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

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150469 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Except that I am interested in truth and that lying makes it much more difficult to determine truth. Your justification of God as a standard of morality is also circular, since give no reason to think there is such a thing and you justify its existence via the existence of God.

Come on, I know you are better than that. You can think a bit more about your assumptions and where they might be wrong. it's a healthy exercise.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150470 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
All empirical observations are founded on the presupposition of the reliability of the laws of cause and effect.
This is false.
I am not sure where you are going with this one.
Is this another attempt to deny the obvious?
I am attempting to show that things you think are obvious are, in fact, false.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150471 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists have a respect for truth?
How do you account for the concept of "truth" if there are no absolutes?
Truth is a defined concept that, essentially, means correspondence with observations. There is more to it, but that is a good first approximation.

Or, if you wish,*you* could give a definition of the term 'truth'. But I have noticed that you don't like actually defining your terms.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150472 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not believe there was an eternal source for the universe?
I don't even know what the term 'eternal' means in this context. If you mean 'for all time', then since time is *part* of the universe, it is rather meaningless to talk about an eternal source for it. Now, you can talk about things 'beyond time and space', but there is no evidence for such things and it isn't even clear how one would *find* such evidence.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150473 Jan 27, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, u forgave me. I asked for forgiveness on the other thread, oh nevermind! Thanks sugarplum! it won't happen again...but i can't tell the future so i'm not sure!:-p
We gotta take care of lagoon guy, too! I just don't know what he thinks of himself! I called him a 'militant atheist', i think he's angry!
I don't know this goon guy you're talking about.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150474 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Be specific.
Are you asking for empirical evidence?
Yes, please supply empirical evidence that your God exists and that the Bible is accurate.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150475 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Causality points to an eternal source, do you deny that?
yes, I specifically deny this.

Here is one version of the law of causality: anything that is caused is caused by something physical. That is supported by *all* the evidence. Your 'first cause' argument fails with this version of the law.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150476 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Because they agree with the theoretical structures that best fit *all* the data we have. Now, if you want to provide a different theoretical structure that is testable and gives a different conclusion, please let us know. But be explicit about the tests that we can do to check that theoretical structure.

Your objection to the idea of 'nothing exploded' boils down to the concept of conservation of mass/energy. But that law essentially says that the total amount of mass and energy at two different *times* will be equal. Time is built into the law. If time itself starts along with the universe (which is a part of all modern theories), then there was 'nothing' before simply because there *was no before*.

We are NOT saying 'at some time there was nothing and that nothing exploded'. We are saying 'there was no time before the expansion started'. Do you see the difference?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#150477 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>How can you purpose anything?
This guy is not too terribly brilliant, but he is playing you guys as if he was.

All that he has done is, taken you {Non-Believers} back to a point that you have to admit that science does not have the answer and then claim god did it.

So far, science cannot tell us how the universe or life was created. mtimber uses that, plus a bit of word twisting, denial, and ignorance and he has you hooked!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150478 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> No, actually that is what your mythic deity/creation story is premised upon. The two ultimate creations in that story were flawed, an accident. They were intended to be perfect. The mythic deity failed in its intent and "design".
<quoted text> I'm here, now, living and an asset to this world, that's purpose enough. I don't need, nor do I desire to think a deity for which there is no unbiased evidence created the universe and all in it.
<quoted text> Again, that's the basis of your mythic deity story, in which the original two humans created were flawed, accidents, a planned perfection created by your deity, a failure. Imperfect.
<quoted text> Certainly.
Where does it say it was a planned perfection?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150479 Jan 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Please be more detailed here. Which elements do you think it is affected by?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
"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."

Prove that last phrase.

You can't.

There is no difference between a bubble at the bottom of the ocean being affected by water pressure and a muon anywhere in the universe. All in the same container. Buoyancy is universal if gravity is. More accurately, is the forces and relationships in all directions that causes buoyancy.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#150480 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say it was a planned perfection?
So "original sin" was part of the plan all along. Interesting twist for an apologetic position. So this deity created hell and the serpent and set the whole thing up. Then pretends it's all Eve's fault. That is one vile, sick deity you grovel to.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150481 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Imply what you like, it is irrelevant to the point I made...
Nice dodge, bro.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150482 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you cannot deal with the arguments so hide behind a pretended wisdom...
Pot, meet kettle.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150483 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say it was a planned perfection?
The deity is infallible. That is its stated nature within the bible.

Personally, it makes little difference to me since I find it to be a myth, but the deity is said to be perfect in all it does.

Look at this verse in Deuteronomy.

TNK Deuteronomy 32:4 The Rock!-- His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just; A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He.(Deu 32:4 TNK)

Now: TNK Genesis 2:2 On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.(Gen 2:2 TNK)

The claims within the bible are that all work the deity performs is perfect.

The deity judged the work it had performed as "very good":

TNK Genesis 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.(Gen 1:31 TNK)

I'm not the one writing this stuff. That is the "official" Judaic take on the deity. Within the myth, all the deity does is perfect. This is no secret.
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150484 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Moral God?

Read the Bible

When a person reads declarations like this, they must always keep in mind that to a zealous Christian, all other belief systems are false by definition.

Nothing moral exists outside of the theological cocoon Christians reside in.

So of course, when these zealots speak of a "belief in and love for God", it must be the Bible God and no other. In other words, unless you believe in and love the Bible God, you can never be "totally" moral.

There are many examples of God's "morals" which are anything but moral according to modern "civilized" societies.

Perhaps the most obvious example of God's questionable morals can be found regarding the issue of slavery.

The Bible God endorsed slavery. That's a fact according to the Bible. Christians however, don't like this to be pointed out about their God so they'll attempt to dilute this ugly fact by claiming that God simply "tolerated" slavery but never endorsed it.
A few quotes from the Bible dissolve this cozy notion and rather lame attempt to wash God's hands of this ugly doctrine.

The Bible God gave instructions on how his chosen people should wage war against their various neighbors:

Deut 20:10-11
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries(forced laborers) unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

Notice that if the people of the attacked city accept the "offer of peace" they will become slaves of God's chosen people. Forced labor is slavery.

Deut 20:12-16
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Notice that God instructs his people to completely annihilate nearby nations, killing anything that "breathes", while nations further outside an immediate zone of holiness will have their men killed, their women, children, livestock and everything else taken as plunder by God's chosen people.

Does any of this actually sound "moral" ? This is the same Bible God which Christians say that society must believe in and love in order to have a totally moral society.

Are slavery and mass genocide "moral" just because this deity commanded it?

Read the Bible... It is obvious you enjoy scant knowledge of its contents.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150485 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is quite logical.
Everything created has a cause.
Everything created from other materials or from nothing?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The first cause has to be by nature eternal.
Why? Because nothing came before it?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
To be eternal, the first cause has to operate outside of time.
""Operate" outside of time" is illogical. Like its royal blue but colorless.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The first cause has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving and eternal.
Huge jump. Also has nothing to do with love.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No. That is what you believe and I understand you feel it is true... Maybe you could give an example of this accurate future he revealed. However predicting the future doesn't "prove" being outside of time. There is no reason to make that connection.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150486 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The deity is infallible. That is its stated nature within the bible.
Personally, it makes little difference to me since I find it to be a myth, but the deity is said to be perfect in all it does.
Look at this verse in Deuteronomy.
TNK Deuteronomy 32:4 The Rock!-- His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just; A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He.(Deu 32:4 TNK)
Now: TNK Genesis 2:2 On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.(Gen 2:2 TNK)
The claims within the bible are that all work the deity performs is perfect.
The deity judged the work it had performed as "very good":
TNK Genesis 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.(Gen 1:31 TNK)
I'm not the one writing this stuff. That is the "official" Judaic take on the deity. Within the myth, all the deity does is perfect. This is no secret.
You think much the same of scientists.

They know more than you, so they must be right. Perfect.

Yessir, Boss, you right. No argument from me.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150487 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You think much the same of scientists.
They know more than you, so they must be right. Perfect.
Yessir, Boss, you right. No argument from me.
Scientists will also allow you to see and test their evidence, which is a huge improvement from what preachers do.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150488 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Keep quacking daffy at least you are good for a laugh.
I couldn't help but notice you failed to answer my question about Jesus' failed prophecy, must be a tremendous shame that your messiah failed so miserably and worse lied to children! Tisk! How low could he go?
So do tell daffy, you lied oops I mean claimed that your dad was an atheist but converted on his death bed when a Middle Eastern man went into his room yes? So who was this Arab anyways? I mean you do know hospitals just don't allow anyone to go into patients rooms especially deathly ill patients thy are understandably extra protective of. When my grandpa was dying I always had to sign in even though they knew me by name. So this Middle Eastern man had to have been on his approved contact list or had to be an approved member of the hospital staff. Now for concern of your father when he told this story didn't you enquire who this strange person was? Who was he? What did he do?
<quoted text>
Out goes through yonder open window the noxious words of a immoralist. Sardonic by nature and perfidious in action. These drossy words of a unlettered katzenjammer ninnyhammer do I cast threw into the abyss from which it came.

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... 4 min Thinking 2,226
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Thinking 23,171
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 16 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 16 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 17 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 18 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 20 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web