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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150391 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?
Because god isn't real and atheists are.

Glad to help.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150392 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?
You jumped the track at "God says".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150393 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is evidence that your god is real and that your bible is actually it's words?
Be specific.

Are you asking for empirical evidence?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150394 Jan 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You don't have to hear voices to be as crazy as a loon, psycho.
It helps.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150395 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Just because you have no evidence, does not mean it does not have a cause.

It operates within a theoretical system which means that it is affected by other elements.

Your argument basically is the same as the flat earth argument.

We cannot prove the earth is not flat, therefore it is flat.

May I suggest you have assumed that, because you need to maintain your worldview and justify a universe that does not have a first cause...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150396 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Do you have an actual argument or logical response to present?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150397 Jan 27, 2013
.
Imhotep wrote:
This passionate Muslim woman pens a poem to Allah. Her message applies to all desert religions
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ofzQ2qNBNAg ...
Nice. I wanted a transcripts of the poem, and found it.If anybody else is interested, here it is:

Dear Allah

I hope you get this letter, as Iím in a great deal of doubt.
I donít get your Divine Plan, whatís it all about?
There you are, before a creation to fill
Nothing but Allah, he, himself and his will,

Perhaps you were lonely, though even then you knew.
Youíd create angels, to obey and worship you.
Maybe this wasnít enough, you were not amused,
But why you created Satan, just leaves me bemused

You gave man a mind and a freewill to choose
Then demanded he believe in irrational, contradictory clues
While keeping yourself hidden from all verification
Threatening torture if we donít prostrate in supplication

You sent prophets and books to a patch of land
And miracles galore to that sacred area of sand
But before man can scientifically record and corroborate
You decide communications must now mysteriously terminate

You say you are testing mankind ó to see who is true
Though saint and sinner, you already knew
But worse than this is the consequence of this test
Itís results are iniquitous ó perverse at best

Those, who accept on faith, myths handed down
Will enjoy eternal bliss and never have to frown
While those who insist on reasoning with their brain
Will be sent to the fire of Hell to suffer eternal pain

Dear Allah none of this makes sense to me
Please tell me if there is something Iíve failed to see
And I donít understand when so many suffer and die
What is the reason ó I cannot see why?

Was it a test for the baby, her father or mother
Or was she sacrificed to test someone other?
When you planned all this did you count every tear
Was your ultimate purpose that we tremble in fear

And when all are in Heaven or Hell ó as dictated by fate
Will you sit back on your throne to shouts of ďAllah is GreatĒ?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150398 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you accept it by faith then, that this event happened.

So on that basis, how do you know tomorrow that the universe will not behave in exactly the same way as it did in the pass?

Considering you allow for unexplained miracles affecting the very existence of the universe?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150399 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You are an atheist.

You have no absolute standard of morality, so no absolute requirement to tell the truth.

You then say you do not lie.

Why should I believe you?

Taking your professed worldview into account, why should I believe you?
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150400 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Read your Bible

Ironically, the shallow nature of fundamentalist Christian talking points can be revealed by looking at the Bible, which is the very tool used to create the talking points in the first place.

According to fundamentalist Christians, the Bible is to be taken seriously as the authoritative word of a supreme, all powerful being.

And yet, the Bible does not confirm the talking points as being reliable or truthful.

One definition of a myth is as follows,
Myth:
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

The key word here is unverifiable.

It cannot be established as reality, factual, or binding on others.

Some popular talking points are listed below, and all of them have more holes in them than a Swiss cheese.

Jesus was fully God and fully man.
Jesus is God, God is Triune, being composed of three co-eternal, co-equal persons.
This is the doctrine of the "Trinity", which is one of the most popular talking points and also one of the most convoluted, unsubstantiated claims in the Christian stable of theistic propaganda.

To be fully God and fully man at the same time is the theological equivalent of a shirt that is made out of 100% wool and 100% cotton.

A son by definition must also be younger than his father.

Christians parrot this "Trinity" canard constantly in an attempt to turn it into reality and a universal fact.

It is nothing of the sort.

The Athanasian Creed, which assertively sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity, also declares it to be incomprehensible.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150401 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Vast majority of phycisists accept that quantum events are uncaused?

Do you have some statistics you can refer to, to support this claim?

Or is this merely your opinion?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150402 Jan 27, 2013
Edited from http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV... :
Dave Nelson wrote:
Those alleged muons are jailed by the forces about them ... 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.
mtimber wrote:
Good post.
So Dave Nelson's thinking resonates with your own, does it? Do you care if you're right about any of this or not?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150403 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The best guesses at this point of what happens before the Planck time:
1. A previous, contracting universe.
2. A multiverse from which ours pinched off.
3. Nothing. Time may simply not be definable then.
And you reject God based on guesses?

Using 2 arguments that argue against causality.

And 1 argument based on the idea that nothing exploded.

So your basic assumptions for the beginning of the universe, and the options you allow, all avoid the need to base those claims on the reality we actually observe?

And then you decry Christianity, which provides a rational testable logical argument for its absolute truth statement...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150404 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
For you seeking evidence of things may not be enjoyment, but for us skeptics that is pleasure. It is more enjoyable to study the evidence and test it yourself, science offers us this opportunity, religion does not because there is no evidence supplied by the religious people. To assert something that lacks evidence as fact is delusion, seek help for that delusion.
Just like Richard Dawkins.

Who makes it his purpose in life to persuade people there is no purpose...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150405 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please notice the shift in language. You went from 'everything has a cause' to 'everything that is created, is created by an intelligence'.
The first, obvious problem is that you have to show that 'being caused' and 'being created' are the same thing. But this is clearly wrong. An ice crystal can be caused by a decrease in temperature, but that crystal need not be 'created by an intelligence'. For example, it can form outside when the temperature drops.
But even your second claim (that everything created is created by an intelligence) is clearly wrong. Consider an ant colony. It was clearly created by those ants, but ant are not typically said to have intelligence. In fact, the creation of the ant colony is an instinctual act, not an intelligent one. The same can be said for spider webs, for example.
Finally, even if your (faulty) assumption that all created things are created by intelligences, to get your argument off the ground you still need to show those intelligences are created. Otherwise, your regression stops with human creators.
Everything caused and everything created are the same thing...

I don't know what point you are trying to make there?

As to your main point, it is easy to see that intelligence was created, as intelligence is governed by transcendental laws and absolutes that are not derived from that intelligence...

They are absolute.

Which requires an absolute cause.

I.E. God.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150406 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You just have to love the circularity here. You assume there is a God that says this. And then you disbelieve the people who are right in front of you who say differently about themselves. Why should we believe you when you say there is a God?
Very simple.

I point to God as a basis for my absolute standard of morality.

And as He is eternal and all powerful, that makes perfect sense.

You however, claim you do not believe in absolute moral standards, so there is nothing to stop you from lying.
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150407 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
.<quoted text>
Nice. I wanted a transcripts of the poem, and found it.If anybody else is interested, here it is:
Dear Allah
I hope you get this letter, as Iím in a great deal of doubt.
I donít get your Divine Plan, whatís it all about?
There you are, before a creation to fill
Nothing but Allah, he, himself and his will,
Perhaps you were lonely, though even then you knew.
Youíd create angels, to obey and worship you.
Maybe this wasnít enough, you were not amused,
But why you created Satan, just leaves me bemused
You gave man a mind and a freewill to choose
Then demanded he believe in irrational, contradictory clues
While keeping yourself hidden from all verification
Threatening torture if we donít prostrate in supplication
You sent prophets and books to a patch of land
And miracles galore to that sacred area of sand
But before man can scientifically record and corroborate
You decide communications must now mysteriously terminate
You say you are testing mankind ó to see who is true
Though saint and sinner, you already knew
But worse than this is the consequence of this test
Itís results are iniquitous ó perverse at best
Those, who accept on faith, myths handed down
Will enjoy eternal bliss and never have to frown
While those who insist on reasoning with their brain
Will be sent to the fire of Hell to suffer eternal pain
Dear Allah none of this makes sense to me
Please tell me if there is something Iíve failed to see
And I donít understand when so many suffer and die
What is the reason ó I cannot see why?
Was it a test for the baby, her father or mother
Or was she sacrificed to test someone other?
When you planned all this did you count every tear
Was your ultimate purpose that we tremble in fear
And when all are in Heaven or Hell ó as dictated by fate
Will you sit back on your throne to shouts of ďAllah is GreatĒ?
Thank you, I found it poignant.

I treat each God with equal opportunity criticism.
Gods are welcome to complain at any time.

:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150408 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is false. Science is NOT built upon the first cause argument. Nor is it necessarily built on the concept that everything has a cause. It *is* built on the idea that we can make and test predictions based on our hypotheses.
All empirical observations are founded on the presupposition of the reliability of the laws of cause and effect.

I am not sure where you are going with this one.

Is this another attempt to deny the obvious?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150409 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inability to see moral reason outside of the belief in a deity is not our failing. Most atheists are atheists because they have a respect for truth. Most have searched for your God and have not found him, have read the Bible and found it repulsive, and have looked at the theological arguments and have found them wanting. Your refusal to take our lack of belief at face value shows a disrespect that make conversation difficult, if not impossible.
Finally, you have given us no reason as for why we should believe *you*. You claim to believe in a God, but cannot give us any evidence of this being. You say it is clear, but cannot provide anything in support of that clarity. And you claim your particular interpretation is correct without distinguishing it from all the others. I think you actually doubt the existence of God and are lying to us.
Atheists have a respect for truth?

How do you account for the concept of "truth" if there are no absolutes?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150410 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an atheist.
You have no absolute standard of morality, so no absolute requirement to tell the truth.
You then say you do not lie.
Why should I believe you?
Taking your professed worldview into account, why should I believe you?
Well, because no one has yet to demonstrate that I lied. If you believe your christians don't lie, then you are more deluded than I once thought. You lie about having evidence all the time. As for absolute, even your morality is not absolute, you just pick and choose which parts of your spoonfed morals you want to follow, and ignore all the rest, it is you we cannot trust, because you profess an absolute when there is none, that is how people make excuses for bad behavior.

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
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 1 hr geezerjock 1,263
Really, God? 1 hr geezerjock 1
Is Religion Childish? 1 hr geezerjock 5
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr macumazahn 14,717
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr thetruth 1,502
why? 7 hr thetruth 60
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 10 hr Mikko 23,494
More from around the web