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 Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147441 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! Just like I can't prove God to you.
Yes, but love is caused by physical and easily demonstrated chemical reactions. You god, if it existed, would have some sort of influence on the world, and that would leave evidence.

It's the same as the wind in the desert, we know there is wind even if we never feel it because it leaves "ripples" in the sand.

We know there are oceanic currents without elaborate tests, because those currents move objects on the surface even.

We're asking for evidence, not a photograph, though a photograph would seal the deal, so to speak. But you cannot show any actual influence caused by this god of yours, so it is safe to dismiss it.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147442 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Right....
So everyone that puts on their seat belt is living fear while driving?
No, but the are acknowledging by their actions that they don't really believe some invisible deity is looking out for them.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147443 Jan 7, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure your "tacit approval" gives whatever creative force a warm and fuzzy feeling and will be instrumental in the further development of mankind and the universe itself.
"Belief systems" are just logics based upon observation and experience. If you are a passive learner, like a rock, you sit there and absorb the beliefs of others as truths instead of putting your own mind and soul to work to explain things. You follow the herd.
Follow the herd.

That's funny, coming from a theist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147444 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It also requires knowledge of the laws that apply to determine which set of circumstances is more likely. And the determination of those laws requires observational evidence to establish them.
To determine a probability, you need to know what the range of possibilities is and how many of those possibilities have the condition under discussion. Without *both* of those, it is impossible to determine a probability.
In the specific case under consideration, we are actually attempting to determine what is known as a conditional probability. Given the fact that the universe around us is as it is, what is the probability that there is a deity?
To determine a conditional probability, you need to know the range of possible universes which look like ours and then determine which of those has a deity and which do not. Clearly, we are nowhere close to even knowing what the range of possible universes is (is it even possible for the universe to be different---what does that even mean?). And we have no basis to determine which universes that look like our have or do not have deities that got them going.
So there is simply no way to even get started calculating a probability of there being a deity.
But, what we *do* know is that none of the scientific theories that agree with the evidence we have requires a deity to explain the universe around us. That alone suggests the probability of a deity is small.
It always gets back to the origin of life and at that point everyones on equal footings.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147445 Jan 7, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Please talk to your doctor about Haldol.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX= unworthy of response.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147446 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> It always gets back to the origin of life and at that point everyones on equal footings.
Invisible sky daddy's done it isn't even a footing.
It's a brain disorder.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147447 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What is delusional about understanding that ANYONE, whether they are armed or not can have a breakdown?
What is delusional about the fact that someone with access to a gun is FAR more likely to shoot a person or persons than someone without access to a gun?
Rights? Are you talking about the “unalienable” rights of Americans that just happen to have been amended?
Rights? Are you talking about why Americans are not subject to the International Declaration of Human Rights?
The US is the only country in the world other than the collapsed state of Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The US is the only 1st world country and one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The US has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The US has not ratified it’s own American Convention on Human Rights.
The US provision for human rights is abysmal but if you think that packing a gun makes if for that defect well, you live there…
FYI, The government in the UK is democratically elected by public vote.
FYI, You can legally own a firearm in the UK.
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms_licensing/f...
Yes I live here and thanks be to God you don't.As to the rest of your post is had ZERO relevance to what I was commenting on.I assure you I don't give a rats ass what you or any other Brit else thinks about the USA.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147448 Jan 7, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Silly! It's a divine teapot not one made of clay! It's invisible and beyond our comprehension but it created everything and if you don't believe in it you burn forever in the coffee pot underworld forever roasting in scalding hot decaf!
<quoted text>
Oh so you do believe in a diety.You just call it a teapot. Thanks for clearing that up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147449 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is MORE probable that there is no deity based on what "is" known about deities.
Unless you'd care to define the properties of deity to enough level of detail that some sort of evidence can be observed / measured to support such a claim?
Without a clearly defined set of properties any consideration of deities is meaningless and absurd.
I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147450 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Which requires a sample size greater than 1 and a set of outcomes to calculate any probabilities. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.
I'll stick with observable and measurable evidence that is independently verifiable and will consider outcomes in direct proportion to the amount of this evidence.
Thus far, there is gathering evidence for the expansion of the universe and no evidence of any magic from an invisible supernatural sky deity.
And what is responsible for the origin of the universe that is expanding? Or the multiverse and so on? Until there is an answer to that question its all just opinion no matter how we justify them.In the end the best answer is we don't know.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147451 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> It always gets back to the origin of life and at that point everyones on equal footings.
I'm not sure why you would think this. Those that have studied life and the chemical reactions that are required for it are in a better position to discuss the origins of life than the average person. Even better are those who are trained in both microbiology and organic chemistry, who know the conditions required for the molecules that make up life to form. In particular, there are scientists that have studied biochemistry as well as the chemistry of the early earth and that have performed experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life are easily formed in the environment of the early earth (as well as in space) and that are investigating how those molecules can combine in the ways that lead to life.

The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and the question of how such a collection of reactions gets started is one for chemistry, in particular organic chemistry. We have a lot to learn yet, that is true, but we are farther towards understanding than we were 50 years ago and progress is being made continually.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147452 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Invisible sky daddy's done it isn't even a footing.
It's a brain disorder.
We are all welcome to our own opinions but you overstep reality when you over state and present your opinion as fact. It is unproveable.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147453 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?
Actually, no you have not.

Nothing is known about a deity, that's your problem.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147454 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is responsible for the origin of the universe that is expanding?
We do not know. We do not even know if the question makes any sense (time being required for causality and time also possibly beginning at the Big Bang).
Or the multiverse and so on?
At this point, it looks like the multi-verse, if it exists, is eternal: it exists whenever there is time.
Until there is an answer to that question its all just opinion no matter how we justify them.In the end the best answer is we don't know.
But the way to find out is not to simply throw up our hands and give up. Instead, we need to obtain deeper understanding of how the universe works, what the laws governing the universe (or multi-verse) are and what that means for the question of origins. At the very least, we will need a testable theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, we don't have such.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147455 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all welcome to our own opinions but you overstep reality when you over state and present your opinion as fact. It is unproveable.
I overstep reality when I say it isn't really possible a human looking god existed billions of years before humans?
What would you base the idea that a being that looked just like us existed billions of years before humans did?
Yes and now explain why it would wait billions of years to create us.
while creating a system of life that would take half a billion years to evolve into us. Wait the right amount of time for us to evolve naturally, and then create us. You see it doesn't make sense does it?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147456 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you would think this. Those that have studied life and the chemical reactions that are required for it are in a better position to discuss the origins of life than the average person. Even better are those who are trained in both microbiology and organic chemistry, who know the conditions required for the molecules that make up life to form. In particular, there are scientists that have studied biochemistry as well as the chemistry of the early earth and that have performed experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life are easily formed in the environment of the early earth (as well as in space) and that are investigating how those molecules can combine in the ways that lead to life.
The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and the question of how such a collection of reactions gets started is one for chemistry, in particular organic chemistry. We have a lot to learn yet, that is true, but we are farther towards understanding than we were 50 years ago and progress is being made continually.
Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147457 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> ...Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate?...
We know that, dying stars.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147458 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
The chemicals that were on the early earth were formed in the gas and dust clouds that collapsed to form the sun and solar system. The elements in those clouds (except for hydrogen and helium) were formed in supernova explosions via nuclear reactions. That should be enough for any biologist. Yes, you can ask about what happened even earlier, but you are then about 9 billion years before life started and are talking cosmology and not biology.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147459 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?
Absolutely nothing that all people can agree on.

For the most part there's general consensus on omnipotent, but upon closer examination, this property is itself meaningless and absurd. An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination.

And quite a few go with omniscience (all-knowing), but the implications of this would be a loss of any free will and humans become puppets performing predetermined rolls. Again, absurd.

And let's not even consider omnibenevolent (all-loving) as the very idea of hell makes this property absurd, even if possible.

Which leaves the vague concept of "creator of the universe", but then you have the "turtles all the way down" paradox and that one falls apart. Or you argue the Kalaam Cosmological position (or some such variant) and end of with the fallacy of begging the question.

So, there is no set of properties that anyone can describe for any entity which could possibly exist and could rightly be labeled a deity.

Care to take a stab at it?

(ref: theological noncognitivism)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147460 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
Good enough. Now how do we test that idea? What predictions can be based on that idea that we can test in experiment? How do the predictions based on this idea differ from those based on the usual ones? And, what exactly does it mean for something to exist 'separate and apart from what we consider nature'? Either it exists and has detectable effects (at some point), or it does not exist.

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
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 700
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Heaven 6 hr susanblange 2
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 7 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 hr Patrick 152
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 16 hr Patrick 140
Is Religion Childish? 19 hr Patrick 3

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE