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: Mar 10

Location hidden

#150120 Jan 25, 2013
Imagine that the universe erupted into existence some fifteen billion years ago. That a shapeless cloud of dust emerging out of that luminous expansion, slowly congealed into a solid orb, worked its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of various chemical elements and gases over billions of years, generated a primordial biosphere capable of not only begetting life, but sustaining and proliferating life.

Now, imagine none of that happened. None of it is true. Are you somehow diminished? Have you morphed into a Christian before your very eyes filled with an intense desire to bow and scrape before a human figure nailed to two pieces of wood? No, of course not! So why not consider other ideas that are equally valid such as transcendent potential? There really is a transcendent dimension and it's not just a theory. The Aspect's experiment verifies that objects really do have connections OUTSIDE of space and time that effect things INSIDE space and time. In other words, matter is not SUPREME. If it isn't, what is? Anyone who does not believe that the answer is worth pursuing is not interested in discovering the truth, but only interested in clinging to old unshifting religious and scientific paradigms.

Quantum physics doesn't depict objects as definite things. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? If physical laws are solely responsible, then they should explain how this process happens. They don't. Instead they confuse the issue hence the search for a unified theory. Interestingly, all the paradoxes of quantum physics could be easily solved if conventional science accepted consciousness (spirit) as the basis of being, which in no way means accepting the dogma of ANY religion. It is not only entirely possible, but probable that parallel universes radically different from our own lie beyond the domain of physical science.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150121 Jan 25, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Helllooo! Dinosaurs....big rock...EXTINCTION...die!!!
arockdidit! I have scientific proof, so there!
Not so clever now, are u Tide?:-p
Who was driving the rock?

Which space cop didn't pull it over for speeding?

Who left the keys to the rock in the ignition?

Let's not play the blame game, Clementia. There are a lot of dirty hands out there.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150123 Jan 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the most foul-mouthed posters here attends this one:
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Ave.... ;
I do not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150124 Jan 25, 2013
Wrathbone wrote:
The Aspect's experiment verifies that objects really do have connections OUTSIDE of space and time that effect things INSIDE space and time.
This is wrong. Aspect's experiment shows that classical notions like 'every particle has definite properties at all times' are false. It most certainly does NOT show there are connections outside of space and time. it does show that correlations that are produced are maintained in the future.
In other words, matter is not SUPREME.
Supreme in what sense? Who said that matter is supreme? I tis simply not an adjective that applies.
Quantum physics doesn't depict objects as definite things. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality?
Decoherence. Look it up.
If physical laws are solely responsible, then they should explain how this process happens. They don't.
Actually, yes they do.
Interestingly, all the paradoxes of quantum physics could be easily solved if conventional science accepted consciousness (spirit) as the basis of being, which in no way means accepting the dogma of ANY religion. It is not only entirely possible, but probable that parallel universes radically different from our own lie beyond the domain of physical science.
Nope, consciousness is irrelevant to how things become definite in QM. In fact, the interaction with *any* sufficiently complicated environment is enough.

Nice try, though.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150125 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's substantiated by the verses. Ancient Israelite marriages did not require the consent of the woman. The women who were CAPTURED by soldiers were married by the man's choice alone.
Conjugal relations were an expected part of wifely duties. The Israelites did not consider those sexual encounters to be rape, but I, and any reasonable person who does not view a wife as property of her husband, does.
I asked for proof.

Not conjecture.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150126 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's substantiated by the verses. Ancient Israelite marriages did not require the consent of the woman. The women who were CAPTURED by soldiers were married by the man's choice alone.
Conjugal relations were an expected part of wifely duties. The Israelites did not consider those sexual encounters to be rape, but I, and any reasonable person who does not view a wife as property of her husband, does.
Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"

Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.

There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150127 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"
Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.
There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html
Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150128 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"
Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.
There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html
Cool.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150129 Jan 25, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.
Your sweet,:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150130 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sweet,:)
Her sweet?

Huh?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150131 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sweet,:)
I'm like a Candy Cane. Beware the hook.

Catcher will find your Engrish fraws :)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150132 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Ah, so you've met. Have you seen the movie Dinner for Schmucks?
Yes. Funny.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150133 Jan 26, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.
Excellent translation.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150134 Jan 26, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>Your sweet,:)
Her sweet what?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150135 Jan 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, it's funny how some hang out in church's too.

One of the most foul-mouthed posters here attends this one:

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Ave.... ;
This is an atheist forum.

