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 (Page 7,244)

Showing posts 144,861 - 144,880 of223,260
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150793
Jan 29, 2013
 
This is highly amusing.

"Informed" individuals reinterpreting the Big Bang theory. Then throwing in fancy words and concepts that sound good.

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. Gravity caused motion, bringing them together, which set the stage for the other forces to be created.

A drop of water getting zapped and exploding, then cooling down, but without the pre-existing granularity of its molecular composition. This condensation of the original material or energy created the granularity we have now, and which developed into our present physical world. Such is assumed, anyhow.

A well known process in physics, but dressed up in fancy and obscure words to make the wannabe priests look smart.

That simple. All wrapped up in a mustard seed.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150794
Jan 29, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
Mark Twain an Atheist?
Yes I know Atheist make that claim.
Research tells a much different story. He wasnít fond of religion but did acknowledge he believed in God. He didnít seem to be steadfast in his belief but moved back and forth on the issue at different times in his life.
He did attend church several times and helped his brother build a church. However there wasnít a solid comment from him as would be in others.
Thatís why I used his quote because it fit Atheist to a Tee. He was a very talented author and happened to be raised up about two hours from where I live.
It makes me no difference if you claim him or not.
A few Twain quotes:

Man is a marvelous curiosity Ö he thinks he is the Creator's pet Ö he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea.

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.

A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.

If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.

Nothing agrees with me. If I drink coffee, it gives me dyspepsia; if I drink wine, it gives me the gout; if I go to church, it gives me dysentery.

Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150795
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
A white light shines. White as in all colors and wavelengths of the EM spectrum.
Put a filter in front and you bias it so you see a predominate color. Alternatively, your physical construction only allows certain wavelengths to register. This varies to a degree within humans. You can only see what you can see.
The universe is light.
Topix atheists are living in the dark.
Well that was random...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150796
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
More agnostic than true atheist, My purpose in life is to survive and learn. Far less goals than when I was younger, you do not have to be religious to have goals and purpose.
If you are an agnostic, how can you then deny the possibility of God?

That is contradictory.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150797
Jan 29, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you have to invent a "wrongness" for you to make it sound bad. It's a chemical reaction gone right, actually, because it's one of the few self sustaining chemical reactions, which is why life is one of the most unique.
We create our purpose, you just choose to copy someone's purpose yourself because you are too lazy to make one.
Ok, let us just say you are a chemical accident.

What purpose is there in you being a chemical accident?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150798
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, the lack of belief is agnosticism. It is a passive thing. Atheism is a denial, which is not passive, but definitive.

If you get on here prosyletizing atheism, then you have a belief. Which is most definitive.
I might add this.

Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight.
Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.

Merriam - Webster

athe¬∑ist\ňąńĀ-thńď-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

"who believes". That's a positive assertion. Seeing as there is no proof of your belief It's FAITH.

Faith:
"Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion"

Ah yes Atheism is a Religion.

Have a nice day and don't forget to go to church.

Posted else where by derek4

From: The Columbus Dispatch:

February 4, 2011

Church, without God

¬ďStan Bradley likes Bible stories, admires Martin Luther and uses expressions such as 'heavens, no.'

The Lithopolis man is president of a local congregation and rarely misses a Sunday service. Occasionally, he goes to his wife's church instead.

For these and other reasons, Bradley considers himself religious.¬Ē

He is also an atheist.

continued:

¬ďLike Bradley, some atheists participate in organized religion for its social and psychological benefits.¬Ē

continued:

¬ďChurches are great places to find friends, support and youth education, so nonbelievers and believers alike join congregations to fill those needs, he said.

He has spoken to elderly and sick people who can no longer go to church and they say they most miss the feeling of community.

Recent research from Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin backs him up. It found that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, not because of belief but because of the friendships found at church.¬Ē
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith...

¬ďreligious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people¬Ē[I have said this all along, and my posts are still on the board to confirm it. Now you hear it straight from the atheist, lol.]

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150799
Jan 29, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is not correct.

I am bound by Gods absolute moral law.

That I can seek forgiveness, is not the same as requiring that I break Gods law, which seems to be what you are arguing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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‚ÄĒnot 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150802
Jan 29, 2013
 
My Brother came into the world to save the world.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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‚ÄĒnot 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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 144,861 - 144,880 of223,260
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••