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

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147768 Jan 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been done , the only physical existence of god proven is in the brain. God is a condition of the brain. So is it an entity?
Doubtful , but there's no doubt it exists in abstract.
But far from omnipotent and has a very limited existence.
God is imprisoned in the minds of those who believe.
Hard to say if that is "real" but it is for them.
Some would call it a brain disorder , I will call it a condition of the mind.
And, according to at least 1 study, it's only in one side of the brain. So if you get a split brain operation, does 1/2 go to heaven and the other go to hell?

"
&list=FLAmJMW89IFfHJvk52XA p35A"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147769 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And, according to at least 1 study, it's only in one side of the brain. So if you get a split brain operation, does 1/2 go to heaven and the other go to hell?
"http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=PFJPtVRlI64XX&list= FLAmJMW89IFfHJvk52XAp35A"
WOW I know about split brain stuff but never about that question. I should have guessed it was a right brain function though. He doesn't state if it were a right of left handed person which has a huge impact on understanding it. That makes me want to inquire further.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#147770 Jan 9, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have nothing against you Catcher with the exception you weird out this site with your role playing as women.
Why do you do that?
If you want to fantasize write a romance novel. At least you could make some money at it.
Which "women" would those be, chief?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147771 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Same holds true for faries, gnomes, Easter Bunnies, etc.
What if I said there was an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage?
According to your [il]logic, all of these things should be considered to exist if you can't prove they don't.
(ref: "Dragon on My Garage", Carl Sagan - " http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm&... ;)
Don't post no Carl Sagan gibberish. That dude is out of his mind. And you people worship him like the pope.

What about fairies, gnomes & dragons? Because you can't test for them you seem them unreal?

Not very scientific...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147772 Jan 9, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Which "women" would those be, chief?
Egret is wishful thinking again.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147773 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't post no Carl Sagan gibberish. That dude is out of his mind. And you people worship him like the pope.
What about fairies, gnomes & dragons? Because you can't test for them you seem them unreal?
Not very scientific...
Dude you seriously do not want to attempt to trash that name.

He is legendary and honorable.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147774 Jan 9, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
You credited the god you believe in, like believers do.
It's reasonable to expect this to happen.
It's how superstitions work.
We are all trained in various ways of interpreting reality. Rational skepticism has been demonstrated to be the best way to do this so far. The scientific method may have even saved mankind from extinction already. If there's a better way of using our minds to navigate reality, I don't know of it.
The scientific method is not perfect. It depends on who is interpreting the data & how they perceive it.

Personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena.

Theories that can't be tested - like a particle that is unobservable (or God)- are not scientific theories, they are speculation and conjecture.
Anything that CAN be interpreted to support your beliefs, probably WILL be interpreted to support your beliefs. Faith is probably the least rigorous way of knowing anything. As a methodology, it isn't internally or externally consistent. It's performance is similar to guessing. It's been demonstrated to be dangerous, while only offering benefits equal to the placebo effect.
I've had much more than a placebo effect because of my faith.

Anything that CAN be interpreted or supported by my beliefs probably will NOT support my beliefs.

Due to scientific advancements, I've had to re-think everything I was taught. Yes, I kept it in the back of my mind that this is all God's will. But that doesn't mean I don't look at things objectively.
Technological advancements have allowed humans to get the same things accomplished with less risk. We strive to make things more efficient and safer. Faith and religion are already seen by skeptics as outdated, dangerous, and unnecessary. Sooner or later, everyone will know it. I just hope it happens before the Rapture.
Of course religion seems outdated to a skeptic. Why wouldn't it?

But to most of the world, faith & religion is in the forefront of their being.

You have to accept that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147775 Jan 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Dude you seriously do not want to attempt to trash that name.
He is legendary and honorable.
He'd have been fine hashes stuck to astrology. But even there, Sagan was an arrogant, humans-are-the-one-all-be-all ass.

"We are the way for the cosmos to know itself."

WTF is that if not arrogant presumption?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147776 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>The scientific method is not perfect. It depends on who is interpreting the data & how they perceive it.

Personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena.

Theories that can't be tested - like a particle that is unobservable (or God)- are not scientific theories, they are speculation and conjecture.

[QUOTE] Anything that CAN be interpreted to support your beliefs, probably WILL be interpreted to support your beliefs. Faith is probably the least rigorous way of knowing anything. As a methodology, it isn't internally or externally consistent. It's performance is similar to guessing. It's been demonstrated to be dangerous, while only offering benefits equal to the placebo effect. "

I've had much more than a placebo effect because of my faith.

Anything that CAN be interpreted or supported by my beliefs probably will NOT support my beliefs.

Due to scientific advancements, I've had to re-think everything I was taught. Yes, I kept it in the back of my mind that this is all God's will. But that doesn't mean I don't look at things objectively.

[QUOTE] Technological advancements have allowed humans to get the same things accomplished with less risk. We strive to make things more efficient and safer. Faith and religion are already seen by skeptics as outdated, dangerous, and unnecessary. Sooner or later, everyone will know it. I just hope it happens before the Rapture."

Of course religion seems outdated to a skeptic. Why wouldn't it?

But to most of the world, faith & religion is in the forefront of their being.

You have to accept that.
We do accept that.

You, and your fellow believers, need to accept that when you try to inject your beliefs into OUR lives via public school education, legislation and politics, we're going to stand up and say "HELL NO!"

If they don't like abortion, don't get one. If they don't like birth control, don't use it. Of they don't like sex education, don't give or get any. If they don't like gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147778 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The scientific method is not perfect. It depends on who is interpreting the data & how they perceive it.
Can you recommend any improvements to the scientific method? I can't. If the scientific method isn't perfect, it's not because of how it's used. If you want to correct scientists, you'll need to be at least as well trained as they are. If you are saying that scientists need to be better trained, I might agree to that. But how would that be a critique against the scientific method?

Do you think scientists should rely more on faith?

If your point is that science on the whole is not perfect, I agree, and ask you what you propose that is better? I've never seen anything come close to the success of science. Religion hasn't overcome its disasters yet. I have to give it a negative score. We'll check again in a thousand years.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena.
Theories that can't be tested - like a particle that is unobservable (or God)- are not scientific theories, they are speculation and conjecture.
Okay. Good to see you are learning.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I've had much more than a placebo effect because of my faith.
Faith + religion gives you a lot more benefits than just faith alone.

What I mean is, holding faith can have measurable benefits similar to the placebo effect. Biologically, I don't know that there's a difference.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Anything that CAN be interpreted or supported by my beliefs probably will NOT support my beliefs.
Have you ever thought that God helped you with anything in your life? I'm not talking about crediting your belief as a source of strength. Do you believe God ever changed something to help you?

I'm not really sure what kind of God you believe in. Some believe in a God that does stuff, while others believe in a God that doesn't. I'm still just talking about the god you named God, of Bible fame. Some people believe in other gods and believe those gods caused hurricanes or cured their cancer. Believers tend to fill gaps in knowledge with their gods, because they can.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Due to scientific advancements, I've had to re-think everything I was taught. Yes, I kept it in the back of my mind that this is all God's will. But that doesn't mean I don't look at things objectively.
That is exactly what it means, that you DON'T look at things objectively. You look at them through your indoctrinated eyes. I don't see most things objectively either, but when I know that's happening, I can ration my commitment to belief in those things. This is what a rational skeptic does.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Of course religion seems outdated to a skeptic. Why wouldn't it?
But to most of the world, faith & religion is in the forefront of their being.
You have to accept that.
I don't deny it. I understand it very well.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147779 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He'd have been fine hashes stuck to astrology. But even there, Sagan was an arrogant, humans-are-the-one-all-be-all ass.
"We are the way for the cosmos to know itself."
WTF is that if not arrogant presumption?
Well can you demonstrably show us that determination is wrong?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147780 Jan 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
We do accept that.
You, and your fellow believers, need to accept that when you try to inject your beliefs into OUR lives via public school education, legislation and politics, we're going to stand up and say "HELL NO!"
If they don't like abortion, don't get one. If they don't like birth control, don't use it. Of they don't like sex education, don't give or get any. If they don't like gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex.
Aero, this may very well be the first time I 100% agree with you.

Keep in mind when posting to me that I am not a creationist or "fundie".

I support pro-choice. I support free will & freedom of religion. I support sex ed for kids (in fact I've been teaching my kids since they were like 5). I don't support gay marriage, but that's ok. I won't get one :)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147781 Jan 9, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you recommend any improvements to the scientific method? I can't. If the scientific method isn't perfect, it's not because of how it's used. If you want to correct scientists, you'll need to be at least as well trained as they are. If you are saying that scientists need to be better trained, I might agree to that. But how would that be a critique against the scientific method?
Do you think scientists should rely more on faith?
If your point is that science on the whole is not perfect, I agree, and ask you what you propose that is better? I've never seen anything come close to the success of science. Religion hasn't overcome its disasters yet. I have to give it a negative score. We'll check again in a thousand years.
<quoted text>
Okay. Good to see you are learning.
<quoted text>
Faith + religion gives you a lot more benefits than just faith alone.
What I mean is, holding faith can have measurable benefits similar to the placebo effect. Biologically, I don't know that there's a difference.
<quoted text>
Have you ever thought that God helped you with anything in your life? I'm not talking about crediting your belief as a source of strength. Do you believe God ever changed something to help you?
I'm not really sure what kind of God you believe in. Some believe in a God that does stuff, while others believe in a God that doesn't. I'm still just talking about the god you named God, of Bible fame. Some people believe in other gods and believe those gods caused hurricanes or cured their cancer. Believers tend to fill gaps in knowledge with their gods, because they can.
<quoted text>
That is exactly what it means, that you DON'T look at things objectively. You look at them through your indoctrinated eyes. I don't see most things objectively either, but when I know that's happening, I can ration my commitment to belief in those things. This is what a rational skeptic does.
<quoted text>
I don't deny it. I understand it very well.
hehehe.....

You said "science on the hole"......

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147782 Jan 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Well can you demonstrably show us that determination is wrong?
Lanza was determined to murder...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#147783 Jan 9, 2013
hmmm
KJV

United States

#147784 Jan 9, 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.
You show off your complete ignorance
Once again. Thanks for show us all your very limited knowledge of Christianity.

"you're a monster" Unbelievable! Even for you this pretty bad it is more like Septic style.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147785 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
hehehe.....
You said "science on the hole"......
I was golfing one time with a buddy. We were on a pretty easy par 3. I hit first, then him. I made it down to the green to my ball. My buddy was still walking around. I noticed he kept scratching his nuts. I asked him, "What's up with your ball?"

"I think I got a hole in one."

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#147786 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You show off your complete ignorance
Once again. Thanks for show us all your very limited knowledge of Christianity.
"you're a monster" Unbelievable! Even for you this pretty bad it is more like Septic style.
Haven't you read the bible? Even jesus said, not one dot shall be taken from the law and anyone who teaches otherwise is in big trouble.
KJV

United States

#147787 Jan 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Source, please?
http://www.libraryonline.com/default.asp...
KJV

United States

#147788 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>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.
http://www.libraryonline.com/default.asp...

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... 38 min ChristineM 2,283
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 23,185
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr Thinking 123
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 14 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 14 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 15 hr thetruth 1,442
Atheism does not exist at all 16 hr thetruth 4
More from around the web