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
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#149111 Jan 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, this is NOT the position of the vast majority of atheists.
Second, it was NOT a quote of Carl Sagan. it is a quote from Richard Lewontin who was reviewing a book of Sagan's.
Third, if you can find a way to test the 'non-material', I'm sure there are many scientists who would be willing to theorize, test, and figure out how it works. The rule of science isn't some fuzzy materialism, but the simple idea that ideas must be testable and that general principles must stand up to tests designed to show them wrong.
Finally, Dr. Lewontin is not a spokesman for ALL atheists or even all scientists. Lewontin was a marxist, with very particular views (which were often wrong).
Love it. Digitaldan, well and truly busted!!
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149112 Jan 21, 2013
F**k off you lying POS.

Sagan didn't write that.

Do you want to say who did?
digitaldan wrote:
The Atheist's Manifesto
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Carl Sagan
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149113 Jan 21, 2013
Funny that digitaldan "forgot" to quote the next line:

"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything."
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, this is NOT the position of the vast majority of atheists.
Second, it was NOT a quote of Carl Sagan. it is a quote from Richard Lewontin who was reviewing a book of Sagan's.
Third, if you can find a way to test the 'non-material', I'm sure there are many scientists who would be willing to theorize, test, and figure out how it works. The rule of science isn't some fuzzy materialism, but the simple idea that ideas must be testable and that general principles must stand up to tests designed to show them wrong.
Finally, Dr. Lewontin is not a spokesman for ALL atheists or even all scientists. Lewontin was a marxist, with very particular views (which were often wrong).

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149114 Jan 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
In the free world, "liberal" is not a pejorative.
<quoted text>
You sure about that?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149116 Jan 21, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, began including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1952 they adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress.
And? We are one nation under God.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149115 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What makes you assume there'd be any remains left to find? Bones decompose, too. After several thousand years, they'd be indiscernible from the dirt.
Richardfs wrote:
It's a desert.
Thanks for conceding.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149117 Jan 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, this is NOT the position of the vast majority of atheists.
Second, it was NOT a quote of Carl Sagan. it is a quote from Richard Lewontin who was reviewing a book of Sagan's.
Third, if you can find a way to test the 'non-material', I'm sure there are many scientists who would be willing to theorize, test, and figure out how it works. The rule of science isn't some fuzzy materialism, but the simple idea that ideas must be testable and that general principles must stand up to tests designed to show them wrong.
Finally, Dr. Lewontin is not a spokesman for ALL atheists or even all scientists. Lewontin was a marxist, with very particular views (which were often wrong).
I've seen this "work" before. It really amazes me.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs"

" in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, "

"in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories,"

"because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

So basically, he'll believe in science no matter what - so long as that "divine foot" stays out...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#149119 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
We are one nation under God.
We may be one nation, although even that can be disputed, as it has been in Colin Woodard's 2011 book "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America".

But there is as yet no evidence that any of us are under a "god".

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149120 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
We may be one nation, although even that can be disputed, as it has been in Colin Woodard's 2011 book "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America".
But there is as yet no evidence that any of us are under a "god".
Just a heads up. North America is not a nation.

Just sayin........

America (the nation) is under God.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149121 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And? We are one nation under God.
We are one nation under no gods.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149122 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And? We are one nation under God.
Some dishonest pandering politicians put god in the pledge and all it proves is their lack of moral sense and lack of appreciation for the separation of church and state which this country so clearly stands for. Is your imaginary god more believable for you now with god in the pledge? LOL

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149123 Jan 21, 2013
@Serah....Take a chill pill, woman!! What Horse? Redneck was on a horse? I was telling u to get off your horse. And what is Tmail? Look, I haven't given liberty guy any page number or link, OK!

Look, liberty guy, stop calling Serah names. We are grown up, we don't have to use language like that at each other, understand?....that's a good boy!

Redneck called me a silly goose and a sissy la-la. Words like that are allowed, coz they cute, but not the really offensive ones!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149126 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You "absolutely" know there are no absolutes?

Do you not see the illogical nature of your statement?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149127 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are denying so much here, that I do not even know where to start...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149128 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that you believe every claim that has ever been made that was argued against?
Every epistomology (view of the world) is founded on an Ultimate Standard.

That ultimate standard is always circular in nature.

So every ultimate standard has to be tested from without itself.

And only the one true ultimate standard will account for everything.

So with that in mind, it does not take much to identify worldviews that fail basic logic tests.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149129 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Where? Do you expect me to guess?
<quoted text>
I don't know of any absolute "good" or "evil". It's possible to attain consensus among all minds who make moral distinctions, but I would not call that a moral absolute, because it is subject to consensus, which could be lost at any time.
<quoted text>
Each person is only truly accountable to themselves, unless they volunteer accountability to other people, or systems (real or imaginary).
Moral authorities vary in type and influence. We have different types of moral authorities. Most of them are based on consensus, moderated by social mechanisms, and ruled by force. The authorities are far from equal.
<quoted text>
Yes. Have you read much about philosophy?
<quoted text>
It's a premise. Do you accept that premise?
I can try again to demonstrate how morality is subjective, but all I can do is rephrase it.
There is a much more interesting argument about comparing different moral systems, but if you think there is one moral system with absolute moral authority, arguing about it with you would be one sided.
You have just justified rape here:

"Each person is only truly accountable to themselves"

Your thoughts?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149130 Jan 21, 2013
Captain wrote:
When you study the core beliefs of secular humanism of moral relativity, the end justifies the means, and total lack of eternal justice. Then you begin to understand their definition of right and wrong, morals, and empathy. They are meaningless, because they believe in nothingness, based upon a dust to dust finite universe and life exists only because of instinctive behavior of avoidance of pain in a quest to survive. But ultimately, nothing really matters.
Talking to an atheist about right and wrong or evil vs. righteousness, you will find that they have no real comprehension or understanding, they only try to look for every direction and argument to make those traits meaningless.
But there is a reason for this.

The bible explains it.

They want to deny God.

And because only God accounts for absolutes, they are reduced to the absurd conclusion that they have to deny absolutes, even whilst they carry on using those absolutes, which they are denying.

So to be "right" in their rejection of God, they have to abandon logic, morality, uniformity and a sense of person.

And then they tell everyone else they are lacking in intelligence if they do not do the same...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149131 Jan 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Secular morality is by far superior to biblical morality. It was secular morality that did away with slavery, incest and child molesting all of these were common place in biblical morality.
<quoted text>
Have you even read the Bible?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#149132 Jan 21, 2013
We may be one nation, although even that can be disputed, as it has been in Colin Woodard's 2011 book "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America".
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Just a heads up. North America is not a nation.
Woodard doesn't claim that North America is a nation. Read the title of his work again.

***

But there is as yet no evidence that any of us are under a "god".
RiversideRedneck wrote:
America (the nation) is under God.
There is as yet no evidence to support that claim.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149133 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But there is a reason for this.
The bible explains it.
They want to deny God.
And because only God accounts for absolutes, they are reduced to the absurd conclusion that they have to deny absolutes, even whilst they carry on using those absolutes, which they are denying.
So to be "right" in their rejection of God, they have to abandon logic, morality, uniformity and a sense of person.
And then they tell everyone else they are lacking in intelligence if they do not do the same...

I don't deny god, and if he shows up...he can have my place in line.

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... 17 min woodtick57 2,164
God' existence 57 min polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 1 hr Geezerjock 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 1,436
Australia: black magic pervert retard 2 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 4 hr ChristineM 366