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

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184326 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives. The point is clear. I am a rational skeptic of science.
You may have misunderstood me. I am also a rational skeptic of science and scientists, and well aware of the fraud and errors there. Have you seen my criticisms of medical science?

I am also aware of the misuse of science by ideologues.

Nevertheless, I do trust the scientific method which includes not just the methods in the laboratory or observatory (hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis, etc), but also the larger scale vetting process that turns a hypothesis into useful, reliable knowledge that can help predict and at times control nature.

This larger scale method includes the vetting that goes into determining what science gets funded, the peer review of papers generated by research and submitted for publication, the reproducing of results, the confirmation of predictions generated from such results, the generation of technology from those results that makes lives better, new and fruitful research suggested by such results, and even the test of time, during which multiple supporting papers are generated and redundant evidence is accumulated (such as DNA evidence supporting fossil evidence) while hundreds of scientists vie unsuccessfully for the recognition that comes from overturning accepted science, and during which time fraudulent results are identified and culled from the literature.

Science that has survived that is unassailable.

And, of course, it is a fallacious argument and a disservice to your nation to try to undermine trust in this larger science by pointing to frauds and other failures in the smaller steps. Papers fresh out of the laboratory shouldn't be considered valid science until they have passed this greater test.
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#184327 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I am not facing bad karma as you are, and therefore eternal existence is a positive thing. I do feel as some of your sort do have souls, and just want life to end, the soul would rather be no more than face the music.
I don't believe in things without evidence and that includes "Karma." Your comprehension sucks, or you never read my post on the idea of eternity being an actual hell, far from a "positive thing." Like Karma, and your demo god, there is no evidence that a *soul* exists in anyone.

In one short sentence you have conjured up Karma, Souls, Eternal life, all things without a shred of evidence, seems very childlike and desperate, I guess given the source!!!!!!!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184328 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask because it is necessary to establish simple molecules can start some very complex physical energy transfers on a highly successful and repetitive basis on their own. Those collections of charges are supposed to be the initiators of those actions.
The terms you are using are observed actions derived from that. The simple fact is you have to get your ducks in a row before anything can happen, and even then it has to be done in an order that doesn't knock them out of order.
The individual moleules can't move by themselves. There has to be something to position them and say go. Then you also have them working together by the millions in some sort of synchronization.
Something has to establish the pattern they will be working in as a group. Your abiogenesis works on the assumption this is from the inside out of those forces within the molecules. Physics has established those forces within molecules were not created with the Big Bang, but as a result of it. Roughly, a condensation of heat and energy. Similar to water vapor condensing to droplets, then the droplets to larger collections, but the droplets are charged differently. This is like throwing magnetized ball bearings together. They will move to seek alignment, but then they will be stuck in a particular arrangement unless something external moves them around.
Those DNA molecules are very tiny. Their charges are very weak compared to other forces in their environment. They can easily be disrupted by the "randomness" of those environmental forces, yet they somehow seem to be able to go from a tiny collection into full grown human beings that adapt and last for a while, and even create newer models.
You have seen those plasma balls where you put your hand on them and they create shapes. The BBT universe is similar. This universe is 99% plasma. Charged particles. Do you see any of those charged particles creating any shapes under the influence of gravity alone as those gases settle?
Is all of this part of a larger argument, perhaps one against the validity of one of the sciences, or an argument against the possibility of abiogenesis. I ask because I need to know where we're headed in order to know what points are worth rebutting.

With Christians - and I realize that you have a different god than they - I prefer not to argue science, since all that they can hope to do there is to establish the need for an intelligent designer, but not theirs. I'll generally stipulate to all of their antiscience just to get to the part where they begin to argue that their god was the designer, an easier and shorter rebuttal.

Besides, it's nearly impossible to discuss science with somebody who only knows what Christian apologists have taught him about it.