At least it is on my phone and pc.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150136 Jan 26, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for proof.
Not conjecture.
You have no proof of god. That means you can stop lying about it now.

Seriously, stop lying about a god you have no proof of.

Try talking about something you do have proof of so that you can avoid being an immoral liar, there's a good creationist troll.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150137 Jan 26, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no proof of god. That means you can stop lying about it now.
Seriously, stop lying about a god you have no proof of.
Try talking about something you do have proof of so that you can avoid being an immoral liar, there's a good creationist troll.
Santa was a pedophile until I crushed his larynx in 1999 with my foot. Two hands on throat, sputtered twice and I've never seen him again.

Some gods go away.
Imhotep

United States

#150140 Jan 26, 2013
The promotion and perpetuation of a myth is often more important to believers than what the Bible teaches.

The Christian "free" gift myth is a prime example of this.

Many Christians demonstrate that the teachings of the Bible are irrelevant when they conflict with a popular myth that serves to advance the religion.

These believers are not subject to the moral
principles that they claim their religion symbolizes.

They have no problem bearing false witness to others concerning the most important issue in their religion, which is that of personal salvation.
NeuroRev

Ashburn, VA

#150141 Jan 26, 2013
Stating that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is misguided. Religious people believe in their gods and religious stories based on cultural upbringing, religious childhood indoctrination, psychological conditioning, emotional conditioning, confirmation bias etc. None of this is evidence on any level. All these techniques condition the mind to believe and 'feel' that the proposed concepts (god and religion) are true. However strong the belief and feeling, this is still zero evidence for it being true. To be convinced of the validity of something with no evidence is to be misguided. One could postulate that a magic pink frog lives in the sky, and that this frog created the universe, earth, sun, people etc etc. Over the ages people have created amazing stories about the frog, written books on the frog, perform rituals for the frog, have a range of beliefs about the frog, organise funerals and weddings based on beliefs about the frog, have special frog-worshipping days, frog festivals etc. Over time these ideas about the magic pink frog have spread down the generations to millions and millions of people. There are huge frog-worshipping buildings, frog statues etc. People worship the magic frog by hopping, croaking, puffing up their cheeks etc. They do this often and in mass numbers. All this reinforces the idea that the magic pink sky frog is real. After all, surely millions of people can't be wrong?? But is any of this mass performance and spectacle evidence for the magic pink frog? No. Not at all. It is a false belief. Therefore it qualifies as a delusion. The strength of the deluded belief is so great that an adherent concludes that it must be true, so such people claim that a lack of belief in the magic sky frog is in itself a belief. This is misguided. A belief should be in proportion to the evidence, not the mass numbers of people and stories clinging onto an unsupported idea. So, to claim that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is nonsense. An atheist is merely one who discards a belief due to a lack of proper supporting evidence. The term atheist is not even necessary, just like how we don't have a term for people who don't believe in ghosts, palm reading or astrology. Before taking beliefs literally, take a look at whether the strength of the belief is based on evidence (causation) or merely a range of psychgological conditioning (brainwashing) techniques over time...
NeuroRev

Ashburn, VA

#150142 Jan 26, 2013
For example we could have people believing that the moon is made of cheese. Millions may believe it, but is this evidence? No. We could have millions of people screaming and chanting that the moon is made of cheese. This would be a mass spectacle, and it would be tempting to assume that because so many people believe it, it must be true... Even if 500 million or 2 billion people are simultaneously chanting and strongly believing this, it does not have any impact on reality. It simply distorts perception of reality, which most people get easily taken in by. All you would need to disprove this massive 2 billion strong delusion is a small moon rock that will fit on the palm of your hand. That's it. It is a sample from the moon. It is chemically and structurally compared to cheese and has no resemblance to it. Therefore the moon is not made of cheese. 2 billion people chanting and screaming "the moon is made of cheese! The moon is made of cheese! I believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe it!!! We believe it!!!" means nothing and fails in any way to change reality. It is just a mass (2 billion strong) mega-delusion. The tiny moon rock is still closer to truth than 2 billion deluded screaming people...

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 18 min Richardfs 14,769
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 22 min woodtick57 2,853
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr MUQ2 23,497
why? 11 hr polymath257 62
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 15 hr geezerjock 1,263
Really, God? 15 hr geezerjock 1
Is Religion Childish? 15 hr geezerjock 5
More from around the web