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

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#149431 Jan 22, 2013
wilderide wrote:
Well, creationists are nuts anyway, so that's cool.
But let's put aside the literal translation of the story. If the flood story is a moral parable, then what kind of morality is it promoting? From what I can see, it says God didn't know the consequences of creating humans the way it did, it decided to destroy all life on Earth (not just humans) except for a pair of each animal and Noah's family. Which means that children, babies, and even fetuses in pregnant women were too evil in the sight of God to survive. Yet after the flood receded, humans became just as bad as before, so all that terrible destruction was for naught anyway. What are we supposed to learn about God from this story of ineffective global genocide?
I believe (not "know", "believe") that the flood story is an allegorical narrative representing the power of God and the potential wrath of God. I believe it was used as a primitive means to get people to listen, understand & fear God.

That is my opinion.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#149432 Jan 22, 2013
Clementia wrote:
OMG, R U SAYING WHAT I THINK U SAYING?
You want me to give u a piggyback in the pool?
I ain't strong and u ain't light, u'll break by back!
Then we can do a seahorse race instead.

We can call it the Kentucky Sea Derby.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149433 Jan 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_knife
The limitation is what makes the scribe line. Glass is individual molecules that cooled together. Not bonded like steel.
You never read Snow Crash?
Amounts to 1 micron, nothing has an edge of 1 mole. Not yet anyway.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149434 Jan 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
So these particles are not hard thingies? Kinda fuzzy and more concentrated in the middle? Perhaps unobservable because of the observation process? Or just deduced from math schemes?
None of the above. Quantum particles do not have classical analogs. The fields are defined everywhere, but give the *probability* of detecting a particle. For elementary particles (like electrons or quarks) there is no discernible size for each individual particle (although string theory postulates a very small size-well below the level of detectability today). For composite particles (like protons and neutrons), there is. But even when there is, it is detectable via a smearing out of the probability distribution.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#149435 Jan 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the above. Quantum particles do not have classical analogs. The fields are defined everywhere, but give the *probability* of detecting a particle. For elementary particles (like electrons or quarks) there is no discernible size for each individual particle (although string theory postulates a very small size-well below the level of detectability today). For composite particles (like protons and neutrons), there is. But even when there is, it is detectable via a smearing out of the probability distribution.
Cool.

So reality is a bunch of fuzzy probabilities, and not real pre-existing thingies.

Wow! Those Topix atheists are pretty sharp dudes for betting on that horse.

Yessiree. That explains creation better than anything.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149436 Jan 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool.
So reality is a bunch of fuzzy probabilities, and not real pre-existing thingies.
Wow! Those Topix atheists are pretty sharp dudes for betting on that horse.
Yessiree. That explains creation better than anything.
You propose a dichotomy that is false. Yes, they are real-existent entities, but they are not classical entities with definite positions and other definite properties. Instead, their properties are probabilistic.

And this has NOTHING to do with atheism. It is simply modern physics. The universe is inherently probabilistic. We know that by a variety of methods, including some that manage to exclude *any* local, causal theory. If your intuition can't handle that, then the problem is with your intuition, not with the reality.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149437 Jan 22, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Torture doesn't save lives. Torture just makes the person being tortured say or do anything to save themselves. It's well known within the intelligence community that torture is not an effective way to get valid information.
Moreover, torture just turns us as a society into something as bad as those we call our enemies. It's a perfect example of the ends not justifying the means. When our society condones things like torture, then it is no longer worthy of defending.
The U.S. has never used torture.

I wish we did.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149438 Jan 22, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
You contradict yourself. Something that is all-powerful is by definition in control of everything. Any lack of control takes away omnipotence.
Furthermore, free-will is impossible if God knows the future and the destiny of everything in advance anyway: If God knows you will do X, can you do Y instead?
Wrong and wrong.

Something that is all-powerful is not necessarily in control of everything. Something all-powerful has the power to decline control of anything or everything.

Free will and foreknowledge are compatible. Your mistake is the fallacy of misplaced causation.

You pretend to be fluent in philosophy, but you do it poorly.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#149439 Jan 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong and wrong.
Something that is all-powerful is not necessarily in control of everything. Something all-powerful has the power to decline control of anything or everything.
Free will and foreknowledge are compatible. Your mistake is the fallacy of misplaced causation.
You pretend to be fluent in philosophy, but you do it poorly.
Yeah, he wasn't talking about control, he was talking about simply knowing. If you know the future, it becomes set, thus, your god has eliminated "free-will" simply by knowing the future.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149441 Jan 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How'd you like the second inaugural?
Pretty neat stuff, no?
How do you like this, Silk Panty Boy?

In his inaugural speech, B. Hussein Obama characterized the struggle for freedom as moving from slavery with Lincoln, civil rights through Dr. King, to now the rights of gays to marry.

In 2008 he ran for president saying that "marriage is between one man and one woman", and opposed gay marriage.

But now portrays himself as a champion of that continual struggle for freedom, as if he's a link in the chain from Lincoln to King to now.

Does hypocrisy bother you? Did Dr. King oppose civil rights for blacks 4 years before the march in Selma Alabama?

No, Dr. King was an actual champion. Obama is an empty suit that happened to be black and articulate. The Chicago boy-hacks poured the rest into the empty vessel. The country bought it, and now we have it.

The first post-American president.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149442 Jan 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, he wasn't talking about control, he was talking about simply knowing. If you know the future, it becomes set, thus, your god has eliminated "free-will" simply by knowing the future.
Read it again.

He said something all-powerful, "by definition", is in control of everything.

Your view of free-will and foreknowledge is simply wrong. It is the choice that determines the foreknowledge, not vice-versa. Time would not be linear to an all-knowing entity. If the choice were different, the foreknowledge would be different.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#149443 Jan 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you like this, Silk Panty Boy?
In his inaugural speech, B. Hussein Obama characterized the struggle for freedom as moving from slavery with Lincoln, civil rights through Dr. King, to now the rights of gays to marry.
In 2008 he ran for president saying that "marriage is between one man and one woman", and opposed gay marriage.
But now portrays himself as a champion of that continual struggle for freedom, as if he's a link in the chain from Lincoln to King to now.
Does hypocrisy bother you? Did Dr. King oppose civil rights for blacks 4 years before the march in Selma Alabama?
No, Dr. King was an actual champion. Obama is an empty suit that happened to be black and articulate. The Chicago boy-hacks poured the rest into the empty vessel. The country bought it, and now we have it.
The first post-American president.
Hypocrisy does bother me, yes, and I agree with you, MLK was the real deal.

But he wasn't president. And I can get over Obama's perceived need, in 2008, to make the statements he did for political reasons (read: to become President).

I would have preferred that he stood for full rights for gays then, as he is doing now.

Having said that, he does represent the future--and the possibility that we can achieve social justice, and live in a society where everybody enjoys the rights given us by our Constitution which, as you know, I hold as holy as Christians do the Bible.

BTW, hope you'll stick around. Standards have been very low here lately. HL is threatening to leave altogether, for that very reason. Your presence may prompt her to stay. I'd like that.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149444 Jan 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. God is not in control of you or your actions or your thoughts. He gave that to you so you'd have free will.
That in no way removes His omnipotence. Just because He can control you doesn't mean that He does.
<quoted text>
Yes, again. God knows what you will do & will not prevent you from doing so. You can do X, Y, Z, LMNOP, X123c...... It's all up to you.
It has nothing to do with omnipotence. It has to do with omniscience. If God know's what you're going to do before you do it you have no choice but to do it. If you have freewill, then God doesn't/can't know what you will do before you do it.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149445 Jan 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, he wasn't talking about control, he was talking about simply knowing. If you know the future, it becomes set, thus, your god has eliminated "free-will" simply by knowing the future.
Damn, shoulda read all the way through. Sorry KK.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149446 Jan 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It is the choice that determines the foreknowledge, not vice-versa. Time would not be linear to an all-knowing entity. If the choice were different, the foreknowledge would be different.
Sounds like all you're saying here is "Did you choose the apple? Yes! Well, God knew you were gonna choose it!".

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#149447 Jan 22, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>

If you have freewill, then God doesn't/can't know what you will do before you do it.
So god is a sociopath like me? Cool.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#149448 Jan 22, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Not when I was born.
What bore you?
An ape? A chimp? A monkey? A tree?
Maybe a monkey in a tree?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#149449 Jan 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, he wasn't talking about control, he was talking about simply knowing. If you know the future, it becomes set, thus, your god has eliminated "free-will" simply by knowing the future.
Nice showing off your total lack knowledge. Do you have a clue on how clueless you really are?

That explanation is so lame I can't even laugh about it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#149450 Jan 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You propose a dichotomy that is false. Yes, they are real-existent entities, but they are not classical entities with definite positions and other definite properties. Instead, their properties are probabilistic.
And this has NOTHING to do with atheism. It is simply modern physics. The universe is inherently probabilistic. We know that by a variety of methods, including some that manage to exclude *any* local, causal theory. If your intuition can't handle that, then the problem is with your intuition, not with the reality.
Real entities. But no definite positions or other properties. Instead probabilistic.

:-)

Sounds like the atheist reason for denying a deity. Something intangible that you can't possibly prove in this physical world.

What a hoot.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#149451 Jan 22, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice showing off your total lack knowledge. Do you have a clue on how clueless you really are?
That explanation is so lame I can't even laugh about it.
Apparently you can't spell about it either.

Baby steps.

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
Our world came from nothing? 15 min Thinking 472
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 16 min Thinking 4,101
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Richardfs 22,242
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr Thinking 62
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 3 hr BeHereNow 104
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 10 hr Patrick 762
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 13 hr Thinking 77
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••