Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 8,319)

Showing posts 166,361 - 166,380 of216,525
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173280
Aug 2, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
What do you think a DICTIONARY is?
Is it some magical "authority" that sets down the definition of words?
OR?
Is it a collection of the MOST COMMON USAGES of words?
Which is it?
I know you are NOT STUPID-- you've shown us that much-- you CAN think, at least.
Now.
Since there are **more** True Believers™ than there are atheists?
The True Believers™ false use of "atheist" will also be in common usage-- and therefore in the dictionary.
But.
That doesn't mean it actually **applies** to **anyone***...!
Me, for example: I would **love** to believe that there was a benevolent god watching out for us all.
But I cannot lie to myself-- I cannot force this "faith" to manifest in my head, any more than I can grow a 3rd arm.
If you had **objective** proof of a god?
I will gladly listen.
Alas... nobody in the history of the earth has uncovered **objective** proof of a god who gives a crap...
True. Objective proof isn't possible and that's why you use that qualifier. No person who argues for or against the existence of God is objective. But bias alone doesn't work as an argument against the truth of any claim. Consider the following logic.

If there are two propositions that we identify as "X" and "-X" respectively, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents we identify as "Y" and "Z" and "Y" has a bias in favor of "X" and "Z" has a bias in favor of "-X" then one of them is still correct regardless of bias. This is how the objectivity qualifier fails as an argument against the existence of God or in favor of atheism as a default position or philosophy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173281
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?
Because we are asking about the existence of something, not simply the probability of something. This is not a question of reducing the probability of some known risk. it is the claim that there *is* a risk.
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?
Let's be clear about your claim here. You claim that your belief in God is similar to your belief that you won't get into an accident when you drive to work today. This, in spite of the fact that everyone knows that accidents happen. it is simply that the probability of one happening to you today is very low and can, to some extent, be lowered by driving well. Do you really want to equate your confidence in the existence of a deity to your confidence you won't get into an accident?

Yes, when asking whether something *exists*, I do require 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is not the same as certainty--some evidence not considered can change the weight (as it did for the luminous ether), but with the evidence we have *now*, is there enough and of such a type that existence is anything other than a very low probability?

The *standard* to conclude the existence of a particle in particle physics, for example, is a five sigma signal: in other words five standard deviations from random noise. That corresponds to a a 1 chance in 2 million that the signal is due to random chance. I would count that as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' while not being 'certain'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173282
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, by your own definition atheism is a passive state of mind. I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion let's grant your definition as being true.
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
Basic logic? Seriously, what you consider 'rejection' is simply a requirement that evidence have sufficient quality to demonstrate the proposition.
Note that I'm not asking your opinion of my beliefs. I know what they are. What do you call your rejection of evidence that I believe to be credible? Is it active atheism or passive atheism?
It is passive. If it is not convincing, then it is insufficient.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173283
Aug 2, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
What do you think a DICTIONARY is?
Is it some magical "authority" that sets down the definition of words?
OR?
Is it a collection of the MOST COMMON USAGES of words?
Which is it?
I know you are NOT STUPID-- you've shown us that much-- you CAN think, at least.
Now.
Since there are **more** True Believers™ than there are atheists?
The True Believers™ false use of "atheist" will also be in common usage-- and therefore in the dictionary.
But.
That doesn't mean it actually **applies** to **anyone***...!
Me, for example: I would **love** to believe that there was a benevolent god watching out for us all.
But I cannot lie to myself-- I cannot force this "faith" to manifest in my head, any more than I can grow a 3rd arm.
If you had **objective** proof of a god?
I will gladly listen.
Alas... nobody in the history of the earth has uncovered **objective** proof of a god who gives a crap...
A dictionary is the standard of word usage in any specific language and is peer reviewed by a panel of editors who are experts in that language. They spend hours a day reviewing words and the usage of the words to form a consensus.

Now if you want to use the word atheist in your own way, I obviously can't stop you. Just don't tell me that I can't use the word "trust" in place of faith (and synonymous with trust) to describe my spiritual beliefs.:)

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173284
Aug 2, 2013
 
That still makes no sense. You are belching tired excuses for the tremendous amounts of errors between the two. But let's play along with your fan fiction just for laughs.

Matthew would have lost nothing mentioning that they lived in Nazareth and he was born in a manger: this would actually strengthen his case as we see similar birth narratives in the OT. Luke, who knew Jesus through Paul correct? So he never even met Jesus yet his myth for some reason counts as a gospel..... Regardless... He would have lost nothing by mentioning the escape to Egypt.

So which is it, did they move to Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt or did they already have a house there before?

