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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150446 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The first cause argument is not applicable to the universe as an entity. The idea of causality is derived from experience with objects much smaller than universes that are contained in them. You cannot extend the inductions (generalizations) derived from studying the whole and apply them to the parts. That one is called a fallacy of composition. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compo... :
"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."
We don't have enough information about universes to generalize about them, and there is an excellent argument against anything existing before time. Causes imply a before state and an after state. The word "before" has no meaning until T = 0+.
There is no "before time" just as there is nothing on earth south of the South Pole. The phrase is meaningless, as is the claim of a first cause preceding time.
"You haven't seen everything, so you can't know if causality is constant."

Nice attempt at a rescuing device.

Interesting how you personally however can claim the opposite:

"I haven't seen everything but I do know that causality is not constant."

Interesting that, don't you think?

I can't.

But you can.

An appeal to your own omniscience perhaps?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150447 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you make your own purpose?
You are just a chemical accident that is a smudge on the universes windscreen.
How much purpose do you think you can have as an atheist?
Obviously, as a Christian, I can explain why you have value and why there is a purpose to your life.
But as an atheist you cannot account for it.
You sense your life should have purpose, contrary to your professed atheistic position, because God has revealed that to you. You cannot admit that, because it would mean repenting and turning to the God who gave you purpose.
This is sheer hogwash, a person has what ever purpose they choose to pursue. Even if it is a chosen life of debauchery or world conquest. Indeed it could be one while doing the other, as Caligula proved possible.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150448 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ah so the forum punching bag has switched from stealing Eric Hovind's lame fail word for word and has loved on up to stealing William Lane Craig's Bullsht word for word! Hey! Maybe shock of god is next?
<quoted text>
Your erudite refutations tend to be a little bit arbitrary.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150449 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as I see you present something that goes beyond mere assertion, I'll engage you, as it is, all I've seen you do do far is dodge questions and the only response I see you give to a question is a question of your own, as if yours must be answered first.
I understand why most in the forum don't do much more with you than play.
In other words, you cannot deal with the arguments so hide behind a pretended wisdom...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150450 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
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.
I did half of that last night.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150451 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like a big eyeball to me.
So does the core of the earth.
Cheers, here's looking at you.
:-)
When I look through a telescope and see an eyeball looking back, I'm checking into the top floor of the nearest hospital for some much needed rest. Cat's eye excluded.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150452 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe, but so what? They are still not all equal. One is empirically superior to all of the rest.
At last.

A glimmer of light, all hope is not lost!

So lets examine your claim.

You recognise that all worldviews rest on pre-suppositions, that then have to be tested.

You then set a standard that the correct worldview has to be empirically tested.

Upon that basis, why would you say that "arockdidit", or "nothingexplodedetc" gives you an empirically based advantage?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150453 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not enough. That only makes it (formally) valid, not sound. Its premises have to be correct for it to be sound.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
If your world view and the argument underlying it are based on a false premise, it is wrong, even if consistent.
Indeed, but which of my premises is false?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150454 Jan 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand ltimber is a student at the Eagle School of Grammar.
I am sure he will be glad to hear that.

Mind you, I haven't seen this ltimber post?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150455 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The subjective perception of God means He is not an absolute persona argument...
Three people looking at New York from different angles, means New York doesn't exist...
I hope you get the point.
strawman

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150456 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You need help with this one? OK.
Because somebody lied to you that such a god exists and said such a thing.
You're getting a nice lesson in logic today. I wonder if you can benefit from it.
What is your absolute standard of morality upon which you base this claim?

I point to the eternal pre-existing all knowing absolutely moral God.

What do you point to, as an atheist, to support your claim?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150457 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> This is sheer hogwash, a person has what ever purpose they choose to pursue. Even if it is a chosen life of debauchery or world conquest. Indeed it could be one while doing the other, as Caligula proved possible.
How can you purpose anything?

You are just an accident in the universe and the consequence of a chemical reaction that went wrong?

Why would you think you have any purpose?

You are just the latest in a long line of accidents, there is no purpose to your life.

