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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150311 Jan 27, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you appreciate our DNA ~***The first is his very public embrace of religion. Dr. Collins, who was not raised with any religious training, wrote a book called "The Language of God," and he has given many talks and interviews in which he has described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical school intern. "I came at this from a position of ignorance," he said. "I came at it from an intellectual point of view." Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field are uneasy about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism.
The other objection stems from his leadership of the Human Genome Project, which is part of the N.I.H. Although Dr. Collins was widely praised in 2003 when the effort succeeded, the hopes that this discovery would yield an array of promising medical interventions have greatly dimmed, discouraging many.
While Dr. Collins cannot be blamed for the unexpected scientific hurdles facing genetic research, he played an important role in raising expectations impossibly high. In interviews, he had called the effort "the most important and the most significant project that humankind has ever mounted" and predicted it would quickly allow everyone to know the genetic risks for many diseases.
Some scientists and advocates for people suffering from diseases criticized the extraordinary amount of money and attention the sequencing effort garnered, saying it distracted from more fruitful areas of research.
Dr. Collins's confirmation by the Senate is all but certain. He has long cultivated good relations on Capitol Hill. And since the administration finalized rules for broader use of stem cells in federal research before nominating him, anti-abortion forces will have a harder time using that issue to stop his confirmation.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/ti... ***
It is indeed exciting, is it not?
If you deny evolution, why don't you deny gravity? it's just as proven.

maybe its because it requires very little intelligence to observe and realise that nothing floats on its own.

Now if you applied a little more intelligence, you would realise that criticizing science is pointless when you have no proof of god or any of your ridiculous religious lies.
Imhotep

United States

#150313 Jan 27, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not, there even when you say it is.
Of course it is!

“None so blind as those that will not see.”
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
English Presbyterian minister and writer

Modern scholarship exposes the barbarous nonsense of the Bible as never before. The men who, 1800 years ago, wrote the gospels, knew nothing of science and rationality. They could in no manner anticipate the skills and insights which would be brought to bear on their pious fantasy far into the future.

Until relatively recent times, the Bible was a forbidden book, denied to all but the clergy. In the vast compendium of nonsense, selectively read in Latin (or Greek) to an illiterate peasantry, who would have noticed the myriad inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities?

Apologist attempts to turn this disaster to his advantage. "The errors obviously prove the essential truth. If the writers had wanted to tell a lie they would have got it right."

These 'writers' were con men of their time... unable to anticipate mass literacy, the printing press, computers or the internet.

;-)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150314 Jan 27, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you,:)
The sad state of a theist, you take pride in being uneducated and stupid.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#150315 Jan 27, 2013
Of course the Christian faith had it's roots in way deep before the bible was accessible to the common man. It's foundation and stigmas were set long before the people knew what they were signing up for.

Insidious indeed.
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is!
“None so blind as those that will not see.”
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
English Presbyterian minister and writer
Modern scholarship exposes the barbarous nonsense of the Bible as never before. The men who, 1800 years ago, wrote the gospels, knew nothing of science and rationality. They could in no manner anticipate the skills and insights which would be brought to bear on their pious fantasy far into the future.
Until relatively recent times, the Bible was a forbidden book, denied to all but the clergy. In the vast compendium of nonsense, selectively read in Latin (or Greek) to an illiterate peasantry, who would have noticed the myriad inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities?
Apologist attempts to turn this disaster to his advantage. "The errors obviously prove the essential truth. If the writers had wanted to tell a lie they would have got it right."
These 'writers' were con men of their time... unable to anticipate mass literacy, the printing press, computers or the internet.
;-)

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#150316 Jan 27, 2013
Oh and I meant to throw in, great effort but sadly with daffy it's a waste of time. You can find dozens of times where he denies what the bible says demanding chapter and verse. You give him the chapter and verse and he either ignores that you provided him with it or uses the standard apologetic excuses A: it's figurative in that case. B: it doesn't really say that and let me dig up an obscure version if the bible that words it slightly differently. C: You are an atheist and so you don't have the secret decoder excuse ring. D: Insert random Ad Hom attack here.

That's Daffy Duck12 for you!
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is!
“None so blind as those that will not see.”
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
English Presbyterian minister and writer
Modern scholarship exposes the barbarous nonsense of the Bible as never before. The men who, 1800 years ago, wrote the gospels, knew nothing of science and rationality. They could in no manner anticipate the skills and insights which would be brought to bear on their pious fantasy far into the future.
Until relatively recent times, the Bible was a forbidden book, denied to all but the clergy. In the vast compendium of nonsense, selectively read in Latin (or Greek) to an illiterate peasantry, who would have noticed the myriad inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities?
Apologist attempts to turn this disaster to his advantage. "The errors obviously prove the essential truth. If the writers had wanted to tell a lie they would have got it right."
These 'writers' were con men of their time... unable to anticipate mass literacy, the printing press, computers or the internet.
;-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150317 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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'.
<quoted text>
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).
I have to challenge this.

It is not "known" that anything is uncaused.

You have assumed something is uncaused, but you have no empirical evidence for that claim.

So you are arguing from a presupposition and not a verifiable fact.

