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 (Page 8,285)

Showing posts 165,681 - 165,700 of217,136
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172550
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena? Isn't that a potential public relations nightmare for the scientific community? Doesn't that explicitly admit that there are scientists who purposely exclude supernatural causes as a foundation to deny the likelihood of Divinity?
The problem comes in the very nature of science. As you have pointed out, it is limited to consideration of natural phenomena. In particular, supernatural phenomena are excluded simply because they are untestable. If something *is* testable, it is, almost by definition, natural.
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes.
Actually, this is wrong. By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.
Polymath attempted some damage control by saying that scientists improve their control measures so that people conducting research can't fake or falsify their findings. But that didn't address the explicit admission that secular science deliberately keeps supernatural phenomena out of the lab and out of all hypotheses so they don't even have to look at it.
Give a specific way of testing the existence of a 'supernatural'. In particular, since on 'natural' devices are allowed, anything that interacts with them is, by definition, natural. It is a problem at the veru foundation of the concept of a supernatural and is one of the reasons I see it as without actual meaning.
I'm going to take a turn here from my usual mild-mannered methodology to a more aggressive nature aimed at the argument. Please do not take it personally, as none of it is directed at anyone here personally.
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics. This is a person who knows the agenda driven world of secular science. Specifically, I will be looking for:
1) The no-true scotsman fallacy.
2) Special pleading.
3) Damage control that does not specifically address this scientist and his damning admission.
I'm not being hostile or personal. I'm just not going to let this one off the hook so easily.
So how, in light of this revelation as to the intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning of some scientists, what are your opinions about his allegations?
it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172551
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

They can't even get their silly gospels to match up.
G_O_D wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172552
Jul 19, 2013
 
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

That is one of the most **damning** proofs that the ugly bible isn't remotely divine in any way.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172553
Jul 19, 2013
 
Making a jackass out of yourself there? Ya I am sure people want to hear your critique on forum posts while eating dinner.

The employees humor you.

Damn what a loser!

Remember you said drowning infants is a kindness... Did you tell them that?
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>I'm in McDonalds using their Wi-Fi to show people in the store how ugly atheists are. I'm specifically showing them YOUR posts. I'm searching all of the threads you have infested and so far the crowd is appalled at how filthy you are as human trash.

Keep posting. We're really getting some great discussions going as to how you will be destroyed in Hell for your weak-willed and gutless deeds as an atheist.

Even the employees are getting in on this.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172554
Jul 19, 2013
 
Sad beyond words. A christhole has sunk to a whole new level of pathetic.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>What's going on here?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172555
Jul 19, 2013
 
hat's a long drawn out way of saying I have stumped you... Still no answers I notice just an excuse for your failures.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't ran in fear. I don't read every post. I'm sorry, I just don't. I engage in dialogue with people on various subjects and I do so at my leisure. Just because I haven't answered you doesn't mean I have ran away or surrendered. I ask questions to learn the responses I am going to face when conducting apologetic evangelism out in the real world. To be quite honest, I don't expect you or anyone else here to experience an epiphany based upon what I say. It's too impersonal to expect such a favorable result. I actually use this forum as a training ground to see what the latest most extreme views are, and how I can counter them in a real-world debate. You're helping me train. And I appreciate it. Thank-you.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172557
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem comes in the very nature of science. As you have pointed out, it is limited to consideration of natural phenomena. In particular, supernatural phenomena are excluded simply because they are untestable. If something *is* testable, it is, almost by definition, natural.
<quoted text>
Actually, this is wrong. By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.
<quoted text>
Give a specific way of testing the existence of a 'supernatural'. In particular, since on 'natural' devices are allowed, anything that interacts with them is, by definition, natural. It is a problem at the veru foundation of the concept of a supernatural and is one of the reasons I see it as without actual meaning.
<quoted text>
it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.
Sometimes the supernatural becomes testable, and then natural. But this hasn't happened in a very long time.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172558
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
I have worked with first responders at accident scenes.
Of the witnesses there? Each and every one has a **different** story as to what happened-- they were **all** there.
They **all** witnessed the **exact** same events.
Yet their stories are **all** different.
"oral tradition" is even worse-- each generation adds or subtracts from the stories to give it their own spin, their own personality.
By 2 or at most 3 generations? There are so many changes they are different tales.
So no.
I'll have to aggressively counter this one Bob. You're trying to mix two different concepts to come up with a conclusion that fits your personal beliefs. At an accident scene, there will be conflicting accounts. But what the investigators look for is the core. The incidental or peripheral details actually ADD credibility to the account. And to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I've been a licensed private investigator. I've investigated everything from the usual extra-marital affairs, to insurance scams, to wrongful death claims. One thing I can tell you for sure is that eye-witness testimony is credible, and just because people give some conflicting accounts, doesn't mean there is no central truth to the event.

