Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[nanoanomaly]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Its called hearing voices and its a symptom of mental illness (like creationism). We' not crazy thank you very much.

You don't have to hear voices to be as crazy as a loon, psycho.

[polymath257]

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 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?

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?

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.

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

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?

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.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you asking for a reasoned argument or empirical evidence?
If you are arguing for empirical evidence, because that is the only method by which you measure the universe around you, then I would ask you to empirically show that a "rockdidit" (non life to life).
If you reject God based on a prejudiced appeal to empiricism, then you also have to reject:
arockdidit
nothingdidit

Please point to any post I have ever made where I discussed how life came to be.

It would be wonderful if you didn't post anything else until you did so.

Oh sweet blissful silence.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

LOL...Only a true fundie can say "I am very logical" and "Everything created has a cause" and then turn around and say...well, everything except god..

...and not see the irony.

[Just Think]

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.

[macumazahn]

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".

[mtimber]

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?

[Aerobatty]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>You don't have to hear voices to be as crazy as a loon, psycho.

It helps.

[mtimber]

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...

[mtimber]

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?

[It aint necessarily so]

.

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 I’m in a great deal of doubt.
I don’t get your Divine Plan, what’s 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.
You’d create angels, to obey and worship you.
Maybe this wasn’t 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 don’t 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 — to see who is true
Though saint and sinner, you already knew
But worse than this is the consequence of this test
It’s results are iniquitous — 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 I’ve failed to see
And I don’t understand when so many suffer and die
What is the reason — 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 — as dictated by fate
Will you sit back on your throne to shouts of “Allah is Great”?

[mtimber]

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?

[mtimber]

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]

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.

[mtimber]

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?

[It aint necessarily so]

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?

[mtimber]

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...

[mtimber]

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...