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

#149898 Jan 24, 2013
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

#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

#149900 Jan 24, 2013
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

#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

#149902 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.
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

#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

#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.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 min Eman 22,098
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 20 min Patrick 188
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 56 min Patrick 42
Stump a theist with 2 questions 57 min Patrick 18
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 4 hr TheHeadlines 70
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 6 hr Patrick n Angela 3
The Ultimate Evidence of God 23 hr sriKim 120
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••