Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[RiversideRedneck]

KittenKoder wrote:

So you prefer not knowing what people really think or would really do in a given situation then trusting them.
Detail exactly what benefit you have when conversing "in person" over that of online.

It doesn't take a month to get out a 3 minute conversation...

You can hear inflections in their voice & see their body language. With this online crap, you don't even know what they look like.

[RiversideRedneck]

trekx wrote:

<quoted text>
From my history book ...
Serbians who were mistreated by the Austrian Government who enforced higher taxes to pay for churches. So Austria invaded Serbia angering other countries which turned into everyone picking sides and fighting each other. So technically religion was a root cause of World War 1. And World War 2 was also mainly caused by religion. Primarily Catholicism cause these wars.
Just like most wars, World War 1 was started by religion.
Plus there are many other country's that have wars that dont involve America that are mostly religious ....

WWI was about territory, not religion. The most immediate cause for the war was tensions over territory in the Balkans.

[RiversideRedneck]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Lies.

[RiversideRedneck]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

Does your sorry ass think this is a "social arena" and we're being "social"?!

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Yes.
You're confusing two similar and related words:
Social - of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society
Sociable - marked by or conducive to friendliness or pleasant social relations

OK, then by your definition, we're relating to human society....

But we sure as shit ain't 'being' social.

[RiversideRedneck]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
God is not natural and can't have supernatural powers. Period.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[RiversideRedneck]

EmpAtheist wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats wonderful, except he keps pointing out that the comparison was with Jesus.

I know. That's the funny part.

Jesus wasn't human

[RiversideRedneck]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty much all of your points can be boiled down to:
People can lie online so they do.
Which is fallacious. Anonymity allows people to not lie, that was the point I stated, but it's not true anonymity, which destroys several of your points as they contradict each other as well as that one simple fact.
Let's use me as an example. In the physical world I am myself, a very open and outspoken atheist, and I am asexual. When a male flirts with me, I tend to ignore it, and tell them no. Their "feelings" get hurt because they're trying to impress their "friends" so they make themselves get angry and begin calling me names, like "dyke" and other variants. I am strong and just ignore them, a few times the cops have offered to arrest guys for that but I tend to decline and just prefer they make fools of themselves anyway.
I also speak freely about being an atheist all the time, if I am traveling to somewhere with someone there's always that "shh, you shouldn't talk about such things" from them, always. People are more interested in their social "appearances" in the physical world than being honest, online you can find a racist/sexist/phobic person in a few posts and know you don't want to associate with them, and then avoid them. In the physical world you cannot avoid the toxic people.

"When a male flirts with me"

Sorry, HA HA HA !!!!

[RiversideRedneck]

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>
Rational ideas based on mountains of evidence? Idiotic!
Man made out of dust and woman made out of a rib? Genius!

There is no evidence to suggest that all life came from one life.

Without that guess thrown in the mix, ToE has nothing.

[Tide with Beach]

mtimber wrote:

I don't have to make a case, the truth of Gods existance is self evident.
Why do you think you have the right to put God on trial?

Either your faith has made you intellectually incompetent, or you always were, and it merely stunted your intellectual growth.

[Aura Mytha]

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>
You athesists are a pack of hypocritical anal retentive clods. You run off at the mouth with certainty about the delusional Christian until you are faced with uncertainty, that is. Lying on your death bed knowing that your life is about to vaporize into nothingness, you will cling to even a thin sliver of hope, whether delusion or not, if it keeps you alive.

I have no problem whatsoever with a person who wishes to believe in god. I do have a problem with people who deny the things that are known. You can't can't have a belief in god that distorts the known truths in the reality of the physical universe. You shoot yourself in the foot ,and your belief and becomes looking really stupid when you adhere to ancient mythology's and expect it hold truth and wisdom in the modern world of scientific reasoning.
You fantasy about our end of days is saying more about yourself than it is of anyone else.

[MarkD_]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it ego that allows you to pretend its a myth?
Or is it lack of intelligence?

I don't know about pretend. It's probably just the definition of the word that allows them to think it...

myth
noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

[The_Box]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you do.
To state any moral position is flawed requires you to substantiate your standard of judgement.

Not on moral principals, no.

Your moral system contradicts itself. It fails right there by YOUR OWN standards.

mtimber wrote:

I can critique your morality because I can account for absolute morality.

You don't even know what my morality is. You're very desperate to get off the topic of your moral system and its failings.

You don't play well when people actually call you out on all the holes in your beliefs. Doesn't fit your script.

[The_Box]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand you have assumed it.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion made based on everything we see in reality.

[scaritual]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it ego that allows you to pretend its a myth?
Or is it lack of intelligence?

The definition of the word, "myth" allows me to call it exactly what it is.

Noun: myth
1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.
WordWeb Pro 6.0

A myth.

[The_Box]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not have the right to discuss sin until you can account for it...

No one needs to account for sin until someone actually provides proof that it exists.

[The_Box]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no evidence to suggest that all life came from one life.
Without that guess thrown in the mix, ToE has nothing.

Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.

[The_Box]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. That's the funny part.
Jesus wasn't human

RR, why don't you believe that my friend (who is a god) can shoot lasers out of his eyes?

[insidesecrets]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no problem whatsoever with a person who wishes to believe in god. I do have a problem with people who deny the things that are known. You can't can't have a belief in god that distorts the known truths in the reality of the physical universe. You shoot yourself in the foot ,and your belief and becomes looking really stupid when you adhere to ancient mythology's and expect it hold truth and wisdom in the modern world of scientific reasoning.
You fantasy about our end of days is saying more about yourself than it is of anyone else.

Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.

[scaritual]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.

shhhh...

[Tom Jones]

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.

"THE CLAIM HAS BEEN made that where as acceptable evidence of microevolution exists, there is no acceptable evidence for macroevolution The microevolutionary changes conceded are changes in gene frequencies or genetically based adaptations, which can be demonstrated in short-term scientific studies. These include changes in the frequency of dark morphs in moths, and changes in the age of first reproduction in fish as the result of the selective actions of predators on fish.

Macroevolution, however, is seen as unsubstantiated by critics of evolutionary theory. It is not seen how a process of macroevolution could produce new higher categories of life such as bird, butterflies, and flowering plants, as well as any unique and well-developed structures they possess such as brains, wings, and flowers.

Macroevolution suffers, in this view, from unconvincing evidence, missing evidence, and counter-evidence. Deemed unconvincing is the evolutionary biologists' claim that the processes that led to observable short-term changes in the genetic complements of species (and the traits governed by these genes) also led over millions of years to bigger changes, greatly modified structures with new uses, and new kinds of organisms. Also deemed unconvincing is the occasional fossil intermediate-the odd whale with legs here and the reptile with feathers there.

The missing evidence, in this view, is explained away as gaps in the fossil record. The missing "proof' would have to be a chain from ancestor to very different descendent of adapted intermediates, not overlapping in time, each superior to its predecessor.

The counter-evidence for macroevolution is regarded to be the overlapping in time of presumed ancestral and descendent species. Other counter-evidence is held to be the apparent sudden appearance- suggesting creation-of new forms, and of life itself.

Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political. There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God, Evolution or Creation Scientists must exclude an actively creating or otherwise involved God because, if they didn't, it would mean the death of science. To win, scientists push the dogma of metaphysical naturalism, which states that knowledge can come only through the methods of investigation of natural science."