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

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150824 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Why is it false?
Empirical observations are NOT founded on the principle of cause and effect. If anything, they are used to test and limit when such a law is applicable. All that is required for empiricism is that we can make observations, form testable hypotheses about those observations, test them, and change the hypotheses if required.

The point is that 'law of cause and effect' holds when physical laws apply that say that some initial state (the cause) leads to some later state (the effect). But the laws of physics are fundamental here and not all physical laws are of this sort.

In fact, the laws of quantum mechanics are not: they say that from an initial state, all that can be known is the *probability* of different final states with no way *even in theory* to determine which final state will actually come to be. In other words, causality does not always hold. But quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. This shows your claim that empirical science is founded on cause and effect to be wrong.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150825 Jan 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Society is better than ever all things considered. Sad your cult teaches you to look so negatively at the world.
Leaving aside your clear inability to interact intelligently and compassionately with someone who does not agree with you...

...How can you make such a universal claim about society?

Many would disagree with your assertion...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150826 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I use the standards of proof within an axiom system for knowledge in the realms of mathematics and logic.

I use empirical evidence for understanding the universe.

So, yes, I do use empirical evidence as the standard of knowledge about anything other than abstract deductive systems.

What other standard of knowledge would you care to use? Faith has shown itself to be incredibly unreliable. Philosophy at best shows some of the possibilities, but tends to mangle the logic so bad that it is irrelevant to any real understanding. Religious texts have to be supported in some other way before they can be relied upon and their basic claims are so unbelievable as to make them suspect from the start.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150827 Jan 29, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>They are scum.
No, they are atheists, who have no basis for morality.

So they can treat people with the most callous disdain, like mocking someones dead sister, with impunity, without breaking their worldview.

But get mighty upset when they are subjected themselves to subjective morality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150828 Jan 29, 2013
So how do you conclude as an atheist that there is a purpose to your life?
And what would you say that purpose is?
I have purpose in my life because *I* decide to. it's that simple.

My purpose is to love, to learn, to teach, to experience, and to encourage.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150829 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The Bible clearly shows that you are lying on this matter.
And as the Bible has shown it can be trusted, then I see no reason to take your word over the truths it clearly reveals.
Your problem is in the sentence:'the Bible has shown it can be trusted'. This is a lie.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150830 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How does a god - or belief in a god - give a life more purpose than it wouldn't otherwise have?
Are you implying that my purpose is to worship it? That's not my purpose - it's the deity's.
As a Christian, your life is devalued and relatively purposeless. In the eyes of your god, you are nothing but a praising machine.
Your purpose - the reason you believe that you were created - is to die and move on to a life of praising some narcissistic black hole of need. In the meantime, you consider the very flesh that you are encased in an your enemy in which you are trapped while awaiting release. You see the world as decadent, and anticipate leaving it, too.
No thanks.
Of course, if God had that character, then what you stated would be reasonable.

Because He does not, it is not...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150831 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are atheists, who have no basis for morality.
So they can treat people with the most callous disdain, like mocking someones dead sister, with impunity, without breaking their worldview.
But get mighty upset when they are subjected themselves to subjective morality.
The basis of morality is easy: think and care. Both follow easily from our being an intelligent, social species.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150832 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
"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?
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?

Also, please supply your source for this amended claim.

Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150833 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a Saint.(Kind of ironic)
Nope. merely human.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150834 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bible can't demonstrate anything but words it contains, which is proof of nothing except that the bible contains them.
<quoted text>
Au contraire. Your bible is riddled with error and contradiction.
<quoted text>
What moral principles are original to Christianity? "Thou shalt not steal"? You stole that from the Jews.
Incidentally, whenever Christians pick and choose which commandments of their bible to accept and which to reject, they are applying an external standard to your so-called absolute biblical morality to do it.
God predates humanity...

You seem to assumed that is not the case.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150835 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Who did you think that you were quoting?
Do us both a favor and rebut my words, not your modified versions of them.
<quoted text>
I didn't say that, either, so no, not very interesting. Nor very honest.
Actually, if the parts are based in facts that are incontrovertible, you can use them to establish the universal...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150836 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I am not sure why you want to claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?

I would say that logical deduction and induction should be the base of all skepticism by the way...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150837 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
So you argue that progression is necessarily better?

You know that is illogical right?
Pat

Granby, CT

#150838 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God predates humanity...
You seem to assumed that is not the case.
Man came first then came his silly imaginary gods.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150839 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If theists stopped being stupid, then no one would have reason to call them stupid. I have faith in things with solid evidence, your god has zero, none, so I dismiss your god like all the others, as mythology. I love evidence, evidence is what I study, without evidence there is nothing to accept or deny, it simply does not require any opinion either way.
I could spend lots of time on the issues with your premises here.

But I won't...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150840 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is not *at all* what the Big Bang theory says. Every sentence in your 'explanation' is factually incorrect.
<quoted text>
And wrong.
Horseshit. That is what it boils down to after the hocus pocus and sophistry is removed.

Now, you explain it to us in plain understandable English. No esoterica.

BTW, your "curved spacetime" is because of gravity. All motion will travel in a straight line unless something acts upon it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150841 Jan 29, 2013
I want to thank everyone for the Mark Twain quotes.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150842 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How does discussing the bible and its perceived, on your part, errors, give you a reason to argue you have purpose?
I didn't mention any errors in your bible, I did, however, point out that your deity in the mythic story did not do what was said it did do. I suppose that could be perceived as an error in the myth on your part.

I stated my purpose, that comment is separate from the error of your deity in the myth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150843 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?
Also, please supply your source for this amended claim.
Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...
Most physicists study quantum mechanics as a requirement for their degree. But the indeterminate nature of the universe comes out specifically in quantum mechanics, so those who study it for a living will be in the best situation to make the judgment about causality in quantum mechanics.

And, in fact, most physicists who think about quantum physics accept that it is an acausal theory and that some events are not caused.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 24 min Eagle 12 4,822
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 51 min One way or another 16,727
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 6,035
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 3,037
The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr polymath257 772
Is Religion Childish? 10 hr Thinking 142
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 21 hr thetruth 6
More from around the web