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: Dec 11

Location hidden

#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

Newport, TN

#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

#149908 Jan 24, 2013
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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

Newport, TN

#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

Newport, TN

#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

#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

#149918 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.
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

#149919 Jan 24, 2013
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.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149920 Jan 24, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because God knows what choices you will make doesn't mean He makes those choices for you.
Simple as that.
That's correct, but what I said is still true. Here's why:

If the future is knowable, then there is fate. It doesn't matter who, if anyone, knows that fate, it's if it is knowable at all.

Now supposedly God is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent, which necessarily means that God not only knows the future, but created it too.

And if you look at what you said "Just because God knows what choices you will make" , well, if God knows what choices you will make, then that is what you do. You might think you have free will, but that is because you can't see the future. You are blissfully ignorant of your fate. But God knows, and you are his little automaton. Sorry, but that's how it would work. And is yet another reason why the whole Christian ideology clockwork falls apart. Christian ideology is predicated on the idea of free will, but it also makes claims about an omniscient and omnipotent God. Sorry, can't have both. Fail.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149921 Jan 24, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
IF god created ALL
he created your future also,
NO free will
simple indeed
I find this concept very easy to understand, but somehow religious people have a hard time getting it. I have a little pet theory that those who go in for magical thinking really have cognitive problems with certain types of logic, just as religious people claim that atheists lack some special God detector.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149922 Jan 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You some how seem to believe that God must adhere to your line if reasoning. What a hoot!
Pretty funny.
But no so funny that you were able to refute the logical argument! D'oh!

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149923 Jan 24, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes sense, and to emphasize a portion of a phrase you used above:
"allows us to make the best choice possible."
*Allow**Choice*
That indicates, to me, we're only exercising a semblance of free will in an environment that we have very little latitude in the choices available to draw from. The discussion surrounding free will is always thought provoking, because at times you can almost convince yourself we do have free will in what we do from day to day, but upon further examination, we're really at the whim of our environment.
There is one thing we do have 100% free will in.
The choice to die.
Any of us can choose to die in various ways, and that is pure free will if a person chooses that, but, who wants to choose death in order to exercise 100% free will?
If we truly had free will we would never be able to prove it. We could however prove we did not, if someone knew the future, thus negating the possibility of free will.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#149924 Jan 24, 2013
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 get your graduate degree in physics, I'll give your arguments credence. Until then, you're simply a Topix scientist, and that doesn't amount to very much.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149925 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It does apply, how can you have an absolute standard of evil, without an absolute standard of good?
You are appealing to that as the basis for your argument, my question is, upon what basis do you make that appeal?
Where do you get absolute morality from?
I don't. The question is a subjective one, based on your opinion. No absolute morality required.

"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"

So, do you think they are evil or not?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149926 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I am troubled by the quality of maturity, rationality, and intellect that has recently gathered on this forum. People such as mtimber and EmpAtheist, among others.
The quality is too high. It's unnatural for this forum.
Something must be happening.
Sock in mouth you do decree.

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... 52 min Uncle Sam 2,354
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 23,201
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr Thinking 150
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 7 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 16 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 18 hr Thinking 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web