Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
124,321 - 124,340 of 224,087 Comments Last updated 20 min ago

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128857
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, baby, it's all fact. They're bones, btw - not mineralized fossils. We can even measure their DNA.
Why do you argue with me? You haven't got a clue what you're talking about whereas I'm an professional in the field...
Here:
"Abstract
Temporal trends in postcranial robusticity within the genus Homo are explored by comparing cross-sectional diaphyseal and articular properties of the femur, and to a more limited extent, the humerus, in samples of Recent and earlier Homo. Using both theoretical mechanical models and empirical observations within Recent humans, scaling relationships between structural properties and bone length are developed. The influence of body shape on these relationships is considered. These scaling factors are then used to standardize structural properties for comparisons with pre-Recent Homo (Homo sp. and H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, and early modern H. sapiens). Results of the comparisons lead to the following conclusions: 1) There has been a consistent, exponentially increasing decline in diaphyseal robusticity within Homo that has continued from the early Pleistocene through living humans. Early modern H. sapiens are closer in shaft robusticity to archaic H. sapiens than they are to Recent humans. The increase in diaphyseal robusticity in earlier Homo is a result of both medullary contraction and periosteal expansion relative to Recent humans. 2) There has been no similar temporal decline in articular robusticity within Homo–relative femoral head size is similar in all groups and time periods. Thus, articular to shaft proportions are different in pre-Recent and Recent Homo. 3) These findings are most consistent with a mechanical explanation (declining mechanical loading of the postcranium), that acted primarily through developmental rather than genetic means. The environmental (behavioral) factors that brought about the decline in postcranial robusticity in Homo are ultimately linked to increases in brain size and cultural-technological advances, although changes in robusticity lag behind changes in cognitive capabilities.© 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc."
Do you understand what they're saying? Humans have been getting weaker since about 30 000 years ago - and this accelerated at 12 000 years ago. Any guesses as to why we got weaker?
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/22762...
Evolution is a lie!

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128858
Oct 10, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that at all, quite the contrary. It's atheists that "actually believe that their inability to imagine something and their lack of knowledge of something are arguments against that thing".
Atheists, it seems, live their lives with a very closed mind with almost no ability to imagine or dream, because imagiation & dreams can't be proven.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you and I haven't only been talking about God here - but also homosexual behavior, evolution, planetary formation, paleoanthropology. Unlike me, you know almost nothing. I'm guessing it was your religion that did that to you.

It told you "God did it" is an acceptable answer to all life's mysteries, so you just turned your brain off.

Unlike you, atheists are full of creativity. We aren't afraid to explore reality like you people - you're utterly closed minded. You actually believe in intellectual laziness as some kind of virtue!

Your answer to everything is "God did it." That's a worthless, stupid answer - it actually hurts people. Imagine if the discoverers of insulin stopped and said "gosh this is hard, let's just say 'God did it'" - imagine if any physicist or medical researcher did that! We wouldn't have power lines, antibiotics, antivirals - anything.

God did it is not an answer. Willful ignorance is abject idiocy - and it's ruining your great nation.

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128859
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is a lie!
A damn lie!

T-Town!!! How are you my friend?!? I hope well! Oh, how I have missed you!

“You have blue shoes”

Since: Mar 11

Please change them

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128860
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If
Hey, thanks for reading! Glad you are making an attempt to stay informed.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128861
Oct 10, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, thanks for reading! Glad you are making an attempt to stay informed.
Love, the only thing you inform me of is your ignorance, as in your interpretation of religious belief as it relates to exploring existence in your post previous to this.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128862
Oct 10, 2012
 
The greatest minds in science, the ones that started modern science, did so under very strong Christian influences.

Even Charles Darwin.

Some had questions about the religion, and had their own views, but most all stayed deist. Darwin at the most became agnostic in his latest years.

"In November 1878 when George Romanes presented his new book refuting theism, A Candid Examination of Theism by "Physicus", Darwin read it with "very great interest", but was unconvinced, pointing out that its arguments did not rule out God creating matter and energy at the beginning of the universe, with a propensity to evolve. If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_...

