Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

There are 289 comments on the News24 story from May 10, 2013, titled Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism. In it, News24 reports that:

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21 May 14, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Well, lets start with the meaning of the term "actual evidence".
I have all the evidence I need to prove your myth ... myth.

Omniscience. You require this in your god.

But in our Quantum-Mechanical universe? A certain level of uncertainty is required-- that is how QM works.

Omniscience means "all knowing", meaning there can be no uncertainty.

If your god exists? Our universe cannot exist.

But we see our Universe does exist-- therefore?

Your god cannot.

Period.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#22 May 14, 2013
BeHereNow wrote:
Fanatical atheists try to force feed their beliefs, and I find it no more beneficial than from religionists.
Nope. All we atheists ask? Is for your BIGOTRY to NOT BE MADE INTO LAW.

Marriage equality, for example: you ugly bigots have been preventing this for centuries.

Not any more-- atheists and non-bigots are rising AGAINST you bigots, and forcing your UGLY LAWS OUT.

Which is good.

And which is a result of the fanatical atheists you hate so very, very much...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#23 May 14, 2013
True Christian witness wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so wrong, so you only personify, you know!
The clueless desperation of the truly deluded, above.

Sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#24 May 14, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I firmly believe in God, I just don't know who "He" is – and I don't think anyone on earth does. That's why we have religion, it (all religions) is something created by man, in an attempt to explain the concept of God. God is God, religion is man. I have absolutely no problem believing in a very ultra-powerful creator being, there's too much around me I see which can only be explained in that way. It does not mean I understand that being, but just like Earth's gravity – I don't have to understand it to know it exists and respect the heck out of it! I see God when I'm on a beach watching the sunset or a hilltop watching the sunrise, or in an open field on a warm summer night, making love and looking up at the stars. That is where I see God.
So you freely admit that "god" is simply the ideas created by ... people?

Interesting.
Lincoln

United States

#25 May 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have all the evidence I need to prove your myth ... myth.
Omniscience. You require this in your god.
But in our Quantum-Mechanical universe? A certain level of uncertainty is required-- that is how QM works.
Omniscience means "all knowing", meaning there can be no uncertainty.
If your god exists? Our universe cannot exist.
But we see our Universe does exist-- therefore?
Your god cannot.
Period.
more mumbo jumbo posted 13,567 times

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#26 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
more mumbo jumbo posted 13,567 times
well shaddap then.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#27 May 15, 2013
It would be more accurate to say that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. For example, if someone claimed that a strong magnetic field existed in a particular spot, the absence of any effect on a metal in which iron was the main component would be definitive evidence that no such field was present. In many experiments, the absence of effects predicted by a hypothesis are evidence that that hypothesis is false.

Likewise, many of the arguments I've seen attempting to validate atheists' positions have highlighted the absence of effects that would indicate a god at work. Why would anyone suppose that something as enormously powerful as a god would fail to produce predictable and observable effects? Yet all of the gods I've heard of seem to do exactly that.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. But sometimes it is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#28 May 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
One flaw, but otherwise okay. We do not believe there is "no god," we simply do not believe in the gods presented. A gnostic atheist believes there is no god, an agnostic atheist believes that there might be a god but those presented are unsupported. I do wish people would actually learn the difference between theism and gnosticism.
You could start by learning that "agnostic atheist" is a self-contradictory term, and no such person exists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#29 May 15, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. For example, if someone claimed that a strong magnetic field existed in a particular spot, the absence of any effect on a metal in which iron was the main component would be definitive evidence that no such field was present.
Testing for the effect on the metal, and finding none, is not an "absence of evidence". It is, in fact, evidence.

This only proves "evidence of absence is evidence of absence".

It has no bearing on whether "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#30 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>One born without theistic beliefs.... uh, that is an atheist.
Well I thought that fairly obverious but apparently godbots use a different dictionary to the rest of us.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#31 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You could start by learning that "agnostic atheist" is a self-contradictory term, and no such person exists.
You cannot even demonstrate what you say is true.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#32 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Testing for the effect on the metal, and finding none, is not an "absence of evidence". It is, in fact, evidence.
This only proves "evidence of absence is evidence of absence".
It has no bearing on whether "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Testing the various "holy" book's promises? Always prove that no god is willing to honor those promises.

Always.

That is more than sufficient to dismiss the "holy" books as fraud.

Without a "holy" book? There is no RATIONAL reason to believe in any gods.

None.

Conclusion: there are no gods.

NEXT!
Misa

Weymouth, UK

#33 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You could start by learning that "agnostic atheist" is a self-contradictory term, and no such person exists.
That's bollocks. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that we cannot know whether God exists. How is that incompatible with either atheism or theism, which are related to beliefs (regardless of justification)?
Misa

Weymouth, UK

#34 May 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
There is no RATIONAL reason to believe in any gods.
None.
Conclusion: there are no gods.
NEXT!
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premisses. There once was no rational reason to believe that humans share ancestry with trees, but it was still true.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#35 May 15, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premisses. There once was no rational reason to believe that humans share ancestry with trees, but it was still true.
Back when people did not understand DNA? There was very little that was rational, when it came to human ancestry.

In fact? Prior to the return to reason, after the Dark Ages, where irrationality was normal, there was little in the way of rationality.

So my premise stands as written.
Misa

Weymouth, UK

#36 May 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Back when people did not understand DNA? There was very little that was rational, when it came to human ancestry.
In fact? Prior to the return to reason, after the Dark Ages, where irrationality was normal, there was little in the way of rationality.
So my premise stands as written.
Very little was rational until the discovery of DNA? Surely some mistake...
My point, which you apparently missed, is that just because there is no rational reason to believe something, doesn't make that thing false. The history of science is filled with examples.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#37 May 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
more mumbo jumbo posted 13,567 times
Is that all you've posted? Only 13,567 mumbo jumbos?

We appreciate you keeping accurate numbers (13,567) of your worthless comments - it demonstrates at least one small area of honesty <sarcasm> in a otherwise totally bankrupt personality.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#38 May 16, 2013
One of the longest running (to my knowledge) of a natural world fact denied by science is the case of rogue waves.
Noted explorer Ernsest Shackleton gave his detailed account, and it was denied by scientists.
Many decades later they ran sophisiticated computer models, same results, not reasonably possilbe.
Then, centuries after being reported by mariners, scientists finally said - "Guess what, we've been wrong all thes centuries. They really do exist."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/sub...
Until recently science denied the existence of such waves. Yet a series of well-documented and expensive maritime disasters through the 1990s, together with advances in our understanding of complex systems, has forced a rethink.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39 May 16, 2013
Also:
Scientific method

There are two vital pieces of information buried in this list of conclusions, and we'll wrap up this long essay by listing them:
•Scientific process doesn't have an end. It's circular. Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that. The progress of science tracks a very complicated pattern of many, many interlocking circular pathways. But the important message is that you never get to the end. This is the Great Fallacy of most discussions of the scientific method. No list can adequately describe the process of science--it requires, at the very least, a cycle.


•There is no such thing as proof in science. It doesn't matter how many experiments agree with your hypothesis, or how much data you have. All concepts in science are fundamentally tentative. What does change as we accumulate evidence is that our level of confidence in our ideas increases. As more and more evidence accumulates which supports an idea, and none appears that significantly contradicts it, we become very confident in that idea. This is the situation with things like Newton's Laws and the theories of evolution and atomic structure. We assume that they are at least very close to The Truth. But we never, ever decide that we know for sure that they are the truth.
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/sci...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#40 May 16, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premisses. There once was no rational reason to believe that humans share ancestry with trees, but it was still true.
You have managed to cram so much that's wrong into one post that it's hard to know where to start - humans haven't evolved from trees is one correction to make, perhaps? Then, you confuse something being true but unknown with making something up like Abrahamic god(s) and then believing in them regardless of reason or evidence.

According to such 'logic' as is in your post there could be pixies and god could be Blackbeard, but there's no more reason to believe in those than in Abrahamic gods. We could all make stuff up and call them 'our beliefs' but that is hardly to be recommended.

The point is that belief in god(s) might have been understandable when people thought the Earth was flat. There's no excuse for such gibberish in the 21st century. Abrahamic gods are superstitions, plain and simple.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 17 min ORIGINAL WILLARD 30
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 24 min Eagle 12 12,798
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 52 min Eagle 12 247,536
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr cancer lost 47,837
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr Thinking 13
Proof of God for the Atheist 1 hr Amused 130
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr said 20,899
More from around the web