements when you claim only science can reveal truth, in light of these two unfortunate revelations as to the philosophical beliefs of scientists.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172484
Jul 18, 2013
 
After answering several of your questions why am I not surprised you ran in fear when I asked you some questions?

I accept your surrender.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you use the word "reliable" in this way? Let's go into philosophy of morality for a round of discussion.

Is it wrong to kill a child? Is it wrong to rape a woman? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to cheat at a game or contest? Is it wrong to lie?

Science can't quantify or qualify the moral arguments. It can try to measure brain impulses through MRI, EEG, and chemical properties by blood and tissue testing, but that's only limited to the naturalistic scientific method.

Now you can argue that homo sapiens developed these moral ethics over time as a social or cultural construct to promote survival within a group, but if that's your argument, then it doesn't hold much weight with me for a very simple reason. If humanity has existed as long as Darwinian evolution proponents like to claim, then why hasn't our morality advanced as quickly as our technology?
There is still evil in the world. We recognize it in the evening news or the morning paper or when it happens to a loved one or friend. You would think that if we evolved according to the Darwinian model, that our morality would save us from hurting each other, and yet as human history has shown, we've become more efficient at killing, much more apathetic, and much more lazy.

So how has science been able to measure the truth of the existence of evil? There has to be a measure of good to compare, so one knows what evil is. As C.S. Lewis famously said, one must know what a straight line looks like in order to know what a crooked line looks like. Science cannot quantify or measure morality, unless we're considering the latest FBI crime index reports.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172485
Jul 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think I don't? Why do you think I'm lying? Are you interested in dialogue or do you just wish to be antagonistic for entertainment purposes?
You can't start a dialog when you're lying about god and have no evidence for your worthless egotistical personal hallucinations...aka your cult.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172486
Jul 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you use the word "reliable" in this way? Let's go into philosophy of morality for a round of discussion.
Is it wrong to kill a child? Is it wrong to rape a woman? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to cheat at a game or contest? Is it wrong to lie?
First, philosophy does not manage, ultimately, to answer these things. As an example, suppose that I think that 'X' is moral and you think that 'X' is immoral. Is there any way to resolve the dispute? I could give specific examples, but I don't want to get caught up in the rhetoric of controversial subjects. Let's simply address the issue of whether it is possible, even in principle, to resolve moral disputes.

In the sciences, there is such a way to resolve disputes: find an experiment that will go different ways depending on whether you or I are correct and then *do* the experiment and see. Now, in practice, it might be difficult to find such an experiment, or to design it and perform it, but that is ultimately how disputes in science are resolved. Any question that cannot be resolved by an experiment, even in principle, is deemed to be meaningless or irrelevant.

In mathematics, there is also a way to resolve disputes. One side or the other provides a proof from the accepted axioms and the other gets to challenge any logic in the proof. If all challenges fail, then the proof is accepted.

Now, the *lack* of a dispute resolution protocol for morality strongly suggests that moral questions are not questions of knowledge. Instead, they are questions of opinion and/or popularity. If most people agree that 'X' is wrong, then 'X' is wrong. Instead of logic, most people use rhetorical devices and appeals to emotions to argue for their moral positions. This also is revealing concerning their truth value.

What I have found is that moral questions tend to boil down fundamental assumptions about freedom, responsibility, tradition, etc. They ultimately rely on the question of what kind of society we want to live in and what rules should apply to who. Over time, we have decided that rules should be applied universally (although this is rare in practice) and that each person should be given equal value (again, purely theoretically).

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172487
Jul 18, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Using all of the above?
Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.
More to the point?
DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.
Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.
There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.
Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.
To deny this?
Is to deny reality.
And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--
-- that is the nature OF reality.
There is **no** faith involved at all.
It just is.
Well and succinctly put, sir.

Kudos.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172488
Jul 18, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Religion cannot even get the gospels to match up.
<quoted text>
Wanna start a fight?

Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.
Ol Salt

Ocala, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172490
Jul 18, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wanna start a fight?
Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.
Yo Mac ...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172491
Jul 18, 2013
 
Depends on what chapter of the myth err I mean gospel you read.

I think his last words were... Hey Mom! I can see our house from up here!

Lol :)
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wanna start a fight?

Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172492
Jul 18, 2013
 
Ol Salt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Mac ...
Hi, Saltie.

I worked commercial trawlers on the other side of the North Atlantic once. Back when they were wooden-hulled and maybe 75 feet long.

Ask a WWII Navy vet about the Murmansk Run - it was like that, only up to the neck in herring.

Sheesh. Youth.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172493
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Depends on what chapter of the myth err I mean gospel you read.
I think his last words were... Hey Mom! I can see our house from up here!
Lol :)
<quoted text>
Alternatively:


SORRY!(That was a moral imperative.)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172494
Jul 18, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I was born here (USA). It's not as if I immigrated by my choice.
I continue to live here, mainly due to family obligations-- you know how those relatives require support.:D
I **have** considered moving elsewhere, and I may, when some family members are no longer breathing.
Meanwhile, I try to do the best I am able, with what I have to work with.
And, living as I do in Oklahomer--the reddest of the red-red states (ironic much? red==communism...) I don't have a lot to work with.
*sigh*
Our states border each other....barely and I'm on the northeast side of you. Deep ruby red here too :D A lot of people here don't seem to realize that there actually is a world beyond the USA.*sigh*

Much family here, too. As some stop breathing, others are just beginning and I probably never will move away. I've grown used to the scenery anyway. I would enjoy traveling some more before I take up the rocking chair, I hope so. Maybe just to a blue state for some fresh air :)

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172495
Jul 18, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wanna start a fight?
Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.
According to the earliest, and IMEO, most reliable source, His last words were "My God! My God! Why have you abandoned me ?"

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172496
Jul 18, 2013
 
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the earliest, and IMEO, most reliable source, His last words were "My God! My God! Why have you abandoned me ?"
Yeah, always wondered about that one. Doesn't sound good for the home team, does it?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172497
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, always wondered about that one. Doesn't sound good for the home team, does it?
That is why the later Gospel tell a different story.

The Jesus of Mark is a far cry from the Christ of John.

Note that Christians think that since Matthew comes before Mark in the Bible that Mark was written later. Their own early church leaders note that the order was based upon content, not age.

Christians are quite clueless about their own religion.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172498
Jul 18, 2013
 
I always loved with the scene with all the wannabe messiahs running around in that movie.

We know now that historically that is ironically close to the truth.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Alternatively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jHPOzQzk9QoXX

SORRY!(That was a moral imperative.)

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172499
Jul 18, 2013
 
The Gospel of Mark is about a failed Jewish Messiah.
The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are about a pagan demigod.

Note that nothing in Paul's epistles demonstrate that he knew a single thing in a single Gospel, canonical or otherwise.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172500
Jul 18, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I always loved with the scene with all the wannabe messiahs running around in that movie.
We know now that historically that is ironically close to the truth.
<quoted text>
It still is.
In Judaism anyone can be a potential Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah is not a sin or blasphemy which proves that the Gospel of John is a pack of lies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 17 min Grey Ghost 1,099,225
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Big Sky 305,434
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 27,042
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Tue RICK SERVICE 29
offer Aug 23 Peter 1
Addition of Emmitt Holt is "Big" for Indiana Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
Ex-Hoosier Zeller embraces NBA learning Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••