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 (Page 6,699)

Showing posts 133,961 - 133,980 of218,171
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139334
Nov 20, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with much of what you posted.
Now, why the outright denial a supernatural force is responsible? You certainly don't have enough evidence to make that a fact.
There isn't even a good definition of the term 'supernatural force'. If it is a 'force', it obeys some sort of force law, and therefore is *natural*. If it doesn't obey some sort of force law, then there is no way to test to see if it is a valid idea, so it is not scientific.

if you want the concept of a supernatural force to be considered seriously, you have to propose a testable theory involving one (with definitions, etc). And no, untestable theories are not going to be considered.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139335
Nov 20, 2012
 
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
"random quantum fluctuations"......I can agree with that but not the "random" part.
Too bad. Quantum events *are* random.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139337
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It's none of those things. But nearly all of the theists here will refer to their God as a "he", will talk about his "eyes" or his "hands", will ascribe various human emotions to him (such as love or anger).
You've noticed that, have you not?
Now, should we worship gravity?
It's not my fault, if I use he. God is unisex in sikhi, we have male and female names for him and we don't say he, we say they. Oh, shit! I said he again, damn!!! This is the fault of the English speaking people, they made God male.

Does gravity give you inner strength? do you love it? could you die for it? Has it helped you become a better person? If so, you can believe it if you want, I don't!

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139338
Nov 20, 2012
 
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more beautiful when you listen to it or read it in gurmukhi, because the verses rhyme and are very sweet.
I don't have any problem with atheists! I have a problem with people who think they know it all and who then try to enforce their view on me. Normally, but not always, these people are the religious nuts! The atheists I know, told me about their beliefs but they have never tried to 'convert' me. That 'virtue' only belongs to the fanatic religious people.
I don't have a problem with atheists either. In the context of an internet "friend", I have made a number of friends on topix, even some that are atheists. In fact, I rather have an argument with an atheist because they usually go indepth with their criticisms and defense of what they stand for.

And I agree with you as well about those trying to impose their views. I'm a Christian. Proud of it and proud that I worship Jesus Christ as God. But nowhere in the accounts of Jesus' life on earth, did Jesus ever tell his followers to force people to worship Him Jesus, as God. All Jesus said was to "go and tell". That's it. Christians can't make anyone worship Jesus. Once a person has heard the Gospel of Christ, then its their decision to embrace, or reject. After someone reads or hears the Gospel, it then becomes personal between that person, and God. The responsibility of the Christian to that person is over. If after a person knows, and the Christian or Organization is forcing the issue, then that Christian or Org. is exhibiting cult like tendencies. And a cult is anti-freedom, and not of God.

And I know almost everyone in this forum, have read about Jesus Christ. They reject, that is their issue. I mostly stop by to see the latest argument and defense these atheists have for their beliefs...which can be both hilarious and require a serious response or two at times.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139339
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? Why not?
Because I don't want to! simple!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139340
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If only it were that easy.
yh.

I was joking with 'Tide'.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139341
Nov 20, 2012
 
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Catholics to Christians is the same as carrot is to vegetable. Celery is a different name than carrot but both fare still vegetables. Why is it overtime I post you i feel like I'm dealing with a 12 years old. YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. Avoid it all you want, but you are classified by everyone else on the planet as a CHRISTIAN. Learn to deal with it. I know it's difficult but do give it a try!!!!
He must be embarrassed by it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139342
Nov 20, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot.
You ignored my questions.
Let's try again.
Should we get an old science book about star formation? You know, back when they "knew" the Milky Way was the universe?
There was never a time when they *knew* the Milky Way was the universe. There was certainly a time when it was all of the *known* universe. But even at that point there was speculation about what was beyond it, if anything. In particular, many nebulae were known that turned out to be other galaxies, but had not been resolved into individual stars.

The *science* books from that time (as opposed to the popular books for non-scientists) were very clear about the *lack* of knowledge concerning star formation and that the ideas current at the time were speculation.
Or should we get a newer one, where they "know" more about gravity & hydrogen?
Sure, go ahead. What time period are you thinking about? Since the energy source of stars wasn't known until the 1930's, that will be a good line for when reliable knowledge got going.
Or should we wait for a future science book where they'll "know" even more?
Depends on the questions you want to consider. We know that the earth orbits the sun. At one point that was speculation. We know that the Milky Way is one of many galaxies. At one point that was also speculation. We know that ordinary matter is made from atoms, which are made from protons, neutrons, and electrons. At one point that was also speculation.

You see, knowledge does improve over time. The speculation at one time can become the knowledge of a later time. This is part of how science works. But, even when there are revolutions in science that completely change the detailed explanations, the parts that were previously known to work do not suddenly stop working. Even with the elimination of the ether theory of light, Maxwell's equations still functioned. Even when Newton's theory of gravity was overthrown, it still sufficed to give very good approximations to reality.

So there is no way that an idea that was overturned by the evidence will come back in the same form. That is why creationism is not a serious consideration: it was the standard idea 200 years ago and was overthrown by the evidence. No matter what happens to our ideas in the future, the fact that the universe is more than our galaxy and is expanding will not be overthrown. the *details* of that expansion and the history of it may well change, but the raw fact will not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139343
Nov 20, 2012
 
Perhaps he prays to magneto?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I get a sick feeling in my stomach every time I see one of your transparent attempts to feign wisdom. Just stop it. The fact that a magnet can exert a force on a piece of metal does not "prove" that we are being "controlled" by EM. You are bordering on delusions of grandeur - thinking you have "figured it all out." From "my" perspective - the universe is incomprehensible - but not to you, right? You know the secret of the magnets!
Seriously, please stop spouting this garbage at me. It's cool if you wanna believe this nonsense. What you can't do is claim a few simple facts - that magnets exist and that our blood has iron - and then expect me to believe you when you say that we are being controlled by the EM gods.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139344
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Bad judgement?
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139345
Nov 20, 2012
 
Clementia wrote:
It's not my fault, if I use he. God is unisex in sikhi, we have male and female names for him and we don't say he, we say they. Oh, shit! I said he again, damn!!! This is the fault of the English speaking people, they made God male.
You could use "it".
Clementia wrote:
Does gravity give you inner strength? do you love it? could you die for it? Has it helped you become a better person? If so, you can believe it if you want, I don't!
No, none of those things.

So why should anyone "worship" anything?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139346
Nov 20, 2012
 
Clementia wrote:
Because I don't want to! simple!
Why don't you want to agree with the "random" part of "random quantum fluctuations"?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139347
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have a problem with atheists either. In the context of an internet "friend", I have made a number of friends on topix, even some that are atheists. In fact, I rather have an argument with an atheist because they usually go indepth with their criticisms and defense of what they stand for.
And I agree with you as well about those trying to impose their views. I'm a Christian. Proud of it and proud that I worship Jesus Christ as God. But nowhere in the accounts of Jesus' life on earth, did Jesus ever tell his followers to force people to worship Him Jesus, as God. All Jesus said was to "go and tell". That's it. Christians can't make anyone worship Jesus. Once a person has heard the Gospel of Christ, then its their decision to embrace, or reject. After someone reads or hears the Gospel, it then becomes personal between that person, and God. The responsibility of the Christian to that person is over. If after a person knows, and the Christian or Organization is forcing the issue, then that Christian or Org. is exhibiting cult like tendencies. And a cult is anti-freedom, and not of God.
And I know almost everyone in this forum, have read about Jesus Christ. They reject, that is their issue. I mostly stop by to see the latest argument and defense these atheists have for their beliefs...which can be both hilarious and require a serious response or two at times.
"Go and tell" who? Jesus tried to stop being doing evil things, these 'christians' that go around trying to convert people don't stop people from doing evil, they just make them say "I love jesus".

I have met some of the nicest atheists on this planet. They don't kill, steal, rape, murder, hate and judge people, but those fanatic 'christians' have even tried converting them. I have had christians telling me I'm one of the nicest people they've met, but no i'm still going to hell because i'm a sikh. How can these people say they are doing the work of Jesus??? They disgust me!!

I respect jesus too, but not everything that is written in the bible.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139348
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You could use "it".
<quoted text>
No, none of those things.
So why should anyone "worship" anything?
Ok, I'll use they or it!

Worshiping my God helps me to be a better person. There is no point in believing in God if you are still evil. If you can be a good person without believing in God, I have no problem with you being an atheist.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139349
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you want to agree with the "random" part of "random quantum fluctuations"?
because i have a choice not to!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139350
Nov 20, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There isn't even a good definition of the term 'supernatural force'. If it is a 'force', it obeys some sort of force law, and therefore is *natural*. If it doesn't obey some sort of force law, then there is no way to test to see if it is a valid idea, so it is not scientific.
if you want the concept of a supernatural force to be considered seriously, you have to propose a testable theory involving one (with definitions, etc). And no, untestable theories are not going to be considered.
Are dark energy, and the forces of dark matter supernatural? They certainly would be considered such unless they were needed to make your calculations appear correct.

Would the EM of dark matter work the same as visible? If the gravity of dark matter originated in the BB, wouldn't the accompanying EM? Along with the nuclear forces? Could it be detected? Is it detected? Would the forces of this darkness cancel that of the visible?

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139351
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
And how does science disprove any of that?
<quoted text>
Evidence?(From actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles, not from popular newspapers or magazines.)
Well that's my whole point einstien.

If the the most influential body of scientists that are backing atheism, backing the view that God does not exist. That body of influence are evolutionary biologists. And as I showed you yesterday, this body of scientists are under the most assault with the threat of losing their jobs because of so limited institutions and places of employment, reason they tow the line of "No God", what do you think will become of "peer review"??...huh?

You atheists really only consider evolutionary biologists the only source of credibility on evolutionary theories. Any other scientists that criticize your beliefs are "not real" scientists or not relevant critiques you all say. So if there is peer review among a body of scientists where many are only trying to keep their jobs to pay their bills, the result of those peer reviews pretty much will result in group think.

In other words, a classic Catch 22. The only legitimate criticisms atheists will consider, are those from evolutionary biologists. And many of those evolutionary biologists cannot criticize or give their true assessment of the theories...because they are afraid to lose their jobs. Those are facts. There are evolutionary scientists that have lost their jobs because they claim belief in God and criticize ToE.

The result: simpletons like you therefore can cling maniacally to an absurd belief system and throw up the defense anytime...'evolutionary biological scientists agree no God...so there must be no God'.

Your religion has been figured out, the scheme is up.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139352
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Since many (perhaps even most) atheists were once religious people, we understand religious people quite well.
You don't understand me, that's why you question my belief! I understand atheists, that's why I never questioned their disbelief! I don't have a problem with you not believing in my God, but you seem to have some kind of problem with me. Am I wrong?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139353
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what: Tell us how one would go about looking at God "scientifically".
I think we'll quickly come to the answer to your question.
Well, only science can tell us that!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139354
Nov 20, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad. Quantum events *are* random.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relation...

I don't think you truly grasp the physical realities of quantum mechanics.

You are confusing problems with observing with the actual physical goings on.

Your "randomness" is "magic". POOF!!! Or it is mathematical fudge factors for incorrect observation and interpretation.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 133,961 - 133,980 of218,171
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••