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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#173198 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying atheism prohibits free thought?
Atheists are more likely to be free thinkers, but there is a difference,
atheism is the rejection of deities, while free thought says.

There is insufficient evidence of deities.

Free thought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4 ]

Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173199 Aug 1, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence? That's what I thought...
Indeed-- there is zero evidence for your god.

Good!

You are learning!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#173200 Aug 1, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree that natural causes should be considered before supernatural causes. But insisting that supernatural causes have to be testable to verify their existence seems extreme to me. If there are supernatural beings, they must be capable of free movement between our time/space existence and another plane of existence. Paranormal investigators use thermal scanners and sound recording equipment, and have developed fair criteria to determine whether or not an event is natural or supernatural. The methodologies are constantly being evaluated and improved to look for fraudulent practices in the field environment.
I find that the charge of "insufficient evidence" is too much of a convenient argument. It appears to be a philosophical and emotional escape hatch for the atheist who doesn't wish to find himself or herself cornered by evidence that is difficult to refute. It allows for too much "subjective value" which is emotionally based at the core, while grasping for whatever naturalist philosophies will support the atheistic worldview.
Great post. I'm saving it as well.

Very concise and rational.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173201 Aug 1, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism isn't the default position of humanity. The default position of humanity is exploration. If you put an average 8 month old baby on the floor you will see that the child's natural instinct is to explore the surroundings. The child won't sit there in doubt of whether anything exists. The child won't doubt whether or not he or she can climb or crawl. The child will explore and move wherever there aren't any obstacles, and will do so with an inquisitive open mind.
Atheism corresponds to the obstacles placed in the mental path of exploration by the individual. Obstacles to faith are self-imposed obstacles.
Athiesm is the lack of faith in stupid shyt (any and all gods).

That's it.

The crawling kid has NO FAITH in gods of ANY kind. NONE.

He's an atheist.

Until he's fed The Lies. And forced to REPEAT The Lies.

Eventually?

His brain becomes damaged, and he forgot it WAS a lie...

.. THEN?

We call him a believer.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173202 Aug 1, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you say this because you just contradicted what another one of your co-atheists said while attempting to refute me about how the disgusting religion of atheism has caused such a crime increase since your disciple and deacon of atheism, O'Hair, stirred the cult of atheism up in 1963.
I said in my post that atheism is the chief reason our world has become so much more of a violent and criminal world .
Your stupid atheist friend then posted a link where crime is down in America in the last decade or two (which I strongly disagree with).
Now one of you two , or both , is lying. I think you both are liars.
You seem to have no reading comprehension. Pity.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173203 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>some helpful quotes (IMO) that I know annoy religious fanatics:
"A fanatic is one who can't change their mind and won't change the subject."
- Winston Churchill
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
~ Akhenaton
Ma'am, there's only one God, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.
-Steve Rogers The Avengers
Its bad manners to say I love you with a mouth full of lies.
-Seen on Facebook
Man creates his own demons from the part of him whats closest to his animal fears. He takes them to bed with him, and they lie down together for a fit-filled sleep.
-Waddie Greywolf
"People take different roads seeking happiness and fulfillment. Just because they aren't on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost"
-The Dalai Lama
"Be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
Romans 12:2
Namaste my friend.
Those are good.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173204 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for reminding us of one of the smartest saying plumbers have ever invented.
Shyt flows downhill?

Or ... never chew your fingernails?

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173205 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>That's Agnosticism.
Agnosticism is a claim about the possibility of knowing. "gnosticsm" means "to know" or "knowledge".
DNF wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of religious beliefs and is based on a humanist approach to social issues and morals.
False.

Atheism means not-theism. Not-goddism.

It literally means not having faith in supernatural woo.

It is **not** a rejection so much as a request for **proof**.

That's it.

You bring the proof of god(s)?

And you will be the first person in the history of the planet to do so....

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173206 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>whoever voted the dim bulb icon might want to check Biblegateway and look at the story in all it's translations.
I say MIGHT because I doubt the will.
"A fanatic is one who can't change their mind and won't change the subject."
- Winston Churchill
The war we see today between worldviews is one of extremes. Polymath seems to be one of the more levelheaded skeptics here, and Quantum Bob seems to maintain a respectable tone even though we disagree passionately.