The clarity you claim, does not come supported by the scientific community.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150319 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Big Bang theory gives testable predictions and those predictions agree with the evidence. The Big Bang theory, as used by cosmologists, says that the universe was once very hot and dense and has been expanding since that time. It uses general relativity, statistical mechanics, and quantum mechanics to describe the conditions and dynamics of the universe. At this point, it works very well from less than a nanosecond into the expansion phase until the present. In particular, the LCDM (lambda, cold dark matter) theory predicts the detailed nature of the cosmic background radiation and is the modern version of the Big bang scenario with inflation.
So that nanosecond, what happened then?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150320 Jan 27, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, I've not pre-supposed anything of the sort. How about we do this:
Evil: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evi...
So, now that we have a definition, back to the question:
"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"
I'm getting the distinct impression you are very uncomfortable with answering the question.
You have expressed an understanding of a term of morality...

That does not mean you have not appealed to an absolute standard...
Imhotep

United States

#150321 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and I meant to throw in, great effort but sadly with daffy it's a waste of time. You can find dozens of times where he denies what the bible says demanding chapter and verse. You give him the chapter and verse and he either ignores that you provided him with it or uses the standard apologetic excuses A: it's figurative in that case. B: it doesn't really say that and let me dig up an obscure version if the bible that words it slightly differently. C: You are an atheist and so you don't have the secret decoder excuse ring. D: Insert random Ad Hom attack here.
That's Daffy Duck12 for you!
<quoted text>
My principles are not a faith.

I distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.

If one must be defined by some 'brand' of religion I recommend Jainism.

This passionate Muslim woman pens a poem to Allah. Her message applies to all desert religions

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ofzQ2qNBNAg ...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150322 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to challenge this.
It is not "known" that anything is uncaused.
You have assumed something is uncaused, but you have no empirical evidence for that claim.
So you are arguing from a presupposition and not a verifiable fact.
The clarity you claim, does not come supported by the scientific community.
The default position, the null hypothesis as it is called in science, is that nothing is cause by anything. Then you follow the evidence to find what something causes. That's how good science works. You want to work backwards, and start with presumption, not a null hypothesis, that's not how good science works.

We deny your claim that it was all caused by what you want it to be cause by because you lack evidence, you make the claim, we just deny your unsupported claim.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150323 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So that nanosecond, what happened then?
You don't know, we don't know, you just lie and claim you do know.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150324 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sense of reality is a bit distorted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decay
Those alleged muons are jailed by the forces about them. They need to change for the decay to happen. They are corralled within a collection of forces which in turn are corralled by larger forces without. They are captured energies forced into a circuit by the larger universe. Part of the Big Bang thingy of being a contained system of matter and energy, conservation of matter and energy, and all of those other things we assume to be true,
Now, a careful reading of that article, and most any other physics article, will reveal a certain circular logic within the observation process and system based upon math which is based upon perhaps some wrong assumptions made much earlier in the development of the system of said observation process.
Your "reality" based upon such is a delusion.
Good post.
Imhotep

United States

#150325 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and I meant to throw in, great effort but sadly with daffy it's a waste of time. You can find dozens of times where he denies what the bible says demanding chapter and verse. You give him the chapter and verse and he either ignores that you provided him with it or uses the standard apologetic excuses A: it's figurative in that case. B: it doesn't really say that and let me dig up an obscure version if the bible that words it slightly differently. C: You are an atheist and so you don't have the secret decoder excuse ring. D: Insert random Ad Hom attack here.
That's Daffy Duck12 for you!
<quoted text>
Sorry...
Previous response was for another poster.:(

I do appreciate the background on the poster you were referring to.

The Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured goat herders.

Given the information readily available it is odd so many individuals find this book so compelling, yet have never read it!

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150326 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
If you are hanging with me feel free to lose the bra. Let the girls breathe :)
<quoted text>
U lucky u weren't around last night, i was possessed by a spirit or something!

Yes Sir!

I'll teach them the breathing technique u taught me..

Inhale, exhale and repeat....Inhale, exhale and repeat...Inhale, exhale and repeat...!

You were right it does come in handy!

OK, now your turn to let the boys breathe! ;-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150327 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.
I might have to remember that one...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150328 Jan 27, 2013
Serah wrote:
I am glad you appreciate our DNA
Thanks.

And I'm glad that you appreciate pugs. I have a puggle - half pug, half beagle.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150329 Jan 27, 2013
Serah wrote:
You have obviously not had any messages from your Ancestors from the other side.
That is correct, but my eyes and ears are wide open. Maybe today.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150330 Jan 27, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Which, by you way of reasoning, must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... which must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... etc ... etc ... etc.
You probably impress the hell out of yourself by coming up with such reasoning. It sounds so intellectual. Even if it just leaves you sitting there with your mind running in circles, going nowhere.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150331 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably impress the hell out of yourself by coming up with such reasoning. It sounds so intellectual. Even if it just leaves you sitting there with your mind running in circles, going nowhere.
It is a valid point. If everything requires something intelligent to create, then so does that which creates it require something intelligent to create, thereby creating an infinite regression. If one thing can exist, anything at all, without intelligent creation then so can anything exist without intelligent creation. Thus if you propose a god that created this universe that was not created by something else, then the universe itself can happen to exist without that god you proposed, making the existence of such a god meaningless and useless.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150332 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
It is not "known" that anything is uncaused. You have assumed something is uncaused, but you have no empirical evidence for that claim.
The physicists tell us that quantum events are uncaused, and there is good experimental evidence to support that claim.

Do you believe that there is free will? If you believe that any aspect of will is uncaused, then you just contradicted yourself. If you believe that every aspect of will and is determined by a cause, then you have ruled out the possibility of free will.

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... 7 min Eagle 12 4,839
The Consequences of Atheism 9 min Uncle Sam 795
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Thinking 16,760
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 3,044
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 6,043
Is Religion Childish? 8 hr ChristineM 143
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response Sun thetruth 6
More from around the web