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
168,021 - 168,040 of 226,517 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175098 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
thanks for your very interesting reply. I did not mean determinism in the sense you mentioned. Though I certainly think there are lots of variables we might not know about and not know we don't know. And I do think that chaos types of events do contribute to what happens. I read Hume as well, but not physics.<quoted text>
I am curious about your definition of the term 'determinism'. Some care is required in terminology, the term 'chaos' is used technically for certain types of evolution in deterministic systems (ones where initial conditions determine later ones).

One of the interesting aspects of the Bell inequalities is that they apply to *any* locally causal, realist system. In this, the term 'realist' means that things have definite properties at all times and 'locally causal' requires that all events are caused and the causes do not travel infinitely fast. It turns out that any such system will automatically obey certain inequalities in the correlations of certain observations. These inequalities are called Bell inequalities. It turns out that these inequalities are violated in the real word. In other words, the actual universe is either acausal, has causes that travel infinitely fast (which is sort of acausality also), or things do not have definite properties at all times.

Quantum mechanics is an acausal theory where particles often do not have definite properties and it also violates the Bell inequalities. it does agree with the observations.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175099 Aug 20, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but I do believe it's a matter of faith either way. Perhaps "faith" isn't the correct word to be debating. Think on this if you will:
Confidence in Probability
I don't know if this is an existing term or not,(if not, you heard it from me first- lol)but allow me to explain my position.
If you're an atheist, and you don't believe there's a God (any God) then there must be a reason. It can be an experiential reason (such as the case with Christine M - my condolences on the way you were treated Christine) or, because the atheist places more priority on other subjects such as science or philosophy, or a combination of both. The atheist consciously makes a choice to not believe based upon his or her respective confidence in competing thoughts, and/or negative experiences within a specific context in their lives.
Likewise, if one is a theist (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) then one also may have a positive experience or find sufficient evidence to make a conscious choice to believe. Again, the choice is influenced by the experiential and/or evidence.
It all comes down to individual priority and confidence in probability. I find there is sufficient evidence to enjoy confidence in the probability that there is a God (yes, the Christian God), while you do not.
Faith is the word used, but in the final analysis, it's how much confidence we have in the probability and it's based upon choice that is rooted in experiences both good and bad.
There are many people who would be also be atheists if they had not had experiences that defied any rational explanation. And, no, I'm not describing schizophrenics. Not everyone who is a believer IS one "through" faith.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#175100 Aug 20, 2013
Hmmmm, chaos in the larger scheme of things.

If you have a designed system to follow strict laws to accomplish something, then you a system of energy transfers following strict laws to accomplish something. Like electric can openers.

To make things more interesting you need to throw a little apparent chaos in it to get it out of its groove. Such can cause it to make decisions and proceed on a new track. I think they do this in some video games and other thingies.

A totally closed and ordered system goes nowhere, it just sits there and grinds. A Roomba would never work if all of its movements were preprogrammed. It's expected path has to be interrupted.

Of course chaos is never really chaos, it is just another pattern overlaying another. Like room arrangement over a Roomba's initial directed course.

Sometimes I think Topix atheists would prefer to be electric can openers.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175101 Aug 20, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
i know but i just wanted to make the fundamentalist a bit angry
OK - this would be a perfect day to be in Sweden I think.

I remember a wonderful day in Stockholm in the summer - out on a big boat in the harbor, with music - a trumpet solo and birds following, and lovely sky and perfect weather. Now hot and humid in Iowa. I suspect that other than cold weather in winter and long nights, I would like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark best as nations. I did not like Belgium because of the skies so gray so much I think Scandinavian nations have best public policy, and msot tolerant views. US is full of horrid rightwing nuts.
Thinking

UK

#175102 Aug 20, 2013
You.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Look who's talking.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#175103 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> OK - this would be a perfect day to be in Sweden I think.
I remember a wonderful day in Stockholm in the summer - out on a big boat in the harbor, with music - a trumpet solo and birds following, and lovely sky and perfect weather. Now hot and humid in Iowa. I suspect that other than cold weather in winter and long nights, I would like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark best as nations. I did not like Belgium because of the skies so gray so much I think Scandinavian nations have best public policy, and msot tolerant views. US is full of horrid rightwing nuts.
Scandinavian nations have not experienced the 200+ years or scale of multiculturalism the USA has. Patience, you will get your share, and much faster.

Scandinavia and the US is the difference between a nice tony suburb and the inner city.
LCNlin

United States

#175104 Aug 20, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Still the state is democratic and the prime minister is an atheist
Most likely Agnostic
but no big deal

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#175105 Aug 20, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/europ...

Regarding Sweden.

Be sure to read the comments of Mr. Miri and the other refugee on their expectations. They are both a long ways from their homes.

Speaking of expectations, this is closer to home for most of us. Be advised this is not just money, but also competition for availability of parts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/08/ill...
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175106 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious about your definition of the term 'determinism'. Some care is required in terminology, the term 'chaos' is used technically for certain types of evolution in deterministic systems (ones where initial conditions determine later ones).
One of the interesting aspects of the Bell inequalities is that they apply to *any* locally causal, realist system. In this, the term 'realist' means that things have definite properties at all times and 'locally causal' requires that all events are caused and the causes do not travel infinitely fast. It turns out that any such system will automatically obey certain inequalities in the correlations of certain observations. These inequalities are called Bell inequalities. It turns out that these inequalities are violated in the real word. In other words, the actual universe is either acausal, has causes that travel infinitely fast (which is sort of acausality also), or things do not have definite properties at all times.
Quantum mechanics is an acausal theory where particles often do not have definite properties and it also violates the Bell inequalities. it does agree with the observations.
well, as I explained, I have not studied physics. I just read lots of philosophy. My definition of determinism is very loose and that is why I refer to a variety of determinism and do not pin it down. I am more of an agnostic about more than just religion, and thus do not assert any sort of strict determinism or define it carefully - I use it more to complain against folks who believe in free will and sin and all the nonsense about people making choices and having to suffer for them. Since my emphasis is on ethics, that is the approach that is meaningful to me. Your emphasis is on physics - though I suspect your ethical views would be similar enough to mine that I would be comfortable with them - so you approach determinism in the context of science - which I candidly cannot keep up with.

My interest is in matters like what are the consequences for a criminal justice system, for child rearing, etc, if one disputes free will and believes in some type and degree of "determinism" on the human level - nature and nurture. I am not interested in nor able to follow the issue of determinism in the context of physics and the scientific explanations you revel in. That is not a criticism nor even an admission. Both aspects are extremely important in their own ways.
Thanks for your wonderful patience in trying to explain things in scientific terms however, and I trust others will understand them better than I do. At least you open my eyes and my mind to matters (that is a pun) which I would not normally read or think about.
I was raised as a very contented agnostic, and not knowing about God or the intricacies of nature never bothered me a bit. I just try to know the names of every evil Republican I want to see defeated somehow, and to be informed about public policy matters.
I think the ground on which we would meet with both approaches in the most interesting way, would be on the issue of global warming and climate change. I approach it as a matter of risk assessment.
What are the consequences if one is wrong, and acts accordingly - I am a climate change worrier, and that is sufficient. I do not need final proof, since I think final proof would be death by heatstroke or drowning, and a bit too late to be helpful.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175107 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Scandinavian nations have not experienced the 200+ years or scale of multiculturalism the USA has. Patience, you will get your share, and much faster.
Scandinavia and the US is the difference between a nice tony suburb and the inner city.
I do not mind nice-enough folks from other cultures, or of other races. I object to rightwing nuts. I mostly objected to the Batista supporting Cubans, the Cruz types. I dislike rightwing nuts of all religions and groups however.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175108 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There are many people who would be also be atheists if they had not had experiences that defied any rational explanation. And, no, I'm not describing schizophrenics. Not everyone who is a believer IS one "through" faith.
It is a big leap from experiences that defy rational explanation to belief in a rotten nasty God, and a bunch of very silly stories. If one goes into a mystical relationship with a Thou type God, I would be very interested to know more about your particular description of such a God. I read I and Thou, by Martin Buber, and liked the implications for relationships between persons - the ethics of treating a person as a Thou instead of an it. But I have a Thou relationship with certain music, when I am in the mystical mode.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175109 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Scandinavian nations have not experienced the 200+ years or scale of multiculturalism the USA has. Patience, you will get your share, and much faster.
Scandinavia and the US is the difference between a nice tony suburb and the inner city.
From what I've heard, Sweden has almost had its fill of multiculturalism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175110 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I think the ground on which we would meet with both approaches in the most interesting way, would be on the issue of global warming and climate change. I approach it as a matter of risk assessment.
My viewpoint about climate change is unsettled. I am truthfully not very easy with the assumptions built into the models that are typically used, nor the quality of the evidence. That said, and even in the worst case scenario, it looks like the temperature won't get as high as the average 30 million years ago, let alone that from certain part of the Paleozoic. The earth will be quite fine with that. Whether *we* will be is another question.
What are the consequences if one is wrong, and acts accordingly - I am a climate change worrier, and that is sufficient. I do not need final proof, since I think final proof would be death by heatstroke or drowning, and a bit too late to be helpful.
And I am not nearly so clear about the relative costs. I have more issues with the use of carbon fuels because of overall air quality than I do specifically about climate change. That has a direct impact on the health of people *today*. If the sea levels rise, there will have to be a migration of people away from low lying areas and a general shift of agriculture towards the poles, but I am not at all convinced it will have the dramatic effects predicted. On the other hand, working towards other sources of energy just seems intelligent.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175111 Aug 20, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
What exactly does it mean when they call them sheep? Does that mean that they regard them as nothing more than sheep, or does that have an even scarier implication than I think? Does that mean they merely think of them as puppets in their religion?
Jesus also called his followers his flock, i.e, his family.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175112 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My viewpoint about climate change is unsettled. I am truthfully not very easy with the assumptions built into the models that are typically used, nor the quality of the evidence. That said, and even in the worst case scenario, it looks like the temperature won't get as high as the average 30 million years ago, let alone that from certain part of the Paleozoic. The earth will be quite fine with that. Whether *we* will be is another question.
<quoted text>
And I am not nearly so clear about the relative costs. I have more issues with the use of carbon fuels because of overall air quality than I do specifically about climate change. That has a direct impact on the health of people *today*. If the sea levels rise, there will have to be a migration of people away from low lying areas and a general shift of agriculture towards the poles, but I am not at all convinced it will have the dramatic effects predicted. On the other hand, working towards other sources of energy just seems intelligent.
You realize of course, that by having such a scientific attitude, and by wanting more information, more complexity, you can be made to appear to tacitly support the rightwing greedy fossil fuels agenda, and lend it a legitimacy that it will claim for itself - despite the fact that it is not your intent to do so. Scientists only need to be partway to the whole truth to see indicagions of danger ahead in the real world, and they need to take into consideration the human and political and economic consequences of inaction, and also the inertia and disorganization of masses of individual persons, compared to the purposeful organized greed of the fossil fuel industry. I do not want to argue with you as if you were on the other side, but please do not give aid and comfort to the enemy by insisting on too much complete and exact knowledge. Delaying tactics profit the greedy types, and endanger many persons and animals and plant species and ecosystems - and endanger ways of life. I appreciate it that you answer me so promptly and thoughtfully, and I do not think you are the enemy because you are not as worried as I am. I do expect nonbelievers in a conventional God to also be nonbelievers in a fantasy afterlife of everlasting heaven. If life on this planet is all we have, then I think we should be concerned that it not be thrown away because we have not been watchful enough, or worried enough early enough.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175113 Aug 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
lol again with the misdirection ill keep bringing u back do you have any factual proof or evidence that god exsist (omitting the bibile and faith)
You keep talking about an invisible man; have you watched that movie where Kevin Bacon became invisible? He didn't touch everybody on the planet, just those he wanted to.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175114 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>...
Einstein was wrong about a great many things. He initially thought the universe should be static...
He may yet be proven right...

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-univ...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175115 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> You realize of course, that by having such a scientific attitude, and by wanting more information, more complexity, you can be made to appear to tacitly support the rightwing greedy fossil fuels agenda, and lend it a legitimacy that it will claim for itself - despite the fact that it is not your intent to do so. Scientists only need to be partway to the whole truth to see indicagions of danger ahead in the real world, and they need to take into consideration the human and political and economic consequences of inaction, and also the inertia and disorganization of masses of individual persons, compared to the purposeful organized greed of the fossil fuel industry. I do not want to argue with you as if you were on the other side, but please do not give aid and comfort to the enemy by insisting on too much complete and exact knowledge. Delaying tactics profit the greedy types, and endanger many persons and animals and plant species and ecosystems - and endanger ways of life. I appreciate it that you answer me so promptly and thoughtfully, and I do not think you are the enemy because you are not as worried as I am. I do expect nonbelievers in a conventional God to also be nonbelievers in a fantasy afterlife of everlasting heaven. If life on this planet is all we have, then I think we should be concerned that it not be thrown away because we have not been watchful enough, or worried enough early enough.
I understand you points and even agree. There are those who demand that we drag our feet on issues that need to be immediately addressed. My problem is that I have some idea about how the simulations are made that lead to the climate change predictions and the quality of the data they are using. And, truthfully, I am not convinced the risks are what they say they are. As I said, the earth has been through much worse that what we are doing (although our impact on species diversity is pronounced). I am also not convinced that the cure isn't worse than the disease in this case.

My problem is that on one side we have the climate deniers that want to ignore any possibility that we are affecting climate in a way that will cause us grief. On the other hand, we have those who seem to go way beyond the quality of the data and the reliability of the models and claim we are going to destroy everything. Neither is correct. The question is, as far as I can determine, how to weigh the possibilities. We can take measures that may hurt our economy now, but lead to better energy sources in the future or we can attempt to have a stronger economy now with the possibility that coastal cities will have to deal with a water problem and where the growing region for crops shifts north.

One reason for my skepticism is that we are still learning fundamental aspects relating to climate like how cloud growth will differ as the temperature rises, exactly what the extent other greenhouse gases than CO2 affect the thermodynamics and chemistry of the atmosphere, and how simple things like dust can affect cloud formation. As far as I can see, we simply don't know enough of the basics to create realistic models.

Again, I am *much* more concerned about the collapse of the bee population than I am in climate change. The lack of bees will significantly affect our food supply and is already starting to do so. The only two honey bees I have seen this year were *fighting*--literally dive bombing each other. That scares me more than the temperature going up a couple of degrees.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175116 Aug 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them Dave , you know non belief in America is a small but growing percentage. But 30 years ago probably like 1%.
Most everyone I know is religious, and most ridiculously so.
See Jesus on the cheese toast, and floating in the coffee religiousnutty.
Maybe you should pass that sentiment on to all of your family, every day, like you do on Topix? Grace them with your contempt 24/7.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175118 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus also called his followers his flock, i.e, his family.
No he didn't you dont even have any proof jesus was real person, you creationist liar.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 1 min Lily Boca Raton FL 1,101,041
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Eaddae 305,478
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Trojan 27,101
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Aug 26 RICK SERVICE 29
offer Aug 23 Peter 1
Addition of Emmitt Holt is "Big" for Indiana Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
Ex-Hoosier Zeller embraces NBA learning Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••