The "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" are the ones at each others throats while the rest of us look on in disbelief at the ignorance on both sides.

Speaking of Winston Churchill, one of my favorite quotes from him came during an exchange with Lady Nancy Astor:

Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.

And from an unknown author:

"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right."

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173207 Aug 1, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The war we see today between worldviews is one of extremes. Polymath seems to be one of the more levelheaded skeptics here, and Quantum Bob seems to maintain a respectable tone even though we disagree passionately.
The "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" are the ones at each others throats while the rest of us look on in disbelief at the ignorance on both sides.
Speaking of Winston Churchill, one of my favorite quotes from him came during an exchange with Lady Nancy Astor:
Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."
Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.
And from an unknown author:
"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right."
Apologists are modern day liars with no morals and no spine.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173208 Aug 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Apologists are modern day liars with no morals and no spine.
How do you come to that conclusion?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173209 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>That's Agnosticism. Atheism is the rejection of religious beliefs and is based on a humanist approach to social issues and morals. But feel free to continue to spew half truths just like those you mock.
<quoted text>Again please stop blending Atheism with agnosticism.
You only make yourself look foolish IMO.
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173210 Aug 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Apologists are modern day liars with no morals and no spine.
Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. It's usually used by somebody who attacks the character of a person rather than the argument itself, and in your case you do so with no personal knowledge of me. If stated without such personal knowledge this is a lie, and as such, is a demonstration of immorality. It fails to answer or critique the argument and seeks to demean the person instead which seems to be the easier task, thus revealing a "lack of spine."

Don't you defend Darwinian Evolution" as being true? If yes, you too are an apologist.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173211 Aug 1, 2013
It doesn't talk about his birth? Get a grip! Lol! That was weak even for an ignorant christhole like you. Note it says they LIVED there until he was 2 and then fled to Egypt. Luke mentions not a word about fleeing to Egypt and says they lived in Nazareth. So I guess you are claiming they lived in the manger for 2 years instead of returning to their house in Nazareth? Lol!

You have been busted lying again.

And you know it.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Matthew Chapter 2 says *NOTHING* of the birth narrative. Matthew Chapter 2 is about the visit from the Magi and the escape into Egypt and subsequent return to Nazareth. The birth narrative in Matthew is very sparse and so doesn't say what you're claiming.

The Luke narrative expands the account so we see why Joseph was traveling to Bethlehem. Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for the census. This would be like you traveling to Cleveland, Ohio with your wife and her giving birth there, even though your home is in Kentucky.

Your argumentum ad hominem and lack of understanding of ancient writing styles has exposed the weakness of your position.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173212 Aug 1, 2013
It's so cute when socks talk to each other!

Oh and I wanted to add who would stay in another city for 2 years if their wife gave birth there instead of returning home?

I wouldn't stay in Cleveland an extra weeks let alone an extra 2 years instead of taking my baby home.

Oops sorry for interrupting your obvious sock to sock talk. Continue to gush over how smart your other sock is! Wow sorry but you went wayyyyyyy over the top there.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>whoever voted the dim bulb icon might want to check Biblegateway and look at the story in all it's translations.

I say MIGHT because I doubt the will.

"A fanatic is one who can't change their mind and won't change the subject."
- Winston Churchill

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173213 Aug 1, 2013
Why is it all your socks joined around the same few months in 2007? Obviously you were on some sock crusade back then as well.

Pathetic
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>The war we see today between worldviews is one of extremes. Polymath seems to be one of the more levelheaded skeptics here, and Quantum Bob seems to maintain a respectable tone even though we disagree passionately.

The "fundamentalists" and "militant atheists" are the ones at each others throats while the rest of us look on in disbelief at the ignorance on both sides.

Speaking of Winston Churchill, one of my favorite quotes from him came during an exchange with Lady Nancy Astor:

Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.”

And from an unknown author:

"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173214 Aug 1, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>That's Agnosticism. Atheism is the rejection of religious beliefs and is based on a humanist approach to social issues and morals. But feel free to continue to spew half truths just like those you mock.
<quoted text>Again please stop blending Atheism with agnosticism.
You only make yourself look foolish IMO.
Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about the existence of God or the supernatural is impossible. This is not a position that I hold.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or supernatural. What I presented is the reason for my lack of belief in a God or supernatural: both the lack of evidence for such and the inherent incoherence of the concept of a supernatural.