At a death scene, the first thing any competent investigator does is separate the witnesses. This is absolutely critical. The investigating officer doesn't just limit the case to forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can only go so far. So what does the investigator do? He or she takes statements and isolate what the witnesses agree on. If they agree on too much, that's a sign of two possibilities.

1) The responding officers didn't separate the witnesses properly.

2) Or; the witnesses had already harmonized their testimony.

If either of these two things happen, the investigation is compromised.

What the investigators want to see are the differences. They separate these differences until they are left with only the similarities. This can also be done with the canonical gospels.
This is known as harmonizing. It works, and it can be done honestly.

As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too. In ancient Judea,(as well as other cultures) there were people who had the job of memorizing and passing along oral traditions. They were known as "Tradents." These tradents used creeds and other mnemonic methods to aid in memorizing. Tradents would often perform their duties in a temple setting, or popular gathering place. Tradents could use different techniques to tell the story, but they weren't allowed to distort or embellish so that it changed the truth of the events they were talking or singing about.
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:

1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.

2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172559
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
hat's a long drawn out way of saying I have stumped you... Still no answers I notice just an excuse for your failures.
<quoted text>
Give me your toughest question. If I can't answer it I'll admit it. I don't know everything. But I have to tell you very candidly, it's not the questions, challenges, or comments you make. It's your "tone."

Do you know what I mean by that?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172560
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Alas, it's a condition that is difficult to diagnose, so it'll be a few more days, I expect, before the doctors are able to do anything apart from prophylactic measures.
I do enjoy reading what you have to say, by the way-- you make me stretch, mentally.
Which is good-- and a welcome change. That rarely happens when I read a theist's post-- usually I only have to think hard, when reading posts from crazy-smart folk, like Polymath.
:)
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172561
Jul 19, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I like travel. But I hate airplane companies, so I rarely travel...
I have been to a blue state-- alas, my pay scale is commiserate with my extremely low cost of living (one of the few bennies here), and so the blue state was rather costly from my perspective.
But I did enjoy the plethora of choices for interest-- museums and such, aplenty.
A feature that is missing here in a region where most folk are challenged just opening a cardboard 12 pack carton ...
I'm too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. C'est la vie.

I do live in a University Town down in the bootheel and close to the Big Muddy, so the atmosphere is actually a little better than other locales I could easily think of. The younger people here bring in some new ideas and a spark of hope to offset the redneck woes;0)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172562
Jul 19, 2013
 
I saw a video clip about a pipe loaded with marijuana that was left in a happy meal at a McDonald's somewhere. I can't remember where they were located....3 employees were apparently goofing off at work and put there pipe into a happy meal....These are the people that "AIE" is using to help support his rantings lol... Don't get me wrong...smoke all you want, but do it at home...not at work. Of course the employees at the McDonald's that "AIE" has stationed himself to borrow the wi-fi for a crusade against atheism, obviously don't pay too much attention to their jobs either.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172563
Jul 19, 2013
 
Go back an answer any of mine, hell pick one of the many you cowered away from. Your choice.

So funny how Christholes always want their questions asked immediately but refuse to answer your's. Effing hypocrites.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Give me your toughest question. If I can't answer it I'll admit it. I don't know everything. But I have to tell you very candidly, it's not the questions, challenges, or comments you make. It's your "tone."

Do you know what I mean by that?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172564
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172565
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It means everything: prior to Paul? There simply **was** no single group calling themselves "christians".
You're correct that early Christians didn't refer to themselves as Christians. They referred to themselves as "The Way." But that's off the subject. Paul did write before the gospels. We know Corinthians and Romans were very early.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Always, Paul writes about a celestial being-- a spirit, a ghost if you will-- never mortal flesh-and-blood.
In 1 Timothy, Paul clearly wrote that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being.

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”- 1 Timothy 2:5

In Philippians:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross -Philippians 2:5

In Romans:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -Romans 1:3

I have to ask, is your source for your claims the 2004 book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172566
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.
I agree. I think that goes for both sides of any controversial argument.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172567
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Go back an answer any of mine, hell pick one of the many you cowered away from. Your choice.
So funny how Christholes always want their questions asked immediately but refuse to answer your's. Effing hypocrites.
<quoted text>
I don't ask questions for the purpose of stumping you. I'm not looking to put another notch in my belt. Neither do I assume that any atheist is cowering from my arguments. That would be very naive and presumptuous don't you think? And have I demanded that you answer my questions? Not at all. I ask many questions for clarification purposes. I'll see if I can find one of your points of contention and do my best to answer it. I will not assume that I have won or lost, as I'm not here to win or lose. I'm here to learn, and use what I've learned in the real world of theistic/atheistic debate.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172568
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Roman Apologist wrote:
(...)I base my theism and faith on plausibility and probability and not upon certainty.(...)
Probable? Not very. To say that it is probable is to rule out innumerable other probabilities that haven't even been addressed yet.

Possible? Sure, but just because you can imagine it, and it not be disproved because it is merely able to be imagined, is meaningless and isn't interesting beyond a few minutes consideration, nor logical. Thousands of fictional books written illustrate this. It may hold my attention for some time, but I'm not going to debate just how tough it must have been for Gandalf to defeat a Balrog.

We're not talking about; Where did the cheeseburger on the table come from? You can assign probabilities to those type questions, and they can be far more complex in the nature of the question.

The real question is; Was there an "eternal creator deity" responsible for the creation of everything, and is it plausible?

No, and primarily because of the possibility and probability that, and to the exclusion of any other cause that could be, the concept of an *eternal creator entity* suggests that for whatever reason, the *eternal creator entity*-*decides*- at some random point in ITS eternal existence to create a beginning, in this instance <(The Universe)>, a scant 14 billion years ago.

But, just this <(Universe)>?

Just one 1 <(Universe)> in an eternity? We can postulate that the *eternal creator entity*-*decided*(a time related and dependent action, btw)- to originate similar "beginnings" of phenomena - 790 billion year ago - 300 trillion years ago. It becomes almost necessary or requires that you assume an infinity of *creations*, as opposed to just this singular and solitary created <(Universe)> in an *eternal creator entities* beginning-less and endless existence.

All of that suggests that this Universe is just one in a string of trillions upon trillions. Almost like a hobby or past time. Something to do to stave off boredom, or, to occupy itself. That then suggests a capricious nature. Things done on a whim, impulse. Just something to do.

But, no, theists will assert this <(Universe)> is the only time the *eternal creator entity* within ITS beginning-less and endless eternity, has -*decided*- to do this, and in this one instance.

That isn't plausible.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172569
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Go back an answer any of mine, hell pick one of the many you cowered away from. Your choice.
So funny how Christholes always want their questions asked immediately but refuse to answer your's. Effing hypocrites.
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.

I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.

1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)

2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?

3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?

4) How much of the author's bias (and ALL historical authors have bias to some degree. History isn't 100% objective) is present in the document? And how do the biases affect the document?

5) Does the document include details that are typical of eye-witness testimony?

6) Does the document include embarrassing details that would counter any bias on the author's part? In other words, does the author admit to mistakes or shortcomings? This is usually a sign of truth in historical reporting.

7) Are the documents self-consistent or consistent with other documentation that report the same event?

8) Are the events recorded intrinsically believable or unbelievable?

9) Is there other documented literary evidence that affects our analysis of the document in question?

10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?

These are the 10 criteria used by historians to discern the authenticity and reliability of any document in history. These ten tests can be applied to the four gospels with integrity. If you were to let go of your presuppositions, the results would surprise you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172570
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.

Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.

The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 165,681 - 165,700 of217,136
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••