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 (Page 7,208)

Showing posts 144,141 - 144,160 of223,180
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150046
Jan 25, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
Thank you, Christine. Hope you had a good one, too.
There is much empirical evidence to support my theory. Just look at the quantity of fruits and nuts posting on Topix.
Yes thanks

Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150047
Jan 25, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes thanks
Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe
It's a window looking out on it that you can watch the squirrels from.

On the more serious side, your brand of physics is preoccupied with examining thingies, which makes it difficult to see the whole. The secret is in looking at it as a process. The laws of nature is a process.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150048
Jan 25, 2013
 

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150049
Jan 25, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor God.
He's going to have to leave town.
His life will be pure Hell after all of these righteous Topix atheists show up on his doorstep.
Hope he doesn't turn over the keys to the kingdom to them.
I'm sure he would, rather than be bored for all of eternity by a bunch of bleating sheep.

1787 August 10.(Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150050
Jan 25, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said


Sorry word count limits
I have no problem with what I mean, those laws exist, and they help us to understand the universe. They came into being at a point in time, that does not mean to say that outside this universe other laws are not in effect.

Please provide evidence of such tuning? From what I have read no such tuning exists and everything in this universe is the result of time coupled with those universal laws. Those laws may or may not exists outside the domain of this universe and came in to existence after the event as a random result of that event and time.

I quoted the definition of paradox, the current understanding of how the universe was created is not paradoxical, there is nothing contradictory, the meshing of quantum and atomic domains are now calculable and seamless.

Yes the argument has been waged for some time and in very recent years the boundaries of that argument have expanded. Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge and understanding increases. Just because you believe it to be contradictory does not make it contradictory, all it means is that you believe it to be contradictory. Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice.

Singh’s mathematics provide logical solutions to several possibility’s by quantifying what is already known about both the quantum and atomic domains. And of course the people involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis and the quantim/atomic interface are for the most part, agreed that his mathematics are the best available for the job in hand. The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.

Even when/(if) a solution is found it will not stop the arguments, just look at the YEC lot, the creationists bunch and the funnymentalist christards who are shown proof that the earth is millions of times older than they claim or that all fossils are transitional fossils or that Noahs flood was impossible or that DNA disproves Adam and Eve living at the same time.

This is where we disagree, evidence (even mathematical evidence) does away with the need for mystery. Personally I would prefer fact than bronze age mythology anytime, this of course does not diminish the wonder but enhances the joy.
Siro

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150051
Jan 25, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
<quoted text>
Thinking was a little sh!t
Always chomping at the bit
Christine chose him as her cuckold
'Cause he has a drippy dikk

hahahahahahahaha.....you loser...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150052
Jan 25, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with what I mean, those laws exist, and they help us to understand the universe. They came into being at a point in time, that does not mean to say that outside this universe other laws are not in effect.
Please provide evidence of such tuning? From what I have read no such tuning exists and everything in this universe is the result of time coupled with those universal laws. Those laws may or may not exists outside the domain of this universe and came in to existence after the event as a random result of that event and time.
I quoted the definition of paradox, the current understanding of how the universe was created is not paradoxical, there is nothing contradictory, the meshing of quantum and atomic domains are now calculable and seamless.
Yes the argument has been waged for some time and in very recent years the boundaries of that argument have expanded. Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge and understanding increases. Just because you believe it to be contradictory does not make it contradictory, all it means is that you believe it to be contradictory. Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice.
Singh’s mathematics provide logical solutions to several possibility’s by quantifying what is already known about both the quantum and atomic domains. And of course the people involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis and the quantim/atomic interface are for the most part, agreed that his mathematics are the best available for the job in hand. The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.
Even when/(if) a solution is found it will not stop the arguments, just look at the YEC lot, the creationists bunch and the funnymentalist christards who are shown proof that the earth is millions of times older than they claim or that all fossils are transitional fossils or that Noahs flood was impossible or that DNA disproves Adam and Eve living at the same time.
This is where we disagree, evidence (even mathematical evidence) does away with the need for mystery. Personally I would prefer fact than bronze age mythology anytime, this of course does not diminish the wonder but enhances the joy.
Okay let point out the fallacy in your arguments.

"outside this universe"?
This will take much speculation.

I made no reference to tuning, fine tuning or anything of the nature.

"Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice"

Arrogance and wishful thinking.

"Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned (physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge)"

Argument from authority.

"involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis"

Another way of saying conjecture.

"science and mathematics has taken over"

This is a conflicted statement, exactly what have science and math taken over?

I agree some of us use reasoning and science as tools to better understand the world, but has science taken over?
Will science conquer Iran's Theocracy?

The universe itself IS a paradox , can you say why there is something instead of nothing?
Why a infinitesimal became infinite, or even how is it not paradoxical in nature right down to Schroeder's cat and the time that passed for a photon to exist both 13 bya and now , despite your protest it is.

Just how old is a photon that originated shortly after the BB and has traveled 40 billion light years? Hint how does a photon appear to break causality?

The universe is a conglomeration of paradoxes.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150053
Jan 25, 2013
 
F**k off, identity thief.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking was a little sh!t
Always chomping at the bit
Christine chose him as her cuckold
'Cause he has a drippy dikk
hahahahahahahaha.....you loser...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150054
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?

You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150055
Jan 25, 2013
 
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Very nicely written :)
Very nicely read.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150056
Jan 25, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Across time and societies, those calling themselves Christians have held many contradictory beliefs about morality.
Do you have an example you would like to put forward?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150057
Jan 25, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an example of a god of the gaps fallacy, which is a variant of the argument from ignorance.
You fill in what you do not understand with "goddidit".
This is an example of a rock of the gaps fallacy, which is a variant of the argument from ignorance.

You fill what you do not understand with "arockdidit".

See how arbitrary claims work?

Do you have a logical reasoned response to make instead, or do you just want to make arbitrary claims and expect others just to accept them?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150058
Jan 25, 2013
 
Non sequitur.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?
You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150059
Jan 25, 2013
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
How many stories, do you know of, describing the beginning of the universe? Every religion and culture, just about, has the same blind faith as you do.
When is the earliest know writings of your god? About 3,500 years ago, if I am not mistaken.
You have to do better than blind faith.
What, like nothing exploded, that kind of story that requires immense faith?

Special pleading.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150060
Jan 25, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
And from now on you will be reported for your copy and paste block spam. Fair enough? You come here to troll but then get furious when treated like a troll? I suggest if you can't handle it stay in the Christian forums.
Thanks Daffy.
Oh and I will be staying, for a long time regardless of how you wail and cry for getting what you ask for :)
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150061
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
You see half wit you are doing it backwards. Before you can that god is a creator or an authority you fist need to demonstrate observable proof for a god.
Until you have demonstrated and defined a god the rest is imagination, nothing more.
<quoted text>
No, it is you that has it backwards.

You pre-suppose naturalism before you even begin to look at any data...

Everyone pre-supposes their ultimate standard.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150062
Jan 25, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen as expected Derek4's other screen name mtimber has refused to answer any question and continues to dodge actual debate.
He wishes to claim his god is the absolute authority when it comes to morality yet when questioned about the horrific acts his god committed and commanded his people to do he as expected cries that this is an unfair off topic question.
So remember his god is the absolute authority on morality, just don't bring up examples of his god's morality or he will hide and scream no fair.
Typical unintelligent, intellectually dishonest Christian idiot trolls like him are a dime per 100,000.
Do you mind if I call you Margaret?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150063
Jan 25, 2013
 
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong... but i don't think he is Derek. Derek is mean and floods the board with cut and paste BS from websites he doesn't even read. Mtimber is fun. I disagree with most if what he has to say but he keeps himself under control and i respect that.
My name is definitely not Derek.:-)

Margaret doesn't want to seem to accept that however...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150064
Jan 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum?
Its up there in the thread title :)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150065
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a bit shocked and bothered by this.
Although you have been having conversations about coming to rational conclusions... using logic... and such... all of which i am happy with..... now you are supporting presuppositional apologetics?
I feel like the pastafarians have a lot of fun with the same tactics because they are pointing out the absurdities of it.
Maybe that explains why you have been equating goddidit with arockdidit. Except in presuppositional apologetics ... goddidit is where it begins so it fills the gaps like a base color on a canvas. Science doesnt begin with the answer. It finds the highest probabilities while searching for answers. So if one answer was arockdidit... it wont be the answer to all of the unanswered questions.
If we walked into a room with a box and a note on it... you read the note and it said a 18 lb blue bowling ball was in the box... you believed it and sat down... and i picked up the small light weight box and said i didnt believe the note... coming from presuppositional apologetics... can i trust my senses when i think i see a small box that feels light weight?... so i think nothing is in the box?... this is very problematic.
Strawman? I don't know... but i dont see a difference.
We all have to pre-suppose certain things before we measure the universe.

Everyone does.

Lets take the typical atheist argument that "arockdidit".

Now was anyone there to observe non-life turning into life?

No.

So there is no empirical evidence for that.

It has to be assumed, and then people try to prove that happened, from that assumption.

Any hypothesis starts from base assumptions that then have to be tested.

Presuppositional apologetics operates on the same basis, but in the philosophical realm.

I of course would welcome strong logical examinations of that principle, if you have a counter argument, that shows we hold no pre-suppositions?

Essentially, how we gain knowledge is under question here...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 144,141 - 144,160 of223,180
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••