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

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#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

Brisbane, Australia

#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

#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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#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

#150054 Jan 25, 2013
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

#150055 Jan 25, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Very nicely written :)
Very nicely read.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#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

#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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#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

#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

#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

#150061 Jan 25, 2013
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

#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

#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

#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

#150065 Jan 25, 2013
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...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#150066 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What, like nothing exploded, that kind of story that requires immense faith?
Special pleading.
You dont have to believe in the Big Bang. Just to have the a healthy degree of skepticism and free thinking to absurd claims about the supernatural.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150067 Jan 25, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the worlds largest ego and smallest morally challenged malfunctioning brain.
Really?

lol

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150068 Jan 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about any of the *philosophical interpretations* of quantum theory. I am talking about the quantum theory as actually used by physicists.
<quoted text>
yes, the prior condition is that of being a muon. But here's the point: there is no difference between a muon that decays now versus a muon that decays at some later time (or that never decays). When that muon decays is random and uncaused.
<quoted text>
Why would you say that? It is illogical only if you *assume* that all events have causes. But that is exactly the point at issue, so that assumption is not one you can make without justification.
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?

Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.

Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150069 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Non sequitur.
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?

You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...

The whole of scientific endeavour is built on the assumption that absolutes exist.

No absolutes, no science.

Morality is the same, no absolutes, no subjective interpretation of those absolutes.

No morality...

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
Our world came from nothing? 9 min NightSerf 1,001
Islam for peace, or violence? 27 min Larry 23
Man center of the universe. 55 min Thinking 85
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 22,978
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... Oct 16 tha Professor 146

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE