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

“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?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184346 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I honestly do wish I could agree with you, but I think those more social atheist, we know personally sound like these guys behind closed doors.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#184347 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignore realities to suit your pursuits.
pot/kettle

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#184348 Nov 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ego clouds your judgement.
pot/kettle
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#184349 Nov 15, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ahh, your favorite lame ass ploy, "I'd show you the evidence but I'd just be wasting my time." Too funny.

Show me the scientific documentation that shows "souls" to exist. Not personal experiences, or anecdotal accounts, REAL science. Bet you can't. I know you can't otherwise humans having this soul thing would be acceptable scientific knowledge. All you have now is the exact same proof as for werewolves. Stories, personal experiences, whispers in the dark.. You are no different from our distant relatives who when confronted with something they could not possible understand, simply made shit up, usually involving a mysterious God thing.

You can ONLY validate this soul thing with credible science, and I KNOW you have no shot at that. Your soul thing is a myth much like your God/Gods/Alien Gods/ or whatever foolishness you believe,

The Buddhist religion is based on "science" Really? Care to show where that is true. And when you say I don't believe in "THEIR SCIENCE" WTF does that mean? Science is science, there is only one scientific method You talk as though science is something that can be different to different people, each one having their "own" science. Leads me to believe you really don't have a grasp as to what constitutes *science*

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#184350 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Such precision of word meaning seems to be pretty important with select words to you Buck.
English has never been so rigid in definition, as words are bent in our language more often than not. So much so, it causes the dictionary to have to be revised from time to time.
Atheism has become a blanket term, not needing the precision of complete description to convey what it means from individual to another. I just wonder why you require this level of precision, when someone tells you they are atheist? Because under blanket terms, atheist just means "a person that doesn't believe in god".

The nuance's of this blanket expression is left for those who wish to qualify exactly what their thoughts are.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#184351 Nov 15, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Ahh, your favorite lame ass ploy, "I'd show you the evidence but I'd just be wasting my time." Too funny.
Show me the scientific documentation that shows "souls" to exist. Not personal experiences, or anecdotal accounts, REAL science. Bet you can't. I know you can't otherwise humans having this soul thing would be acceptable scientific knowledge. All you have now is the exact same proof as for werewolves. Stories, personal experiences, whispers in the dark.. You are no different from our distant relatives who when confronted with something they could not possible understand, simply made shit up, usually involving a mysterious God thing.
You can ONLY validate this soul thing with credible science, and I KNOW you have no shot at that. Your soul thing is a myth much like your God/Gods/Alien Gods/ or whatever foolishness you believe,
The Buddhist religion is based on "science" Really? Care to show where that is true. And when you say I don't believe in "THEIR SCIENCE" WTF does that mean? Science is science, there is only one scientific method You talk as though science is something that can be different to different people, each one having their "own" science. Leads me to believe you really don't have a grasp as to what constitutes *science*
If you were paying attention and honest about it, I would not have to offer proof. As I mentioned for over 5,000 years the proof has been written, collected and it is online. You've been ignorant to it, I would be vain if I thought I could prove to you, what so many others for so longs has known.
Alarice

Buffalo, NY

#184352 Nov 15, 2013
Thirty second video of woman taking offense at the comments from an evolutionist.

Very Funny

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184353 Nov 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I'm an agnostic atheist.
So you deny the existence of any gods while simultaneously believe that gods may exist.

How's that working out for ya?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#184354 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
I did and it did. Thanks!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184355 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Of which? Any time anybody questions a claim and asks for supporting evidence, they are being skeptical. If a teenager tells me she's at her friend's house and I want to verify it, I might call a land line to that home to verify it, which evidence would easily convince me, and after which I would remain a skeptic, albeit a convinced one.
I call bullshit.

Providing evidence that a person is at a particular location is incomparable to providing evidence for God.
As I said, one is felt, the other understood. I don't doubt that my car is parked right now where I left it, but I understand that it is possible that it has been stolen since I last saw it. Do I doubt that my car is there for me right now? Not psychologically. I feel pretty certain that it is. But as a skeptic, I understand that my knowledge is incomplete, and my assumption possibly in error. I do not feel doubt in the psychological sense, but I have doubt anyway because of my understanding of things.
So the possibility that your car might've been stolen since you last saw it is an example of skepticism?!

O_o

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#184356 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the existence of any gods while simultaneously believe that gods may exist.
How's that working out for ya?
One can believe that "A" gravitational force exists without believing in the graviton theory.

Much like I believe that there is a unified creative and motive force that created and governs the universe without believing that force is Jesus.

I prefer to call it Tao but few people understand that word and will twist its meaning. In English the closest word is "God".
Thinking

UK

#184357 Nov 15, 2013
You believe in all powerful compassionate god despite having evidence of avoidable suffering.

Can you quantify the negative effects of your cognitive dissonance?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the existence of any gods while simultaneously believe that gods may exist.
How's that working out for ya?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184358 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you suppose that idea came from?
I think I know. It's one of dozens of ideas that I see coming only from faith based thinkers. Others would be calling abortion the murder of a baby, calling unbelief belief, calling trust based on experience faith, being offended at being called a descendant of an ape, the rejection of evolution, calling secular humanism a religion, saying that reality is evidence for a god. People that say such things are almost exclusively theists, which in my world is, so I assume that their thoughts come from religious training that has never been critically examined.
If you ever embrace skepticism, you will ask yourself why you believe what you do. If you can't find a better reason that that it is because you were told so and never questioned the idea, you will have reason to look for supporting evidence through unbiased eyes, and modify your beliefs as appropriate. That is how evidence based belief differs from faith based belief, and is the essence of (rational) skepticism.
<quoted text>
This is more of your prejudice for skeptics. A Christian is no less likely to behave that way than a rational skeptic.
I have embraced skepticism. You can call me a theist skeptic. I debated the existence of God for many years, I doubted His existence. My skepticism was proven wrong.

I doubt everything, even the honesty and integrity of today's "rational thinkers". There's no rationality in believing in dreams, emotions, intuition, luck, aliens or ghosts. But many, many people do, religious and non-religious alike.

The only skeptics I'm prejudiced against are the bullshitters. The ones that fight tooth n nail against a god they claim doesn't even exist. I think they're skeptical about themselves more than anything.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#184359 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I call bullshit.....
You misspelled "post".

LOL

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184360 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
More of your prejudicial thought.
Would you like to see my reply to him and my group? It's nice illustration of how we teach one another. nobody is trying to coerce anybody yo believe anything. All ideas are explained and supported, and offered on their merits, not with threats of hellfire or claims of divine authorship.
Here it is in two parts:
Hey Ken and gang. It's been a while since I've chimed in.
Spirituality is a subject of interest to me and one that I've discussed at length in my Internet message board pursuits, so rather than reinvent the wheel, please indulge me by allowing me to recopy a few words a little out of context here.
But first, I'd like to address Ken's comment, "To my knowledge, "spirituality" is a supernatural phenomenon, as "spirit" surely is."
I would remind us all that there is a difference between spiritualism, which invokes the supernatural, and spirituality, which describes a delicious psychological phenomenon that can be pursued, nurtured and enjoyed for its own sake without injecting magic.
Here are some of those posts on that subject:
==========
[1] "What does a rationalist and empiricist do with such spiritual notions? If he's wise, he enjoys them for what they are. He doesn't call them beliefs or make decisions based on them. Chasing them away, or despising them for being unfounded if he can't chase them away, is both unnecessary and undesirable. Reason helps us understand the world. But it is an irrational aspect of mind that lets us take pleasure from it. Reason is only useful in the service of the pursuit of satisfaction.
"These are the some of the kinds of thoughts that I am referring to when I talk about spirituality from an atheistic perspective. Spirituality comprises intuitions of the mysterious combined with awe, gratitude, and a sense of connectivity, the latter having been violently extirpated from the Christian experience by the insistence that he separate himself psychologically from "the world" and "the flesh" - his own body and the human race.
"It is unknowable if these intuitions have correlates outside of the head, or are merely psychological phenomena. But it is not necessary to know to benefit from their sublime experience. They add to my life in a very positive way whatever they are, and I nurtured and embraced them for that reason rather than despise or dismiss them.
==========
[2] "I think that your religion strips the universe of the admiration it deserves, and exports it to some object that may not exist in some space that may not exist. It diverts your attention from how magnificent things are - including man - and cheapens them by demeaning them with a deep pessimism for our physical world and by demeaning the life on it, both human and animal."
Of course it's prejudicial.

I can't take any freethinker seriously when he demands (or even recommends) that other freethinkers freethink exactly like he does.

That's not freethinking, that's just being a follower.

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) 1 hr flack 1,126,132
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Earthling-1 1,522
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Bruin For Life 27,924
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr Friv4games 306,257
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 9 hr Roy the Boy 454
Old UK WildCat Picture Signed by Adolph F.Rupp+... (Apr '07) 12 hr Local man 40
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) 20 hr Geoscientist 50

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE