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

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#147727 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I said:
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that kind of like when you're looking for something and it's always in the last place you looked? After all why keep looking once you found it. If guns we outlawed then yes anyone with a gun would be breaking the law even if the owner never planed on using it for any other criminal intent.
You said:
Oh, mean like the drug war.. or is it the war on terrorism.. or is it the war on childhood obesity?
Not really following you here.
I am not entirely sure.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147728 Jan 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So why should anyone accept God as anything more than a product of someone's vivid imagination?
All you theists run away from this question for some reason.
<quoted text>
That's simple to answer Gimme, It's because they chose too, as simply as you chose not too.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147729 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>political correctness is gay.
Sometimes it's survival. Sometimes politically incorrect is gay.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147730 Jan 9, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I have a whip.
Please be kind, and rewind.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147731 Jan 9, 2013
god is all you're going to get from me. Respect should be earned.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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.)
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147732 Jan 9, 2013
Why does god kill nearly half of all embryos in miscarriages?
Why is god the biggest abortionist of all?
TLC wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#147733 Jan 9, 2013
Hi ways are not our own?

Lol :))
Thinking wrote:
Why does god kill nearly half of all embryos in miscarriages?
Why is god the biggest abortionist of all?
<quoted text>
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147734 Jan 9, 2013
god is made in our image...
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hi ways are not our own?
Lol :))
<quoted text>

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147735 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no god of the Bible
The God of the Bible is always to be capitalized.
What are you going to do?

Take away my birthday?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147736 Jan 9, 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.
How many pictures in your collage?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147737 Jan 9, 2013
Not many now. His collage came unstuck.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
How many pictures in your collage?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#147738 Jan 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Grammar is inconsequential, really. As long as the meaning is clear, a few grammatical errors or typos are easy to overlook. I make one or two in almost every post. This is a first draft medium, and first drafts are always rife with error--as any editor. That's why grammar nazis are so unloved on internet forums.
There is a difference, however, between grammatical errors and functional illiteracy which, as Churchill said, is something up with which I will not put.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147740 Jan 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose there was no end to his insanity.
There's a difference in screening to help a person and screening to eliminate them. But I much thought it was Aryan features he screened for in creating the Hitler youth program. His attempt was to create the blue eyed blond race. I guess if you had brown eyes you were faulty. But most of this was done by a guy under Hitler I think? Kurt Gruber And Mengle probably others.
Oh he was not the first, such sterilisation was practised in the US since before the turn of the last century

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[61] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_...

Also there was a considerable eugenics movement here too :-
When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favour of the confinement, segregation, and sterilisation of a class of persons contemporarily described as the "feeble minded." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-c...

Here we see the bad side of Darwins work that is swept under the carpet.

Where do you draw the line, Just like screening for mental abnormality, mass screening without 100% consent on the off chance that the person may purchase a gun at some time in the future is unethical. As is storing data obtained from such screening where it is accessible, consider that any gun salesman needs access to it (and by definition anyone else with a motive to obtain such information).

Perhaps the solution is a national licensing scheme where the prospective gun owner (only the prospective gun owner) is assessed (he wants the gun therefore he must agree to the assessment or do without a gun) and if successful is issued a licence. He can then obtain a gun and/or ammunition by producing the licence along with the payment. This has the advantage of cost benefits, only those who it effects are screened, not everyone, there is not doubts that it is ethical and any stigma of a refusal is kept private. The public has the advantage of knowing that the gun owner was assessed when (probably just before) he obtained the gun and not many years previously when he was a child.

The type of system employed by most European countries comes to mind. It may not be perfect but it is tested and known to work reasonably well. True that those with nefarious use in mind are going to bypass the system but that will happen under any circumstances.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147741 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. But only because of the first amendment freedom of speech. If some people would just shut and not piss everyone off they would not be getting shot!
Take Septic for instants.
Take you too

So what you want is freedom of speech for you and the people you agree with but not for anyone who p|sses you off otherwise you will shoot them

That my dear is not freedom of speech, that is Fascism

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147742 Jan 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to believe in irony meters.
But you just keep breaking them.
I don't believe in them any more.
Mine just went burp and fell to bits when I read KJV post

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147743 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh he was not the first, such sterilisation was practised in the US since before the turn of the last century
After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[61] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_...
Also there was a considerable eugenics movement here too :-
When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favour of the confinement, segregation, and sterilisation of a class of persons contemporarily described as the "feeble minded." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-c...
Here we see the bad side of Darwins work that is swept under the carpet.
Where do you draw the line, Just like screening for mental abnormality, mass screening without 100% consent on the off chance that the person may purchase a gun at some time in the future is unethical. As is storing data obtained from such screening where it is accessible, consider that any gun salesman needs access to it (and by definition anyone else with a motive to obtain such information).
Perhaps the solution is a national licensing scheme where the prospective gun owner (only the prospective gun owner) is assessed (he wants the gun therefore he must agree to the assessment or do without a gun) and if successful is issued a licence. He can then obtain a gun and/or ammunition by producing the licence along with the payment. This has the advantage of cost benefits, only those who it effects are screened, not everyone, there is not doubts that it is ethical and any stigma of a refusal is kept private. The public has the advantage of knowing that the gun owner was assessed when (probably just before) he obtained the gun and not many years previously when he was a child.
The type of system employed by most European countries comes to mind. It may not be perfect but it is tested and known to work reasonably well. True that those with nefarious use in mind are going to bypass the system but that will happen under any circumstances.
Adam wasn't a gun owner.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147744 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -
<quoted text>
So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.
What? I never said anything close to that.

There's no object God couldn't lift.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147745 Jan 9, 2013
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.
I can't prove them right. I can't prove them wrong. I'm not an astrologist or a scientist of any kind. I can fix your car, I can put new windows in your house, I can rebuild your lawnmower engine, I can probably out drink you, but I cannot prove or disprove anything having to do with the origin of the universe. All we're doing here is speculation, because you can't prove it either way either.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147746 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume what? I made no assumptions, so you'll have to be specific in what part you are unclear.
You said that if God existed, He would leave evidence.

Why do you assume that?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147747 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't prove them right. I can't prove them wrong. I'm not an astrologist or a scientist of any kind. I can fix your car, I can put new windows in your house, I can rebuild your lawnmower engine, I can probably out drink you, but I cannot prove or disprove anything having to do with the origin of the universe. All we're doing here is speculation, because you can't prove it either way either.
There is a huge difference between hypotheses based on available evidence (red shift, CMBR, etc.) and speculation based on personal wish fulfillment (desire to matter to the universe, eternal life, etc.)

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 min red and right 2,591
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 2 hr QUITTNER Dec 24 2014 5
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineM 1,449
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 6 hr polymath257 159
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr _Bad Company 192
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 8 hr ratboyhunter 34
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 11 hr thetruth 23,228
More from around the web