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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173255 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [ˈɪgn&#6 01;rəns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
When you're brave enough to prove the god you're here to lie about, your opinions will matter more.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173256 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
Most creationists don't accept atheism. They always need to see atheism in the context of faith, belief, satanism, or any other attempt to manipulate the actual definition to please the infected mind of the mentalluy ill creationists.

Creationists love to try to redefine atheism on their own terms, which shows you how deceitfully they think.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173257 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you're brave enough to prove the god you're here to lie about, your opinions will matter more.
Do you realize this is a contradictory (and therefore self-refuting) statement?

You're stating that I'm lying and that I need bravery to prove the thing you think I'm lying about. How am I to prove it if you already carry the presupposition that I'm lying? You would have to remove that presupposition, which would then endanger your worldview. Since you don't know me, you're forced by your presuppositions to believe that I'm lying, which is an example of blind faith. You hold this opinion with no evidence for it.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173258 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Most creationists don't accept atheism. They always need to see atheism in the context of faith, belief, satanism, or any other attempt to manipulate the actual definition to please the infected mind of the mentalluy ill creationists.
Creationists love to try to redefine atheism on their own terms, which shows you how deceitfully they think.
I didn't try to define it based upon my own terms. I showed the dictionary definitions along with the links. They all correlate to each other within the context of atheism. By doing so, I showed no evidence of deceit. Further, an assertion of mental illness via the internet and without a valid license to practice psychology or psychiatry violates the ethics of the medical profession and the basic methodologies of science which require observation in accordance with established criteria for making said diagnosis.

Do you really think things through before you post?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#173259 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is less evidence for a deity than there is for the luminous ether. I don't believe the luminous ether exists either.
Or...The evidence for God is at the same level as evidence for werewolves.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173260 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself. What are the criteria for evidence? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. certainty? Or, is it "preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." I know you have stated that your standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which equates to certainty or so near certainty as to be indistinguishable from certainty. My question though, is "why?" Why beyond reasonable doubt? My contention is that we all do things every day that do not require certainty. We get in our cars and go to work without even thinking of the probability of an accident. We step into the shower without considering the probability of a slip and fall accident. We cook without considering whether or not we will burn down our house. In all of these activities we can significantly reduce risks, but not to the extent that we can enjoy 100% certainty of success. So if we can do all of these activities with less than 100% certainty, then why require such a high standard for the evidence that points to the existence of God?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#173261 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
Your obvious mistake here is in defining the word "ignorance" Lack of knowledge or information means that knowledge and information are available. There is NOT information on the existence of God, nor is there any information outside of your holy book. A better application of the word ignorance would be those who refuse to accept the facts of evolution. Here both information and knowledge ARE available, but some chose to ignore it. More aptly this is called willful ignorance. There can be NO ignorance when NO information or knowledge is non-existent. Please, the bible can not be used as a source for your argument as it is noting more than a circular argument, and personal experience NEVER constitutes proof. As has been pointed out to you, we are ALL born as Atheists, and become indoctrinated in a God belief later. Yes, the default position is Atheism.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#173262 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself. What are the criteria for evidence? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. certainty? Or, is it "preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." I know you have stated that your standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which equates to certainty or so near certainty as to be indistinguishable from certainty. My question though, is "why?" Why beyond reasonable doubt? My contention is that we all do things every day that do not require certainty. We get in our cars and go to work without even thinking of the probability of an accident. We step into the shower without considering the probability of a slip and fall accident. We cook without considering whether or not we will burn down our house. In all of these activities we can significantly reduce risks, but not to the extent that we can enjoy 100% certainty of success. So if we can do all of these activities with less than 100% certainty, then why require such a high standard for the evidence that points to the existence of God?
Please answer these honestly. Why don't you line your doorway with garlic? How frighten are you to go out for a walk at night that you will be attacked by werewolves? Are you ever apprehensive about crossing a footbridge wondering if a troll will come up and eat you?

My criteria for evidence IS high, and why should it be anything but? It is extremely important for me to know that my beliefs are TRUE. As my beliefs INFORM my actions. And I will go to great lengths to make sure that beliefs are as true as possible. I'm sorry that your standards for evidence are so low.

Of course nothing is certain, but we are NOT talking about certainty, we're talking about acceptable evidence. And when I say nothing is certain, I am talking about certainty as part of the naturalistic realm. You do like to play with word meanings, are trying to equate certainty with evidence.

The lack of evidence for vampires, werewolves and trolls is no different from the lack of evidence for God. You seem to put God on a higher pedestal than the other three, and laugh at the comparison. "Of course i don't believe in trolls and vampires and werewolves, but God, now that is completely different." And why is that? Because so many people accept God...argument for popularity, or because of your holy book? There are many holy books all making similar claims about a God thing. Because it seems more plausible to you personally? In the end, the evidence for your God is as non-existent As it is for vampires trolls and werewolves.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173263 Aug 2, 2013
Exactly as is proven by the fact all believers have to be taught about God. Were he self evident a child would know about him without being taught.

Belief in god is a learned behavior.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>A new born is born with no concept of go, no belief in any god.

When a human has no belief in god they are atheists, i.e. the default position is atheism

What is learned later, whether it is by exploration or teaching is not the default position.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173264 Aug 2, 2013
It doesn't state what exactly? I merely stated exactly what was written in Matthew 2 from your own link.

Once again Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were traveling for the census remember? They tried to get a room at an Inn in Bethlehem remember? None were available remember? So they had to use a manger yes? Like in the nativity scene remember? Are we in agreement? No errors there right? So in Luke they were traveling from their home in Nazareth tired and Mary ready to give birth. Since they had nowhere to stay she gave birth in a manger yes?

Matthew states they lived in Bethlehem and more so lived there for two years after his birth before fleeing to Egypt. Once it was safe they moved to Nazareth.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't state that in either Matthew 1 or 2. Here, read for yourself.
LT

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173265 Aug 2, 2013
How long are you suggesting they stayed in the Manger? Verse 11 they entered the house. THE HOUSE not the manger. House. So they clearly had a house. No mention of traveling from Nazareth for the census or any reason right? In fact it clearly says as I stated before that they didn't go to Nazareth until after Egypt. Verse 23.

Do try to catch up :))
Roman Apologist wrote:
Matthew 2

New Living Translation (NLT)
Visitors from the East

2 Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men[a] from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2 “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose,[b] and we have come to worship him.”

3 King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem. 4 He called a meeting of the leading priests and teachers of religious law and asked,“Where is the Messiah supposed to be born?”

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they said,“for this is what the prophet wrote:

6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
are not least among the ruling cities[c] of Judah,
for a ruler will come from you
who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’[d]”

7 Then Herod called for a private meeting with the wise men, and he learned from them the time when the star first appeared. 8 Then he told them,“Go to Bethlehem and search carefully for the child. And when you find him, come back and tell me so that I can go and worship him, too!”

9 After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11 They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

12 When it was time to leave, they returned to their own country by another route, for God had warned them in a dream not to return to Herod.
The Escape to Egypt

13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.“Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said.“Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, 15 and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:“I called my Son out of Egypt.”[e]

16 Herod was furious when he realized that the wise men had outwitted him. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, based on the wise menÂ’s report of the starÂ’s first appearance. 17 HerodÂ’s brutal action fulfilled what God had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 “A cry was heard in Ramah—
weeping and great mourning.
Rachel weeps for her children,
refusing to be comforted,
for they are dead.”[f]
The Return to Nazareth

19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. 20 “Get up!” the angel said.“Take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel, because those who were trying to kill the child are dead.”

21 So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. 22 But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. 23 So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said:“He will be called a Nazarene.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Feel free to show me where in the bible it says they lived in Bethlehem for two years. I provided both chapters of Matthew that describe the conception and birth of Jesus.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173266 Aug 2, 2013
Ignorance seems to go pretty well with your belief system actually.
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.

The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173267 Aug 2, 2013
Yes very well said!
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173268 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It doesn't state what exactly? I merely stated exactly what was written in Matthew 2 from your own link.
Once again Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were traveling for the census remember? They tried to get a room at an Inn in Bethlehem remember? None were available remember? So they had to use a manger yes? Like in the nativity scene remember? Are we in agreement? No errors there right? So in Luke they were traveling from their home in Nazareth tired and Mary ready to give birth. Since they had nowhere to stay she gave birth in a manger yes?
Matthew states they lived in Bethlehem and more so lived there for two years after his birth before fleeing to Egypt. Once it was safe they moved to Nazareth.
<quoted text>
No, Matthew 2 does not state that at all. Look at it again.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173269 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
How long are you suggesting they stayed in the Manger? Verse 11 they entered the house. THE HOUSE not the manger. House. So they clearly had a house. No mention of traveling from Nazareth for the census or any reason right? In fact it clearly says as I stated before that they didn't go to Nazareth until after Egypt. Verse 23.
Do try to catch up :))
<quoted text>
Yes it says the magi entered the house. But it does NOT say Jesus was born in the house. I see your mistake. You're projecting this onto the nativity scene that is popular during Christmas celebrations. Matthew assumes that they were able to find a room or house between the time of the birth and the time of the visit from the Magi. Just because an artist's rendering has the Magi present in the Nativity scene doesn't mean it was that quick. From Bethlehem, they went to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth after leaving Egypt. Now that I know where and how you were confused this pretty much clears it up.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173270 Aug 2, 2013
How can you say what Matthew assumes? Do you have a time machine and the ability to read minds? Nope you are merely projecting your apologetic feelings.

Luke says they travel from Nazareth and Jesus is born in a manger. Matthew we see no traveling from Nazareth, no manger and worse it doesn't say after Egypt they RETURNED to Nazareth it just says they went to this town Nazareth clearly showing that they had not lived there before. Had the writer if the Matthew myth thought they lived in Nazareth before he clearly would said returned.

See? Your apologetic biblical fan fiction requiring the use of time machines and mind reading fails when you use critical thinking skills. Thank you for illustrating your apologetic ignorance.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it says the magi entered the house. But it does NOT say Jesus was born in the house. I see your mistake. You're projecting this onto the nativity scene that is popular during Christmas celebrations. Matthew assumes that they were able to find a room or house between the time of the birth and the time of the visit from the Magi. Just because an artist's rendering has the Magi present in the Nativity scene doesn't mean it was that quick. From Bethlehem, they went to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth after leaving Egypt. Now that I know where and how you were confused this pretty much clears it up.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173271 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
How can you say what Matthew assumes? Do you have a time machine and the ability to read minds? Nope you are merely projecting your apologetic feelings.
Luke says they travel from Nazareth and Jesus is born in a manger. Matthew we see no traveling from Nazareth, no manger and worse it doesn't say after Egypt they RETURNED to Nazareth it just says they went to this town Nazareth clearly showing that they had not lived there before. Had the writer if the Matthew myth thought they lived in Nazareth before he clearly would said returned.
See? Your apologetic biblical fan fiction requiring the use of time machines and mind reading fails when you use critical thinking skills. Thank you for illustrating your apologetic ignorance.
<quoted text>
No, I understand the writing style and focus of the narratives. You do not. Matthew's gospel narrative of the birth was to a Jewish audience and was focused on prophecy and the lineage of David. Luke's is completely different. Luke is writing to a Gentile audience and therefore his focus is different. Luke adds details to Gentiles unfamiliar with Judaic traditions and beliefs. That's why you don't understand the differences and why you're assuming what Matthew should have written. My apologetic explanation is within the context of Judaic beliefs and what we know of Matthew's writing style. Your atheistic explanation is based upon your ignorance of these historical considerations, and is fueled by your need to maintain your worldview.

So present evidence (solid evidence) as to why Matthew's gospel didn't focus on a Jewish audience. The entire basis of this debate hinges on whether or not there's a contradiction. If my argument about the focus of Matthew's writing is correct, then there is no contradiction. To prove there's a a contradiction, you'll have to dismantle my point about the focus and style of Matthew and Luke. Feel free to try.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173272 Aug 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
A new born is born with no concept of go, no belief in any god.

When a human has no belief in god they are atheists, i.e. the default position is atheism

What is learned later, whether it is by exploration or teaching is not the default position.
Well stated: concise, to the point and without superfluous fluff*.

Nice.

_________

* as **I** am apt to do... heh.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173273 Aug 2, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So this Jesus was not related to David in any way.
Glad we cleared THAT up.
Well... DAUUMN, Jim!

That means Jesus cannot **possibly** be any Jewish Messiah!

How about that? He was just another fake pretender...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173274 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject.
Wrong. That would be classified as agnostic, in the strictest definition of that word:'a' as not, and 'gnostic' as in knowledge.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God.
Lie. Why do you keep foisting this PROVABLY FALSE CLAIM?

Ask an ATHEIST what it means to be an atheist!

A FAITHFUL has NO CLUE!(as you repeatedly demonstrate)

Athiesm is NO FAITH IN GODS.

It is a PASSIVE state of being-- it is WITHOUT FAITH.

A newborn baby is an atheist-- he has NO FAITH: ATHEIST.

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) 2 min forks_make_us_fat 1,115,668
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Earthling-1 1,142
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Bruin For Life 27,607
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 9 hr a mom 348
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 13 hr STO 305,851
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue Carol 280
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 29 El SupremoS 201,038

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE