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: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150611 Jan 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Cantilever, truss, suspension, beam or other?
<quoted text>
I don't know. I'm not an architect, I'm a musician.

I play the violin. The acoustics were nice. You tell me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150612 Jan 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry, but the physics community has the final word on physics, not the Christian community, and the overwhelming majority say that quantum indeterminacy is a fact.
mtimber wrote:
You keep making a claim that the majority of physicists vocally support you. Can you point me to the evidence for that please? Sounds to me, that you are making a claim that you cannot support.
"Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterm...

Can you understand that, and why it says that most quantum physicists accept the notion that subatomic events occur uncaused?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150613 Jan 28, 2013
It would be nice to think suspension because of the strength of strings.

Violinists have lovely f holes.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I'm not an architect, I'm a musician.
I play the violin. The acoustics were nice. You tell me.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#150614 Jan 28, 2013
This supposed sister, if we want to entertain she didn't just steal some random story for attention, died decades before he was born. Even the parents picked up the pieces and moved on had more kids and worked through it as best they can.

This was a tragic family story to her nothing more if it's true and actually her sister it still happened several years before she was even born so what bereavement? It's not like they had ever spent time together.

And to go on public forums and bring up this long dead family member who you never met is well.... Nutty.
Thinking wrote:
She's annoyingly thick but I don't want her to be unhappy.
I've helped neighbours through bereavement, the believers cope as badly as the rest of us. Hopefully she'll find solace some day.
<quoted text>

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150615 Jan 28, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Lola - kinks
I met her in a club down in old Soho
Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry-cola
Coca-Cola]
C-O-L-A cola
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a DARK BROWN voice she said Lola
L-O-L-A Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Oh my Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Well we drank champagne and danced all night
Under electric candlelight
She picked me up and sat me on her knee
And said little boy won't you come home with me
Well I'm not the world's most passionate guy
But when I looked in her eyes well I almost fell for my Lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
I pushed her away
I walked to the door
I fell to the floor
I got down on my knees
Well I looked at her and she at me
Well that's the way that I want it to stay
And I'll always want it to be that way for my Lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Well I'd left home just a week before
And I'd never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said little boy I'm gonna make you a man
Well I'm not the world's most masculine man
But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
That's a totally gay song.

There are newer ones.

This isn't one of them.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150616 Jan 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It would be nice to think suspension because of the strength of strings.
Violinists have lovely f holes.
<quoted text>
It was concrete.

Violinists have calloused fingers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150617 Jan 28, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Interesting, you don't know if it was Gods, but you do know that it wasn't God?
I said "a god or, more likely, gods." I don't appreciate you continually modifying my comments.

But yes, gods in the generic cannot be completely ruled out. Yours can.
mtimber wrote:
I think you prejudice against Christianity is clearly revealed here.
What prejudice? I have come to a rational conclusion. Two plus two equals four, which is prejudice against the number five.
mtimber wrote:
1. I don't know what did it.
2. It might have been gods.
3. It definitely wasn't God.
Do you think this is "logical" reasoning?
Yes, if by "God" you mean Jehovah-Jesus, Satan, YHWH, Allah, or any other desert deity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150618 Jan 28, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I don't suppose he made a video of it as well?
Not to my knowledge. The First Three Minutes is a fairly short and easy read.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150619 Jan 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand ltimber is a student at the Eagle School of Grammar.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150620 Jan 28, 2013
I've never seen a concrete violin before.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
It was concrete.
Violinists have calloused fingers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150621 Jan 28, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Causality points to an eternal source, do you deny that?
What does that mean? Are you saying that the existence of the universe requires a god? If so, I don't think that you are justified in that assumption.

Nevertheless, I have said that I will stipulate to the existence of a god or gods for our discussion, so you can dispense with the cosmological argument with me. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Why don't we proceed to the part of your argument where you demonstrate that that first cause is Jehovah-Jesus. Because without that, I have no reason to worship or pray to that god, nor to read your bible, nor to enter a Christian church.
mtimber wrote:
Are you saying all the atheists that argue for an eternal source are acting on blind faith?
No.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150622 Jan 28, 2013
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.
mtimber wrote:
"You haven't seen everything, so you can't know if causality is constant."
Who did you think that you were quoting?

Do us both a favor and rebut my words, not your modified versions of them.
mtimber wrote:
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.
I didn't say that, either, so no, not very interesting. Nor very honest.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150623 Jan 28, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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?
I've never said that. If you are going to keep changing my words, we won't accomplish much.

My worldview - rational skepticism - is superior to yours - Christian fideism - based on the results each has produced both in my life and in the world.

Work with that. Please don't reword it and then argue with yourself again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150624 Jan 28, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Indeed, but which of my premises is false?
The existence of the Christian god. Its existence is demonstrably false. It's account of creation is wrong in every detail except one, for starters.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150625 Jan 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Really? You need help with this one? OK. Because somebody lied to you that such a god exists and said such a thing.
mtimber wrote:
What is your absolute standard of morality upon which you base this claim?
How many times do you need to be told the same thing? No such thing exists or is necessary

Furthermore, mine was an existential claim, not a moral judgment.
mtimber wrote:
I point to the eternal pre-existing all knowing absolutely moral God. What do you point to, as an atheist, to support your claim?
Myself, people like me, and the empirical validity of rational ethics. It keeps making the world better.

Look at St.Paul, who with a simple pronouncement dispensed with Old Testament law and the law of Jehovah-Jesus.

Jesus taught in Matt. 5:18-19 that Old Testament law was still in effect: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

But Paul had a different idea in Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for every one who believes." That's rational ethics. Those laws were ridiculous, Paul recognized that, and simply dispensed with them.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#150626 Jan 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a totally gay song.
There are newer ones.
This isn't one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bkG9BKgDvNIXX
If you were old, it would still be cool!!
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150627 Jan 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
we to believe these are your words and not from an Atheist web site?
I find it so odd that if a Christian goes to a Christian site and repost something already in print. The Atheist cast repulsive comments for such action.
You have also failed to list your source which can be found. This is plagiarism, my good Atheist friend. It is taking what someone else owns and claiming it for yourself.
These are not your arguments but repost from off the shelf Atheist web sites. I would challenge you to come up with your own words and research.
Try this site, Christian.
PTL!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

Learn from this one
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150628 Jan 28, 2013
Serah wrote:
While I see no irreconcilable conflicts between the book of Genesis and evolutionary science, what we are learning about the relatedness of all living things through the information molecule of DNA offers the chance of a new and exciting interpretation of God’s plan in creating humans in His image.
From *your* post. Francis Collins understands evolution and knows it happened. He also thinks it is consistent with the Biblical account.

Once again, as long as he does his science correctly and doesn't attempt to get religion taught as science, I have no problem.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150629 Jan 28, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you have experienced amazing coincidences or deja vu?
Yes to the déjà vu.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150630 Jan 28, 2013
solopassage wrote:
Jesus corrected the Jewish doctrines of the Old Testament by introducing a new system of ethics
What ethics were introduced by Jesus?

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
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 14 min Thinking 142
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 27 min Thinking 2,278
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 hr polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 15 hr Yiago 148
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 21 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 21 hr thetruth 67
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists Fri Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web