Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 7,223)

Showing posts 144,441 - 144,460 of223,214
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150362
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are arguing that I deny the first cause argument?
Are you sure you want to take that position?
That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?
It seems to me that you will hold any position temporarily, if you think it will bolster your appeal to yourself being your absolute standand of authority...

I was talking about Dave, Is that you Dave? A slip up with your socks? In general it meant that Dave has his own conceptions of some things, and they do not always agree with known values.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150363
Jan 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response of "god dun it" is irrational, yet you accuse others of not responding rationally. Irony meter, you broke another.
My argument is quite logical.

Everything created has a cause.

The first cause has to be by nature eternal.

To be eternal, the first cause has to operate outside of time.

The first cause has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving and eternal.

On the point of God being eternal.

He reveals the future consistently and accurately, therefore affirming He is outside of time and therefore the First Cause.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150364
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
Whilst standing on the absolute truths of Christianity to deny Christianity.
Shouting out absolutes, whilst denying absolutes.
Screaming absolute moral positions, whilst denying morality.
Using logic, whilst denying the absolute cause of logic and even the existence of logic in some cases.
Arbitrary, inconsistent and illogical.
And yet demanding that people who do not adopt this are lacking in intelligence...
You are the ones asserting there are absolutes. The need for evidence is completely contradictory of claiming there are absolutes. We want evidence, you supply no evidence. Until you supply evidence that there is a god then your god is mythology, that is not an absolute, that is called sanity.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150365
Jan 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an idiot. Us atheists do not say no god exists, we deny your claims of a specific god the way you deny all other religions. So by your own fallacious argument here, you are saying that the other gods do not exist but that yours does, and that in private you actually believe in those other gods as well as your own.
Atheists often say lots of things, often not very consistent with what they have said before.

But atheists are not my absolute standard of truth.

God is.

And God tells us in the Bible, that you do know about Him.

But that you are denying His reality, because you want to live a selfish sinful existence.

On this point, knowing you do not have any absolute requirement for telling the truth as an atheist, I have to accept Gods point of the view on the matter.

I have to remain consistent with my worldview.

I challenge you to do the same.

And on that point, as an atheist, I see no absolute moral reason why you would not lie that you do in fact know God, would you care to explain to me, upon what basis I should believe you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150366
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a numbskull that believes what you want, you make that perfectly clear. Especially with 2 and 3.
You propose to know what different people think , and rewrite what it means to have no knowledge.
You may as well have said, I don't know what you think and I don't care what you think. Because I'll make it up for you.
You did not actually respond to any of my arguments with a logical refutation.

Just an appeal to your own absolute ability to gauge everyone elses intelligence.

Are you omniscient?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150367
Jan 27, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about Dave, Is that you Dave? A slip up with your socks? In general it meant that Dave has his own conceptions of some things, and they do not always agree with known values.
I agree that Dave does not agree with the values that you have no basis to account for as an atheist, but that does not mean that he disagrees with absolute values as you claim here...

You seem to think that your opinion somehow equates with absolute values.

Why is that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150368
Jan 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the ones asserting there are absolutes. The need for evidence is completely contradictory of claiming there are absolutes. We want evidence, you supply no evidence. Until you supply evidence that there is a god then your god is mythology, that is not an absolute, that is called sanity.
Of course I am asserting absolutes.

It is absurd to deny their existence.

You cannot function in this universe without them.

I am asking you to account for them.

But it seems you are reduced to the absurdity of denying them, just so that you an hold onto your own arbitrary opinions about how the universe "should" be.

Notice the "should" in my statement...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150369
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
<quoted text>
You did not actually respond to any of my arguments with a logical refutation.
Just an appeal to your own absolute ability to gauge everyone elses intelligence.
Are you omniscient?
Replying to nonsense is in fact nonsensical , my reply was in order. There was no logical to refute logically.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150370
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Open to all atheists:

Atheists say they lack a belief in God.

God says that isn't true, that they do know of Him, but suppress that truth so they can continue sinning.

Now God, by His nature cannot lie.

But the atheist, appealing to subjective morality, is free to lie at will.

Therefore why would anyone believe an atheist who claims that they lack a belief in God?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150371
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?
And Dr. Collins, while an evangelical Christian, understands that evolution is true and that creationism and ID are garbage. He is very explicit about this in his book.

Once again, I have no problem with someone who can do science rigorously but still believes in a deity (I think they are wrong about the latter, but that is there right). That means accepting that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and that humans have evolved from earlier apes (we are apes still). Dr. Collins is fine with these things.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150372
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that Dave does not agree with the values that you have no basis to account for as an atheist, but that does not mean that he disagrees with absolute values as you claim here...
You seem to think that your opinion somehow equates with absolute values.
Why is that?
Pfft.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150373
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
....
And God tells us in the Bible, that you do know about Him.
....
Where is evidence that your god is real and that your bible is actually it's words?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150374
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.
Since you have not defined the concept of 'x causes y', I guess we are at an impasse. There is no evidence of a cause for the time of a muon decay. We have a predictive theory that describes muon decay as probabilistic with *nothing* different just before the decay from any other time. And you have nothing but stammering that there *must* be a cause.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150375
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the old stick your tongue out argument...
Well, you are the professional in doing it, and it goes to reason you'd recognize it right off the bat.

No proof of that deity though, eh?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150376
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So that nanosecond, what happened then?
We do not know. We have not been able to test our understanding at the energies required for that time period. In particular, we do not have a testable theory of quantum gravity, which would be required to understand the very early universe. But, since the Big Bang is a description of *after* that time period, I don't see the problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150377
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
Open to all atheists:
Atheists say they lack a belief in God.
God says that isn't true, that they do know of Him, but suppress that truth so they can continue sinning.
Now God, by His nature cannot lie.
But the atheist, appealing to subjective morality, is free to lie at will.
Therefore why would anyone believe an atheist who claims that they lack a belief in God?
Interesting, you see, I completely destroy your assertion here.

I don't have sex, at all, I abhor it actually.
I don't lie, it's too complicated to keep lies straight so I just don't do it.
I don't steal, never needed or wanted to.
I don't want anything that I cannot achieve myself, my agnostic father was a firm believer that if you cannot get it yourself, you don't deserve it anyway.
I don't drink, being drunk is horrible to me, losing control of one's mind is something that frightens me.
Never done any drugs other than tobacco.

Oh wait, most of that is not considered a "sin" anyway ... and any action with negative impacts on society can be justified by the bible so meh. Seems I am actually "purer" than even the christians. Wait, what was your point again?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150378
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
He said less than a nanosecond.
It's actually, much, much, MUCH less than a nanosecond, perhaps as little as 5.4 x 10E-44 seconds, the Planck time.
A nanosecond is 10E-9 seconds, a billionth of a second.
A billionth of a billionth of a second is called an attosecond, 10E-18 seconds.
A millionth of this value is called a yoctosecond, 10E-24 seconds. After this, we run out of prefixes, with twenty more powers of ten needed. The amount of time we are discussing is less than a billion billionths of a yoctosecond - much less, about 2%.
54 billion billion billion billion billionths of a second. That's the size of the gap that your god must squeeze into for now.
@ polymath - did I get that right?
Looks good to me.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150379
Jan 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the ones asserting there are absolutes. The need for evidence is completely contradictory of claiming there are absolutes. We want evidence, you supply no evidence. Until you supply evidence that there is a god then your god is mythology, that is not an absolute, that is called sanity.
There is absolutely no requirement that evidence be provided for you in this matter.

This is one of those things where you get it, or you don't. It is not a follow the herd issue, which your type is dependent upon to function. It is a personal issue deciding your future for yourself.

From your perspective your consciousness, your very being, will be dropped in the trash can upon your death in this existence. You will have spent a lot of time dwelling on an issue that means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things. Even any contributions you think you made to the advancement of mankind will be dropped in that same trash can. Succeeding generations will find their own way. You were just a fart in the wind.

Most of the ranting on here is directed against evangelical Christianity and the hierarchy found in organized religions. Pure and simple and plain old resentment of authority. This has caused many of those to deny any and all higher beings being responsible for this creation. It is a whistling by the graveyard thing. Absolute denial as a defense mechanism.

This resentment of authority is something also practiced by the religious. That is why you get so many different sects. All ideologies have people running the show. Religious and non-religious. Secular humanism, progressivenism, and a host of others also develop a hierarchy of people telling you how to act and think.

Spend more time enjoying life, and less in trying to tell others they are wrong for thinking and feeling the way they do.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150380
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No they do not.
Some physicists say that, not all of them.
You have made a false appeal to authority.
The vast majority of them do say that quantum events are uncaused. the basic theory of QM describes things as uncaused (again, depending somewhat on the definition of causality).

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150381
Jan 27, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
My turn my turn! You don't have to tell me twice to let the boys breathe free of the confines of demon pants!
You let the girls breathe along with that breathing exercise I taught you and beautiful babies are bound to happen ;-)
<quoted text>
WHAT BABIES? Where r u taking this?

I'm telling Catcher about u! Just coz i said some things to him, it don't mean i broke the link, watch out, liberty guy!

Tide, take him down!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 144,441 - 144,460 of223,214
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••