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
Pat

Granby, CT

#149698 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have anything rational to present?
No, that was a factually correct remark. All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance for they are based not upon what you know (knowledge) but rather upon what you don't know (your ignorance).

Life is too complex, there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life must have a purpose therefore there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life could not have created itself = argument from ignorance.

All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance. God = your ignorance, nothing more.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149699 Jan 24, 2013
7 posts in a row gets you a "Cuntard of the Day" award.
Way to go cuntard!
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So how do you account for the concept that many have that there was state where there was no time?
Your reduction to absurdity is incredible to watch...
Pat

Granby, CT

#149700 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been presenting evidence, but your fanatical goggles have not allowed you to see the evidence, let alone discuss and critique it...
You have no evidence for god. You are a liar. God is still linked to the word faith and you know it so you can stop lying now.

Atheists and theists do not argue over the merits of believing in aliens on Pluto, or leprechauns. We rarely dispute what is or is not valid evidence for something outside the scope of religion (death denial). Theists prove every day that they can and do use normal reasoning. They can even serve on juries! It is ONLY in matters that conflict with the theists cherished death denial mythology that these disagreements arise. This clearly proves the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the theist, attempting to protect their cherished beliefs.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149701 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know if a line is curvy?
I like to wear socks.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149702 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so, atheists look at a rock and see abiogenesis...
If you were not so insecure about your blind faith you would have no desire to project your stupid onto the atheist like this. All you can honestly say about every atheist is that they lack belief in god, that's it. Deep down you know you are living a lie and the atheist reminds you of that and you don't like it one bit.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149703 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if you want to hide behind it so God can't see you.
Just like Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Man still attempts that foolishness to this day.
Except these days, it is no longer a bush, but a rock.
Adam and Eve? Give me a break! So what was the original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge or the planting of the tree there in the first place? Creating morally challenged imperfect humans only to deliberately tempt them so you can then punish the imperfect objects of your own creation is both evil, and sadistic.

Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)

The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it. Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881),
Pat

Granby, CT

#149704 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a philosophical argument.
You don't accept philosophy as a valid practice.
So you won't understand the argument anyway...
The inner defenses are unconscious. They consist of a kind of magic aura which the mind builds around cherished belief. Arguments which penetrate into the magic aura are not dealt with rationally but by a specific type of pseudo-reasoning. Absurdities and contradictions are made acceptable by specious rationalizations.-- Arthur Koestler

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#149705 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That was exactly the point nimrod, you do not have a rational basis based on evidence in your argument. Hubble's law the cosmic background radiation, the position of galaxies in the past support
the BBT. The fact it is a paradox is not evidence it needed a uncaused causer of causes , or even that causality applies.
The BBT is not paradoxical, certainly not now that the mathematics has been developed that can rationalise the infinities as the atomic universe nears zero and (from the other side) the quantum universe nears zero. In the new mathematics these infinities are neatly and equally cancelled out and the quantum flows neatly into the atomic.

This realisation has caused a surge in cosmologists now daring to ask (and imagine)“what happened before the big bang”. As far as I know there are at least 27 different theories, each with merit which of course excludes the one where a god did it. To paraphrase Professor Neil Turok “We don’t know exactly how it happened but it is certain that no god did it”

The theory I prefer is that of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton whose calculations not only explain what could have been the cause but also what caused the major anomalies that cosmology can observe in the present universe. i.e the cold spots in the CMB and the small portion of the universe that appears to be travelling in opposition to the rest.

However at the current state of human knowledge it’s all mute, there is a limit to human understanding and that limit lies at 10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#149706 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop projecting your flawed logic and inflated ego onto me you dishonest fool. I simply call it as I see it. Faith itself is dishonest for no man knows of any gods and any one who makes an assertion without out knowing if the assertion is true is guilty of falsehood. Every god hustler is a liar and also a coward who refuses to face their own mortality honestly. It's not about god and never has been, it's about your refusal to face death honestly. It is no coincidence that all theists are death deniers. You deny the overwhelming proof that death ends personal memory and awareness for we know for a fact that awareness is brain function, not a ghost.
There is no difference between your fear of death and any theist. You just rationalize it differently.

You have a stoical approach now, but when the time comes and a reality sets in, it will be shaken.

Theists have a focus to ease that transition. You will have nowhere to go,

It's a large universe. Imagine yourself waking up in in an out of the way spot in it, say like an asteroid, not knowing where to go, or what lies out there.

Your consciousness will not cease to be. Your memories and way you think now will, but your "being" won't.

Look at a mirror. You see yourself existing. What lies beyond the mirror?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149707 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The crucifixion was probably just a sex game that went wrong.
<quoted text>
Q: Why did Jesus die on the cross?

A: He forgot his safe word.

Q: What's white and shoots across the sky?

A: The second coming of Jesus.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#149708 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve? Give me a break! So what was the original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge or the planting of the tree there in the first place? Creating morally challenged imperfect humans only to deliberately tempt them so you can then punish the imperfect objects of your own creation is both evil, and sadistic.
Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it. Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881),
+1 good post

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149709 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my parents having sex caused me (at least that is the primary cause).
And what caused them?

A fish?

A blob?

A rock?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149710 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
They took the idea of 'having time' and negated it? Whether this concept actually applies to the real world is another matter.
You seem to be arguing that the concept is an impossibility?

Mind you, I am finding it difficult trying to get any sense of your own worldview as you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot.

Which displays that you do not have a rational worldview to argue from and have to keep jumping around to defend something that you cannot justify...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149711 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That was exactly the point nimrod, you do not have a rational basis based on evidence in your argument. Hubble's law the cosmic background radiation, the position of galaxies in the past support
the BBT. The fact it is a paradox is not evidence it needed a uncaused causer of causes , or even that causality applies.
Yes I do have a rational basis.

That which was caused needs a cause...

Do you deny that obvious truth?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149712 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's obvious why you are a theist. God is just your substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
I can comprehend abiogenesis. That does not mean I possess the knowledge to perfectly describe it. I can also use your same flawed logic against you. You can not comprehend god, or what it is does or wants since there is no knowledge of any gods, therefore god does not exist according to you.
You can comprehend the process of abiogenesis or the idea of abiogenesis?

They are quite different things.

You need to be specific and more descriptive in your terms.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149713 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The BBT is not paradoxical, certainly not now that the mathematics has been developed that can rationalise the infinities as the atomic universe nears zero and (from the other side) the quantum universe nears zero. In the new mathematics these infinities are neatly and equally cancelled out and the quantum flows neatly into the atomic.
This realisation has caused a surge in cosmologists now daring to ask (and imagine)“what happened before the big bang”. As far as I know there are at least 27 different theories, each with merit which of course excludes the one where a god did it. To paraphrase Professor Neil Turok “We don’t know exactly how it happened but it is certain that no god did it”
The theory I prefer is that of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton whose calculations not only explain what could have been the cause but also what caused the major anomalies that cosmology can observe in the present universe. i.e the cold spots in the CMB and the small portion of the universe that appears to be travelling in opposition to the rest.
However at the current state of human knowledge it’s all mute, there is a limit to human understanding and that limit lies at 10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist.
Sorry Christine, it is a paradox and will always remain one. It could never be recreated and while we can surmise a thousand different way it could have happened. We will never really know. Because you stated it yourself.

10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149714 Jan 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Is someone here asserting that humans have free will or that omniscience exists?
We can define omniscience in such a way that it would be compatible with free will, but they are both fictional concepts.
Whether or not the concepts are logically compatible depends on the definition of each concept. I could argue from either side as long as the concepts are well defined.
I think it would be more interesting to argue if either could exist, or do exist, and explain how.
Agreed. I don't know how it started but i saw the atheist side of the argument to be flawed from what i understand omniscience and free will to be. I believe in neither depending on how free will is defined

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149715 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be arguing that the concept is an impossibility?
No. You asked how the concept came about. I described the process. I also pointed out that whether it applies to the real world is another question.
Mind you, I am finding it difficult trying to get any sense of your own worldview as you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot.
If you think so, then you don't understand my world view.
Which displays that you do not have a rational worldview to argue from and have to keep jumping around to defend something that you cannot justify...
You haven't replied to any of my questions regarding *your* world view.

For example, you have used the concept of causality in your argument for the existence of a deity. Please define, precisely, what you mean by 'causality'. In particular, show why you think everything has a cause.

Second, we had a discussion about the 'law of non-contradiction'. I gave a precise statement of that law. Do you agree with my statement and the qualifications I made? If so, please feel free to use it to show the existence of your deity.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149716 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was a factually correct remark. All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance for they are based not upon what you know (knowledge) but rather upon what you don't know (your ignorance).
Life is too complex, there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life must have a purpose therefore there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life could not have created itself = argument from ignorance.
All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance. God = your ignorance, nothing more.
All arguments against God are arguments from ignorance, for they are based on what you do not know...

I hope you can begin to see the nature of arbitrary claims and there total uselessness in discussion...

But let us deal with one of your premises here:

Life comes from non-life, if you don't accept this you are ignorant.

Isn't that an ignorant argument on your part to make?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149717 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
7 posts in a row gets you a "Cuntard of the Day" award.
Way to go cuntard!
<quoted text>
I see you are still arguing your own infallible arbitrary opinions.

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? 24 min Thinking 1,002
Islam for peace, or violence? 26 min Thinking 24
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr fadu singh 22,979
Man center of the universe. 2 hr Thinking 85
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... Oct 16 tha Professor 146

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE