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

“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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184361 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you liked that.
Perhaps you can imagine the feedback I got from emailing that material to about 200 people, people that haven't really examined spirituality properly. What do you think that ideas like mine and philhellene's (the video) mean to people that have allowed Christians to convince them that they are not spiritual because they reject the notion of a spirit world, and therefore have no claim the word?
My argument is that authentic spirituality belongs to us, not you. I say that we take it back, along with the moral high ground and the Christian claim to a superior understanding of what love is.
This is the kind of debate and discussion I like, not meetings.
Incidentally, I've just shared your reaction with them. I think it's good for all of us to know about one another. Many of them have little or no experience with Christians in informal conversation like this, and see only the output of the published apologists. They generally don't know how you misunderstand things like atheism, skepticism, and freethought, or how you mock them in your prejudice and ignorance.
Incidentally, that was all freethought - Ken's material, my response to it, and philhellene's ideas. Freethought need not be original to be freethought. It merely needs to be a departure from unexamined and generally accepted dogma.
See what I mean?

You haven't freethought about spirituality 'properly' until you've freethought about it exactly like Ken did.

You're not freethinking for yourself, you're using Ken's freethoughts and assuming he's correct.

That's just sad.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184362 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Huh...
NightSerf:
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling.
--
So NightSerf must not believe in dreams, emotions or intuition...
If he does, he's full of shit.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How is it that you've misunderstood even those simple and self-evident ideas?
How is it that you misunderstood that I was merely pointing out his bullshit?

There is ZERO evidence for dreams.

There is ZERO evidence for emotion.

There is ZERO evidence for a gut feeling.

IF you believe they exist, you're not following your own rules that you must only believe what has "compelling evidence".

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184363 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to know what evidence is, or that your words are evidence of your intellect, character and disposition. There is ample evidence that you are honest except when cornered and trying to save face. You post many things that I know to be true, and others that I have read about because of your posting that confirmed that you were honest about those matters. I remember a post of yours on another thread about door hinges that caused me to read more about them:
Riverside Redneck: "Don't use self-closing hinges, they make the door slam. Instead, use a commercial door closer, it makes the door shut and latch without having to hear it slam."
So why wouldn't I believe you if you said you had a dream? As a skeptic, I have intellectual doubt: I realize that you may be lying. But I experience no psychological doubt about a mundane claim from a guy who is largely honest and has no apparent motive to be lying. That's all reason applied to evidence. It's how skeptics form opinions.
As I said, I think it's good for all of us to understand one another and how we think, both evidence based thinkers and faith based thinkers. Your opinions about me as an atheist, a skeptic, and a freethinker, and the way you come by them - your faith in the opinions of people that despise all of those things - is just as instructive.
Negative.

You'd readily believe I had a dream because you have experienced dreams yourself.

But there's no "compelling evidence", it's just a dream.

In turn you readily dismiss the idea that God is real because you have never experienced God.

Suppose you're talking to a person that (for whatever reason) cannot dream. Try to convince him that dreams are real. G'head.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184364 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Why is secular government better than theocracy?
Who says it is?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184365 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Atheism isn't a claim. It's an opinion about theists' claim and their evidence and arguments for gods, which I have rejected after careful consideration.
Furthermore, my rejection of your god - my atheism - is self evident. The proof of my atheism is that rejection
If you're waiting for a disproof of all gods, I can't give you one. I can disprove the claim that the Christian god exists, but not to somebody that has a stake in remaining a believer. I'd need your cooperation.
A disproof of gods were it possible would be superfluous anyway. I don't need one to reject unsupported, extraordinary claims, and faith is immune to evidence. So which of us would benefit from such a proof? Neither.
Notice that I don't ask you for a proof for your theism. I already know you don't have one.
It aint necessarily so wrote:

I can disprove the claim that the Christian god exists, but not to somebody that has a stake in remaining a believer. I'd need your cooperation.
I think you mean that you'd need them to share your belief.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184366 Nov 15, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> we didn't have a choice in what we were born into. Billions of animals killed daily for our consumption didn't either, and we take no thought for them.
I take thought for the animals and plants that died for me every time I say Grace.

You?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184367 Nov 15, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We're just pointing out that even the "evidence based rational freethinking skeptic" has his beliefs, too.

Imagine that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184368 Nov 15, 2013
Alarice wrote:
Thirty second video of woman taking offense at the comments from an evolutionist.
Very Funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =fTpD4ojOI0AXX
I want my thirty seconds back.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184369 Nov 15, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
The Law of Gravity is very much different than the Theory of Gravity.

I don't believe in Tao, so I don't care what you have to say about it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184370 Nov 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You believe in all powerful compassionate god despite having evidence of avoidable suffering.
Do you believe God causes the suffering?
Can you quantify the negative effects of your cognitive dissonance?
As I have no cognitive dissonance, I have to answer no.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

#184371 Nov 15, 2013
People can fiddle the judge icons but religion is still just superstition.

There are no gods or pixies. Get over it.

Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#184372 Nov 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Huh...
NightSerf:
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling.
--
So NightSerf must not believe in dreams, emotions or intuition...
If he does, he's full of shit.
<quoted text>
How is it that you misunderstood that I was merely pointing out his bullshit?
There is ZERO evidence for dreams.
There is ZERO evidence for emotion.
There is ZERO evidence for a gut feeling.
IF you believe they exist, you're not following your own rules that you must only believe what has "compelling evidence".
There is ZERO evidence for your deities, virgin birth and resurrection.

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) 2 min shinningelectr0n 1,174,234
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 36 min Bruin For Life 28,750
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 38 min R C Honey 308,049
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Quantummist 3,189
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 3 hr Merv the Perv 735
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Thu HitMan 201,321
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
More from around the web