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
KJV

United States

#147669 Jan 8, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible cannot be used as proof of the validity of the Bible.

Hearsay is not evidence.

Anecdotal stories are not evidence.

Goad of the gaps does not equal evidence.

Anthropomorphism does not equal evidence.

Anthropic philosophical arguments do not equal evidence.

Evidence is observable, measurable, independently verifiable, and testable.

Thus far you have presented absolutely NO evidence.
The evidence in the Bible is being backed up all the time by science.

This is not a court of law using man made rules this is a book that like non other. You can make up rules to remove all evidence presented. Notice I am saying evidence not proof. But that doesn't change the fact that God gave us the Bible to learn about him.
KJV

United States

#147670 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, all I have seen are assertions, no evidence at all.
That's fine.
KJV

United States

#147671 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, you present assertions, the assertions are dismissed because you present no evidence to support them.
Lie again.
The Bible is not the only evidence I have posted or others there has been much much more.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#147672 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You are sparking research on new and indestructible irony meters.
The current models are no match for you.
Do what I do. Wire two of 'em in parallel.
KJV

United States

#147673 Jan 8, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
KJV:

A 2012 estimate is not likely to be based on 2012 data. It could be based on data that is more than a decade old with some rationale for adjusting it. We simply do not know, and that is exactly the point. If you look at the various encyclopedia entries that you referenced, you will find that they, in turn, reference other sources. You have to follow the trail to the original study before you can evaluate the data itself.

In order to evaluate a study's accuracy, you have to look at how and when the data was collected and analyzed. That information is called metadata, i.e., data about the data. Unless you look at that, you can't know whether you are citing valid statistics, shoddy work, or outright fabrications. Most government statistical departments include metadata in all of their published works, but the CIA does not. Pew and ARIS are just as open about their methods. When two sources show very different results, the metadata usually shows why. When the metadata is absent, preference has to be given to the better documented study.

Beyond the accuracy of the statistics, using them to advance an ad populum argument will not play for anyone who is familiar with the basic principles of logic. When assessing ideas, it is foolish to see what the majority of people believe and go with that. Ideas the come to be widely accepted are often accepted by tiny minorities at their inception. We all agree, for instance, that slavery was an outrageous injustice, but it was accepted as normal for most of human history. Racial segregation and discrimination was the rule of the day until after the middle of the last century. Women's roles in society were commonly accepted as secondary until about the same time, and the struggle for women's suffrage required decades before the nineteenth amendment finally gave all American women equal voting rights.

Majorities can be wrong. Communities decide on action by voting, but only on the ship of fools is truth put to a vote.
True. Feel free to ask the CIA how and where and when they get their data.

And yes that is the United States Central Intelligent agencies.
That those numbers did come from there.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147674 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie again.
The Bible is not the only evidence I have posted or others there has been much much more.
Where? All i have seen you post is assertions made based on the bible's assertions. Where is the evidence for any of the assertions?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147675 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence in the Bible is being backed up all the time by science.
This is not a court of law using man made rules this is a book that like non other. You can make up rules to remove all evidence presented. Notice I am saying evidence not proof. But that doesn't change the fact that God gave us the Bible to learn about him.
Where? You keep making these assertions but never provide any actual evidence, just assertions claiming that the bible is true "just because."

Oh, and there is no court of law that allows stoning of children or non-believers, your bible commands that. Don't bother screaming "context" either, if there is any context you can justify stoning children or those who just disagree with you, you're a monster.
KJV

United States

#147676 Jan 8, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the really interesting point about the retention data: while the news article says it comes from "a study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA)," ist actually comes from a blog by CARA editor Mark Gray. He displays the data in a graph that show the data coming from at least two sources, one of which is the Pew Forum. CARA appears to do surveys only of the Catholic supbpopulation, relying on other sources for comparative data. Since these other studies are conducted differently, the data from them cannot be compared with defensible validity. Moreover, the subjects for their internal surveys self-select, which invalidates their results as well.

That said, the data they present may be reasonably accurate. Or not--we have no way of knowing for sure. CARA does not show its metadata.
You really found all this out about the "a study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA),"

Wow that's some good work. Please show me the links where it shows this.
You have gone all out I must say.

I do have like 20 surveys all showing the round about same numbers.
Most have been scoffed at because of the sources. So I've been limited to the CIA and Pew and Encyclopedia Britannica survey.
KJV

United States

#147677 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>What's so much more important for the god of your bible than any of the other gods?
It's correct grammar.

"Holy Bible

- Names for the Bible – Capitalize all names for the Bible, for parts and versions of the Bible and all names of other sacred books.
Examples:
· Bible · Scriptures · Word of God · Holy Bible · Old Testament · New Testament
· Gospels · Ten Commandments · Lord’s Prayer · Gospels · Gospel of Luke
· King James Version · New International Version
- Creeds and Confessions – Capitalize all names of creeds and confessions of faith and general Biblical terms.
Examples:
· Lord’s Supper · the Apostles’ Creed
· the Westminster Catechism · Nicene Creed
- Deity - Capitalize all names for Deity
Examples:
· Father · Almighty · God · Lord · Holy Spirit · Son of Man
· Messiah · Lord of Hosts · Redeemer · Savior · Holy Trinity
- Devil - Capitalize all names for the Devil
Examples:
· Devil · Satan · Adversary · Father of Lies · Evil One · Lucifer
· Prince of Darkness · Beelzebub (meaning Satan)
* Do not capitalize when used in a general sense or as an expletive.(Example: The devil is a formidable adversary.)
KJV

United States

#147678 Jan 8, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
Because it's proper grammar.

Holy Bible

-Names for the Bible – Capitalize all names for the Bible, for parts and versions of the Bible and all names of other sacred books.

Examples:
· Bible · Scriptures · Word of God · Holy Bible · Old Testament · New Testament

· Gospels · Ten Commandments · Lord’s Prayer · Gospels · Gospel of Luke
· King James Version · New International Version

- Creeds and Confessions – Capitalize all names of creeds and confessions of faith and general Biblical terms.

Examples:
· Lord’s Supper · the Apostles’ Creed
· the Westminster Catechism · Nicene Creed

- Deity - Capitalize all names for Deity
Examples:
· Father · Almighty · God · Lord · Holy Spirit · Son of Man
· Messiah · Lord of Hosts · Redeemer · Savior · Holy Trinity

- Devil - Capitalize all names for the Devil
Examples:
· Devil · Satan · Adversary · Father of Lies · Evil One · Lucifer
· Prince of Darkness · Beelzebub (meaning Satan)

* Do not capitalize when used in a general sense or as an expletive.(Example: The devil is a formidable adversary.)
KJV

United States

#147679 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Those are religious rules, not actual language rules. Your god has no meaning to us, why should we care to bother capitalizing it's title? I mean, it's not even a name.
No they are not. I copied only the Bible part of the web pages. One was collage level grammar. Follow the links.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#147680 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
It's correct grammar.
"Holy Bible
- Names for the Bible – Capitalize all names for the Bible, for parts and versions of the Bible and all names of other sacred books.
Examples:
· Bible · Scriptures · Word of God · Holy Bible · Old Testament · New Testament
· Gospels · Ten Commandments · Lord’s Prayer · Gospels · Gospel of Luke
· King James Version · New International Version
- Creeds and Confessions – Capitalize all names of creeds and confessions of faith and general Biblical terms.
Examples:
· Lord’s Supper · the Apostles’ Creed
· the Westminster Catechism · Nicene Creed
- Deity - Capitalize all names for Deity
Examples:
· Father · Almighty · God · Lord · Holy Spirit · Son of Man
· Messiah · Lord of Hosts · Redeemer · Savior · Holy Trinity
- Devil - Capitalize all names for the Devil
Examples:
· Devil · Satan · Adversary · Father of Lies · Evil One · Lucifer
· Prince of Darkness · Beelzebub (meaning Satan)
* Do not capitalize when used in a general sense or as an expletive.(Example: The devil is a formidable adversary.)
Source, please?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147681 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No they are not. I copied only the Bible part of the web pages. One was collage level grammar. Follow the links.
No, the label of "god" is an adjective, not a proper noun. Get over yourself. Your god is no more privileged than the other thousands of gods, because your god has the same amount of evidence as those others.

Since: Sep 10

United States

#147682 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there's no way you're Lesbo's sock.
Right, or I wouldn't be impotent, huh?

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#147683 Jan 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, I made a film today.
Rated PG unfortunately.
.. oh !! that's right. Sorry ..

.. you were running naked in San Francisco today ..

.. which forum should I post the YouTube link ??..

.. probably the PTAG thread, right? Patricia would enjoy watching it ..

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#147684 Jan 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, I made a film today.
Rated PG unfortunately.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there's no way you're Lesbo's sock.
.. our latest script is nearly complete ..

.. would you consider a guest appearance ..

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147685 Jan 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, or I wouldn't be impotent, huh?
Did you mean impudent?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147686 Jan 8, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, I made a film today.
Rated PG unfortunately.
<quoted text>
.. our latest script is nearly complete ..
.. would you consider a guest appearance ..
As long as I play the church lady, sure.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#147687 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as I play the church lady, sure.
.. sure, you can play the naughty church lady. No problem ..
TLC

Birmingham, AL

#147688 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where? You keep making these assertions but never provide any actual evidence, just assertions claiming that the bible is true "just because."
Oh, and there is no court of law that allows stoning of children or non-believers, your bible commands that. Don't bother screaming "context" either, if there is any context you can justify stoning children or those who just disagree with you, you're a monster.
Actually you are just one of the many monsters of the world that condones the killing of millions of unborn babies in the world each year. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting murder, you ungrateful and worthless coward.

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) 14 min Aura Mytha 14,679
Christianity Created Hitler 49 min polymath257 215
The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr Thinking 79
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 12 hr Luke1981 7
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 12 hr NoahLovesU 1,245
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 13 hr NoahLovesU 2,844
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 21 hr Mikko 1,496
More from around the web