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
144,541 - 144,560 of 224,732 Comments Last updated 42 min ago

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Floral City, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150466
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
How can you purpose anything? You are just an accident in the universe and the consequence of a chemical reaction that went wrong?
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".
mtimber wrote:
Why would you think you have any purpose?
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.
mtimber wrote:
You are just the latest in a long line of accidents, there is no purpose to your life.
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.
mtimber wrote:
You are an atheist, aren't you?
Certainly.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150467
Jan 27, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything caused and everything created are the same thing...
No, they are not even close to being the same. The term 'created' pee-supposes an intelligence working. To be caused does not make that assumption.
I don't know what point you are trying to make there?
That you are slipping relevant assumptions into your argument without justifying the new assumptions.
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...
Whao there! Exactly which 'transcendental laws' do you think govern intelligence that are any different than the laws of physics?
They are absolute.
Which requires an absolute cause.
I.E. God.
All three sentences here are unjustified claims. Why do absolutes need an absolute cause?(and what does it mean to be an absolute cause?) And why does an absolute cause have all the properties associated with deities?

You are making many assertions without any justification. You haven't even defined what it means to be 'caused' yet, let alone what it means to be 'absolute'. For that matter, you haven't defined the term 'God' either.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150468
Jan 27, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
All is forgiven, Clementine.
We'll take care of that liberty guy.
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!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150475
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150479
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••