I do have an affinity to ignosticism: that the whole concept of 'God' is incoherent.

I am also a humanist, but that is a separate issue having to do with ethics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173215 Aug 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Atheists are more likely to be free thinkers, but there is a difference,
atheism is the rejection of deities, while free thought says.
There is insufficient evidence of deities.
Free thought
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4 ]
Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
I disagree with your definition of atheism. It is the lack of belief in deities, not necessarily the rejection of such beliefs. I would also say the the reasonable position is lack of belief in the face of insufficient evidence. Of course, as the lack of evidence is prolonged to a sufficient point, it can also be reasonable to reject the belief. I believe that point has been reached.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173216 Aug 1, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree that natural causes should be considered before supernatural causes. But insisting that supernatural causes have to be testable to verify their existence seems extreme to me.
And it seems to be a minimal standard to me.
If there are supernatural beings, they must be capable of free movement between our time/space existence and another plane of existence.
Let's analyze this a bit more closely, shall we? Is this movement a movement of energy? matter? anything detectable? If it is energy or matter, how do you deal with the resulting lack of conservation of energy in *this* plane of existence? If it is not energy, in what sense is there motion?
Paranormal investigators use thermal scanners and sound recording equipment, and have developed fair criteria to determine whether or not an event is natural or supernatural. The methodologies are constantly being evaluated and improved to look for fraudulent practices in the field environment.
And what, exactly, are these 'fair criteria'? How do you account for the extra energy of heat or sound? That again would be a violation of conservation of energy. How would you account for a sound wave being generated? By what process? Why in our hearing range? Temperature changes also show a dramatic energy shift. Again, that would be a substantial violation of conservation of energy.

Of course, you can regain conservation of energy *if* you decide to consider the 'supernatural events' as actually being natural events subject to physical laws. Either way, we know the physical items in the environment obey such laws and that is a fundamental problem for anything regarding a supernatural.
I find that the charge of "insufficient evidence" is too much of a convenient argument. It appears to be a philosophical and emotional escape hatch for the atheist who doesn't wish to find himself or herself cornered by evidence that is difficult to refute.
Vague or anecdotal evidence is known to be fallible to a high degree. That is true even for 'natural' phenomena. Without a *very* good reason to supernatural, it *would* be insufficient evidence. In particular, dramatic claims (a non-physical existence) require dramatic evidence.
It allows for too much "subjective value" which is emotionally based at the core, while grasping for whatever naturalist philosophies will support the atheistic worldview.
If 'subjective value' is a significant effect in analyzing the evidence, then the evidence is insufficient.

Let's do it this way: what sort of experiment would suffice to show that a supernatural does NOT exist? What sort of experiment would suffice to show it *does* exist?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173217 Aug 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It doesn't talk about his birth? Get a grip! Lol! That was weak even for an ignorant christhole like you. Note it says they LIVED there until he was 2 and then fled to Egypt. Luke mentions not a word about fleeing to Egypt and says they lived in Nazareth. So I guess you are claiming they lived in the manger for 2 years instead of returning to their house in Nazareth? Lol!
You have been busted lying again.
And you know it.
<quoted text>
Chapter 2 of Matthew says NOTHING of the birth of Jesus. It records what happened when the Magi from the east visited. Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt for 2 years. Try to keep up. Luke's focus in writing the birth narrative was not the same as Matthew's focus. Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and Luke was writing to a Greco-Roman audience.

Matthew was a Jewish tax collector. As a result of cultural messianic expectations, he knew the prophecies very well. Most Jews of that era did. When Matthew wrote the birth narrative and the flight into Egypt, he was recalling prophecy from hindsight.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt.-Hosea 11:1

Some will argue that this speaks of only Israel being called out of Egypt in a historical sense. Matthew applied this to show that Jesus was also a symbolic singular personal parallel to the national historical Passover and the Exodus traditions. This was an appeal and apologetic to a predominantly Jewish audience.

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) 24 min John Galt 1,144,008
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Bruin For Life 28,242
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 4 hr Star On 47 646
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 5 hr LonePalm 2,186
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 hr Kathwynn 306,595
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