Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Mikko]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok enough teasing you with definitions of your faith.
There also exists a atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Atheists and freethinkers have defined atheism relatively consistently over the past couple of centuries. Although a few have focused solely on the sense of "strong" atheism, many more have differentiated between "weak" and "strong" atheism.

Atheism is no faith

[Pat]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheism is no faith

If you simply reject the theist claim of a god because you feel it is unproven then you are correct, it is no faith, it is the rejection of it. However, if you claim there is no god then you are in the same boat as the theist, making a claim you can not support with proof.

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you want me to "deal" with it?
I will now.
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard of "humoring"? How about "playing the Devil's advocate"?
<quoted text>
Would you apply that line of reasoning to all claims made that are argued against? Or would this be a case of special pleading?
<quoted text>
This is called an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
<quoted text>
This is called a strawman argument, a logical fallacy.

You have to apply this reasoning to all claims of course.

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
No. This is another argument from ignorance. All you need is two people to have contradictory moral beliefs to demonstrate the subjective nature of morality between those two individuals. On the larger scale of the human race, the various contradictory moral systems demonstrate the subjective nature of human morality.
<quoted text>
Morality is subjective, because it is subject to the person making moral distinctions. It is subject to the person's upbringing and other factors.
You define things by relating to other things.

You are equivocating here.

But let us follow your argument to its logical conclusion.

If morality is subjective, then there is no absolute "good" or "evil".

There is nothing absolutely "wrong", because two subjective opinions on morality, would both have equal authority.

So with that in mind, nothing is wrong of itself.

Do you understand where your own reasoning leads you, have you ever considered and thought through what you are saying?

If morality is a merely subjective construct of society, then nothing is absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

This is your argument.

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
This is called a strawman argument, a logical fallacy.

So you don't think that we are all here due to an accident in the universe?

[mtimber]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you understood the analogy... to demonstrate the absurdity of taking extraordinary claims seriously that are presented without any objectively verifiable evidence.
What separates the quality of evidence for your god from that of any number of other gods?
You believe in a god don't you? Why?

Very simple.

God has to be absolute in all things by His very nature.

That being the case, all transcendant knowledge proceeds from God and is accountable because of Gods absolute nature.

The gods you refer to are not able to meet that measure.

This is why your analogy is a false analogy...

It does not matter how much you deny it, it doesn't change the fact you have not been able to reason around this simple problem.

[mtimber]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't rely on Dawkins. The FSM is the alpha and Omega for infinity.

This is an arbitrary claim based on your own opinion.

Can you back this up with reasoning?

[mtimber]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is a logical position.
<quoted text>
No, society dictates human morality.
<quoted text>
Morality is not based on your god. You may claim to base your morality on your god, but you are wrong.
<quoted text>
Anyone stating what is moral and what is not, is basing that on current standards mixed with the moral standards of where and when they grew up.

So if society dictates human morality, there are times when it is acceptable for adults to have sex with children?

That is essentially your argument taken to its logical conclusion.

[mtimber]

Thinking wrote:

christ you're thick.
I said I can swear and be right at the same time.
No one should have the right not to be offended.
<quoted text>

Is that an absolute moral position you are presenting here?

[Clementia]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Clem lady can you show me where he made this racist joke perhaps page and post number so it can be properly reported?
Thanks so much :)
<quoted text>

It's on the prove a God thread, one was about black people and the other was when he called Muslims towel-heads and i said to him i'm a sikh, we wear turbans more than Muslims do, but he told me not to get offended.

I'll try and find the page number, liberty guy!:-)

[Clementia]

Thinking wrote:

Racist. ;)
<quoted text>

What the hell does -ist mean?

OMG, OMG, OMG, LOOK AT THE SNOW, THINKING!!

Tide, keep your clothes on, it's too cold!!

[Aerobatty]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Limits of Archaeology
(1) little of what was made or written in antiquity survives to this day;
(2) few of the ancient sites have been surveyed and a number have not even been found;
(3) probably fewer than 2 percent of the known sites have been meaningfully excavated;
(4) few of these have been more than scratched; and
(5) only a fraction of the fraction that have been excavated have been published and data made available to the scholarly world.
Why would the Egyptians keep a record of their greatest humiliation? They most likely wouldn't. Even today, historians are still debating what happens in our 2 works wars. If we were writing everything on paper & stone, do you think it'd still be around in 3500 years?
Here, read all about it, if you can with an open mind:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/...

What number of ancient sites haven't been found?

[Aerobatty]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Very simple.
God has to be absolute in all things by His very nature.
That being the case, all transcendant knowledge proceeds from God and is accountable because of Gods absolute nature.
The gods you refer to are not able to meet that measure.
This is why your analogy is a false analogy...
It does not matter how much you deny it, it doesn't change the fact you have not been able to reason around this simple problem.

Your god's not able to meet that measure, either.

[Thinking]

I associate "accident" with sentience.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't think that we are all here due to an accident in the universe?

[Thinking]

Why?

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that an absolute moral position you are presenting here?

[Thinking]

It's great, isn't it?
Built the bottom half of that snowman yet?

Clementia wrote:

<quoted text>
What the hell does -ist mean?
OMG, OMG, OMG, LOOK AT THE SNOW, THINKING!!
Tide, keep your clothes on, it's too cold!!

[TheBlackSheep]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try anyways.
You gave it the old collage try. Nice job old chap.
be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real
athe·ist\ˈ�-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

You are trying to say that my belief that there is a dwarf planet called Pluto, since I have never seen it, is the same as you belief in a god; and that simply is not true.

There are several steps that I could take to see or calculate that Pluto does exist.

Langoliers wrote:

Oh and I too have very convincing evidence of my believe.
I too know earths history and how it was created.

How do you know this? Simply, you have faith, blind faith, in a book. All know science contradicts that book.

Langoliers wrote:

I also know when and how the universe was created.

How do you know this? Simply, you have faith, blind faith, in a book. All know science contradicts that book.

Langoliers wrote:

I too know when man first walked on the earth.

When was that?

Langoliers wrote:

And I also know how it all ends.
Not that this information would help you out either.

Other than a book and blind faith, what do you have? Do you have any tests to determine the age of rocks? Do you have any tests to determine the age of fossils? Can you explain how a flood covered the tallest mountains, yet left no evidence? Can you explain how Moses and crew traveled in a small area for forty years and left no trace?

Here is a very simple test. With science, I can start a fire, in my fire pit, anytime I like. I can do it over and over; I can invite people from all over the world and show them how to did it, over and over.

Can you ask your god to start a fire in my fire pit; even once and it happen?

You wouldn't even try such a thing! You know exactly what would happen. Nothing! So, you have to hide behind one verse in the NT. God has done it before, but you are too afraid to ask him to do it again! Oh, I cannot tempt god! LOL! You are not tempting anything! You are hiding!

[KittenKoder]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You KNOW there are NO ABSOLUTES?
Are you ABSOLUTELY sure about that?
I think you are equivocating here and confusing yourself...

Now you are attempting a conversion trick, which is a fallacy, and only works on laypersons. I know there are no absolutes because none have been demonstrated.

[KittenKoder]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't think that we are all here due to an accident in the universe?

Accident requires intent, intent requires intelligence. So no. There was no accident. We are here in spite of the universe, which the universe itself isn't suited to life at all. No accident because there was no intelligent forces guiding anything.

[KittenKoder]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You are equivocating here.
But let us follow your argument to its logical conclusion.
If morality is subjective, then there is no absolute "good" or "evil".
There is nothing absolutely "wrong", because two subjective opinions on morality, would both have equal authority.
So with that in mind, nothing is wrong of itself.
Do you understand where your own reasoning leads you, have you ever considered and thought through what you are saying?
If morality is a merely subjective construct of society, then nothing is absolutely wrong or absolutely right.
This is your argument.

equivocate [&#618;&#712;kw&#6 18;v&#601;&#716;ke &#618;t]
vb
(intr) to use vague or ambiguous language, esp in order to avoid speaking directly or honestly; hedge