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

#150800 Jan 29, 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.
I think you are equivocating a lack of an account for a cause, with a lack of a cause...

Hence your argument then permits you to deny causality.

Which of course means denying the process of logic itself.

Meaning you have argued that a lack of logic is logical.

Which is illogical.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150801 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?
"If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory."

“My Brother Lives”

Since: Jan 13

Nazareth

#150802 Jan 29, 2013
My Brother came into the world to save the world.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150803 Jan 29, 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.
How does discussing the bible and its perceived, on your part, errors, give you a reason to argue you have purpose?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150804 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.
<quoted text>
Only in the very first approximation. It is actually a description of the available quantum states. That is its *statistical mechanics* definition.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150805 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
That you are slipping relevant assumptions into your argument without justifying the new assumptions.
<quoted text>
Whao there! Exactly which 'transcendental laws' do you think govern intelligence that are any different than the laws of physics?
<quoted text>
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.
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150806 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.

That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...

Of course you will deny both these facts, but that does not stop them being true...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150807 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
The Big Bang theory is a region of what we call space, or a small particle, got very hot and agitated and went flying to pieces. It was assumedly a monolithic substance or collection of energy. After going to pieces and expanding the energy, which they refer to as heat, got dissipated and condensed into droplets, which became matter.
No, this is not *at all* what the Big Bang theory says. Every sentence in your 'explanation' is factually incorrect.
That simple. All wrapped up in a mustard seed.
And wrong.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150808 Jan 29, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>FYI
Mark Twain was an ATHEIST ...LOLOLOL
Yup that's why he was embarrassed by his fellow atheist and told them to shut the h..... Up and get you facts straight before flapping your jowls.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150809 Jan 29, 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.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is false.
<quoted text>
I am attempting to show that things you think are obvious are, in fact, false.
Why is it false?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150810 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, please supply empirical evidence that your God exists and that the Bible is accurate.
Why would you insist on empirical evidence as the only basis for the proof of God?

Do you use that standard in testing all knowledge?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150811 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>In my view, theists are deluded.

That's what I think, using my reasoning power.

It's not a belief.
Sense there is no proof to your "view" it's a believe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150812 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a
A rather bad misunderstanding of both the first and second laws as applied to curved spacetime.
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory."
Which proponent of the Big bang theory denies that the early universe was a low entropy state?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150813 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So your argument is that all there is is infinite egress?

You deny that cause and effect point to a first cause?

You deny basic scientific and logical observations, based on what reasoning?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150814 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
And to the extent that such standards exist, they are explained by the simple fact that we are a social species.
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
Of course you will deny both these facts, but that does not stop them being true...
And you will continue to promote these ideas in spite of their being false.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150815 Jan 29, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
You have obviously not understood my argument.

I reject your strawman.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150816 Jan 29, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>Agnosticism is lack of knowledge.

Atheism is lack belief.

There is a difference.
Wikipedia:

agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150817 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...
Please state the 'principle of cause and effect' and demonstrate why it applies to moral standards. In particular, please define what it means for one thing to cause another.

the point? I think you are completely wrong here.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150818 Jan 29, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You did not argue a reason for your own morality.

You have just argued you do not like biblical morality, which was irrelevant to the point.

So I will ask you the same question again:

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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150819 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are equivocating a lack of an account for a cause, with a lack of a cause...
No, I am very well aware of the distinction between the two ideas. I am claiming a *lack* of cause as shown by explicit experiments (like Arrow's demonstration) to test general causality.
Hence your argument then permits you to deny causality.
Which of course means denying the process of logic itself.
No, it most certainly does not. Logical derivation has nothing to do with causality. Logic is an abstract collection of methods of deriving truths from previous truths. Causality has to do with how the laws of physics allow one to deduce a later state from an initial state.
Meaning you have argued that a lack of logic is logical.
Which is illogical.
Your lack of understanding of logic is not my problem.

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) 18 min J RULES 23,244
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 hr Even Steven 2,607
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 6 hr Richardfs 166
God' existence 8 hr polymath257 84
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 12 hr Mikko 5
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr Mikko 1,452
Evidence for God! 12 hr Morse 369
More from around the web