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

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177554 Sep 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? It couldn't be more true. Who did primitive man attribute Thunder and lightning to? Did they know about how Lightning was caused and how thunder was a result of the effects of lighting on the atmosphere? What was the 18TH century belief as to the cause of illness, and the death caused by these diseases. Did they know anything about germ theory? What did our ancestors attribute natural disaster to? Did they know anything about plate tectonics as the cause for earthquakes and tsunamis? What about volcanos? Why did early Hawaiian's throw virgin into the active volcanos if not to please the volcano God Pele.
For every natural disaster, for every unexplained event, for every plague or sickness, God or God's where believed to be the cause.
Has not science taught us what causes earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, thunder and lighting? Has not science revealed the cause of most illnesses?
God, demons, Satan, evil spirits, all where blamed for the unexplained, until science came along and revealed the REAL causes.
I dare you to came back and refute any of this, I double dare you. You say this is false, step up to the plate skippy and show me where any of this is false. I don't think you have the balls!!!!!!!
It's not a question of me having Balls, I believe you when you say "I have no soul." I do believe you do know yourself as do I. Know myself, and I do have a soul.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#177555 Sep 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Science, perhaps nature, a spontaneous start with many spontaneous beginnings, you can't prove it that is the bottom line

How do you equate "spontaneous start" or "spontaneous beginnings"
the bottom?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177556 Sep 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>An "atheist" can't make a claim, period, by their own definition of themselves. Non-belief is passive. Making a claim, or choosing among theories something they consider a truth, isn't.

Classic atheism is a part of the growth process, a questioning that leads to a better understanding. Topix atheists are not of that caliber. They are trained apes looking at other trained apes, and trying to exploit them with high sounding words their very basis of "non-belief" render bullshit. They see only the shiny stuff and think "I want". By the very nature of their imagined existence they can not see beyond themselves. They are pure physical constructs with nothing but self interest. They don't believe in a higher intelligence or morality. They can't.

Theists look at another human being, no matter the color or configuration, or even animals, and see a soul trapped inside a body like themselves making do the best they can with what they have. They still have to function on the physical, but they have an awareness of the higher. It is that sort of belief that unites mankind and gives him a purpose to strive for, like reaching out to this higher force. Topix atheists have nothing to strive for but their own desires. Which made them monkeys on a leash held by smarter monkeys.
Nicely put.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177557 Sep 17, 2013
Dark Matter Lost. "Of late Astronomers mapped the motions of hundreds of stars in the Milky Way in order to deduce the amount of dark matter that must be tugging on them from the vicinity of our sun. Their surprising conclusion? There's no dark matter around here".
As the researchers write in a forthcoming paper in the Astrophysical Journal, the stellar motion implies that the stars, all within 13,000 light-years of Earth, are gravitationally attracted by the visible material in our solar system — the sun, planets and surrounding gas and dust — and not by any unseen matter.
"Our calculations show that [dark matter] should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!"
"One possibility is that dark matter is not the correct explanation for stellar and galactic motions. Perhaps the current understanding of the laws of physics is slightly off".
Just slightly! Doesn’t this illustrate that many secularists are willing to believe in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, or detected in any way by the most elaborate equipment, yet they 'believe' in dark matter because they need it to explain their concept of the universe. Even on the eve of the CERN accelerator no-find of DM, such a faith supports their absolute; that of understanding all nature without God. And yet many of those same secularists would reject a belief in God on the basis that He cannot be directly observed!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/07/...

http://www.space.com/15345-dark-matter-altern...

So here we go on another ride, theorists get an idea and publish it long enough it moves out of the category of "hypothesis" to "theory" then into the heads of a believing public, with no scientific basis at all. So now, when the physical evidence comes up missing their faith carries them into more hopeful delusions,(and more grants), now that they got a believing public to swallow the bait. But heck, it's hard work trying to keep a young universe from flying apart.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177558 Sep 17, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, actually, if there were no question that there is a god, you would very easily be able to prove it.
That is case by case. A combination of your soul and your inherited DNA.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177559 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you equate "spontaneous start" or "spontaneous beginnings"
the bottom?
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#177560 Sep 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.
I can't prove the start is at the top?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177562 Sep 17, 2013
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.

1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.

What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.

Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.

2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.

So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?

One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

3) Now lets look at TIME itself.

Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time

Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.

Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.

Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#177564 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't prove the start is at the top?
The Alrighty Then said:

"And the Bible is evidence of creation"

Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH and Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH the Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH bible Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH was Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH poof Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH of Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH poof Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH so Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH said Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH the Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH pooftard Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH

The bible is proof you can be dumber than dirt.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177565 Sep 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
First of all, the time on the sun (or even in the center of the sun) is noty that different than time on earth. The difference would amount to milliseconds over the course of a year.

Second, time doesn't fly that much faster in empty space. Again the difference is on the order of milliseconds over the course of a year.

Third, the answer to your basic question is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old in the co-moving frame of the overall expansion. In other words, the frame in which the expansion of the universe is uniform in all directions.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact.
Would you care to support this 'fact'?
In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
Yes, but none older than 13.7 billion years.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
Because that is what fits the data we have?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
yes, that is an important part of the data.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
You mean like the data from the background radiation?
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
Since you don't understand what I've already told you, I don't see any reason to answer it yet again. This is not the problem you seem to think it is for science.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177566 Sep 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Time is proof of creation.
Wrong. Time is evidence that creation didn't happen.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
Wrong. The Bible is evidence that some people have active imaginations.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177567 Sep 17, 2013
http://scitechdaily.com/nasas-magnetospheric-...

http://scitechdaily.com/data-suggests-the-sun...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/sun...

There was an article yesterday where NASA stitched together photos from Sept 8 that showed NO hurricanes, cyclones, or large storm systems on any of the oceans. A very unusual event.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#177568 Sep 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
That is case by case. A combination of your soul and your inherited DNA.
Your proof of god's existence is the soul - which also can't be proven to exist?

And, again, inherited DNA is proof of evolution rather than god.

You're really not making very much sense.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177569 Sep 17, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
It has come to my attention that Robert Stevens is a basic moron. There is no question or doubt about it.
Correct.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177570 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Science, perhaps nature, a spontaneous start with many spontaneous beginnings, you can't prove it that is the bottom line
basic coward with no proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177571 Sep 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
When in doubt, the creationist trolls simply spam their cult rubbish.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177572 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.
There's this thing called science that proves we evolved and basic logic proves you have a cult associated mental illness.

You suffer from denialism - you actually know that you;re lying about god to yourself, but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

To deal with it you harass atheists online.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177573 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>I say the same thing about your respect for the definition of the vocabulary involved. If you want to claim you have scientifically proven fact. The word prove is there. Until you do that you have a belief. By sharing your belief and labeling it with in a group, and a very large group indeed you are partaking in spreading your beliefs. If you are disturbed by Atheism being a religion, there are people you could talk to, to change that. I am not one of them. Would you want me to lie to you, because what I am posting is he truth. gain you vs Richard Dawkins on the topic of atheism. I am sorry, I am taking his word, on atheism requiring faith.
Again...the word faith is not a religious word... There are two definitions... One which is secular and one is a religious.

faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination,(religious) persuasion,(religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More
a system of religious belief.
plural noun: faiths
"the Christian faith"
a strongly held belief or theory.
"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"
Origin

More
Middle English: from Old French feid , from Latin fides .

Atheism is not a religion. It does not coincide with the definition at all. This is not opinion this is fact. You arguing the subject makes it no less fact.

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun
1.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

If you trust something then you have faith in it. However, remember the secular definition of faith. Richard Dawkins is a respected atheist and you are taking his words and twisting them just like you would anyone else's and that's expected, but do not expect me to give you any merit at all.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177574 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all! Education systems prove this every day. A person could be taught Spanish, while another can't. While that person whom can't could do much better at math. No offence but, how do I know the person I told this to, has the ability to comprehend a book on thought. In this case, I don't think the person I am responding to has a soul, if I am right and pushed the person the wrong way. It just wouldn't go well.
It was a ridiculous and contradictory statement.
Thinking

UK

#177575 Sep 18, 2013
Where's your proof? "Past" Uranus?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.

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) 8 min shinningelectr0n 1,156,188
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 53 min Bruin Nation 28,491
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr Pearl Jam 307,107
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 15 hr Earthling-1 2,741
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 17 hr zubedaanur 693
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... Fri best bet 2
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 Dec 25 ivyawe 1
More from around the web