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

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172729 Jul 21, 2013
I already asked him to illustrate how they were incorrect and as expected he fled the question in terror. When you just pull stuff right out of your christhole such critical thinking questions are terrifying.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Well, at least you have the decency to admit it's just opinion.

Which makes me ask.... why?

Since, as you claim, it's literally of infinite significance?

Why?

Why did your god not do better than that?

What was his agenda, in allowing such obfuscation to creep in to his "message"?

And why not re-release a **modern** update? One that is clearly and without any doubts, of **divine** origins?

And don't try the dodge of "faith"... that won't wash.

Infinite significance, remember? To rely on the untrustworthy faith?

Is to be evil.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172730 Jul 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't find this particularly convincing. Among other things, someone writing from the perspective of 50+ years later may very well see the first few decades as when things 'first began'. It is certainly far from clear that this means within the first 3-5 years. Furthermore, it isn't completely clear how long of a delay there was between the events and when people began to preach about the events. And how do you know this letter relates to events in Jerusalem? At best, it relates to when factions began to be formed in the early community. Since Paul was one of the foci for the development of such factions, your evidence is, at best, ambiguous.
Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.

But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172731 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here Bob. I'm confused by your wording. Untrustworthy faith? Trust is faith. That's the way I've always understood the word. If you have faith in something, it's because you trust it.
The question isn't whether you trust it. The question is whether it is trustworthy. In other words, is the trust you put in it warranted? And, the fact is, many people put trust in things that are untrustworthy.

Now, you can be circular and say that you have decided to put trust in it, so you have concluded it is trustworthy. Or you can claim that subsequent events have validated that trust and proven the trustworthiness. But in that case, it *isn't* a matter of faith; it is a matter of beliefs you feel have been tested and validated. We can argue whether the tests are valid and demonstrate your claims, but it is not faith that validates beliefs, but testing.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172732 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.
If you had knowledge? You would not need faith at all.
If you know that someone can be trusted? You don't need any faith at all-- so "faith=trust" is bs.
In fact? When there is zero fact, but you wish to insist on some wishful idea is true anyway? You rely on..
... faith.
In short? Faith is a lie you have told yourself so often, that you forgot that it was a lie in the first place.
No god, who is good, would rely on faith alone.
To do so, is to be evil.
Because-- by definition-- faith is **never** based on fact (else you'd not need faith at all), so faith is based on not-a-fact.
A lie, as I already explained.
<quoted text>
No--it's because you have knowledge of it, or else you **think** you have knowledge of it (sometimes based in false "information" someone else has fed you).
To trust without knowledge is to be naive-- not unlike an innocent, but inexperienced child.
I expect better from any being worthy of the title "god".
And so, I must ask **why**, if the messages in the bible are literally of ***infinite*** consequence?
Why are there no certainties within it?
What sort of god writes a confusing and muddled-up mess, and then...
... goes **silent** for 2000+ years, with nary a reinforcement-repeat message?
Hint: if you **already** believe? Then the repeat-messages are not for **you**, are they? You've already given up and allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the ...
... well, no other word to call it: the lies.
Without facts to back it? It's opinion-- lies, to be blunt.
Ah, yes, Faith in Action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/health/paki...

Wait, WTF??

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172733 Jul 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The question isn't whether you trust it. The question is whether it is trustworthy. In other words, is the trust you put in it warranted? And, the fact is, many people put trust in things that are untrustworthy.

Now, you can be circular and say that you have decided to put trust in it, so you have concluded it is trustworthy. Or you can claim that subsequent events have validated that trust and proven the trustworthiness. But in that case, it *isn't* a matter of faith; it is a matter of beliefs you feel have been tested and validated. We can argue whether the tests are valid and demonstrate your claims, but it is not faith that validates beliefs, but testing.
As always you separate the chaff from the wheat here, and distill it down to words even *I* can understand.

Thanks-- you are correct-- it's the **testing** that generates new knowledge.

Without testing and verification? It's just ..

... Harry Potter-esque.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172734 Jul 21, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, yes, Faith in Action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/health/paki...
Wait, WTF??
To alleviate them a smidgen? The CIA did commit fraud with respect to vaccines a little while ago.

Alas.

They posed as vaccinating doctors (and they actually **did** administer real vaccines), but were secretly gathering intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Queida and other would-be terrorists.

Alas, they couldn't keep this secret, and what they were doing -- leaked.

Now, the locals have an excellent excuse to distrust would be purveyors of vaccines....!

