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

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206278 Jan 22, 2014
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. I said "in regards to her".
Clearwater can't seperate himself from his victim status long enough to read
what I actually wrote.
Honestly, I've been speaking out about the way this fella uses his wife as
a human shield to make some sorted point against homosexuality for almost 5 years.
I'll never forget the first time I read his nonsense.. This is where I first started
wondering who these peeps ,here on topx, truly call their god..
And as I've read and learned more of these topix proclaimer s of Christianity
-it's been a slippery slope from there.
Oh yeah, I remember it well. I said that once a'ways back, and have left it alone ever since, tho' he kept using it at every opportunity, and even when it had no connection. Like I said, I won't comment critically on personal experience, but when it's used as basis for a position, it's no longer personal experience, but offered as "evidence", and thus fair game for rebuttal.

I declare, you must have been having an interesting "ride". I think you and I have butted heads on occasion a'way back in the day, but I've also seen you "evolve" in WSJLM, as have I, and many of us. But hey! That's really what most of these threads are about, fightin' and lovin', growin' and slidin'. The trick is keeping them fun, informative, and above the belt. We most of us ain't too good at that last part. In any case it's good to "speak" with you, and I wish you and yours,

Peace in the light of knowledge and truth.
HipG

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206279 Jan 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you express support for Barton.
Now, you defend Osteen.
What next, Ann Coulter? David Duke?
I defend them when false charges are made.

You object to that?

What's wrong with Ann Coulter? Inuendo much?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206280 Jan 22, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
The book of Job is a fictional story according to the people who wrote it.
Feel free to tell the Jews they don't know sh!t about their own books..
Point me to a Jew and I will.

Because I know that Ezekiel referred to Job along with Noah and Daniel in Ezekiel 14.

Also, James uses the example of Job to comfort suffering, proving the point that God is merciful, see James 5.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206281 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Words like "destiny" and "fate" are often used by people that believe in a plan that has a purpose or a higher power behind it. The ways in which these words are used, in most cases, are inconsistent with my worldview.
The concept I brought up was determinism.
Determinism is very similar to fate int that your future is predetermined and you aren't the cause of anything because it's already set.

It's a direct opposite to free will, which is why I think people like you & Harris dig it. Anything to go against Christianity turns you guys on.

But it's funny that an "evidence-based rational skeptic" would believe in something like that...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206282 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't say material wealth was unimportant. Quite the contrary; he said it would inhibit entry into heaven.
No, he said it would inhibit entry into "the Kingdom".

He also said "the Kingdom is within you", not somewhere out there.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206283 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Neither did Job.
These are fictional characters of a myth.
Says you.

But you also say that Jesus is a character of myth.

We see very differently on this.
Yes it is, but why would that matter to you?
Did Zeus and his kids exist?
I don't know and I don't care.

I don't go around arguing about things I don't believe in.

You see, I'm not an atheist.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206284 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I don't really care what you think it means.
TA-DAAA!

I accept your concession.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206285 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, as I pointed out before, faith is not a reliable epistemology.
The only person who peddles faith is a charlatan.
And you take that on faith.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206286 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I would go further and add that I don't believe that the church is interested in whether those people live or die, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
AAAAAAND........ Nobody answered.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#206287 Jan 22, 2014
1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>

Experience and experiment (empiricism) can be a path to knowledge. If every time I heat ice to 32F it melts, I know something. Conflicting ideas cannot be supported by evidence.
Pure reason (rationalism) can be a path to knowledge. It tells us that 7+4=11, and unless we redefine what those symbols mean, no opposite opinion can be supported by reason.
But faith (fideism) can't possibly be a path to truth or knowledge since any position and its opposite can be held by faith.
.......... The defacto wise people acknowledge that they are mortal and hopeless sinners and need atonement. The defacto wise people also know that there is much more than meets the eye. Their anecdotal evidence is empirical. Just like water frezzes at 32 everyone , after approx. 24,000 days meets their maker. Some with joy some with gnashing of teeth. Its all a matter of time, life spans are a blip , in real time.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206288 Jan 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are technically correct, that's indeed what you wrote.
But you are Buck Creek, well known in these here parts.
And I know that, if you disagreed with me, you would have so stated, in no uncertain terms and without further requirement.
If you recall, Counselor, I told you that I was unfamiliar with the details of the case, and had no opinion.

I neither agree nor disagree. And I don't take the opinions of liberals at face value.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206289 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Abstinence works in practice. 100%.
It doesn't work if not in practice.
Correct, and that is what Christianity teaches.

The Topix Atheists! want Christianity to teach "Abstinence works and is the best thing to do, but if you decide to follow your temptations, here's some rubbers to make sure you don't get an STD."

Dumb asses.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206290 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Whatever the Court says is NOT necessarily what the Constitution means.
That is logically impossible. Since a subsequent Court can and does reverse what a Court said the Constitution means, your reasoning makes both conflicting rulings correct.
The Constitution cannot mean both "A" and "non A".
Aside from the flaw of being impossible, your view is unconstitutional. The Court would be free to legislate, and the judiciary would be supreme, not co-equal.
Your view is both impossible and wrong.
Of course it can, because it's not a static document. Justice Marshall established that in the very beginning with Marbury v Madison (as I recall).