But in your case, I'm expecting a deluge of items that I would disagree with and an amorphous, featureless god that cannot be refuted, and want a clearer picture of where you're headed in order to choose my battles more wisely.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184329 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask because it is necessary to establish simple molecules can start some very complex physical energy transfers on a highly successful and repetitive basis on their own. Those collections of charges are supposed to be the initiators of those actions.
The terms you are using are observed actions derived from that. The simple fact is you have to get your ducks in a row before anything can happen, and even then it has to be done in an order that doesn't knock them out of order.
The individual moleules can't move by themselves. There has to be something to position them and say go. Then you also have them working together by the millions in some sort of synchronization.
Something has to establish the pattern they will be working in as a group. Your abiogenesis works on the assumption this is from the inside out of those forces within the molecules. Physics has established those forces within molecules were not created with the Big Bang, but as a result of it. Roughly, a condensation of heat and energy. Similar to water vapor condensing to droplets, then the droplets to larger collections, but the droplets are charged differently. This is like throwing magnetized ball bearings together. They will move to seek alignment, but then they will be stuck in a particular arrangement unless something external moves them around.
Those DNA molecules are very tiny. Their charges are very weak compared to other forces in their environment. They can easily be disrupted by the "randomness" of those environmental forces, yet they somehow seem to be able to go from a tiny collection into full grown human beings that adapt and last for a while, and even create newer models.
You have seen those plasma balls where you put your hand on them and they create shapes. The BBT universe is similar. This universe is 99% plasma. Charged particles. Do you see any of those charged particles creating any shapes under the influence of gravity alone as those gases settle?
Let me take a moment to explain to you why you are wasting your time. 1) Atheism as a proven fact, does mean we have nothing left to learn. 2) There is knowledge, that have to be rimed. 3) Knowledge denied and burned. 4) a society that does not stray, if atheist are in enough control. No new advancements. It is why I believe, if nature wants the human race to expire, we will evolve into soulless atheist. On that note ask yourself, does nature find us dangerous? My answer is. It's cleanup time.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184330 Nov 15, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe in things without evidence and that includes "Karma." Your comprehension sucks, or you never read my post on the idea of eternity being an actual hell, far from a "positive thing." Like Karma, and your demo god, there is no evidence that a *soul* exists in anyone.
In one short sentence you have conjured up Karma, Souls, Eternal life, all things without a shred of evidence, seems very childlike and desperate, I guess given the source!!!!!!!!
For over 5,000 years there has been a lot of evidence that we do have souls. There is too much for me to even waste my time posting some sort of webpage to you. The Buddhist religion is based on sciences, and I can't concern myself with the idea you don't respect their sciences, as well as many other civilizations sciences. Besides why read Robert Stevens, if you were serious about leaning, the library and book stores are open.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184331 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask because it is necessary to establish simple molecules can start some very complex physical energy transfers on a highly successful and repetitive basis on their own. Those collections of charges are supposed to be the initiators of those actions.
The terms you are using are observed actions derived from that. The simple fact is you have to get your ducks in a row before anything can happen, and even then it has to be done in an order that doesn't knock them out of order.
The individual moleules can't move by themselves. There has to be something to position them and say go. Then you also have them working together by the millions in some sort of synchronization.
Something has to establish the pattern they will be working in as a group. Your abiogenesis works on the assumption this is from the inside out of those forces within the molecules. Physics has established those forces within molecules were not created with the Big Bang, but as a result of it. Roughly, a condensation of heat and energy. Similar to water vapor condensing to droplets, then the droplets to larger collections, but the droplets are charged differently. This is like throwing magnetized ball bearings together. They will move to seek alignment, but then they will be stuck in a particular arrangement unless something external moves them around.
Those DNA molecules are very tiny. Their charges are very weak compared to other forces in their environment. They can easily be disrupted by the "randomness" of those environmental forces, yet they somehow seem to be able to go from a tiny collection into full grown human beings that adapt and last for a while, and even create newer models.
You have seen those plasma balls where you put your hand on them and they create shapes. The BBT universe is similar. This universe is 99% plasma. Charged particles. Do you see any of those charged particles creating any shapes under the influence of gravity alone as those gases settle?
Creationist liars try to sound scientific, but if you ask them for evidence of god, they RUN SCARED from the question, because they know the answer.

These creationist idiots try to talk science, but cannot disprove evolution.

They try to talk about the big bang theory and ask stupid questions like "what happened before the big bang?" when they have no proof of god and no proof that their religious lies have any base in fact.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184332 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I am not facing bad karma as you are, and therefore eternal existence is a positive thing. I do feel as some of your sort do have souls, and just want life to end, the soul would rather be no more than face the music.
Souls aren't real. Projecting your mentally ill lies upon society in order to "understand" it is childish and wrong.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184333 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is all of this part of a larger argument, perhaps one against the validity of one of the sciences, or an argument against the possibility of abiogenesis. I ask because I need to know where we're headed in order to know what points are worth rebutting.
With Christians - and I realize that you have a different god than they - I prefer not to argue science, since all that they can hope to do there is to establish the need for an intelligent designer, but not theirs. I'll generally stipulate to all of their antiscience just to get to the part where they begin to argue that their god was the designer, an easier and shorter rebuttal.
Besides, it's nearly impossible to discuss science with somebody who only knows what Christian apologists have taught him about it.
But in your case, I'm expecting a deluge of items that I would disagree with and an amorphous, featureless god that cannot be refuted, and want a clearer picture of where you're headed in order to choose my battles more wisely.
I am sorry, but you are too addicted to talking about "The Christian God" to tell me you don't believe in him. I would perhaps say this even if I was not a person that believes your thoughts do give life.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184334 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me take a moment to explain to you why you are wasting your time. 1) Atheism as a proven fact, does mean we have nothing left to learn. 2) There is knowledge, that have to be rimed. 3) Knowledge denied and burned. 4) a society that does not stray, if atheist are in enough control. No new advancements. It is why I believe, if nature wants the human race to expire, we will evolve into soulless atheist. On that note ask yourself, does nature find us dangerous? My answer is. It's cleanup time.
Religious liars will try to lie about what atheism means.

Atheism is a simple disbelief in religious lies. It says nothing about advancements in science or society.

Religious liars, like creationists will try to assess atheism from inside their mentally ill cult mind, and so cannot understand how a universe can exist without an imaginary god - the main delusion suffered by people who have faith based illnesses.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184335 Nov 15, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Actually, I play a Rogue copy of the violin shaped Hofner. I'm playing mostly jazz a les Cats and the Fiddle and other Harlem stylists. I've taken to playing with a fellow burnout who's girlfriend sings like an angel, too. Fun--and he manages to find well-paying gigs from time to time, too.
It sounds like you're having a ball.
NightSerf wrote:
Dang, I wish I could truck myself down to your piece of Mexican Heaven for a little jamming.
I would like that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#184336 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me take a moment to explain to you why you are wasting your time. 1) Atheism as a proven fact, does mean we have nothing left to learn. 2) There is knowledge, that have to be rimed. 3) Knowledge denied and burned. 4) a society that does not stray, if atheist are in enough control. No new advancements. It is why I believe, if nature wants the human race to expire, we will evolve into soulless atheist. On that note ask yourself, does nature find us dangerous? My answer is. It's cleanup time.
I can't argue with that.

These atheists aren't atheists. They are spurious signals generated by growth. They will be brought into line or discharged to ground.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184337 Nov 15, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Souls aren't real. Projecting your mentally ill lies upon society in order to "understand" it is childish and wrong.
Same as 184333

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184338 Nov 15, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious liars will try to lie about what atheism means.
Atheism is a simple disbelief in religious lies. It says nothing about advancements in science or society.
Religious liars, like creationists will try to assess atheism from inside their mentally ill cult mind, and so cannot understand how a universe can exist without an imaginary god - the main delusion suffered by people who have faith based illnesses.
There is nothing to lie about, just let the atheist speak. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184339 Nov 15, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
Hi, IANS! I wonder if you are 'awed' nature ? That is to say, appreciate the power and majesty of the world. Can sit and smile during a summer rain or drive in terror through a blizzard. That sort of thing. Has nothing to do with God or anything. Just something I wondered.
Yes, absolutely. I just addressed that issue within the last 24 hours. You'veprobably found the link by now:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

The links before it and three posts after it are related, but doesn't address the scientific aspect. Make sure to watch the video. It will bring tears to your eyes.
BenAdam wrote:
I don't so much "worship" that which I call "God" (for lack of a better word in English) but am in 'awe' of the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. To me, the mysteries of how two individual cells combine to create every baby in history is more awesome than "God got Mary pregnant". The again, I never liked magic shows but loved the science behind the illusions.
Agreed. We are kindred spirits. A god belief per se doesn't strip one of the ability to have spiritual experiences. It's the Christian message of deep pessimism and disconnection from this world, everything in it, and even one's own flesh that is so antithetical to the authentic spiritual experience.
BenAdam wrote:
Anyway, sorry to ramble. I haven't been able to sleep tonight/morning.
You did no such thing.