Horrid consequence-- but the CIA's never been real good at seeing the consequences of their insipid stupidity.

Iran/Contra, anyone?

.... meh.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172735 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.
If you had knowledge? You would not need faith at all.
If you know that someone can be trusted? You don't need any faith at all-- so "faith=trust" is bs.
In fact? When there is zero fact, but you wish to insist on some wishful idea is true anyway? You rely on..
... faith.
In short? Faith is a lie you have told yourself so often, that you forgot that it was a lie in the first place.
No god, who is good, would rely on faith alone.
To do so, is to be evil.
Because-- by definition-- faith is **never** based on fact (else you'd not need faith at all), so faith is based on not-a-fact.
A lie, as I already explained.
<quoted text>
No--it's because you have knowledge of it, or else you **think** you have knowledge of it (sometimes based in false "information" someone else has fed you).
To trust without knowledge is to be naive-- not unlike an innocent, but inexperienced child.
I expect better from any being worthy of the title "god".
And so, I must ask **why**, if the messages in the bible are literally of ***infinite*** consequence?
Why are there no certainties within it?
What sort of god writes a confusing and muddled-up mess, and then...
... goes **silent** for 2000+ years, with nary a reinforcement-repeat message?
Hint: if you **already** believe? Then the repeat-messages are not for **you**, are they? You've already given up and allowed yourself to be indoctrinated into the ...
... well, no other word to call it: the lies.
Without facts to back it? It's opinion-- lies, to be blunt.
Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...

I myself don't operate in a mindless vacuum of certainty. I don't know of anyone who does. Day in and day out we all make choices based on probability. If we choose to take a different route to work, it's based on the probability that another route is too busy or is too long, or has too many turns, etc. I approach trust/faith the same way. I evaluate everything on a scale that ranges like this:

Possibility>>>Plausib ility>>>Probability >>>Certainty

I don't have to be certain of something to trust it. I happen to live less than 500 yards from a traffic light. I trust it everyday based on the probability. Was there ever a time that this traffic signal didn't work? Yes. During storms and power outages. So can I be certain it will function 100% of the time? No. Nobody operates with 100% certainty all the time. If they did, they'd never leave the toilet.

As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree. I trust the evidence that is available to us. it's not 100% certain. I allow for the difference in culture, the chronological span, the language barrier, etc. I can't afford to assume that my lack of understanding negates the truthfulness or fallacy of any historical claim. If this is of infinite and eternal importance, then I am the last person I should trust.

Let me ask you a question. If God was to suddenly appear, leaving no question in the minds of humankind about his identity, what do you think the fear factor would be like?

And I still don't understand what you mean by the "dodge of faith." Call me slow on that one. You'll have to explain what you mean a little more in detail.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172736 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
To alleviate them a smidgen? The CIA did commit fraud with respect to vaccines a little while ago.
Alas.
They posed as vaccinating doctors (and they actually **did** administer real vaccines), but were secretly gathering intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Queida and other would-be terrorists.
Alas, they couldn't keep this secret, and what they were doing -- leaked.
Now, the locals have an excellent excuse to distrust would be purveyors of vaccines....!
Horrid consequence-- but the CIA's never been real good at seeing the consequences of their insipid stupidity.
Iran/Contra, anyone?
.... meh.
True.

And yet the children are crippled.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172737 Jul 21, 2013
Exactly. This doesn't even get into how much even on those first 4 centuries were changed around and edited once they did finally get penned.

If someone really thinks that the copy of the gospels people have in their bible today matches up with those ancient scrolls they are woefully mistaken. Even the scrolls vary from minor changes to entire paragraphs added or removed!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.

But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172738 Jul 21, 2013
I think your biggest problem is you rely far too much on personal bias and belief. This is fine if you want to discuss your faith with fellow Christians, but if you want to step into our world based in observable reality you will need facts.

I can tell you rely on presupposition thinking that others deep down agree with you. This is childish and makes a fool of out of you.

When wanting to debate or sway an atheist you will need to use testable, verifiable data not personal opinions and your habit of dodging questions and deliberately changing the subject when you are stumped, one of your favorites we see, only makes you look foolish.

I grew up in a friendly little baptist church. So your tactics are nothing new for me as the youth ministers and even boss man preacher would do the same thing. Avoid questions, give excises why they didn't want to answer them and change the subject.

Of anyone would try to do that in any other circumstance they would be laughed out of the room.

Let me show you an example of how you look.

Teacher: Little Johnny? Stand up and tell us what is 8 x 8.
Little Johnny: 8 times 8 teacher is a construct of your mind and really has no certifiable answer.
Teacher: Little Johnny we are not discussing philosophy we are having a multiplication test on Friday. Do you know the answer?
Little Johnny: We have several experts across the world who would look at that from a variety of standpoints. Here is just one, Mr. Smith of Sacramento California is studying the stray cats in his neighborhood. He noticed that when he gave them milk and cat food compared to milk and tuna fish they would...
Teacher: That has no relevance to your multiplication test. Do you know the answer or not?
Little Johnny: I have answered your question, sorry if it didn't meet your expectations. If you would look at the stray cats when they had cat food and milk compared to..
Class: Sigh....
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...

I myself don't operate in a mindless vacuum of certainty. I don't know of anyone who does. Day in and day out we all make choices based on probability. If we choose to take a different route to work, it's based on the probability that another route is too busy or is too long, or has too many turns, etc. I approach trust/faith the same way. I evaluate everything on a scale that ranges like this:

Possibility>>>Plausib ility>>>Probability >>>Certainty

I don't have to be certain of something to trust it. I happen to live less than 500 yards from a traffic light. I trust it everyday based on the probability. Was there ever a time that this traffic signal didn't work? Yes. During storms and power outages. So can I be certain it will function 100% of the time? No. Nobody operates with 100% certainty all the time. If they did, they'd never leave the toilet.

As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree. I trust the evidence that is available to us. it's not 100% certain. I allow for the difference in culture, the chronological span, the language barrier, etc. I can't afford to assume that my lack of understanding negates the truthfulness or fallacy of any historical claim. If this is of infinite and eternal importance, then I am the last person I should trust.

Let me ask you a question. If God was to suddenly appear, leaving no question in the minds of humankind about his identity, what do you think the fear factor would be like?

And I still don't understand what you mean by the "dodge of faith." Call me slow on that one. You'll have to explain what you mean a little more in detail.
Atheist

Chino, CA

#172739 Jul 21, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
If you have no evidence to prove life origins then that mean you are a person of FAITH. At least the Christians and other documented religions admit they are people of FAITH.
Hah, we dont have faith in evidence and logic, we have trust.
Faith is blindly believing, trust is believing because the material, person, etc. has shown progress,so we take this and we use logic to think: "since this person has been faithful, or since this theory has much scientific proof, I can trust it". On the other hand, faith is thinking: "Although there is no proof or evidence in this supernatural being, I shall choose to believe in it because of whatever illogical reason, such as eternal life, or a freebe for doing nothing in my lifetime".

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172740 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree with you-- the most optimistic dates appear to be no earlier than 60CE. And possibly as late as 120CE.
But even 60CE is too little, too late-- with an average lifespan of barely 30 years? Likely nobody alive, by 60CE, who was at the alleged events.
What are the sources for determining lifespans? How do we know that 30 was the average? I would agree with this for the region of Judea before the Roman conquest. But after the Roman conquest? I'm quite sure that we could expect better medical treatment, a better water delivery and sanitation system for which Rome was famous and unrivaled in engineering, and given all of these factors, shouldn't we expect that the mortality rates would drop and life expectancies to increase in proportion?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13...

http://www.odyeda.com/English/JewishTimeline....

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172741 Jul 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I think your biggest problem is you rely far too much on personal bias and belief. This is fine if you want to discuss your faith with fellow Christians, but if you want to step into our world based in observable reality you will need facts.
I can tell you rely on presupposition thinking that others deep down agree with you. This is childish and makes a fool of out of you.
When wanting to debate or sway an atheist you will need to use testable, verifiable data not personal opinions and your habit of dodging questions and deliberately changing the subject when you are stumped, one of your favorites we see, only makes you look foolish.
I grew up in a friendly little baptist church. So your tactics are nothing new for me as the youth ministers and even boss man preacher would do the same thing. Avoid questions, give excises why they didn't want to answer them and change the subject.
Of anyone would try to do that in any other circumstance they would be laughed out of the room.
Let me show you an example of how you look.
Teacher: Little Johnny? Stand up and tell us what is 8 x 8.
Little Johnny: 8 times 8 teacher is a construct of your mind and really has no certifiable answer.
Teacher: Little Johnny we are not discussing philosophy we are having a multiplication test on Friday. Do you know the answer?
Little Johnny: We have several experts across the world who would look at that from a variety of standpoints. Here is just one, Mr. Smith of Sacramento California is studying the stray cats in his neighborhood. He noticed that when he gave them milk and cat food compared to milk and tuna fish they would...
Teacher: That has no relevance to your multiplication test. Do you know the answer or not?
Little Johnny: I have answered your question, sorry if it didn't meet your expectations. If you would look at the stray cats when they had cat food and milk compared to..
Class: Sigh....
<quoted text>
Wow I'm glad you like me so much!:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172742 Jul 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
When wanting to debate or sway an atheist you will need to use testable, verifiable data not personal opinions and your habit of dodging questions and deliberately changing the subject when you are stumped, one of your favorites we see, only makes you look foolish.
I grew up in a friendly little baptist church. So your tactics are nothing new for me as the youth ministers and even boss man preacher would do the same thing. Avoid questions, give excises why they didn't want to answer them and change the subject.
You give yourself way too much credit and importance. What makes you think I would waste my time trying to convince you of anything? I keep telling you I'm not here to convince you or convert you. I've answered many of your questions. Just not in the way you want me to.

And here's a little special announcement just for YOU. Since you seem to be my biggest fan here,(cough)(yes that was sarcasm) I've decided that since you're so cocky and sure of yourself, you must already know everything. Uh-oh. That can mean only one thing. If you know everything, you must be GOD! You really do exist! Problem solved!! Then that means I don't have to answer your questions! You already know everything!:D

Mental checklist:

He just "knew" I was lying about the ten tests...

He just knew I wasn't answering him on his own terms so therefore my answers didn't count...

Yep!! You sure are omniscient!

LOL

Sarcasm was a free bonus, but until midnight only. Please have parents permission before ordering another package of ignorance.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172747 Jul 21, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
All that crap and all you will hear is "I never knew you". I'm so glad I don't share your burdens.
Just admit it, you want to validate your wickedness, your disobedience, your disgraceful life, and it's just not working out at all for you.
Knowledge is gained after having faith. Since you have no faith, you are left with no knowledge and you are very angry.
We all see that with your daily outbursts and lies.
You are in no way a person that needs to make any comments about knowledge.. you only share your hateful opinions. You are also in no way a person who should comment on anything about anger, and anyone who may hold it. You have accused so many of being angry, but yet you post things such as hoping someone would die in a fiery car crash...

Life on topix would be much more peaceful without your rantings and accusations and hatefulness.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172748 Jul 21, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
He gives me so much credit that he even changed his moniker because of me. I'm so proud that my faith has irritated him so much.
Yeah...oh how sweet to admit your love of being abhorrent. It's very disgusting... and you get off on it. Thanks for finally admitting it.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172749 Jul 21, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
All that crap and all you will hear is "I never knew you". I'm so glad I don't share your burdens.
Just admit it, you want to validate your wickedness, your disobedience, your disgraceful life, and it's just not working out at all for you.
Knowledge is gained after having faith. Since you have no faith, you are left with no knowledge and you are very angry.
We all see that with your daily outbursts and lies.
I am civil to those who are civil to me. Bob has been nothing but civil to me. Does he challenge me? Yes he does. Do I challenge him? He says I do and I have no reason to call him a liar. I'd like to ask you to lighten up on him. Most of the atheists here are reasonable even if we disagree.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172750 Jul 21, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
He gives me so much credit that he even changed his moniker because of me. I'm so proud that my faith has irritated him so much.
I'm sure your "god" has a special spot for you in heaven for spreading his "good" word lol

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172751 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...
I am aware of the use of the word.

But make no mistake-- we are speaking of **religious** faith here.

In that meaning of the word, no atheist has any of that-- by definition.

So your attempt to deflect my points is not going to work.

I suppose I could have been more specific:

All **religious** faith is based on nothing.

If they had **facts** they would not need to depend on faith.

Would they?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172752 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree.
The problem here? Once you go down the faith-road?

You are forever incapable of being objective about what comes next.

Thus,**all** of your subsequent perceptions are subjective to that faith.

And barring something that shakes your fundamental faith? You'll remain non-objective with respect to what you experience.

But.

Reality does not care if you believe or not.

And reality is what it is-- there seems to be zero facts backing the idea of a god.

In reality-- if you remove all the trappings of faith.

And there you have it.

Without your faith first? You have no evidence in support of any god.

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) 12 min FYI 1,155,770
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 46 min Trojan 28,454
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr IBdaMann 2,734
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 9 hr ivyawe 1
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 hr Pearl Jam 307,067
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 14 hr Bently 201,187
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) Wed Lora_14 10
More from around the web