You are an atheist, aren't you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150458 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
You will have spent a lot of time dwelling on an issue that means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things.
Our selves are not part of the larger scheme of things. Or the smaller scheme of things. At the galactic and subatomic levels we are undetectable. So what? Over eons and nanoseconds, we don't make an impact. So what.

We exist at the scale of a few decades, and experience a few thousand square miles of the surface of a specific planet. At remote addresses and scales of existence, we don't matter. We aren't detectable. So what?

And a god wouldn't change that if it existed. Do you think that you matter more because of one? You probably matter less if there is a god.
Dave Nelson wrote:
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.
What authority?

Who is claiming authority over my life. No god has - just some churches claiming to speak for a god.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150459 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you purpose anything?
You are just an accident in the universe and the consequence of a chemical reaction that went wrong?
Why would you think you have any purpose?
You are just the latest in a long line of accidents, there is no purpose to your life.
You are an atheist, aren't you?

More agnostic than true atheist, My purpose in life is to survive and learn. Far less goals than when I was younger, you do not have to be religious to have goals and purpose.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150460 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you purpose anything?
You are just an accident in the universe and the consequence of a chemical reaction that went wrong?
Why would you think you have any purpose?
You are just the latest in a long line of accidents, there is no purpose to your life.
You are an atheist, aren't you?
Funny how you have to invent a "wrongness" for you to make it sound bad. It's a chemical reaction gone right, actually, because it's one of the few self sustaining chemical reactions, which is why life is one of the most unique.

We create our purpose, you just choose to copy someone's purpose yourself because you are too lazy to make one.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150461 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure he will be glad to hear that.
Mind you, I haven't seen this ltimber post?
I'll say it in a way. That you perhaps. May understand me. That your first name was l, not m. Is what I thought.

By the way, you make scrolling easy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150462 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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?
You have no requirement to tell the truth in your worldview. And all you need after you lie is demand forgiveness. It's automatic, like from a vending machine. Just say a prayer, Claire. And get yourself saved, Dave. That's how you save your ass, Chas. And get into heaven, Kevin.
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150463 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The subjective perception of God means He is not an absolute persona argument...
Three people looking at New York from different angles, means New York doesn't exist...
I hope you get the point.
When you have one... I'll alert the media.

:)

Since: Sep 08

Greater Orion

#150464 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> When I look through a telescope and see an eyeball looking back, I'm checking into the top floor of the nearest hospital for some much needed rest. Cat's eye excluded.
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives...
Lost the original of the avatar. Taken from a section of some nebulae.

Look into my eyes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150465 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you have no evidence, does not mean it does not have a cause.
I agree. But there are many things about quantum mechanics that differ from classical mechanics and one of them is the lack of causes. Since quantum mechanics *does* agree with *all* available evidence, we should give some credence to its conclusions. Among these conclusions are that objects do not have well defined properties outside of observation and that the classical notion of causality does not apply to quantum events.

Now,*you* are, once again, the one claiming that we cannot draw conclusions based on the observations we have done. Among the conclusions is the simple fact that a muon just before a decay is *exactly* the same as a muon at any other time. So the 'cause' of the decay is not internal to the muon. But there is also nothing *outside* interacting, so there is no cause outside either.
It operates within a theoretical system which means that it is affected by other elements.
Please be more detailed here. Which elements do you think it is affected by?
Your argument basically is the same as the flat earth argument.
We cannot prove the earth is not flat, therefore it is flat.
One the contrary, we *can* prove the earth is not flat via observation. Muons have been studies for the last 50+ years and their properties are quite well known.
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...
You may suggest it, but you are wrong. I often wish the universe were more deterministic and had more causality than it does. but the actual evidence is that classical notions of causality are simply wrong. And yes, the tests actually do test *all* possible causal theories.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 22,999
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Thinking 1,403
Islam for peace, or violence? 3 hr Thinking 52
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Thinking 1,061
Man center of the universe. 9 hr hpcaban 88
Does Being 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Really... 9 hr hpcaban 4
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' Mon Thinking 90

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE