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
Thinking

Dalry, UK

#137843 Nov 15, 2012
bob "the nonce" nobgobbler doesn't like being ignored. He'll no doubt compose yet another list of posters he hates and spam the arse out of it. A veritable oxygen thief, no less.
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>At what point are you going to try the English accent? It would certainly make you sound less juvenile!!! Poor little Bobby, he can't get any attention any other way, so he tries to draw attention to himself wit a fake accent, ha ha ha ha, what a dipshit!!!
BTW, either engage me in adult conversation or pissoff, your choice!!!!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137844 Nov 15, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The basic consensus is (I think) that our decisions are made "for us" by our brain - then after the fact it appears to have been a conscious decision. "We" may still retain veto power over these decisions that arise from the unconscious.
There have been a couple interesting studies on this. Here's a summary of one:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news...
"Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision."

"We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point," said Haynes, who intends to study this phenomenon next. "But I don't think it's plausible."

Maybe this, maybe that.... Maybe we'll just add a few zeros to the end....

C'mon.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137845 Nov 15, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Who does that? If someone were to go around at work insulting people's religious beliefs, he/she should be fired too. However, I don't think there would be anything wrong with discussing a scientific theory. People shouldn't be so touchy about it. Does gravity upset you?
Why would gravity upset me?

What does that have to do with religion?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137846 Nov 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have actually seen the reports, the complete ones, not the cherry picked ones. It has never demonstrated any amount of success beyond that of chance. You're just as well off tossing the dice or wishing.
Perfect example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Prayer_f...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42705038/ns/weath...
Guess when it did finally rain, during the atheist convention, long after the prayers. I like this example because if prayer works, then your god clearly prefers the company of atheists.
You're such a dufus.

So are the people praying for rain. Prayer doesn't work that way.

I've made this point clear before, you obviously cherry pick what you read.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#137847 Nov 15, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Microevolution, Im completely sold on Doctor. So all those articles on microbiology I have no problem believing. I would venture to say out of that 135,000 articles, most were probably about microbiology.
How many scientist are working directly on macro evolution? I would estimate that number to be very small compared to microevolution.
When I talk about speculation Doctor Im always referring to macroevolution. This discussion about chromosome #2 is very interesting. When the chromosome fused that was the first mankind. With all 46 chromosomes just like we have today.
What I take from the chromosome #2 discussion is mankind came on the scene suddenly and not gradually as traditionally thought. This means there was a first man. That man Doctor was Adam.
A whale is a good example of Macro-evolution. Tracing the development of the nostrils through fossil records and skulls, we can follow the gradual movement of the nostril from the front of the nose to the top of the head, the whales blowhole. Consider the vestigial hind legs, the fully formed wrist parts on the Right Whale. The fact that a whales gives birth under the water as a land mammal does. In fact the mother must move under the newborn quickly to bring it to the surface before it drowns. We also see evidence that the whale was once a land mammal by the way it moves through the water. Fish swim with a side to side mouthing, whales, as well as dolphins and porpoises, move through the water with an up and down flexing of the spine as you would see in a running land mammal.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137848 Nov 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When you work in a scientific field, you have to talk about science anyway, that's just part of the job.
ANd of course you think that science & religion are enemies, so....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137849 Nov 15, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
There never was a free will!
Of course the free will thing is not real!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137850 Nov 15, 2012
scaritual wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote: And Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion. They are different.
Similar, yes. But still different. There's a lot if beliefs & traditions that Catholics do that Christians don't.
scaritual wrote: You mean Judaism?
LULZ>...
<quoted text> I know it's hard for you to comprehend. No need to get angry.
You mentioned: "Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion"
Just what "ancient religion" were you talking about?
Sorry about the brick thing...

Judaism...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137851 Nov 15, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what Riverside is talking about, but when I searched his key terms, this is what I came up with:
"Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a
Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial"
"Conclusions: As delivered in this study, intercessory
prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after
hospitalization in a coronary care unit."
http://buckcash.com/opinions/iconspicsetc/May...
That's from the Mayo Clinic, about the most respectable medical research clinic around.
I found this study that, at first glance backs up RR, but if you read anything to do with the study, it's a complex joke that aims to make fun of people like RR. Here, their stated goal:
"To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes."
That means "we want to see if prayer after someone has been healed and released is effective." So...they didn't pray for people not healed! hahaha
It goes on:
"Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4-10 years after the infection"
Isn't that awesome! So the next time you get sick, if you get better, remember to pray for yourself 4-10 years after the event. It will help the past.
But there's more:
"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was associated with a shorter stay in hospital and a shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection. Mortality was lower in the intervention group, but the difference between the groups was not significant. A larger study might have shown a significant reduction in mortality."
meaning they invalidated their findings! The best is their references:
"Borges JL. Labyrinths. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1970. A new refutation of time."
I laughed and laughed.
The purpose of me posting that link was to show that there are just as many "results" that prayer works vs. prayer doesn't work....

As I've said. I think that any and all "tests" are inconclusive.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137852 Nov 15, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Who knows what Ar Ar meant? He rarely knows or understands what it is he believes, except to say that he believes what he believes, and what he believes, he believes is right.
When he argued he wasn't a Protestant over on PTAG:
RiversideRedneck wrote: " If anything, I'm Pentecostal, or maybe even Evangelical, but not Protestant."
When he mentioned "ancient religion", there is no telling what he had in mind. It could have been Judaism, older Canaanite beliefs, or as you said, ancient Sumerian practices.
In retrospect I think he meant Christianity, it's just that his writing and terminology is so vague and misinformed he makes these claims or statements and when someone responds - to what he actually said, not what he thought he said - he gets upset.
I know you want to lump all religion together but it doesn't work that way.

Since I'm not Catholic, I don't care what you post about Catholics. I'm also not a Protestant, even though your argument is that Christians comes from Protestants.

To me, that's like saying a hamburger is a cow because the meat comes from a cow....

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137853 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ANd of course you think that science & religion are enemies, so....
You read more into what I posted .... again. You just can't stop making things up to suit your hatred.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#137855 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that any and all "tests" are inconclusive.
You could try praying to a jug of milk or fairies at the bottom of your garden, the results would be the same. Prayer doesnt work. It is superstition. That is all it is.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137856 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would gravity upset me?
What does that have to do with religion?
Because you insinuated that talking about evolution is somehow the same as preaching about religion. And you proved my point - just as gravity shouldn't upset you, evolution shouldn't upset you, and the only reason that it upsets some religious people is that it conflicts with their view of the world. If the bible insisted that god lived inside the earth and pulled people downward, gravity might be today's "controversy."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137857 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision."
"We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point," said Haynes, who intends to study this phenomenon next. "But I don't think it's plausible."
Maybe this, maybe that.... Maybe we'll just add a few zeros to the end....
C'mon.
Those quotes are basically saying "every piece of evidence we have suggests that free will is an illusion, but since it is impossible to ever completely rule something out, maybe there is some unknown mechanism by which free will exerts itself that we have not yet found,"

Those quotes are just reflective of the average scientist's dislike of making 100% definitive statements about anything. Are you reading the whole quotes, or just the part where they are covering their bases?

And do you know what the word "prediction" is referring to in your first quote? They were able to predict a decision before the subject was conscious of having made said decision.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137858 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of me posting that link was to show that there are just as many "results" that prayer works vs. prayer doesn't work....
As I've said. I think that any and all "tests" are inconclusive.
That was one study. Post some more.
Loren Eberly

Mount Vernon, OH

#137859 Nov 15, 2012
Pay property tax on state appraised value of their American Dream. Pay bank interest on purchase price of American Dream for 30 years. Pay interest on lottery winners winnings Legislators invest in school bonds,

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137860 Nov 15, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You could try praying to a jug of milk or fairies at the bottom of your garden, the results would be the same. Prayer doesnt work. It is superstition. That is all it is.
Only the ignorant fool prays for material possessions.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137861 Nov 15, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Because you insinuated that talking about evolution is somehow the same as preaching about religion. And you proved my point - just as gravity shouldn't upset you, evolution shouldn't upset you, and the only reason that it upsets some religious people is that it conflicts with their view of the world. If the bible insisted that god lived inside the earth and pulled people downward, gravity might be today's "controversy."
For the timn record, evolution does not upset me. Not in the slightest.

What gets me going is the assumptive nature of evolution. The theories & hypotheses & guesses that go hand oin hand with it. Just like the post from blacklagoon where he says we "know" how the nostril evolved in whales...

I don't think evolution happened the way we think it did. There's just too many pieces of the puzzle that are missing to fully know.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137862 Nov 15, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>That was one study. Post some more.
Flirk. Google it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

skeptics.stackexchange.com/.../is-there-an ...

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm ?...

www.secularhumanism.org/.../avalos_17

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/.../the -...

www.christianitytoday.com ... 2009 May

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../prayer-scien ...

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/.../fenwick

That's just page one. "Scientific evidence of prayer" yields 2.1 million results.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137863 Nov 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
For the timn record, evolution does not upset me. Not in the slightest.
What gets me going is the assumptive nature of evolution. The theories & hypotheses & guesses that go hand oin hand with it. Just like the post from blacklagoon where he says we "know" how the nostril evolved in whales...
I don't think evolution happened the way we think it did. There's just too many pieces of the puzzle that are missing to fully know.
I didn't mean to imply that it did - I said it "shouldn't" upset you, and that it upsets some people because it conflicts with their world view.

And we have a pretty darn good idea of how it happened and how we got here - and even though our knowledge isn't perfect - one thing is for sure - evolution happened. There is no debating that fact.

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 vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Denisova 16,532
Is Religion Childish? 39 min Thinking 129
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 46 min ChristineM 6,031
The Consequences of Atheism 3 hr Thinking 690
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr Thinking 4,717
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 19 hr QUITTNER Feb 26 2015 2
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? Feb 24 Adam 25
More from around the web