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

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150928 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your frequent irrational rants against religion and the religious negate any reason or rationality you try to present.
You feel that any notion which opposes your irrational beliefs is irrational and an attack, this is called a defensive mechanism, and it's not a healthy version of one. You are becoming defensive because your god is really your super ego.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150929 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Actually, the lack of belief is agnosticism. It is a passive thing. Atheism is a denial, which is not passive, but definitive.
Langoliers wrote:
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\ˈā-thē-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"
You can't impose your preferred definitions on us. We define ourselves. You can only refuse to respect that, as you always have. Do you think that that tactic is helpful to your purpose?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150930 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You feel that any notion which opposes your irrational beliefs is irrational and an attack, this is called a defensive mechanism, and it's not a healthy version of one. You are becoming defensive because your god is really your super ego.
Hmmmmm.....

That was directed at IANS, yet you felt compelled to interject an objection to my notion which is evidently quite contrary to your beliefs system, oops. I meant non-belief system. IANS is one of 7 billion people, yet you took offense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150931 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
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.
I didn't say that you were required to break any law, only that you were free to.

I also said that with such cheap forgiveness on demand available to you, you are free to lie all you want, especially when proselytizing. Lying for Jesus is OK, right? Christians overrate their religious experience to others every weeks in church, telling them about the victory, and the overwhelming joy in their hearts. Nobody asks for forgiveness for doing that.

And you are bound by nothing. Faith is a choice. You submit to Christianity by choice.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150932 Jan 30, 2013
Speaking of New Orleans and the Topix atheist propensity to see reality in an illusory manner.

The train station in New Orleans is downtown. Busy street in front, tall buildings, an expressway running by it, and the Superdome behind it. Very urban place.

It has a circular drive leading to the front door, usually lined with taxis. There is a small park like area within the confines of that drive, with a few date palms planted.

One day I arrive to catch the train and damned if they aren't having a movie shoot there. A couple of bigger name actors, and I don't remember the name of the movie. But they were shooting an oasis scene in some desert sheik movie. Robes and head dresses. Might have been a horse or two. In the middle of New Orleans.

Topix atheists would pick some sort of "truth" out of that scene.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150933 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Speaking of New Orleans and the Topix atheist propensity to see reality in an illusory manner.
The train station in New Orleans is downtown. Busy street in front, tall buildings, an expressway running by it, and the Superdome behind it. Very urban place.
It has a circular drive leading to the front door, usually lined with taxis. There is a small park like area within the confines of that drive, with a few date palms planted.
One day I arrive to catch the train and damned if they aren't having a movie shoot there. A couple of bigger name actors, and I don't remember the name of the movie. But they were shooting an oasis scene in some desert sheik movie. Robes and head dresses. Might have been a horse or two. In the middle of New Orleans.
Topix atheists would pick some sort of "truth" out of that scene.
Yet you are the one using a 2000 year old copy of the National Enquirer as your source of knowledge. LMAO

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150934 Jan 30, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are the one using a 2000 year old copy of the National Enquirer as your source of knowledge. LMAO
Professing that we are just glorified circuitry being put to use by a higher form of life is based upon a 2000 year old National Enquirer?

Yeah, I can see a Topix atheist believing such. They all know we just got poofed here. They are "real" thingies that arose from maybe a fog. Or maybe a particle. Maybe even a different dimension. Maybe a bunch of numbers had a party and created us. Maybe even we emerged out of total nothingness. But those atheist, they be real. And in the know.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150935 Jan 30, 2013
I love being enthused in my old age. I recently discovered Buckethead, one of the premier guitar shredders, which is a music style I don't much care for. But I found out he also does some very mellow stuff. Check out his Electric Tears and Colma albums. This one here is betwixt and between those styles. Awesome musical talent.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150936 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...
Is your god an absolute?

If so, I'm guessing that you're giving it a pass on any demand that it have a cause. I'm guessing that you're going from strict and rigorous regarding the universe, to anything goes for the god. Am I close?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150937 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
If all that you have as evidence is many people agreeing, that is evidence for many people agreeing, not a god. There is also evidence of many people "sinning." Is that then an absolute moral standard and evidence for a god as well? It isn't, is it?
mtimber wrote:
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
That's a bare claim, not evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150938 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?
Who are you quoting here? Please show me where I said "all physicists"
mtimber wrote:
Also, please supply your source for this amended claim. Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...
What amended claim? If you are referring to the claim that most physicists accept the fact of quantum indeterminacy - that some events at the subatomic level are uncaused - please read the posts addressed to you.

See http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV... please note that "Quantum indeterminacy ... has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics."

Do you know what those words mean?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150939 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What moral principles are original to Christianity?
mtimber wrote:
God predates humanity...
Not by my reckoning. But it would be irrelevant even were it true, because surely you don't claim that Christianity predates man.

Then you have nothing at all to offer as original moral theory from the New Testament or the words of Jesus? Actually, I can name a few Christian ethical values that I believe Jesus was the first to articulate, although none worth saving.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150940 Jan 30, 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."
mtimber wrote:
Actually, if the parts are based in facts that are incontrovertible, you can use them to establish the universal...
That is incorrect. Read it again. We are not discussing universals. We are discussing parts and wholes.

Can you not think of things are true about humanity, but not true about individual human beings? Can a single human being reproduce, or survive for millennia?

How about things that are true about a deck of playing cards, but not true about one card? Can you shuffle or cut one card?

And if you care to rebut a comment, do so. A simple claim to the contrary is merely an opinion, not an argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150941 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I've never said that. If you are going to keep changing my words, we won't accomplish much.
< crickets >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
I am not sure why you want to claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
Are you going to be dead weight in this discussion? I don't intend to drag you through it. Where did I claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
mtimber wrote:
I would say that logical deduction and induction should be the base of all skepticism by the way...
OK. I wouldn't.

But why tell me here and now? Did you think that your comment somehow related to mine?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150942 Jan 30, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
mtimber wrote:
So you argue that progression is necessarily better?
No. Why do you ask?
mtimber wrote:
You know that is illogical right?
I don't know what it means. They're your words.

I've already asked you to respond to my words as I write them, and not to immediately paraphrase them. You seldom get it right when you do. I don't intend to correct any more, just point out that I the words are yours, not mine, and reject your version.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150943 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I love being enthused in my old age. I recently discovered Buckethead, one of the premier guitar shredders, which is a music style I don't much care for. But I found out he also does some very mellow stuff. Check out his Electric Tears and Colma albums. This one here is betwixt and between those styles. Awesome musical talent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =QJrjXsNlxNQXX
Nice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150944 Jan 30, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Man came first then came his silly imaginary gods.
In that case, how do you account for absolute morality?

God has supplied that, as can be evidenced in the fact that all mankind recognises it.

But how do you account for it, when you deny God?

Where does it come from?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150945 Jan 30, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know you stated you have a purpose.

But you claim you are an accident in the universe, so how can you claim there is any purpose to your life?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150946 Jan 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, this is an arbitrary claim on your part.

Can you prove any of the above?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150947 Jan 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. This is part of the general question of inductive inference. But such inference is *always* in doubt to some extent. No number of observations are enough to *require* the next observation to agree.
You wouldn't be arguing causality there would you?

You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction.

Induction relies on causality...

But as you have denied causality as absolute, how do you now account for induction?

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
Evidence for God! 1 hr NightSerf 372
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 23,267
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 4 hr Morse 5,951
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr RayOne 2,621
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 5 hr SnuffAGlobalisst 23
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 10 hr Dee 41
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 10 hr _Bad Company 1,458
More from around the web