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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129281 Oct 13, 2012
Some more:

"Note:
Much of the writings and research on the Jesus figure is amazingly biased, vague, tendentious and pervaded with wishful thinking.

One should in general be a bit sceptical to Christian scholars who often (obviously) don't have the necessary distance to their subject and obviously seem to be on a mission to prove the statements in the Bible, no matter what the real evidence say. As Christians they are usually convinced that Jesus did once exist as a real person in the first place, and are just looking for a confirmation."

True to form, I'm going to purposefully misquote my sources now, as RiversideRedneck taught me to do on the "Prove there's a god" thread. Unlike Riverside, I am being honest in telling you that I am deliberately misquoting in order to deceptively support my point. Riverside is fundamentally dishonest, though, so he covers up his manipulations:

"The best-known recent proponents of mythicism are Bible scholar Robert Price, German historian George Wells, mythicist-popularizer Earl Doherty, and historian Richard Carrier...

... scholars such as Paula Fredriksen, Robert Funk and E. P. Sanders hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value as it is driven by theological agendas.
Critics skeptical of the existence of a historical Jesus believe that Christian influence and bias (conscious or unconscious) has extended far outside the walls of formal Christianity. For example, atheist activist and Bible scholar Hector Avalos speaks of an "ecclesiastical-academic complex" which he believes has widely contaminated scholarship even in non-Christian academic institutions which nonetheless have a culturally Christian background or roots in religious institutions.
The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer; William Benjamin Smith; John Mackinnon Robertson; Arthur Drews; Paul-Louis Couchoud in the 20th century."

So, in the same manner that creationist Christians on this thread question biological science, based on my 1) ignorance, 2) unfamiliarity with the source material, 3) reference-less history I've provided above and 4) purposeful misquotes, we can determine that Jesus never existed.

Oh, wait, let me state that in their terms "I have proved that Jesus never existed."

There! That sounds a lot like creationist thinking!

Thanks for reading, it was fun :)
:)
:p

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129282 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the case of the horseshoe crab. I guarantee you the pressures and it’s environment has changed plenty in 500 million years. Yet it has remained unchanged in 500 million years.....
Nope. The horshoe crab along with many creatures, have not changed because their environment has not changed to the point they needed to.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129283 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
G_O_D, Mark was NOT talking about the Jewish ritual of baptising.....
Sure, they was just taking baths in the Jordan cuz the Romans wouldn't let Jews in their bathhouses.

You are a moron.
Read a friggin book.
Sart with thte entire Bible instead of repeating the bits your misiter reads to you and tells you what they mean.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129284 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Really, really. Atheism has killed over 200 million people in the last 90 years alone, exceeding all the Holy Wars combined.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from BUT between 1940 and 1950 there were at least 16 million people murdered by two individuals who were raised as Catholics. One of whom constantly confirmed his Christian status.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129285 Oct 13, 2012
^^^^ make that " between 1930 and 1945" ^^^^^^

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129286 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>If you only have hate and a polluted mind, why do you even bother coming here?...
We have all been wondering that about you and all your sock puppet minions, Coward Viking.

Cowrad Viking thy name is Legion.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129287 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Is thiis life experience, because this has nothing to do with God?....
It is right out of the Bible you fraud. You can't possibly be a Christian, even the most ignorant Fundie is smarter than you about it.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129288 Oct 13, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Another godbot who can not answer a simple question
GateKeeper is just another one of Coward Viking's umpteen socks.

There are two explanations for his insanity:

1. He sucks as a Christian.
2. He suck as a Poe.

In either case, he sucks, which may be why he is so hung up on homosexuality.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#129289 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Some more:
"Note:
Much of the writings and research on the Jesus figure is amazingly biased, vague, tendentious and pervaded with wishful thinking.
One should in general be a bit sceptical to Christian scholars who often (obviously) don't have the necessary distance to their subject and obviously seem to be on a mission to prove the statements in the Bible, no matter what the real evidence say. As Christians they are usually convinced that Jesus did once exist as a real person in the first place, and are just looking for a confirmation."
True to form, I'm going to purposefully misquote my sources now, as RiversideRedneck taught me to do on the "Prove there's a god" thread. Unlike Riverside, I am being honest in telling you that I am deliberately misquoting in order to deceptively support my point. Riverside is fundamentally dishonest, though, so he covers up his manipulations:
"The best-known recent proponents of mythicism are Bible scholar Robert Price, German historian George Wells, mythicist-popularizer Earl Doherty, and historian Richard Carrier...
... scholars such as Paula Fredriksen, Robert Funk and E. P. Sanders hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value as it is driven by theological agendas.
Critics skeptical of the existence of a historical Jesus believe that Christian influence and bias (conscious or unconscious) has extended far outside the walls of formal Christianity. For example, atheist activist and Bible scholar Hector Avalos speaks of an "ecclesiastical-academic complex" which he believes has widely contaminated scholarship even in non-Christian academic institutions which nonetheless have a culturally Christian background or roots in religious institutions.
The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer; William Benjamin Smith; John Mackinnon Robertson; Arthur Drews; Paul-Louis Couchoud in the 20th century."
So, in the same manner that creationist Christians on this thread question biological science, based on my 1) ignorance, 2) unfamiliarity with the source material, 3) reference-less history I've provided above and 4) purposeful misquotes, we can determine that Jesus never existed.
Oh, wait, let me state that in their terms "I have proved that Jesus never existed."
There! That sounds a lot like creationist thinking!
Thanks for reading, it was fun :)
:)
:p
Information like this drives LBR nuts.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#129290 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that bullies are cowards?
That’s a yes or a no answer.
Yes, I do believe that you are a coward. How many times have you tried to act tough on here? LOL!
truthrules

Ormond Beach, FL

#129291 Oct 13, 2012
whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.

It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#129292 Oct 13, 2012
Yes exactly! So let's all have some roasted meat and adult beverages knowing full well the Dionysus worshippers will drink us all under the table :)
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm right with you there. How does that go again?
Science taught us to build planes. Religion taught us to fly them into buildings.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#129293 Oct 13, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
...adult beverages ....<quoted text>
Bacchus kicked my ass drinking 30 years ago. I would be stupid to get back in THAT ring.
However:
What kind of food do you have, can I smoke and will there be women there ? <smile>

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#129294 Oct 13, 2012
truthrules wrote:
whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.
It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?
This guy?

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

bwahaha

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129295 Oct 13, 2012
truthrules wrote:
whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.
It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?
Truth does rule you don't.

"Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 1982–1984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in the Glen Rose Formation.[12] In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked human characteristics."[12] After a three year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[12]"

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

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129296 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
And Kant showed how all were faulty.
Kant self refutes. It fails its own standards
#2 is based on causality, which we know fails at the quantum level. It also assumes that the process cannot go on to infinity. And, finally, it only shows that there are uncaused causes, not that there is a first cause (there could, for example, be many uncaused causes).
Many uncaused causes just pushes things back. You still need an original cause. Infinity does not exist in reality. Most of your assumptions is no more valid than Star Trek's transporter room. It is Science fiction.
#3 is based on the flawed philosophy of necessary and contingent existence. Again, an Aristotelian viewpoint which is known to be wrong.
if ever a time there was nothing then there cannot be anything is valid. From nothing comes nothing. Nothing cannot produse anything.
#5 is based on the idea that complexity must be produced by an intelligence, which we again know is incorrect.
Sorry, but your medieval 'proofs' simply don't hold the water you want to carry.
Design does not need intelligence is an illogical assumption. To have design you need intelligence. On your point 2, here are some responses from Christian sites which will be ignored.
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010...

http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2010/...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129297 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, it is not a secret society. The training is widely and publicly available. No oaths of secrecy are required to learn it. You simply have to do the background work.
And yes, to understand technical material requires training. In the case of abiogenesis, a strong training in biochemistry is clearly required, but also geology (to know about the conditions on the early earth), some astrophysics (to know the chemicals available), and a good deal of regular biology (to know the systems as they exist now and probably existed in the past). If you don't have that training, you cannot talk sensibly about the topic.
BS. All one has to do is look at their claim. An ad hoc exception under imagined circumstances where life somehow happened from non life absent intelligence. It is all speculation. Never observed. Based on anti supernatural agenda.
Theology starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct and that a deity exists.
Vague statement. I know of errors in the New so do not assume Bible is correct in details. Assume Christ resurrected and take it from that point.
Every different sect has a different theology.
In Christianity they agree on essentials and differ on details. If they do not agree on essentials then they are cults.
That alone shows it isn't an area of knowledge, but is, instead, a matter of opinion and desire.
Theology is not a matter of knowledge is your opinion and carries that much weight.
Yes, read the Bible, please. But as you do so, put it into the historical and archaeological context.
I have done that.
Compare it to the other texts of that time and area.
What other texts? If they assume Christ did not resurrect then they are wrong. One does not need to study the counterfeit to know the real.
For that matter, compare it to other texts from other cultures. If you do so, you will realize it is the writings of a self-absorbed culture (most are) amidst greater cultures which it didn't understand and trying to match its superstition with the realities of the day. This is hardly unique.
Either are your arguments against resurrection of Christ. There is nothing unique. I have posted historical and archeology references and they are rejected for a host of reasons which are nothing more than excuses. Bottom line being atheists here do not want to accept the truth God exists and Christ resurrected. They will go to absurd extremes to explain it all absent intelligence. It all happened naturally. They are agenda driven and dogmatic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129298 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If living organisms *can* evolve, but not necessarily *do* evolve, based on "environmental pressure"... I got one question...
...
...Why the **** would plants evolve???
Because their environment has constantly changed. Changing climate. Changing animal life (that feeds upon them or that can spread their seeds). Changing competition from other plants.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129299 Oct 13, 2012
River Tam wrote:
There's a leading Horseshoe crab expert? Awesome. How sad would it be to be the second best Horseshoe crab expert?
Well, eventually the leading one would retire.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129300 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those are my words. Apparently they're quite difficult for you to grasp.
No, individuals with mutations do not evolve. They are individuals born with mutations.
Once again, evolution is defined as "allelic frequency changes in a gene pool, over time."
The individual born with mutations would be part of the evolutionary process, but does not themself evolve. That would require their genes to change and that doesn't happen.
<quoted text>
Individuals are not gene pools. Only species compromise gene pools. Individuals' genes do not change during their lifetime.
<quoted text>
Sure. Individuals contribute to the evolution of a species. They don't evolve, though.
<quoted text>
No. For mutations to be passed on, they have to be in the germline DNA - so the gametes. You're a man, presumably, and you make sperm every day. Each one of those sperms, well the fertile ones anyways, has a chance to have a mutation. That doesn't mean the mutation is represented in your body, though.
Remember your basic biology? Meiosis? In males, meiosis is the largest cause of mutations in the sperm. However, your gametes can also be hit by mutagens, too. No, that doesn't alter your genetic makeup, only that of your gametes.
If, on the other hand, you were born of one of those mutated sperm, then the mutant gene is already expressed throughout your body (or where ever it expresses itself). Again, you're not evolving since your genes aren't changing. You were born that way, the genes stay that way your entire life.
I suppose you could imagine some kind of Star Trek disease/parasite that changes your entire genome. In that case, you would have evolved. That doesn't happen in nature. The closest parallel to this sci-fi would be something like a somatic-line genetic virus that humans have turned HIV into. The first time it was used, it caused massive organ failure and the patient died in 48 hours. So, they didn't evolve. They just died b/c their DNA was disrupted and they could no longer function.
I understand the concepts, lovey, but you aren't considering the mechanics involved for a concept to be a reality.

Something mutated the genes. The individual had to be able to exploit the mutation for it to be carried on. Very simple life would be something like chemical reactions that gave it an advantage in capturing energy, but more complex life has to be able to manipulate this change to its basic programming. It has to learn. If it doesn't have to learn, then part of the mutation is change to the processing mechanism that affects animation or thought. You would be looking at major program changes in the latter case, and very, very long times waiting for mutations to assemble in such a way.

The same goes for thinking. One may be born with the ability to think on a different level, but one has to have successful experience using it to make it a worthwhile mutation. But at the simplest, say something is born with a nub. The nub isn't much good unless a connection is made in the brain to activate it and use it. That is a lot of circuitry and wiring in the meat. Nerves pathways, etc. Dig deeper and in time you will see how much of that evolution on the higher levels involves a brain setting into motion the establishment of those circuits and molecular assemblages, and it getting written into the DNA. Your perspective is chemicals coming together randomly and making magic versus direction in the assemblage. You are leaving out intelligence.

Your DNA has the programming to be a factory assembling molecules. It takes raw materials and manufactures new ones. This is not an insignificant ability. Any changes, mutations, are more likely to occur on that level, internally, than as a result of random external changes.

Reprogramming within and by the individual, because it has to.

I know you are an atheist, but please don't discount intelligence as a basis for evolution.

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 min Pahu 1,671
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Aura Mytha 17,014
The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr Thinking 843
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Thinking 4,916
Religiosity 6 hr Thinking 3
Turkey blocks website of its first atheist asso... 19 hr thetruth 3
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? 19 hr thetruth 31
More from around the web