Do we still count certain property as 3/5 of a man for representative purposes? It was a necessary compromise at the time, unthinkable now. The Constitution and the Court reflected both views, and were legally "right" both times.

It was >>designed<< to be dynamic and flexible. That's the genius of it. That's why it has lasted through crises that collapsed nations under more rigid documents. That's why it has endured through social and political changes impossible to imagine by the founders. That's why it's basic structure formed the foundation for many new Constitutions since.

Times change. People change, Perspectives change. The Constitution is dynamic enough to absorb them all, and that wasn't by luck.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206291 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with HipGnosis, who I believe is saying that the church's ability to help is severely limited by its doctrine.
I would go further and add that I don't believe that the church is interested in whether those people live or die, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
That attitude runs rampant through Christianity, as when we discuss the deaths of anybody
http://lh6.ggpht.com/--hXMr-dc2Xs/Tin6AAPoKtI...
Why would these Africans be viewed any differently?
I would say that the church actually does harm by drawing people to a solution that is sure to fail, just as a charlatan with a quack remedy that diverts patients from effective therapy does worse than nothing. He does harm.
You wrote about the church that, "Their obligation is to teach what they feel is right." Do you agree that our obligation is to do the same, which for us means to contradict the church and criticize its ways, as with posts like this one? For people who put no stock in the values of the church that part from rational ethics, we see these values as not only wrong, but deadly.
I don't believe my former church cares if I live or die.

In fact, the majority would likely prefer I die.

I am certain they have taken pleasure in my suffering.

Well, I'm not dead, and they can kiss my big ass. Amen.

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#206292 Jan 22, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>It was obvious, funny face. And you still never supported your ridiculous claim that you could sue the school if someother kid was caught praying in front of yours. Youre just another malcontent lost soul
If by "support" you mean answer you because you demand it then you're right, I never did tell you if I would sue the school for money.

If you're still waiting for me to answer you, don't hold your breath.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206293 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Determinism is very similar to fate int that your future is predetermined and you aren't the cause of anything because it's already set.
Determinism doesn't state that people don't cause anything. We play a part in causality.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's a direct opposite to free will, which is why I think people like you & Harris dig it. Anything to go against Christianity turns you guys on.
No, that isn't why I "dig it".
RiversideRedneck wrote:
But it's funny that an "evidence-based rational skeptic" would believe in something like that...
Why is that funny?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206294 Jan 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can readily understand what is being said there, but I have a much less romantic view of the situation.
I have spent some time trying to figure if I'm in a zoo, a prison, or a psychriatic ward here. I kinda gave up and resigned myself to whatever because of my military experience. This has been one hell of a long duty assignment in not exactly the choicest of them. The locals leave a lot to be desired. I have orders to observe and not interfere. Just suffer them.
Dave has got kinda tired.
This thread has helped, though. It has attracted several heavy hitting intellects on the theistic side. Very impressive and heartening. Almost all of those theistic thinkers on here fit that category. I used to stand off these howling crazies by myself for a long time, especially in that PTAG(shudder) thread.
I will say you made a tremendous difference with your appearance. Your force of personality and intellect really turned a tide on these forums.
It is so nice to see some sanity emerge in this chaos. Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Not in the best of heads this morning. Got up and read the overnight posts. Usually this is a game of sorts, but the Topix atheist attempts to look intellectual and "in the know" didn't strike me so funny this morning. It was more pathetic, like a mortally injured animal struggling to get up. Bummer.
You are a good man, Dave.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206295 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, and that is what Christianity teaches....
Wrong.
That is what SOME denominations of Christianity teaches, not all.

"They aren't 'Real Christians'! " in 3... 2... 1...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#206296 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
I've always been an avid student of Philosophy and History as well as a reluctant observer/participant of religion. I'm really getting into studying religion more, as time allows.
I hope you count your time here as part of your education. It's not formal education like a classroom is, but you can learn things here that you can't learn there about the effects of Christianity in particular and of faith based thinking in general on people.

I consider this more valuable, especially since we have many students of religion among the unbelievers here to supplement that with theology and church history. For example, by now, we all know about Paul, Josephus' accounts, and Constantine (church history), as well as the arguments for and against the creation story, the Flood, and lately Job (theology).
Bongo

Coram, NY

#206297 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with HipGnosis, who I believe is saying that the church's ability to help is severely limited by its doctrine, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
.
Its limited, rightly so. Even a pastor is told to give a person over to their sin , if they refuse to receive admonishment. Jobs kids may not have gone to heaven. Jobs constant worry and praying for them suggests they were involved in lifestyle not approved of by God. God had no problem killing all flesh in the flood because of the way man turned out. Hes not going to have that problem again either saying, the next time its going to be by fire.

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
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 min Brian_G 307,991
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr John Galt 1,173,427
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Steve Alford 28,724
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 13 hr Quantummist 3,136
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Pinoyboyguy 734
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Jan 23 alanparkcity 1
More from around the web