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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149741 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Assuming that life was caused... then the second case requires it to be caused by non-life.
Now it does not get any more circular than that.

1. If life was caused, it must have been by non-life.
2. Life was caused.
3. Therefore non-life caused it.

You don't see a problem with this argument?

And you want me to accept this as a logical argument?
Pat

Granby, CT

#149742 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.
It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.
2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.
Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?
I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.
Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149743 Jan 24, 2013
^^Your first premise was wrong by the way...

And to correct myself.

This was a valid argument, but its premise was flawed, therefore it was unsound...
Pat

Granby, CT

#149744 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.
One more irrational argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather your lack of it. God is your dunce cap, nothing more.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149745 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.
The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.
You are still doing it, arguing from your own authority and from arbitrary prejudiced claims.

There are very few theists that will say there is no proof for God.

I think you need to reign your assertions in a little...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149746 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
Please be more specific.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149747 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.
The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.
But yes, I do understand you believe you represent the world, and it is in full agreement with you.

I just don't accept you are the ultimate standard of truth.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149748 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
One can not experience anyting if they have no working senses to gather the information or a working brain to process that information. You too will experience eternal death and dishonestly clinging to death denying fairytales can not save you. A corpse is not very confusing. Do you also believe if you smash a bottle against a wall it still exists intact, off somewhere else? That's how silly your life after death nonsense is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149749 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no absolute moral laws. If you were a cow, eating beef would be a sin and the killing of humans irrelevant to you, comprende? You have big ego/small brain syndrome.
There are no absolute moral laws?

So why are you appealing to emotionally laden appeals to your own standard of moral supremacy, which judges another as having a big ego and small brain?

If there are no absolute moral laws, why are you arguing that I am "morally wrong" about anything?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149750 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.
Was your post spontaneous or did you cause it to be posted on the internet?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149751 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You agree with it, then ask me to justify what you agree with?
Read exactly what I wrote again.

To be 'caused' means that there is a cause. So to be caused requires there to be a cause.

I could argue similarly as follows: To be glypted means there is a glypt. So anything that is glypted has a glypt.

What I asked you to do is show that everything is caused. In other words, show that everything does, in fact, have a cause. In order to do this (as opposed to the triviality above), you should probably define what it means to be a cause and then show that everything does have a cause.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149752 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
One more irrational argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather your lack of it. God is your dunce cap, nothing more.
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have a rational argument to present?
Pat

Granby, CT

#149753 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do have a rational basis.
That which was caused needs a cause...
Do you deny that obvious truth?
Then what caused your god? He clearly must need a cause then too, no?
Pat

Granby, CT

#149754 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Rather you need to apply your own flawed argument to your god belief. You can not possibly comprehend a god capable of creating a universe billions of light years across therefore by your own argument god does not exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149755 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.
<quoted text>
Please be more specific.
<quoted text>
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.
There are two types of logical reasoning.

Deductive and inductive.

One supplies absolutes.

The other supplies possibilities.

If you are arguing that you know that abiogenesis occurred by arockdidit, then you are claiming deductive truth claims which you can verify.

If you are arguing inductive, then you are arguing for the possibility.

I was originally responding to a claim someone made, that they cannot know anything unless they can comprehend it fully.

They were making an appeal to empiricism, which of course is a flawed appeal.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149756 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Now it does not get any more circular than that.
1. If life was caused, it must have been by non-life.
2. Life was caused.
3. Therefore non-life caused it.
You don't see a problem with this argument?
And you want me to accept this as a logical argument?

We see that you have not the ability to have rational thought based on evidence. Not much else, beyond your circular reasoning.
The evidence shows life started from simple chemical reactions, early in the formation of Earth. We don't see evidence of it having a causer. We do see evidence it started simple and evolved.
We do not see evidence of intervention into this process.
We do see evidence it was a natural process unaided by causes invented by superstition and ignorance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149757 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.
This is false. We know of many things that are not caused. Most nuclear decays, for example.
It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.
Again, this is false. Science rests on the ability of hypotheses to make testable predictions.
2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.
1. Not all things, even in this universe, have a cause.
2. Those things that have a cause, have a cause in this universe.
Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?
I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.
When correctly applied, it applies universally. But it is frequently applied incorrectly. The *reason* it applies universally is that it is one of the processes we use to classify things.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149758 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
One can not experience anyting if they have no working senses to gather the information or a working brain to process that information. You too will experience eternal death and dishonestly clinging to death denying fairytales can not save you. A corpse is not very confusing. Do you also believe if you smash a bottle against a wall it still exists intact, off somewhere else? That's how silly your life after death nonsense is.
How do you know your senses are reliable?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149759 Jan 24, 2013
I've helped several believers through bereavements.
They don't cope any better than the rest of us.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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

#149760 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Was your post spontaneous or did you cause it to be posted on the internet?
Irrelevant. Some things are certainly caused. But not everything is caused.

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... 22 min ChristineM 2,378
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 23,201
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr Thinking 150
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 9 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 18 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 19 hr Thinking 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web