Your argument for these huge errors make no logical sense at all. Worse you are admitting the gospel writers dishonestly presented the birth narrative in different ways to different people! How much more proof than that fact does anyone need to see it's a myth?!!!

If it was truly inspired by the great invisible sky wizard wouldn't they demand it be documented honestly and accurately immediately?

But noooo we have to wait decades with the souls of millions on the line and then when finally they get around to documenting it they alter the facts for different groups of people? Alter the facts of the words of God? Lol!

You just shot yourself in both feet... Down you go!
Roman Apologist wrote:
<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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173285
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Objective proof isn't possible and that's why you use that qualifier. No person who argues for or against the existence of God is objective. But bias alone doesn't work as an argument against the truth of any claim. Consider the following logic.
I disagree with your premise. One can be convinced one way or the other and still be objective. For example, I can argue objectively for the existence of electrons *because* there is objective evidence of electrons. That doesn't imply a bias; it merely is an awareness of the evidence.

If you acknowledge that arguing for or against the existence of God cannot be objective, then there is no objective truth to the matter. And *that* means that there is only opinion, not fact.

If the weight of the evidence supports existence, then it is not bias to claim existence. If the weight of the evidence supports non-existence, then it is not bias to claim non-existence. Furthermore, there is an inherent bias *against* existence in the absence of evidence. Furthermore, since all evidence we have so far can be explained in terms of natural phenomena, it demands a high standard of proof to claim the existence of non-natural phenomena. Among other things, there would need to be a precise operational definition of 'non-natural'. That is something I have never seen.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173286
Aug 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.

Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Basic logic? Seriously, what you consider 'rejection' is simply a requirement that evidence have sufficient quality to demonstrate the proposition.

[QUOTE]Note that I'm not asking your opinion of my beliefs. I know what they are. What do you call your rejection of evidence that I believe to be credible? Is it active atheism or passive atheism?"

It is passive. If it is not convincing, then it is insufficient.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173287
Aug 2, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we are asking about the existence of something, not simply the probability of something. This is not a question of reducing the probability of some known risk. it is the claim that there *is* a risk.
<quoted text>
Let's be clear about your claim here. You claim that your belief in God is similar to your belief that you won't get into an accident when you drive to work today. This, in spite of the fact that everyone knows that accidents happen. it is simply that the probability of one happening to you today is very low and can, to some extent, be lowered by driving well. Do you really want to equate your confidence in the existence of a deity to your confidence you won't get into an accident?
Yes, when asking whether something *exists*, I do require 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is not the same as certainty--some evidence not considered can change the weight (as it did for the luminous ether), but with the evidence we have *now*, is there enough and of such a type that existence is anything other than a very low probability?
The *standard* to conclude the existence of a particle in particle physics, for example, is a five sigma signal: in other words five standard deviations from random noise. That corresponds to a a 1 chance in 2 million that the signal is due to random chance. I would count that as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' while not being 'certain'.
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173288
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
What do you consider to be the best evidence of Christian theism?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173289
Aug 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
Because we know from experience that lower standard fail too often.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173290
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173291
Aug 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173292
Aug 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173293
Aug 2, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
This was easy in the past, the supernatural were things quite visible. But I'm afraid we've conquered about all the visible phenomenon, and the supernatural is mostly about as apparent as
Russel's teapot. Mostly the supernatural to the unversed is within things already considered within the known, because we have progressed far beyond the average Joes level of comprehension.

I mean it's pretty damn hard trying to understand the scope of physics today, and some will never be able to grasp the concepts
needed to know what these things mean. But I like you, will jump at the opportunity to learn something dynamic enough for a paradigm shift.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173294
Aug 2, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173295
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173296
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.
And I disagree when dealing with the question of the existence of a supernatural. In that case, the signal should be clear an unambiguous. I require no less from particle physicists.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173297
Aug 2, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173298
Aug 2, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173299
Aug 2, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Because a 95% confidence is wrong 1 out of 20 times? And a 90% is wrong 1 out of 10 times? I trust very few things at that confidence level. I may see them as interesting and worthy of further research, but trust? No way. I have seen way too many things appear at the 95% confidence level that disappeared with further research. Anything as low as 75% is like throwing two coins and having them both come up heads.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,361 - 166,380 of216,525
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min flack 1,032,969
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 31 min PEE PEE PETE 26,079
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr not a playa1965 303,199
Syracuse basketball: Jim Boeheim tells ESPN Tyl... Apr 14 Lenox Da Kid 2
loan offer (Jun '13) Apr 14 Bryan Cranston 81
Burke Calls Shots With The Best (Feb '08) Apr 12 maryann 19
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) Apr 12 plenty 49
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••