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

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172773 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I'm not trying to deflect Bob. Allow me to explain.

I think the word faith has been given multiple definitions over the years based upon mistaken perceptions. My blunt opinion is that faith=trust. For some reason, people like to think they're separate, and I don't think they should be separate. Religious beliefs shouldn't be the criteria by which we define the word, even though in history, that's exactly what happened. I blame the Catholic church for it's dogmatic and at times forceful methodology in discouraging inquiry. Because of this rigid dogma, converts were discouraged from asking questions and just told to accept whatever the Vatican decreed. This was still the attitude at the Catholic school I attended as a young boy. This was a huge disservice to converts, and was one of the major factors behind the Protestant Reformation.

I firmly believe that the early church fathers (the Apostles and their disciples) used the word faith in the way I do. Trust. They trusted because they honestly believed they had seen the risen Christ.

When I look at the total body of evidence, the big picture, I see how it all comes together, and how I can trust (have faith) in the probability. I think that the Christian church of the 21st century is starting to realize this mistake, and is replacing the word faith with trust. For many of us, they are one and same.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172775 Jul 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know where your towel is?
Wait, I got red-flagged by the effing robocensor for my last post???

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172776 Jul 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Panic
Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...
Thinking

York, UK

#172777 Jul 22, 2013
Or six by nine.

&li st=PL1Ff4SgStx9YpHw0c3ZO3yBJgf loOhQzM&t=1980
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172778 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I firmly believe that the early church fathers (the Apostles and their disciples) used the word faith in the way I do. Trust. They trusted because they honestly believed they had seen the risen Christ.
People claimed to have seen Elvis after he died. More relevantly, they also claimed to have seen David Koresh.
When I look at the total body of evidence, the big picture, I see how it all comes together, and how I can trust (have faith) in the probability. I think that the Christian church of the 21st century is starting to realize this mistake, and is replacing the word faith with trust. For many of us, they are one and same.
When I look at the 'big picture', I see the case for Christianity fall apart in many ways.

I see the growth of a legend and its interaction with a larger society that was superstitious and prone to mystery cults. I see the mass production of stories that were back-attributed to the apostles and carried the biases of later believers. I see a dynamic between the Jewish and the Roman cultures that began long before Jesus supposedly existed and continued long after. I see the adoption of the cult a few centuries later by an emperor looking for a base of power. I see the books of the Bible chosen to support the power of the emperor. I see a battle early on between those who believed in a divine Christ who became human and those who did not think he was actually human. I see a previous battle between those who were Jewish and saw Jesus' message as directed to them, and Paul who wanted to spread the message to the Romans.

In all of this, power and superstition were dominant considerations. Hardly the way to preserve truth.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172779 Jul 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know where your towel is?
There's a frood who really knows where his towel is

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172780 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith [religious] is not evidence--- it is always going to cloud the perceptions of anyone who has it.
But most religions attempt to get around the 100% lack of **objective** facts in support of their claims of god(s), by saying "faith-- you must have faith".
They are correct, of course--without faith, they have zip.
But **with** faith? The human mind is clouded by said faith, and will **create** whatever it needs to "justify" the faith.
In a lovely bit of boot-strapping.
The classic dodge is: "the bible is true because the bible says it is true".
Circular [non]reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Faith is the ultimate in circular reasoning.
That is what I mean by "dodge of faith".
I never said that faith is evidence. Evidence is what supports faith. Evidence is what supports the decisions that a jury makes in a court case. The jury doesn't deliberate until all the available and reasonable evidence is in and the attorneys submit their closing arguments. The jury can't say "We find the defendant guilty/not guilty" and then go looking for reasons to justify it. That wouldn't be justice. That would be foolish. Likewise, it's supposed to work the same way with Christianity. We're supposed to ask questions and weigh the merits of the total argument, not just small pieces and sound bytes.

The stereotype is that Christians say "Yup we believe" and then go looking for reasons to believe. That is just stupid. And it's equally stupid (no offense intended) to apply that stereotype to all Christians. Some of us really do think and consider the evidence.

That brings me to the next point. What is and isn't evidence?
That is undoubtedly a major point of contention. What is the standard of evidence? Is it the preponderance of the evidence which is 51% or higher, or is it beyond reasonable doubt? With all due respect to the uninitiated in legal and historical matters, the higher standard is only applied in criminal cases. Not civil cases or historical research. Certainty isn't the goal in presenting evidence for the spiritual seeker. Certainty would have us all in Vegas or never leaving the bathroom.

The Christian church is undergoing a radical change in which discussion about doubt and church history is being encouraged instead of discouraged. People want real answers before placing trust in Jesus, and I think it's right that they do. Trust shouldn't be blind as has been the attitude. Neither should people be told "Well just believe first and then we'll give you the reasons why later." No. That's dishonest. That's why you're seeing a sharp decline in mainline church populations. But that doesn't mean Christianity is declining. It means that the traditional view of church and the Christian faith is changing. House churches are on the rise. With a house church, most if not all of the funds collected go directly towards charitable causes right in the local community, because there are no administrative costs associated with the church.

Sorry to be so long on this post, but the old stereotypes are being challenged. Perceptions are being challenged in both believers and skeptics.

My faith didn't come first. The evidence built my trust from the ground up because I was willing to follow the evidence wherever it took me. And where it took me was to the probability that Jesus is who he claimed, and that all my old perceptions of an old angry petty cosmic tyrant were false because I hadn't allowed for the cultural/historical differences, and because I was too proud to admit being wrong. It took me 20 years to come to this conclusion. It couldn't happen overnight, and that's why I don't try to convince you in one argument. I give you small snippets to mentally chew on. Only you can decide if your mind is open enough to consider putting your stereotypes aside. I can't decide for you or tell you what to do. I can only tell you what worked for me.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172781 Jul 22, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...
I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe

I blame the Golgafrinchans
Thinking

York, UK

#172782 Jul 22, 2013
Especially as there are very few telephone kiosks left to sanitise these days.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe
I blame the Golgafrinchans

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172783 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Especially as there are very few telephone kiosks left to sanitise these days.
<quoted text>
You have it, the problem with the universe is the lack of telephone boxes

Who is this god person anyway?
Thinking

York, UK

#172784 Jul 22, 2013
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it, the problem with the universe is the lack of telephone boxes
Who is this god person anyway?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172785 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologits wrote:

<quoted text>Hundreds of thousands? Can you provide me a less vague figure? If there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, isn't it possible that there are many more scientists who will NOT admit that their worldview influences their method? Have there been more than one or two corrupt police officers in the history of criminal justice? And what is your opinion of this one scientist who admitted that the secular scientific community regularly and purposely rigs the methodology for the specific purpose of excluding supernatural phenomena? Isn't that dishonest?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences one of the larges bodies of scientist world wide fully support evolution. It is the "dominate stance" among earth and life scientists world wide. A survey of 480,000 earth and life scientist found only 5% believe in theistic evolution, the rest believe that evolution is a natural processes.

This large body of scientists also completely reject any I.D. beliefs because it is simply NOT science. I.D. can NOT be tested by experiment, generates NO predictions and proposes NO hypothesis of their own.

A 2009 Pew Research Poll found that 97% of ALL scientists support evolution, 87% say the the processes of evolution are not Theistic but are due to natural processes such as natural selection. If you further want to claim these natural processes are God driven, you need to produce verifiable evidence.

The dominant position in the scientific community is that all living things have evolved due to a natural process. That view is shared by only 1/3 of the public, 32%. Why is that? Could it be religion. That people are so brainwashed that they completely ignore what 87%, the MAJORITY, the DOMINANT STANCE", of ALL earth and life scientists WORLD-WIDE claim to be factual. I find this one of the most compelling examples of how religion poisons everything.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172786 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>Hundreds of thousands? Can you provide me a less vague figure? If there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, isn't it possible that there are many more scientists who will NOT admit that their worldview influences their method? Have there been more than one or two corrupt police officers in the history of criminal justice? And what is your opinion of this one scientist who admitted that the secular scientific community regularly and purposely rigs the methodology for the specific purpose of excluding supernatural phenomena? Isn't that dishonest?

Sorry to be "Vague" but my last pot and this post are very specific.

The American Association For The Advancement Of Science is the worlds largest scientific society with more than 130,000 members and more than 262 affiliated societies and academies of science that includes over 10 million members. This body overwhelmingly accepts and supports evolution. Of course it goes without saying, or maybe not, that anyone who supports the fact of evolution also supports a process that has been operating for millions of years. So we can add this huge body of scientist as supporting a process than spans millions of years.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172787 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
<quoted text>
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172788 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
That brings me to the next point. What is and isn't evidence?
That is undoubtedly a major point of contention. What is the standard of evidence? Is it the preponderance of the evidence which is 51% or higher, or is it beyond reasonable doubt? With all due respect to the uninitiated in legal and historical matters, the higher standard is only applied in criminal cases. Not civil cases or historical research. Certainty isn't the goal in presenting evidence for the spiritual seeker. Certainty would have us all in Vegas or never leaving the bathroom.
If your claim is the existence of a supernatural, then yes, I do want evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has to be established *before* we can take the story of Jesus at face value. If the evidence for Jesus isn't at *least* beyond a reasonable doubt, then it simply isn't sufficient to demonstrate its claim: that Jesus was a deity incarnate.

This is not simply a historical question. The historical question is whether some preacher in the early first century taught the things attributed to Jesus and was then killed by hanging on a cross.*That* requires a much lower standard of evidence than the much more relevant issue of the supernatural claims about Jesus' identity. Whether there were people who *believed* that Jesus rose from the dead is another historical question. But even the existence of people with this belief is insufficient for the proof that they were correct in their beliefs.

So, even if we could prove the historical existence of a preacher that taught as Jesus did in the gospels, and that there were people who honestly believed they saw him alive afterwards, is that sufficient to show that Jesus was, indeed, a divinity made human? No. Far from it. The standards of evidence for the two cases is far different. One, as you say, is a historical question with lower standards of proof (partly by necessity), but also more doubt about the conclusions made. The other is a deep question about the nature of reality and needs to be addressed separately and with a much higher standard of proof.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172789 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:

<quoted text>Hundreds of thousands? Can you provide me a less vague figure? If there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, isn't it possible that there are many more scientists who will NOT admit that their worldview influences their method? Have there been more than one or two corrupt police officers in the history of criminal justice? And what is your opinion of this one scientist who admitted that the secular scientific community regularly and purposely rigs the methodology for the specific purpose of excluding supernatural phenomena? Isn't that dishonest?

Is it possible that there are many more scientist who will NOT admit that their worldview influences their method? I have no idea, do you? Do you have some figures that bear this out? And you tell me I'm being "vague."

What do I think of the ONE scientists opinion? I think maybe he was f-cked over by someone, or maybe thought he was not appreciated, or a scientific find he made proven to be fraudulent, and he decided to cry like a baby and try to discredit other scientists. Once again can you be "More vague?" Name, date, any information about this ONE individual might help your case, though I doubt ONE whiner, will convince anyone.

blacklagoon wrote:
As was pointed out to you, Millers experiments were NOT dishonest, we was working with the information available at that time, he was NOT trying to deceive anyone.

Roman Apologists wrote:

<quoted text>How do you know that for sure?

I know that the materials and the information he was working with were 50 years behind the times.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172790 Jul 22, 2013
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.
Somehow I can't imagine that anyone is concerned about YOU and the crowd of obese drooling low IQ numbskulls who frequent McDonalds. Slackjawed idiots sitting and consuming mountains of salt and Fat, heart attacks waiting to happen, aren't much a concern to intelligent people. I'm surprised they actually know the meaning of words like "Specifically" of "infested" You're probably not to sure of these words either, are you? Now back to your mountain of fries and your big mac, I'll bet you have a 1000 calorie Chocolate shake with that great meal right? You poor slob, Here a life saving tip for you..........SALAD!!!!!!!!!!
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172791 Jul 22, 2013
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.
REALLY?.......Is your life really this empty that you sit around McDonalds (of all places) and dribble away on Wi-FI? Is your life that meaningless? Here let me guess....Your at least 50 lbs overweight, have either NO job, or a menial one, live at home with Mom, both of your friends, if you have any at all, are also 50 lbs overweight, you wallet is attached to your baggy pants with a huge chain, to protect your 6 dollar McDonald's money. I'm right aren't I.....Yeah I thought so!!!!
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#172792 Jul 22, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Another gutless atheist showing how worthless his life is.
Nice driveway.......do stop it and engage in an adult dialog....that is if you dare.....which I doubt very seriously. You can ALWAYS tell the religious cowards, they dart in for a quick and witless comment, and dart back out, way to cowardly to stop and take part with the adults. Too funny!!!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172793 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Or six by nine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zBmdkhDGZ8AXX&list=PL1Ff4 SgStx9YpHw0c3ZO3yBJgfloOhQzM &t=1980
<quoted text>
*snicker*

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 42 min Fair Game 2,203
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr Yeah 1,144,229
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 28,252
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 8 hr Roy the Boy 646
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 hr -Michelle- 306,600
Pat Summitt files for divorce after 27 years of... (Aug '07) Tue Mr bobo 145
Haas Leads Purdue Past Grambling State, 82-30 Nov 22 ngzcaz 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE