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

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#142631 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Good girl.
You're confused.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#142632 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Nah, cro-magnum is condoms for crows.
Probably too big for you.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#142633 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Ya, that's what you athiests say but not one of your assertions in valid.
True.

But you have an unnecessary space.

And you left out "is".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#142634 Dec 8, 2012
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>Didn't know you wore a helmet, my bad!
Only on my Harley.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#142635 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>blacklagoon
Citation, please.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#142636 Dec 8, 2012
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.

So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, that's what you athiests say but not one of your assertions in valid.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#142637 Dec 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.
So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
<quoted text>
Our Lady of Perpetual Motion

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142638 Dec 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And, apparently, what does need correction won't be.
No rational person can believe the bible is without error.
Unless he's never read it.
The Bible doesn't need correction & is above your atheistic understanding.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142639 Dec 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably too big for you.
I'm hung like a mouse, just not as thick.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142640 Dec 8, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.
So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
<quoted text>
When have I ever once said that Catholics don't believe in Jesus?

Again, I don't go to church...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142641 Dec 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
But you have an unnecessary space.
And you left out "is".
That's it? That's all you got?

Grammatical errors?

Nice...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#142642 Dec 8, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee poly I thought it was based on observation , evidence or
empirical data ?
Yes, those also. The point is that no general laws are held based on faith. It is always possible that new evidence will require modification or overhaul of the system. Now, if the system has worked well, it is likely that any new system will agree at those points where the old system worked (it would have to).

The strength of the scientific method comes from the fact that scientific hypotheses have to make definite predictions about new observations. if there are two competing ideas, find a place where they make measurably different predictions and go to the real world and see which is wrong and which is right within the error bars. This will allow the rejection of at least one of the competing ideas. As an idea successfully meets more and more challenges, we get more confidence in it. Eventually it gets the status of a theory and not just of a hypothesis.

The key is that a hypothesis must make a prediction *before* the observations and be definite enough to allow rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. This is the essence of falsifiability: if the hypothesis is wrong, there is some test that will show it wrong.

So I ask the creationists and IDers out there: make a prediction of an observation that can be made. Make this prediction such that if the observation goes against the prediction, you are willing to give up your viewpoint. Make sure the prediction is not of something that has already been observed.

For added points, make the prediction one that is completely inconsistent with the current standard theories (and that even those holding the standard view will agree is inconsistent with the standard theory).

I will bet that nobody on the creationist/ID side will rise to meet this simple test of being a scientific theory. the reason: creationism and ID are not scientific theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#142643 Dec 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, possibly.
They can hold that it is unconstitutional for a state to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
The problem is that even Ginsburg has said it is a bad time to bring the matter up and that even the liberals may not vote the way we might predict.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#142644 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it? That's all you got?
Grammatical errors?
Nice...
IF you applied his recommended edits, you would end up with -

"Ya, that's what you atheists say but not one of your assertions IS INVALID."
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#142645 Dec 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those also. The point is that no general laws are held based on faith. It is always possible that new evidence will require modification or overhaul of the system. Now, if the system has worked well, it is likely that any new system will agree at those points where the old system worked (it would have to).
The strength of the scientific method comes from the fact that scientific hypotheses have to make definite predictions about new observations. if there are two competing ideas, find a place where they make measurably different predictions and go to the real world and see which is wrong and which is right within the error bars. This will allow the rejection of at least one of the competing ideas. As an idea successfully meets more and more challenges, we get more confidence in it. Eventually it gets the status of a theory and not just of a hypothesis.
The key is that a hypothesis must make a prediction *before* the observations and be definite enough to allow rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. This is the essence of falsifiability: if the hypothesis is wrong, there is some test that will show it wrong.
So I ask the creationists and IDers out there: make a prediction of an observation that can be made. Make this prediction such that if the observation goes against the prediction, you are willing to give up your viewpoint. Make sure the prediction is not of something that has already been observed.
For added points, make the prediction one that is completely inconsistent with the current standard theories (and that even those holding the standard view will agree is inconsistent with the standard theory).
I will bet that nobody on the creationist/ID side will rise to meet this simple test of being a scientific theory. the reason: creationism and ID are not scientific theories.
You can't get something from nothing.

Now what scientific method would you use to prove the number 5?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#142646 Dec 8, 2012
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't get something from nothing.
Now what scientific method would you use to prove the number 5?
I wouldn't. The number 5 is an abstract concept in a formal system. As such, it has nothing to do with the 'real world'(as opposed to our models of that world).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#142647 Dec 8, 2012
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't get something from nothing.
Which is why observations are required.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#142648 Dec 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't. The number 5 is an abstract concept in a formal system. As such, it has nothing to do with the 'real world'(as opposed to our models of that world).
So even though you can't prove the number 5 by scientific methods, the number 5 does exist.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#142649 Dec 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why observations are required.
Have you observed something coming from nothing?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142650 Dec 8, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you applied his recommended edits, you would end up with -
"Ya, that's what you atheists say but not one of your assertions IS INVALID."
No shit sherlock.....

Got anything new or resourceful to add?

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr oneear69 22,313
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... 1 hr True Christian wi... 20
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 3 hr religionislies 421
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr TheHeadlines 482
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 3 hr TheHeadlines 763
Stump a theist with 2 questions 3 hr TheHeadlines 70
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 3 hr TheHeadlines 4,108
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••