Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
144,001 - 144,020 of 224,117 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149897
Jan 24, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is project the closed mindedness of the theist who blindly beleives in magic with zero proof onto the rational thinking atheist.
The god question is irrelevant because we will die like all others before us, not knowing. What is relevant is that life after death is a lie for we know memory and awareness are brain functions and we know they cease upon death no different than your blood will stop flowing when your heart stops beating. A corpse is conclusive proof of this. This is why you cling to your phantom god, you can not cope with death like a mature adult, instead you play make believe like emotionally stunted little children.
Still believe a rockdidit?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149898
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Which god? Your god was invented about 3500 years ago.
How could the Creator of the universe be invented 3500 years ago?

The basis premise of God, is that He is without cause.

He is the first cause.

That means He was self existent before the universe was created.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149899
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the arguments I have seen are merely arbitrary claims to knowledge with no rational basis of support...
now you're just describing the belief in a god.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149900
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are open to Mother Goose's claims of authority over you life then?
No?
Didn't think so....
Was your mother goose eternal, all powerful, all present, all knowing and all moral from before the creation of the universe?

Oh hang on, wouldn't that make her God?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149901
Jan 24, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it, do you?
Just by you being here & arguing about God (the same God you say doesn't exist - or that there's no proof of), you're "door bell" is ringing....
and yet...no god

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149902
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? I enjoyed your logic, reasoning and presentation here until the last paragraph. Primarily your assumption that the cause of life could not be alive, now all science today agrees that life has only been proven to come from existing life so this creates a paradox in terms of where the first life came from.
1. to say that non life caused life is unscientific and supported by no observations or scientific evidence.
2.Since science supports the biblical notion that life and the universe had a beginning then biological life couldn't have always existed.
3.What conclusions can be drawn?
4.That life sprang into existance? that is inseperable from a miracle.
5. That a life force existed outside the universe , and caused the universe and life to emerge?
Numbers 4 and 5 both require faith, but on which side would logic and reason land?#4 that life emerged by itself? or #5 that it was caused by a force that already possessed the power of life?
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.

You have come to the same conclusion though and make a good point about nonlife producing life being a miracle claim...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149903
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How could the Creator of the universe be invented 3500 years ago?
The basis premise of God, is that He is without cause.
He is the first cause.
That means He was self existent before the universe was created.
Prove it.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149904
Jan 24, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The term for taking women from a former defeated enemy is called “War Brides.”
Yes, and the modern term for marrying and having sexual relations with a 'bride' you've taken by force is RAPE.
Eagle12 wrote:
If a man is attracted to her and wants to have a loving relationship. Then he must treat her exceptionally well.
Who says he wants to have a loving relationship? The impetus for the marriage in this scenario is physical attraction. The soldier wants to have sex with the woman. If she does not please him, she is ditched.
Eagle12 wrote:
Nothing has changed since then.
BS. World War II "war brides" were not captives forced to marry. They were women who soldiers met during the war or afterwards.

I can't believe you'd compare these two things.
Eagle12 wrote:
Because “War Brides,” occurred in the scripture the Atheist opposition think it was just an awful atrocity. These women wanted a chance to survive and not die in the rubble left behind.
The 'rubble left behind' solely because of other atrocious laws demanding extermination of enemy males, including the elderly and children.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 IS atrocious. And so is your defense of it.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149905
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Still believe a rockdidit?
I always thought it was a puddle of goo on top of the rock? Ha,Ha

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149908
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you pre-suppose that life was caused by non-life, you have no choice but to arrive at your conclusion...
1. No, once again, if there is a cause of the earliest life, it came before that earliest life (causes come before effects). Are you with me so far?

2. Now, since it is the *earliest* life, there was no life before it. This is the definition of 'earliest'. Still with me?

3. So anything before the earliest life was not alive (that's what it means to be the earliest). This is a re-statement of 2. OK?

4. But since the cause of the earliest life was before that earliest life, by 1, it cannot be alive by 3. Easy deduction...still here?

5. So the earliest life was caused by non-life.

Now, you can get around this in the following ways:

1. Refute the idea that causes come before effects.

2. Declare that there was no earliest life, so life has been eternal.

OR

3. Declare that the earliest life was un-caused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149909
Jan 24, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? I enjoyed your logic, reasoning and presentation here until the last paragraph. Primarily your assumption that the cause of life could not be alive, now all science today agrees that life has only been proven to come from existing life so this creates a paradox in terms of where the first life came from.
Clearly you did not understand my argument. If there was an earliest life, then anything before it was non-life. That is the definition of 'earliest'. But causes come before the effects (part of the nature of causality). So any cause for the *earliest* life had to be non-living.
1. to say that non life caused life is unscientific and supported by no observations or scientific evidence.
This is wrong. Science shows that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and nothing else. There is every reason to believe the organization required comes about via the laws of nature and that, therefore, life came from non-life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149910
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.
You have come to the same conclusion though and make a good point about nonlife producing life being a miracle claim...
I disagree. It takes no miracle to organize the basic chemicals of life in a way that they sustain their reactions. And that is what life is: a self-sustaining collection of chemical reactions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149911
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are alive.
Even debating with me, proves Gods existence.
Without Him, you have no basis for absolute laws of logic.
By debating and occasionally using reason, you prove His existence...
What a load of crud. Why would you claim there is no basis for logic without a deity?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149912
Jan 24, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Poly, the prevailing theory is that something expanded and blew a big bubble, condensing something into matter that became those particles and their derivatives, including us. The interactions of these particles keeps blowing the bubble bigger.
Wow. Not even close. Where do you get this stuff?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149913
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.
Which one? That causes come before effects? or that there was a first living thing?
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149914
Jan 24, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you did not understand my argument. If there was an earliest life, then anything before it was non-life. That is the definition of 'earliest'. But causes come before the effects (part of the nature of causality). So any cause for the *earliest* life had to be non-living.
<quoted text>
This is wrong. Science shows that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and nothing else. There is every reason to believe the organization required comes about via the laws of nature and that, therefore, life came from non-life.
A total evasion.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149915
Jan 24, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It takes no miracle to organize the basic chemicals of life in a way that they sustain their reactions. And that is what life is: a self-sustaining collection of chemical reactions.
You are so far behind the times it's scary, scientists at Arizona state have begun new investigations into lifes origin rejecting the premise that life is like baking a cake,..all you need is the right chemicals in the proper amount and walla! life! It's a 19th century concept.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149916
Jan 24, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Not even close. Where do you get this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Science speak for blowing a big bubble. I posted a better link some time ago.

If they don't print it in the King James version, you don't grok it, do you?

Regardless, all matter, and thus the interactions of it, are contained in this universe, as they are derivatives of that original event. They say.

A muon doesn't decay unless something else helps it along. It has to be affected.

Your perception of physics sure has a paranormal tinge to it. Particles appearing out of nowhere. Phenomenons happen just because the phenomenee got a wild hair.

You have some perception issues.

Oh, use at least a 18AWG BRAIDED wire to ground your tin foil hat. It's important.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149918
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you did not understand my argument. If there was an earliest life, then anything before it was non-life. That is the definition of 'earliest'. But causes come before the effects (part of the nature of causality). So any cause for the *earliest* life had to be non-living.
<quoted text>
This is wrong. Science shows that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and nothing else. There is every reason to believe the organization required comes about via the laws of nature and that, therefore, life came from non-life.
You said particles are fuzzy. Not hard thingies. Perhaps that fuzzy stuff is thought, waves of some sort that then gathers other fuzzy stuff to create "life". Waves shaping waves. Kind of creating its own little world.

Fuzz creates the hard stuff that then creates more fuzz.

We have fuzzy thinking Topix atheists, so it must be possible.

Or something like that.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149919
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You said particles are fuzzy. Not hard thingies. Perhaps that fuzzy stuff is thought, waves of some sort that then gathers other fuzzy stuff to create "life". Waves shaping waves. Kind of creating its own little world.
Fuzz creates the hard stuff that then creates more fuzz.
We have fuzzy thinking Topix atheists, so it must be possible.
Or something like that.
When you have a graduate degree in physics, I'll give your arguments credibility. Right now you're just a Topix scientist, and that doesn't amount to much.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 29 min Richardfs 202
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 54 min Buck Crick 21,387
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 2 hr DonPanic 1,286
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 4 hr religionisillness 271
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 4 hr religionisillness 370
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 18 hr religionisillness 834
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... Thu Patrick 16
•••
•••