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
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...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150070 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Its up there in the thread title :)
It seems to be discussing the pre-suppositional nature of atheistic beliefs...

But, if you see an entry requirement expressed there, I would love to see you explain it...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150071 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You presuppose that the universe only operates on empirical laws and you define them as "natural", correct?

Why do you presuppose that only empiricism is valid?

And if that is the case, why are you then arguing the big bang is viable?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150072 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
If you mean 'interpretations', like the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation, I do not use *any* of them. I simply use quantum mechanics. The interpretations are methods of attempting to explain QM in terms of classical notions. That is a fundamental error. You explain the old theory in terms of the new one, not the other way around.
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Well, the point is that a muon just before the decay is exactly the same as a muon at any other time. It is a fundamental particle, which means there is no 'internal clock' ticking that determines when it decays. The decay is inherently probabilistic (not possible to determine when it will happen no matter what information you have previous to the decay), and so is not 'caused'.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
Like I also said, the vast majority of quantum phenomena are un-caused. They are inherently probabilistic and not determined by previous conditions. Again, that is fundamental to how quantum mechanics works (no matter what the interpretation).

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... 2 hr woodtick57 2,407
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr _Bad Company 23,208
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr _Bad Company 163
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 20 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... Sun Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... Sun Thinking 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Dec 20 Yiago 148
More from around the web