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 7,086)

Showing posts 141,701 - 141,720 of223,141
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147519
Jan 7, 2013
 
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I was thinking that after Lesbo does it, Tide and River need to make a guest appearance, that'll be cool, won't it? But I just don't know how we could get those two in, to make it really funny!!
Goodnite, guys!
XOXO!! Right back at ya, Catcher! ;-)
Right. Let's all streak. Wait, let's get the amputee. She'll get caught first.

I'll meet you all at the pub when they let me go :)
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147520
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>So much wrong is such a short sentence.

First, causality depends on the notion of time and time is part of the universe. So either time is infinite into the past, allowing for an infinite string of causality, or time is finite into the past and causality is meaningless for the 'first' event. Either way, talking about a cause for the universe as a whole is problematic, to say the least.

Second, we know of uncaused events in our own universe, so the assumption that everything needs to be caused is already known to be wrong. What argument do you have that the universe was, in fact, caused?

Third, even if causality is an aspect here, there is no reason there needs to be a *single* cause for the whole universe, as opposed to multiple causes (which tends to be the case for most things in the universe). Why not say the universe was caused by a committee?

Fourth, even if there is a single cause for the universe, the identification of this cause with 'God' is problematic, to say the least. You see, simply having a cause does not imply an intelligence, consciousness, morality, or even ownership.

Fifth, unlike your avoidance of the issue, YOUR claims make the positive existence statement, so are the ones with the burden of proof. WE do not have to show them wrong; YOU have to show them correct.
1) Time is part of space they are connected, therefore they are both part of the universe. God is outside of the little box that holds his creation, our universe. That is why God can be the Alpha and the Omega.

2) I have to really doubt you here.
As in the Theory of chaos. It would be Impossible to prove one event did not in some way start another event.

3) This is easy. See there is this book called the Bible and it tells us that there is only one God.

4) again the Bible explains creation. A single cell is more complex then any and all thing made by man. Hence intelligent's

5) "When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.

By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147521
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence is the same for everyone, what you are probably calling evidence is not the same for everyone therefore it is not evidence. Unless you have evidence you have no presented.
Wrong

The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.

"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.

Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL

Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147522
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I just left out the details since they weren't looking for actual answers, just bumper sticker one liners.
I see.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147523
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Lame excuse for not wanting to do the work of advancing our understanding.
No such thing!

Learn all you want in the universe. But do you real believe you can learn what's outside of our universe?

Wikipedia

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.[5][6] Definitions and usage vary[how?] and similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature."

You going to learn stuff outside of existence? Sorry honey but the Bible is the only place you'll learn about that stuff. And you don't believe it.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147524
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Well, since you cannot provide evidence there is one, then you are delusional to assert it is fact.

However, the paradox is best explained with a single question:

Could an all powerful entity create a rock it could not lift?
Not that I cannot provide evidence and not that the earth and moons and planets don't show any signs or the fact that these threads are loaded with point after point of evidence. No it's not that I can't provide it it that I won't!
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147525
Jan 7, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.
I hope this helps you.

"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.

Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147526
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now, you are adding an assertion to create a strawman argument. There was never a mention of it being "discarded" only that one is there, not to mention the type of teapot was never detailed, so the ones we associate today with "teapot" are not the only possible ones applicable.
Then you attempt to shift the burden of proof yet again. You still have no evidence that your deity exists, that's it. Until such evidence is presented then your deity is just an assumption.
1. Discarded teapot was an attempt at humor and not an attempt to create a straw man.
2. The diety is not "mine".
3. Central point is their is actual evidence against the teapot vs no evidence against the diety.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147527
Jan 7, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And that "something" could be the "Universe" or the "Multiverse".
Yes it could be.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147528
Jan 7, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?

And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.
Robots of Dawn trilogy was very good!
Yes I read them all. I think I read him for a year straight. Could not put it down.

Deflect?
No just adding some amusement. After that's what I'm here for. Fun and games.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147529
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Stars are the result of matter-energy interaction.
Must we really cointinue this? At some point we get to an as yet unexplainable substance whose origin is unexplainable.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147530
Jan 7, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So an eternal intelligence is required to create humans but was not itself created makes more sense to you than an eternal universe?
(which may or may not be cyclic ... or the "expansion" we perceive could just be a local phenomenon that goes beyond the range of our sensors ... or countless other natural explanations which may at least be testable at some point).
To me "eternal" in and of itself is beyond the realm of the natural world.We can't explain it.That something or anything just "is" and always has been is something that feels visceraaly wrong to me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147531
Jan 7, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you are willing to ask questions! That is a far cry better than most theists we experience on here.
Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov --
"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?
"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?
"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'
"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
In my case its not a matter of necessarily knowing but what feels right to me. The only truth I can admit to is I don't know if what I feel is, what actually is. I think thats true for all of us.We simply don't know one way or the other.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147532
Jan 7, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, most people refuse to learn enough mathematics to understand what we have found so far. To me, that suggests they don't want to do any real work which leads them to seek simplistic answers to complicated questions. And *that* is what they find in religion.
I'm willing to take mathemactians at their word when they explain beyond my comprehension. However I also can't discount the the beliefs and opinions of people like John Lennox the Oxford mathematician who whole heartedly believes in God.What I find too much of on these threads is radicals insulting each other and making assumptions about posters who they suspect is the enemy.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147533
Jan 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"He could help but create me to follow a certain path! " LOL
No you make your own discussions.
He gave that to all mankind. Freedom to disobey his laws.
"He" because we choose to refer to God in a known image to us. There is no he or she in heaven.
But omniscience means he knows my decision before I make it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147534
Jan 7, 2013
 
christianity is EVIL wrote:
Nice link,thanks

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147535
Jan 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
..."When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147536
Jan 7, 2013
 
*** Typo *** should read --

But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR claim.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147537
Jan 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope this helps you.
"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick
This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.
Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."
Now that's some fancy singin' and dancin' there! So I cannot do anything that is inconsistent with my nature, so by this twisted logic I would be omnipotent too. That's absurd.

To accept this argument is to redefine the word "all" such that "all powerful" is some strange twilight zone parody of "all". You really fell for this lame apologetic?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147538
Jan 7, 2013
 
Anyone here familiar with CTMU theory?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141,701 - 141,720 of223,141
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••