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 11

Lexington, KY

#150268 Jan 26, 2013
He told the children at his feet that some of them would not die before the end came. Are you so retarded that you think there are some 2000 year old people walking around waiting for Jesus? You of course have no answer for this.

Lol! Hey what's the largest CHRISTIAN church again?:))
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Which He does.
<quoted text>
Figure of speech, bro.
<quoted text>
Intellectual dishonesty.
It's "peace of God which passeth all understanding", which comes from trusting God.
<quoted text>
"The fruit of the Spirit" is the moral character developed by the power of the Spirit, which we have.
<quoted text>
His audience is not dead, there's about 2.2 billion if us right now.
<quoted text>
Sorry, which one failed?
<quoted text>
Very good. You can't test God & you can test for God. Then the claim that He's made up or doesn't exist is just that, a claim.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150269 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I got to thinking about this a bit more. Of *course* absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Agreed.

What is true is that the absence of proof is not proof of absence. Consider the following:

You claimed to have called a coworker from your cell phone on your lunch break to tell the office that you would be late, but there was no record of that call in the telephone company records, and there was no telephone message recorded. The absence of expected evidence suggests that that call was never made.

Then, you said that you drove through a muddy field to get back to work, but that same day, with the ground still soft, no tire prints could be found in the field. Furthermore, the car you said you used, though dirty, had no mud on it. That absence of evidence is evidence that you're probably fibbing again.

Finally, you claimed that you did return to work, but nobody remembers seeing you after lunch, and your time card wasn't punched. It's not proof that you weren't there, but it is evidence of your absence. You're probably not getting paid for the afternoon based on the absence of evidence.

Every day that Jesus failed to return is evidence that he isn't coming back.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150270 Jan 26, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheeses saves!
Cheeses Crust, how grated thou art!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150271 Jan 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> WTF are you to decide the parameters of imaginary, imaginary has no such limits imposed by you. After all,
your god would never survive such imposed limitations.
You are the one that sees invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti, and old men sitting on thrones as deities. Separate and distinct entities from yourself.

You could just be a facet of this entity, therefore you can't "see" it.

However, if you are a boil or pimple on its butt, you may wind up feeling its presence.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150272 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever your argument, level it at the god;
The chance arrangement of some assumed substance operating under some assumed laws into a god will not happen unless it was pointed in the right direction.
If your argument were valid, then this would perforce be more valid, since your argument assumes the existence of an infinitely more complex entity to explain a simpler one that it says is too complex to exist undesigned.
A god like yours is the least likely thing imaginable to exist uncreated. Literally. If you disagree, name something that would possibly be less likely to exist uncreated than an infinite, immortal, sentient, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral being.
And if one existed, why aren't there many? What else is sui generis? Not even the universe itself in a many-worlds or multiverse scenario.
IANS, you and a bacteria in a Petri dish have the same lack of abstract thinking ability.

Don't worry about how what brought you into existence came into existence. Especially if it can dump you down the sink. Establish a rapport with it, then it may tell you what it knows.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150273 Jan 26, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Of all the alleged virtues, faith is the most overrated.
“Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.”- Mike Huben

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150274 Jan 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There are no means of analyzing God in the same sense. Your eyes do not see Him. Your ears do not hear Him. Your senses seem to betray you. All known forms of detection fail. So does that mean God doesn't exist or you simply lacks the means to detect Him?
“The [undetectable] and the non-existent look very much alike”-Delos B. McKown

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150275 Jan 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, my friend.
It is when the absence is evident.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150276 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that sees invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti, and old men sitting on thrones as deities. Separate and distinct entities from yourself.
You could just be a facet of this entity, therefore you can't "see" it.
However, if you are a boil or pimple on its butt, you may wind up feeling its presence.
Pfft

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150277 Jan 26, 2013
http://inexplicata.blogspot.com/2013/01/anted...

Interesting about the megaliths being power sources. I figured that out 30 years ago. It's true.

Simple physics. Phenomenon that even ancient man could have noticed and harnessed. But never quite truly understood.

Used mainly for spurring growth in crops. Bringing static ground to life. EM emissions that kicked things into gear.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150278 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what clothing has done to us!
It's evil!
What ever will we do?
U got a point actually!

U could use a bra, thongs and other stuff as weapons! a tie is a weapon for sure!!

I never knew there was a sharp metal thingy inside of a wire bra. It came outta my bra as i was wearing it and it stabbed me in the blumin' chest, i was in so much pain, i had to tell the teacher i wasn't feelin' well just so that i could go home and quickly take if off. Also wearing bra's give u back and chest problems, i'm sure they do, they need to do a survey thingy on this subject.

But u guys have it easy, u don't have to wear body tight clothes, but us girls have to wear tight everything! You just eat a little bit more than usual, then u got to hold your stomach in all day long.

i think we should all take our clothes off and burn them!! That's the only way!!! I think u should start it off, Tide!

Go Tide, go Tide, burn your clothes, feel freedom!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150279 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“The [undetectable] and the non-existent look very much alike”-Delos B. McKown
McKown would've been a terrible DNA theoretician 150 years ago.....

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150280 Jan 26, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
U got a point actually!
U could use a bra, thongs and other stuff as weapons! a tie is a weapon for sure!!
I never knew there was a sharp metal thingy inside of a wire bra. It came outta my bra as i was wearing it and it stabbed me in the blumin' chest, i was in so much pain, i had to tell the teacher i wasn't feelin' well just so that i could go home and quickly take if off. Also wearing bra's give u back and chest problems, i'm sure they do, they need to do a survey thingy on this subject.
But u guys have it easy, u don't have to wear body tight clothes, but us girls have to wear tight everything! You just eat a little bit more than usual, then u got to hold your stomach in all day long.
i think we should all take our clothes off and burn them!! That's the only way!!! I think u should start it off, Tide!
Go Tide, go Tide, burn your clothes, feel freedom!!
I'll never wear a bra again.

You have my word.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150281 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Lets hope that Ar Ar doesn't try to follow your example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150282 Jan 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
As an example there is a law of biogenesis, that life only comes from existing life. The absence of evidence that this law is violated after many and repeated attempts is in fact evidence of absence. Given the number of ways we have looked, and the strictness of the law,( hence the high degree of testability),the prolonged absence of evidence of violations is very,very good evidence for the law.
Thats a great arguement.
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.

The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.

So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.

We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#150283 Jan 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum.
At least it is on my phone and pc.
Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#150284 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150285 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Good! I'm in a fighting mood today, so don't get on the wrong side of me!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150286 Jan 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.
That's where i see it too!

Some people think the world revolves around them! Yh, i'm talkin' about u, liberty guy!:-p

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150287 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.
The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.
So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.
We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

Something zapped them in just the right way.

It wasn't Charlie Darwin. He just noted some of the eventual effects.

Those chemicals had to be forced to merge in the right circuitry. 14 or less billion years is not enough time for the process to start. Plus the processes had to survive a varying environment. One cosmic ray could ruin a bacterium's day. Plus all the other environmental thingies that could strip it apart.

Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.

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) 14 min Arnold Weston 16,708
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 40 min Eagle 12 5
The Consequences of Atheism 41 min Eagle 12 732
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 43 min Eagle 12 4,790
Reply to an Atheist on the terms freethough and... 5 hr geezerjock 1
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr EdSed 319
Well that's religitards for you... 8 hr EdSed 2
More from around the web