Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Hidingfromyou]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I like comfy spaces.
<dingaling>
<hug>
<hug>
<clink>
<ummmmmm>
<clink clink clink clink clink clink>

<Hiding sits up>

"Having troubles with the belt buckle?"

[Hidingfromyou]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd actually encourage the Feynman lectures on physics. He doesn't use a tremendous amount of math, but goes very deeply into the physics.

Well if you don't put down a link, it's too much trouble :p

[Eye Heart Jesus]

spandexxx wrote:

If god is an all knowing,all powerfull and perfect entity then there would be no reason to create anything outside itself.
Humans would and could not contribute anything to god because god is already perfect.
There for human life in the face of god is pointless so why create it?
A perfect entity would not create human life without purpose because that would be an imperfect act and if god is not perfect it is not god at all.
The very fact that human life exists is evidence dat there is no all powerfull,all knowing perfect god.

There are a variety if logic fallacies in this agreement but for the sake of time I'll just concentrate on this one aspect.
You seem to have a very distorted view of God.
He is ultimately in charge and has the ability and free will to exhibit This through His personal expression. He has chosen to make humankind
as an expression of His free will, because of His desire to engage in personal relationship with man. He also desired for humankind to be
crested in His image so that we could relate to Him better. In order to do this, He made us with free will. Free will gives us the CHOICE to make decisions... Right or wrong. The choice of evil must be there, in order for absolute moral standards to exist; otherwise, we'd all e subservient robots. God didn't intend for us to be this way, but created us to be agents of free will, such as Himself.
Now that we have concieved the more accurate properties of God, we can understand how a perfect being can want to create beings and life with the potential of doing evil.

[Eye Heart Jesus]

Sorry agreement =argument. (iPhone blunder)

[macumazahn]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Sigh....
raphical
Poor Polly. For him physics is waves, probabilities, and uncertainty. For me it is the stuff that makes them. He doesn't understand that.
Draw us a picture of a proton, Polly. Not a grepresentation or numbers, but a real life painting, so to speak.

How about a photo of an electron changing quantum states?

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-revea...

[Dave Nelson]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
<Hiding sits up>
"Having troubles with the belt buckle?"

:-)

Not really.

[Dave Nelson]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>How about a photo of an electron changing quantum states?
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-revea...

There is no possible way to take a direct photo of an electron. You are seeing nothing but energy transfers affecting the area. Assumptions of its "solidness" by its effects.

Those sort of photos are a game played with EM.

Damn that EM. It is just everywhere we look.

[Drew Smith]

True intellectual and self-reasoned atheists use science as a tool.
So I'm still waiting for you to describe atheists who don't use science.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
These sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_...

Where in that list does it say that they don't use science?

Dave Nelson wrote:

Science is not a tool for them.

Really? Where does it say that?

Dave Nelson wrote:

Science can not prove or disprove the supernatural.

Science does not "prove" anything. It is not in the business of "proof".

Dave Nelson wrote:

The natural has an origin, otherwise it wouldn't be natural.

Which does not tell us that we automatically know what that origin is.

[Dave Nelson]

Drew Smith wrote:

True intellectual and self-reasoned atheists use science as a tool.
So I'm still waiting for you to describe atheists who don't use science.
<quoted text>
Where in that list does it say that they don't use science?
<quoted text>
Really? Where does it say that?
<quoted text>
Science does not "prove" anything. It is not in the business of "proof".
<quoted text>
Which does not tell us that we automatically know what that origin is.

Tool for what?

There were several listed that arrived at it for philosophical reasons. Long before "science" showed up.

If science can't prove, which you admit, why do you claim it proves there are no deities? Atheism believes in the absence of deities.

Your logic is askew.

[timn17]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
What shot the arrow?

God, of course, a being that exists outside of time and space, and is immune to the physical laws as we know them, which make your attempts to define him via anything other than an appeal to faith quite strange.

[timn17]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I did. They are dead.
Catcher, you are confusing the refusal of someone to buy your bullshit with them being bitter. I am actually one of those most understanding, non-judgmental, and easy going people you would ever have encountered.
Don't worry about me. Work on your own issues.

Except when it comes to atheists. Then you have no problem making sweeping generalizations about them that are so ridiculous they boarder on comical.

[Dave Nelson]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>God, of course, a being that exists outside of time and space, and is immune to the physical laws as we know them, which make your attempts to define him via anything other than an appeal to faith quite strange.

Your logic is truly, truly remarkable. Your intelligence is reflected in it.

Nothing could have set those laws resulting in our existence, therefore it must have been magic. Or whatever that term you use for it is.

Find a woman that likes to cook. Or a professional male chef if you don't trust the woman's judgment.

Ask them, that after you add water and other ingredients to flour, how long will it take for them to mix. By themselves. Of course, you can try this yourself if you have the time to spare. Get back to us when you get the dough.

[Dave Nelson]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>Except when it comes to atheists. Then you have no problem making sweeping generalizations about them that are so ridiculous they boarder on comical.

Comical boarders are more fun than sourpuss boarders. If they pay their rent on time.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Sigh....
raphical
Poor Polly. For him physics is waves, probabilities, and uncertainty. For me it is the stuff that makes them. He doesn't understand that.
Draw us a picture of a proton, Polly. Not a grepresentation or numbers, but a real life painting, so to speak.

Sorry, a photon is not a classical object, so a picture won't convey its properties. You are essentially asking for a classical description of a quantum object. And that is exactly backwards: we explain old theories in terms of the new, not the reverse.

yes, I understand that you *think* that the waves and probabilities have a deeper description. But the actual data and observations show that the probabilistic aspect is a deep part of the universe and that won't go away with a deeper description. Your intuition is simply wrong (as intuitions tend to be).

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no possible way to take a direct photo of an electron. You are seeing nothing but energy transfers affecting the area. Assumptions of its "solidness" by its effects.
Those sort of photos are a game played with EM.
Damn that EM. It is just everywhere we look.

The same objection would apply to a painting: it is information transfer by EM effects.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, a photon is not a classical object, so a picture won't convey its properties. You are essentially asking for a classical description of a quantum object. And that is exactly backwards: we explain old theories in terms of the new, not the reverse.
yes, I understand that you *think* that the waves and probabilities have a deeper description. But the actual data and observations show that the probabilistic aspect is a deep part of the universe and that won't go away with a deeper description. Your intuition is simply wrong (as intuitions tend to be).

If it ain't "solid", something you can "see", what you are describing are effects interpreted. An etheral something or other that behaves in a certain way when energy transfers are made to larger and more visible objects. You are inferring what they look like by math calculations. A pure head thing.

Ethereal, unseen, something you can't really touch, only its effects, which follow laws. But you believe in it.

Polly, meet God.

God, meet Polly.

Don't bother shaking hands.

Polly, don't get into any arguments with Him. OK?

[Dave Nelson]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-po...

Cool.

[timn17]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Your logic is truly, truly remarkable. Your intelligence is reflected in it.
Nothing could have set those laws resulting in our existence, therefore it must have been magic. Or whatever that term you use for it is.
Find a woman that likes to cook. Or a professional male chef if you don't trust the woman's judgment.
Ask them, that after you add water and other ingredients to flour, how long will it take for them to mix. By themselves. Of course, you can try this yourself if you have the time to spare. Get back to us when you get the dough.

What?

[Eagle12]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
No kidding!
Christians, why are you sad to die? After all, you believe you'll be meeting your families, live forever, finally get to talk to your deity, finally get to be free of bodily desires and sin.
What's the problem with death?

Most all of humanity has a will to live. I don’t think most Christians fear death. We all know it’s going to happen.
But it’s like a rodeo bull ride. We want to stay on as long as we can before we get thrown off.

[Dave Nelson]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>What?

Everything has to be set into motion to mix.

Didn't your momma larn you nothing?

What turned on the mixer? Where was it plugged into?

Boudreaux, This universe didn't pop out of nothing and started to stir itself.