The seventeenth century was not that far advanced over the Iron Age. Within a few hundred years, in a Christian civilization, look how far we have advanced.

The Egyptions, Sumerians, Greek, Roman, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists had more time and the same opportunity to advance. They didn't.

Please can the bullshit about Christianity inhibiting science. Atheists are now trying to hijack the accomplishments it made possible.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128863
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I supposed to care what you think?
It's not what I think.

It's a fact, Dave.

You have shown cowardice.

That makes you a coward.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128864
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
You would say it was scientific proof if he said he didn't remember a thing.
What I would say, what I will say is the only scientific proof in the story is that Alexander was in a coma, due to an infection of the cerebral cortex. That is all that can be verified.
Dave Nelson wrote:
He was a neurosurgeon. He was on some sort of life support with his fellow doctors watching over him. Not a guy off the street. I am sure he has given considerable thought to the experience from his professional and educational background.
I think he wants to sell books.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Yes, these memories could be the result of a transitional stage from his coma to consciousness again. If you have a memory it is because it was written in your physical brain. However, whatever occurred during the coma translated into some coherent stream of consciousness when the light came back on.
Or, nothing happened during the coma, since there was no higher function brain activity. Whatever it is he remembers could be from just before the coma, after the coma, or a dream afterwards. He mentions that he wrote things down for days and weeks after.

What if he had some bizarre hallucinatory stage as he came out of the coma or close to death state and he recalled the hallucination over the next few days, now it's developed into an NDE, when it was just a brain in *kickstart* mode?

What if that is what every NDE is?

What I just mentioned is just as valid a hypothesis as the NDE is.
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is just no way science can determine what goes on in the subconscious during such an event.
For now, I agree.

Who knows what we'll be able to determine in the next 10-50 years?
Dave Nelson wrote:
The fact is he survived. Whether he would have laying out in the wilderness, where the species developed, versus being under life support, is another story. During the coma he was evidently doing some self repair.
That and the cocktail of antibiotics fighting the infection in his cortex, and other drugs used to maintain body functions(electrolytes, nutrition etc...). I'm sure he was hooked up to all sorts of equipment, IV's, and other apparatus.
Dave Nelson wrote:
I've been knocked out for surgery and didn't remember a damned thing, and I have had a NDE as the result of severe trauma and I had memories, visual ones only, of that unconscious state. They were different than his, and of much shorter duration.
Yeah, NDE's do vary, and when they talk about the "core experience". There are a total of 7 components of the "core experience, and here's the thing, you need only have 1 of those out of the 7 to be classified as having a "core experience(Unless they've changed criteria).

This is my opinion — that doesn't help the case of NDE proponents.

There should be a minimum number of the "core experiences" in order to qualify.
Dave Nelson wrote:
The really telling point of such experiences is the fear of death you have tends to evaporate afterwards. What was a remote concept of it all ending and going to the big sleep turns into a reality. Your consciousness doesn't die. It isn't the same as here, that is because of the physical addons of life experience, but there is a core that remains. You can still have reservations about physical death, but primarily abut how you die. A quality of physical comfort thing.
Yeah, and guess what, Dave? It doesn't bother me to die. I agree, I'd prefer to not have an oak tree fall on me and be crushed, in pain for 5 hours, or linger on in a hospital bed and broken leading up to my demise.

My eventual death does not worry me at all.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have to be on the inside of such experiences to understand.
Or maybe not.

To say you have to go through a brush with death(which I have), and experience an NDE(which I haven't) in order to not fear death is pure conjecture.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128865
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you that hateful atheist I saw on another bigtoed atheist thread?
You must have me confused with a theist.

Another "bigtoed" atheist thread?

I wasn't aware there was a "bigtoed" atheist thread at all.

What is this "bigtoed" atheist thread you speak of?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128866
Oct 10, 2012
 
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> How were we created? To be able to create life is quite amaztng in and of itself. I find it to be even more amazing to have within us the capability to create a human being, but I find it even more intriguing on who created the first two human beings, don't you? Do you know where and how matter came into existence ?
You are making several assumptions here, with the general theme being that you automatically assume that anything that exists must have had a creator.

There is simply no evidence for that, so to pose questions such as "who created the first two people" is nonsensical - as you are skipping right over the assumption implied by your question - that there is a creator of some sort in the first place.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128867
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
What is the benefit in believing you are just a glorified piece of stellar shit coming and going in a flash?
Does that benefit you? No, it benefits those that can exploit you by your believing it.
This is YOUR time in the sun.
The serpent in the Garden told Eve she would surely not die if she knew the "truth". She was a construct, a physical being vulnerable to other physical things. She and Adam lost faith in that which created them to protect and maintain them. Fear of death was introduced to mankind.
The serpent is whispering in your ear again with this "knowledge" that you are just a piece of stellar shit.
Why do you look at it like that? For you it's either we are some glorious creations made by god to fulfill some divine purpose, or we are "star shit." I for one find it beautiful, truly beautiful, that we are products of the universe and the stars; that we are basically the universe experiencing itself subjectively. It gives me a sense of connection with the universe, with the earth, and with all people, and it is almost a spiritual feeling. I do feel insignificant compared to the absurdly large scale of the universe, but at the same time I feel comforted knowing that we are are all a part of everything else in some way.

No god required.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128868
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
The greatest minds in science, the ones that started modern science, did so under very strong Christian influences.
Even Charles Darwin.
Some had questions about the religion, and had their own views, but most all stayed deist. Darwin at the most became agnostic in his latest years.
"In November 1878 when George Romanes presented his new book refuting theism, A Candid Examination of Theism by "Physicus", Darwin read it with "very great interest", but was unconvinced, pointing out that its arguments did not rule out God creating matter and energy at the beginning of the universe, with a propensity to evolve. If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_...
The seventeenth century was not that far advanced over the Iron Age. Within a few hundred years, in a Christian civilization, look how far we have advanced.
The Egyptions, Sumerians, Greek, Roman, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists had more time and the same opportunity to advance. They didn't.
Please can the bullshit about Christianity inhibiting science. Atheists are now trying to hijack the accomplishments it made possible.
Your point?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128869
Oct 10, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I accept that they are gays, but not what they do, if that makes any sense. I don't like gays. I never have & never will. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.
I was born that way.
I don't believe that. I believe that you were made to think that way. And unlike racial bigotry, which roots are in the xenophobia that nature programmed into us - it's best for ducks, for example, to feel at ease only with other ducks, and to fear nonducks like foxes - there is only one source of homophobia: theism.

Every anti-gay bigot learned that hate from the Bible or the Qur'an, or from somebody who learned it there. Cultures lacking this teaching still fear neighboring tribes, but don't hate their gay brothers and sisters.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128871
Oct 10, 2012
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>What I would say, what I will say is the only scientific proof in the story is that Alexander was in a coma, due to an infection of the cerebral cortex. That is all that can be verified.
<quoted text> I think he wants to sell books.
<quoted text> Or, nothing happened during the coma, since there was no higher function brain activity. Whatever it is he remembers could be from just before the coma, after the coma, or a dream afterwards. He mentions that he wrote things down for days and weeks after.
What if he had some bizarre hallucinatory stage as he came out of the coma or close to death state and he recalled the hallucination over the next few days, now it's developed into an NDE, when it was just a brain in *kickstart* mode?
What if that is what every NDE is?
What I just mentioned is just as valid a hypothesis as the NDE is.
<quoted text> For now, I agree.
Who knows what we'll be able to determine in the next 10-50 years?
<quoted text> That and the cocktail of antibiotics fighting the infection in his cortex, and other drugs used to maintain body functions(electrolytes, nutrition etc...). I'm sure he was hooked up to all sorts of equipment, IV's, and other apparatus.
<quoted text> Yeah, NDE's do vary, and when they talk about the "core experience". There are a total of 7 components of the "core experience, and here's the thing, you need only have 1 of those out of the 7 to be classified as having a "core experience(Unless they've changed criteria).
This is my opinion — that doesn't help the case of NDE proponents.
There should be a minimum number of the "core experiences" in order to qualify.
<quoted text> Yeah, and guess what, Dave? It doesn't bother me to die. I agree, I'd prefer to not have an oak tree fall on me and be crushed, in pain for 5 hours, or linger on in a hospital bed and broken leading up to my demise.
My eventual death does not worry me at all.
<quoted text> Or maybe not.
To say you have to go through a brush with death(which I have), and experience an NDE(which I haven't) in order to not fear death is pure conjecture.
When in a NDE your body is shut off. You are in a trauma. You don't feel a thing. I believe he related he was unresponsive. There is a difference between that and when your body is still communicating and you feel it. There is a difference between dodging a bullet or being hurt and still functioning, and being totally incapacitated and still conscious.

Each experience varies, but the fact is you have a detached consciousness. There may be repair work going on in other places of the brain. The memories may be a result of sensations and activity that manifest as memories, or dreams as you say. From what I gather in his experience under normal medical understanding he was out of it. Seven days.

It is not something you can discount just because you want to believe so. Such events have been going on for eons.

As I have said before, if you are dying, it is better to have something to wait for or do and then just go to sleep, than it is not going to sleep and having nothing to do or place to go to. That is where I was.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128872
Oct 10, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that. I believe that you were made to think that way. And unlike racial bigotry, which roots are in the xenophobia that nature programmed into us - it's best for ducks, for example, to feel at ease only with other ducks, and to fear nonducks like foxes - there is only one source of homophobia: theism.
Every anti-gay bigot learned that hate from the Bible or the Qur'an, or from somebody who learned it there. Cultures lacking this teaching still fear neighboring tribes, but don't hate their gay brothers and sisters.
Read the entire article.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128873
Oct 10, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You are making several assumptions here, with the general theme being that you automatically assume that anything that exists must have had a creator.
There is simply no evidence for that, so to pose questions such as "who created the first two people" is nonsensical - as you are skipping right over the assumption implied by your question - that there is a creator of some sort in the first place.
Can you prove that a creator isn't needed ? You think with the knowledge and wisdom you have as a human being but you cannot create anything you see or don't see. Your wisdom is limited to what you see and don't see as God's wisdom and knowledge is beyond our ability to think as he does and that's exactly what he tells us in Isaiah 55: 8-11

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128874
Oct 10, 2012
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>What I would say, what I will say is the only scientific proof in the story is that Alexander was in a coma, due to an infection of the cerebral cortex. That is all that can be verified.
<quoted text> I think he wants to sell books.
<quoted text> Or, nothing happened during the coma, since there was no higher function brain activity. Whatever it is he remembers could be from just before the coma, after the coma, or a dream afterwards. He mentions that he wrote things down for days and weeks after.
What if he had some bizarre hallucinatory stage as he came out of the coma or close to death state and he recalled the hallucination over the next few days, now it's developed into an NDE, when it was just a brain in *kickstart* mode?
What if that is what every NDE is?
What I just mentioned is just as valid a hypothesis as the NDE is.
<quoted text> For now, I agree.
Who knows what we'll be able to determine in the next 10-50 years?
<quoted text> That and the cocktail of antibiotics fighting the infection in his cortex, and other drugs used to maintain body functions(electrolytes, nutrition etc...). I'm sure he was hooked up to all sorts of equipment, IV's, and other apparatus.
<quoted text> Yeah, NDE's do vary, and when they talk about the "core experience". There are a total of 7 components of the "core experience, and here's the thing, you need only have 1 of those out of the 7 to be classified as having a "core experience(Unless they've changed criteria).
This is my opinion — that doesn't help the case of NDE proponents.
There should be a minimum number of the "core experiences" in order to qualify.
<quoted text> Yeah, and guess what, Dave? It doesn't bother me to die. I agree, I'd prefer to not have an oak tree fall on me and be crushed, in pain for 5 hours, or linger on in a hospital bed and broken leading up to my demise.
My eventual death does not worry me at all.
<quoted text> Or maybe not.
To say you have to go through a brush with death(which I have), and experience an NDE(which I haven't) in order to not fear death is pure conjecture.
His book is entitled "Proof of Heaven" and it's in publication. With the Newsweek intro, he's likely to make some serious money. Hey, if you can market your delusions and profit from them, more power to ya. Feed the suckers what they want.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128875
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
His book is entitled "Proof of Heaven" and it's in publication. With the Newsweek intro, he's likely to make some serious money. Hey, if you can market your delusions and profit from them, more power to ya. Feed the suckers what they want.
Yup.

http://gawker.com/5949892/newsweek-cover-stor...

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128876
Oct 10, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
When in a NDE your body is shut off. You are in a trauma. You don't feel a thing. I believe he related he was unresponsive.
Any injury, that creates an unconscious state, can leave the body in such a condition. You are not aware of what is going on around you, nor do you feel pain etc...

Anesthesia in ancient times(and not too distant in the past), sometimes meant a mallet blow to the head. In the absence of an intoxicant etc...
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is a difference between that and when your body is still communicating and you feel it.
One is conscious, the other is unconscious.
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is a difference between dodging a bullet or being hurt and still functioning, and being totally incapacitated and still conscious.
Agreed.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Each experience varies, but the fact is you have a detached consciousness.
No, that is an assumption. It isn't fact. That is anecdotal evidence, not fact.
Dave Nelson wrote:
There may be repair work going on in other places of the brain. The memories may be a result of sensations and activity that manifest as memories, or dreams as you say.
Sure. Even in a unconscious state, the autonomous systems are still functioning, or possibly functioning in a reduced capacity.

Here's a thought; What if those autonomous systems centered in the brain have an awareness or consciousness we aren't aware of at this point in medical science?

That could explain everything people associate with the NDE.
Dave Nelson wrote:
From what I gather in his experience under normal medical understanding he was out of it. Seven days.
That was my understanding, too. No measurable brain activity. According to the article, the Doctors were considering cessation of treatment it was so complete. The outlook wasn't favorable.
Dave Nelson wrote:
It is not something you can discount just because you want to believe so.
Believing it to be so doesn't make it fact, either.

It isn't that I think, since there is no proof or fact attached to the NDE, that it must be impossible.

I don't attach a value of absolute validity to the NDE, since there is no proof. There is a difference in that position.

There is no verification of fact attached to NDE's.

NDE's consist of anecdotal stories, that's all.

Additionally, there is no peer reviewed scientific research conducted concerning NDE's.

Lots of books about the NDE, that sell well, and that's it to my knowledge.

Maybe you know of something that I don't concerning research surrounding the NDE. Please provide it if you do.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Such events have been going on for eons.
You mean people relating such "near death" stories and assuming those to be a glimpse of an afterlife. Yeah.

That doesn't mean they represent a reality. I'm looking at this objectively.
Dave Nelson wrote:
As I have said before, if you are dying, it is better to have something to wait for or do and then just go to sleep, than it is not going to sleep and having nothing to do or place to go to. That is where I was.
In your perception, I get that.

Some people do not report any event, some people report an event and do not see it as an "afterlife" at all, and those are just a few of the phenomena associated with a NDE. There are numerous variations and of those, not all represent an afterllife.

I see that as a compelling evidence right there.

It still isn't proof or established fact, however.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128877
Oct 10, 2012
 
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
His book is entitled "Proof of Heaven" and it's in publication. With the Newsweek intro, he's likely to make some serious money. Hey, if you can market your delusions and profit from them, more power to ya. Feed the suckers what they want.
Yeah, and many of those books are written by Doctors, people in the medical industry and related fields. For some people, that imparts a seeming validity to the book.

"A doctor wrote it, it must really mean something!"

It simply means you were more inclined to buy the book and believe it.

That's it.

I agree, if they can make money selling the book, good deal.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr DonPanic 21,384
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Charchar king 192
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr religionisillness 834
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 5 hr religionisillness 361
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 11 hr Patrick 16
Of Interest InTheNews 11 hr Patrick 3
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... Wed Patrick 1,285
•••
•••