And to those that don't know him, Ben is also an avid guitarist and singer. What a band we could form with blacklagoon on trumpet, NightSerf on bass, and you and me on guitar. River Tam is a violinist as I recall.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#184340 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is all of this part of a larger argument, perhaps one against the validity of one of the sciences, or an argument against the possibility of abiogenesis. I ask because I need to know where we're headed in order to know what points are worth rebutting.
With Christians - and I realize that you have a different god than they - I prefer not to argue science, since all that they can hope to do there is to establish the need for an intelligent designer, but not theirs. I'll generally stipulate to all of their antiscience just to get to the part where they begin to argue that their god was the designer, an easier and shorter rebuttal.
Besides, it's nearly impossible to discuss science with somebody who only knows what Christian apologists have taught him about it.
But in your case, I'm expecting a deluge of items that I would disagree with and an amorphous, featureless god that cannot be refuted, and want a clearer picture of where you're headed in order to choose my battles more wisely.
It was all about how abiogenesis could be started according to the laws of physics and maintained after it started. Construction in this universe is by that polarity of charges. Opposites attract, like repels. This causes motion and existence. Just point out a random pattern that could happen and then replicate itself in the swirl of those energies.

But you won't.

IANS, you have a basic problem with a truly "scientific" approach to life. You are more concerned with what you think it is or should be than what it is.

Your ego clouds your judgement. But you know that.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#184341 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Be careful putting your foot in your mouth.
I am glad you are so careful Dave while advising others to do the same. Maybe there is some human decency in you after all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184342 Nov 15, 2013
truth wrote:
Why you think God need be Englishman or Englishwoman?
must be fun funny smart but very deadly sneaky way let down someone..
evil can be nice in suits too
wrote very nice but promice nothing
Zasto crv bjezi u vlagu.
How much crv as stonoga have lags..as chu chu chu chu chu chu..is your language c.uk.a.n.j.e
o really
stone age
is c.uk as m.uk
jeste li malo kuku cuk c.uk.nut.i
a tako stretni doboitnik je kikiriki from argetina..o well kikiriki is roots in vlaga aha
mojsture=vlaga
What a abot wog as fog?
In fog can grow up what..as para-mashroom.
Please tell me which pra-historic kingdom is?!
Is mashroom as gigant can be ijuju or hi hi haygrant..
Please tell me ,,for high grant..you need highwarant..hydrogen..bummmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
no thanks net.ros.imo dr.ogu..nechu nechu drogerashe chu chu chu a yes
chukanje c.uk a n j.e is to much talk..
you can find most evil set up blame as blamerige as po.me.r.id.ge..eh..
see
Why crv=warm go into mojshcer.
Poems is good yee
Neboj se majko
crva sto u vlagu bjezi
ni spodobe sto se nochu sulja
ni onog sto se krivo naglas kune
ni onog sto krivo sude
neokreci se
na njihove mutne vode
neokrechi se
na njihove mutne snove
jer dobrota
je ko sunce
sto na nebu visoko sije.
nkh
in tisini
You need to meet Dr. Shrink of Baltimore, who I believe is also Slavic. You're practically clones. I'd say socks, but I doubt that either of you could fake your IP location.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184343 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you and Nightserf use definitions is to take words with positive, intellectually respectable connotations and twist them to support your bias so as to appropriate a legitimacy to your ideas which otherwise would not apply.
A more honest approach, and one which I advocate, is choosing words based on their actual meaning in order to communicate a message, and abstaining from using words based on what we wish them to mean.
The use of "skepticism" is a sufficient example.
Neither of you employs a proper usage of the term, but you seek to borrow its implied intellectual legitimacy in service of an agenda.
This technique cannot be described as "descriptive lexicography".
A more simple and quaint description is available - "bull shit".
Thanks for sharing.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#184344 Nov 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad to disappoint you, Dave the Nazi man!
Is it true you are a Nazi Dave?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184345 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
"Disbelief" is not "not believing", nor is it "believing not". It is not that one does not believe. It is a refusal or inability to believe. Disbelief is not skepticism. "Atheism" is not a position that the existence of gods is impossible. Words mean things.
Thanks again.

Do you consider mean 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
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 15 min Roy the Boy 686
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min No Surprize 1,153,924
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr FLORIDA SWAMPER 28,376
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr Brian_G 306,966
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 hr JAX 201,161
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 19 hr Earth inhabited 2,663
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web