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

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#152039 Feb 6, 2013
BBSting wrote:
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.
It's tough on all Americans these days as we watch the nation deteriorating at so many levels - education, elections, debt, jobs, the dollar, the banks, recession, falling world opinion, scientific competitiveness, government, the health care system, continual war, extreme weather, oil spills, infrastructure decay, failure of the media, etc.

But we have one victory: secularization.

For you Christian Americans, it's even worse. You've got to watch your religion withering away along with your country, as you sit by impotently praying for your god to save both - the same god that assume will save you.

You think that faith is a good thing, but it's not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#152040 Feb 6, 2013
He's like a Christhole bungee jumper. He drops in here bleating his Hovind and Craig talking points, refuses to answer questions and then runs like hell.

Personally I think it may be that reject Derek who got tired if people ignoring his off topic spam and decided to change screen names and copy and paste the Hovind gang's talking points instead.
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples or go away.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152041 Feb 6, 2013
" Limitations
Further information: Biostratigraphy

Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[17] Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life-forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point.[18]

The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no role.[17] It is replete with the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

Less than 1%.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#152042 Feb 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe is temporally finite, but spatially infinite.
Yes it is hard to understand, basically it means inflation has caused expansion faster than light so the boundary
(if there even is one) will forever be beyond our detection.
This is a inescapably a paradox of reasoning in itself.
It is however the scenario that fits the evidence.
It's a conflict also that there are two problems that exist in our understanding of the universe.
The first one is there is a conflict in the age of the universe.
Some stars appear to be older than the universe itself temporally by some calculations.
So there is a error in one. Paradox.
The other is the speed of the stars at edges of galaxies, they move to fast, we attempt to explain it with dark matter, it may be the answer, but is not beyond scant evidence in proving it to be the cause. Or even exactly what it is causing it.
Paradox
The uncertainty principle, and Schroeder's cat the Higgs field, all enigmas and also paradoxical. There are many, and whether you accept it or not , the start of this universe is a paradox.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.h...
ďWe now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.Ē

Not a paradox, Einsteinís formulas predict it, objects change in position relative to the space-time grid. The speed of light is a constraint for objects that exist within space-time, not for space-time itself.

So not paradoxical

The other is related and can be calculated by the Hubble constant at around 71MPS. The expansion of the universe predicts that objects over 4200MPS away will be moving faster than the speed of light.

Again not paradoxical

As I have shown you by offering the definition that a paradox is self contradictory statement. And therefore I will repeat, just because the beginning of the universe is not understood does not make it self contradictory, it just means itís not understood (yet).

As to the uncertainty principal, Schroeder's cat, one theoretical, the other an example to explain the uncertainty principal on the quantum level. And why is the higgs field a paradox? Elusive, true, paradoxical, nope it has been predicted for years

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152043 Feb 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.h...
ďWe now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.Ē
Not a paradox, Einsteinís formulas predict it, objects change in position relative to the space-time grid. The speed of light is a constraint for objects that exist within space-time, not for space-time itself.
So not paradoxical
The other is related and can be calculated by the Hubble constant at around 71MPS. The expansion of the universe predicts that objects over 4200MPS away will be moving faster than the speed of light.
Again not paradoxical
As I have shown you by offering the definition that a paradox is self contradictory statement. And therefore I will repeat, just because the beginning of the universe is not understood does not make it self contradictory, it just means itís not understood (yet).
As to the uncertainty principal, Schroeder's cat, one theoretical, the other an example to explain the uncertainty principal on the quantum level. And why is the higgs field a paradox? Elusive, true, paradoxical, nope it has been predicted for years
Amusing, the illusion you have thinking you have a grasp on the reality of it all.

Numbers are not a substitute for a deity or other higher level of existence. They are inventions of man. You just have no idea how contrived that theoretical physics of yours is.

The number of the Beast is that of a man.

Numbers just can't quantify all that there is, so you can never really get the grasp of it all.

But you are still cute. <Smooch>

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#152044 Feb 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Does your sorry ass think this is a "social arena" and we're being "social"?!
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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
RiversideRedneck wrote:
OK, then by your definition, we're relating to human society.... But we sure as shit ain't 'being' social.
I think we are. Read the definitions again. You seem to be saying that we aren't being sociable, which is arguable. But this is definitely social behavior. Participating on a message board is a social activity.

Did you know that dogs are considered social animals? So are bees and ants. You don't need to do much more to be a society than to be several individuals interacting cooperatively, usually in support of a common purpose.

Are you getting ready to hunker down on this?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#152045 Feb 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I still like Jehu, son of Nimshi.
Earliest citation I know for dangerous driving.
You were the source of that addition to the list. Thanks again. Kabong!

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#152046 Feb 6, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing, the illusion you have thinking you have a grasp on the reality of it all.
Numbers are not a substitute for a deity or other higher level of existence. They are inventions of man. You just have no idea how contrived that theoretical physics of yours is.
The number of the Beast is that of a man.
Numbers just can't quantify all that there is, so you can never really get the grasp of it all.
But you are still cute. <Smooch>
We may have to start referring to you as *Dave "the Jesus!" Nelson* after that number of the beast comment.

Hahaa, you even capitalized it as if it's a real thing and such.

If you start randomly capitalizing words for no apparent reason and using lots of repeated exclamation!!! and question??? marks...

I'm really gonna start worrying about you, Dave "______" Nelson.

MAGNETS AND STRINGS FOREVER AND AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#152047 Feb 6, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's tough on all Americans these days as we watch the nation deteriorating at so many levels - education, elections, debt, jobs, the dollar, the banks, recession, falling world opinion, scientific competitiveness, government, the health care system, continual war, extreme weather, oil spills, infrastructure decay, failure of the media, etc.
But we have one victory: secularization.
For you Christian Americans, it's even worse. You've got to watch your religion withering away along with your country, as you sit by impotently praying for your god to save both - the same god that assume will save you.
You think that faith is a good thing, but it's not.
Well, look who is still on Topix with nothing better to do. I go looking around too see what is new after several months, and low and behold is the same, old, tired atheist on the prowl, with the usual disconnect to history and the facts.

Yes, it is hard on Americans, to watch secularization, now unchecked and running rampent for at least 150 years, transform all of the West into pathetic nations of girly men and poor intellects.

But, alas, this is the pattern of all civilizations. Secularization of Rome and Greece were disasters as well, leaving Jews and Christians to rebuild civilization, yet again.

Nothing to worry about. We have survived your kind before, and will survive you for many centuries to come. Atheism cannot hold back real progress and science, or the Jews and Christians that brought it.

What mystifies me is how you lie on Topix with allegedly a straight face, having once admitted that it serves the secular movement well to pretend that science did not emerge from us, but from secular thought.

Do you still promote that lie?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#152048 Feb 6, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You have a problem with porn? Bullsht you know your hard drive has thousands of traces I would wager.
I own a few free link sites, people click on videos/pics and I collect ad revenue. A win win for everyone. They actually do pretty well, not Rockefeller money but I have been pleased.
I make more from my property rentals and dividends though.:shrugs:
<quoted text>
You mean, you make money from thousands of scenes of women being gangbanged, ejaculated on repeatedly, demeaned in infinite ways, with fantasis of rape, and subjugation of women as animals to men that act like animals?

Dude, if YOU don't have a problem with that, then you probably are the problem, and why rape, sex slavery, and rampant objectification of women that feminists complain about is a serious social concern.

Such a huge concern, that even State Atheist nations like Cuba, China, and the former USSR regulated the hell out of it.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#152049 Feb 6, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't claimed that without religion there would be no wars, the only thing I have claimed so far is that there are no moral actions (that we can agree on) that are unique to ether the religious or non-religious, but there are evil actions unique to the religious. Thatís it ether you misunderstand my point which makes what you attack a straw man or you are avoiding my point with red herrings and straw men, I donít know you well enough to conclude the latter so Iíll run with the former.
I hope this post clarifies my point and makes your relevant.
Well I'm a little late coming to this discussion, but why don't you illuminate us all once again.

This was of particular concern: "the only thing I have claimed so far is that there are no moral actions (that we can agree on) that are unique to ether the religious or non-religious, but there are evil actions unique to the religious."

???

Firstly, moral actions? Are we going from the moral relative point of view, or the moral absolute point of view such as Sam Harris promotes?

And how exactly are the "religious" unique in their moral actions, after you just stated that no moral actions are unique to either the religious or non-religious? But you did use "evil" actions in place of moral, which is telling.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#152050 Feb 6, 2013
I don't believe your figures, so let's just say:
Fossils: x% vs. proof of god: 0%
Dave Nelson wrote:
" Limitations
Further information: Biostratigraphy
Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[17] Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life-forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point.[18]
The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no role.[17] It is replete with the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Less than 1%.
Imhotep

United States

#152051 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm a little late coming to this discussion, but why don't you illuminate us all once again.
This was of particular concern: "the only thing I have claimed so far is that there are no moral actions (that we can agree on) that are unique to ether the religious or non-religious, but there are evil actions unique to the religious."
???
Firstly, moral actions? Are we going from the moral relative point of view, or the moral absolute point of view such as Sam Harris promotes?
And how exactly are the "religious" unique in their moral actions, after you just stated that no moral actions are unique to either the religious or non-religious? But you did use "evil" actions in place of moral, which is telling.
There is no morality in the Bible.

PS: The Jains are vastly superior.

Jainism is based on three general principles called the three Ratnas (jewels). They are:
Right faith.
Right knowledge.
Right action.

They are expected to follow five principles of living:

Ahimsa: "non violence in all parts of a person -- mental, verbal and physical." 3 Committing an act of violence against a human, animal, or even a vegetable generates negative karma which in turn adversely affects one's next life.

Satya: speaking truth; avoiding falsehood

Asteya: to not steal from others

Brahma-charya:(soul conduct); remaining sexually monogamous to one's spouse only

Aparigraha: detach from people, places and material things. Avoiding the collection of excessive material possessions, abstaining from over-indulgence, restricting one's needs, etc.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152052 Feb 6, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
We may have to start referring to you as *Dave "the Jesus!" Nelson* after that number of the beast comment.
Hahaa, you even capitalized it as if it's a real thing and such.
If you start randomly capitalizing words for no apparent reason and using lots of repeated exclamation!!! and question??? marks...
I'm really gonna start worrying about you, Dave "______" Nelson.
MAGNETS AND STRINGS FOREVER AND AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!
Are you mad because I didn't throw you a kiss?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#152053 Feb 6, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no morality in the Bible.
PS: The Jains are vastly superior.
Jainism is based on three general principles called the three Ratnas (jewels). They are:
Right faith.
Right knowledge.
Right action.
They are expected to follow five principles of living:
Ahimsa: "non violence in all parts of a person -- mental, verbal and physical." 3 Committing an act of violence against a human, animal, or even a vegetable generates negative karma which in turn adversely affects one's next life.
Satya: speaking truth; avoiding falsehood
Asteya: to not steal from others
Brahma-charya:(soul conduct); remaining sexually monogamous to one's spouse only
Aparigraha: detach from people, places and material things. Avoiding the collection of excessive material possessions, abstaining from over-indulgence, restricting one's needs, etc.
Don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery ....

Um, is that not morality?

Jainism?

Well, the command from Jesus was to love God and your neighbor with all of your heart. Even if you excluded God, loving thy neighbor would still equal the following:

Right faith.
Right knowledge.
Right action.

No, my friend, you are quite mistaken.

Christian morals are not unique to Christianity, as you demonstrate with Jainism. No civilization on earth has ever arisen without exactly the kind of morals both Jainism, and Christianity, indeed promote.

Why? Because morals evolved with out species to make us the refined organisms that we are. Moral behavior goes hand in hand with human natural selection. We are at our best when we are moral with one another.

C.S. Lewis already pointed this out, in his attempt to clarify Christianity to the non-Christian. I think you are in dire need of his work, Mere Christianity, as you clearly do not understand this religion.

What is unique about Christianity, is that it remain the only religion where God Himself came doen to live amongst humans, where God Himself reached down to mankind to help him evolve even further to a higher state.

No other religion comes even close. So I reject your argument (clear Jainism is not superior) and counter with Christianity being the most superior religion on earth, AND, will include scientific data to prove it. The whole of Western Civilization amazing scientific achievements for the last 1600 years, tangible evidence of Christianity (with quite a bit of help from the Jews, I might add.)

Now, what civilizations has Jainism spawned? And if one exists (Asia somewhere?), how has that civilization proven superior to Western Europe?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#152054 Feb 6, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
My fingers are long past being able to play a guitar.
But not air guitar. You'd be a chick magnet:
Imhotep

United States

#152055 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery ....
Um, is that not morality?
Jainism?
Well, the command from Jesus was to love God and your neighbor with all of your heart. Even if you excluded (edited), how has that civilization proven superior to Western Europe?
Failure to read thy Bible in not a valid excuse.

The Bible God also incorporated his brand of morality into the laws he gave his chosen people.
In the following,

God outlines his moral law regarding the buying of slaves:

Lev 25:44-46
And as for thy bondman(slaves) and thy handmaid(slaves) whom thou shalt have -- of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen(slaves) and handmaids(slaves).
Moreover of the children of them that dwell as sojourners with you, of them may ye buy, and of their family that is with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall leave them(the slaves) as an inheritance to your children after you, to inherit them(the slaves) as a possession: these may ye make your bondmen for ever; but as for your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.

One more example of God's morality on display follows:

Exo 21:20-21
And if a man strike his bondman(slave) or his handmaid with a staff, and he(the slave)die under his hand, he shall certainly be avenged.
Only, if he(the slave) continue (survive the beating and live) a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he(the slave) is his(the owner's) money(property).

There are many more examples of God's "moral" law which have very little to do with morality but the point has been made.

So according to this slavery is just fine as long as your personal God endorses it.

These types of pious Christian claims should always be given a swift kick right out the door of reason into the garbage can where they belong.

;)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#152056 Feb 6, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mad because I didn't throw you a kiss?
Easy, Dave, easy ... this road don't go that way.

So, no, I don't want a kiss from you. Blown or otherwise.

NTTAWWT.

It just isn't my thing. Now you know.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#152057 Feb 6, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You were the source of that addition to the list. Thanks again. Kabong!
Ooops, was it here that I brought him up?

Apologies for the repetition...

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#152058 Feb 6, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Failure to read thy Bible in not a valid excuse.
The Bible God also incorporated his brand of morality into the laws he gave his chosen people.
In the following,
God outlines his moral law regarding the buying of slaves:
Lev 25:44-46
And as for thy bondman(slaves) and thy handmaid(slaves) whom thou shalt have -- of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen(slaves) and handmaids(slaves).
Moreover of the children of them that dwell as sojourners with you, of them may ye buy, and of their family that is with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall leave them(the slaves) as an inheritance to your children after you, to inherit them(the slaves) as a possession: these may ye make your bondmen for ever; but as for your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.
One more example of God's morality on display follows:
Exo 21:20-21
And if a man strike his bondman(slave) or his handmaid with a staff, and he(the slave)die under his hand, he shall certainly be avenged.
Only, if he(the slave) continue (survive the beating and live) a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he(the slave) is his(the owner's) money(property).
There are many more examples of God's "moral" law which have very little to do with morality but the point has been made.
So according to this slavery is just fine as long as your personal God endorses it.
These types of pious Christian claims should always be given a swift kick right out the door of reason into the garbage can where they belong.
;)
Because slavery is a moral issue.

That does not follow that the Bible does not have morality. You started by saying there are NO morals in the Bible.

Now you are trying to change the subject. Do you now admit that you are wrong, and that the Bible does contain morality? Whether you believe such morals or wrong a right is an entirely different matter.

And, the science does not support you, since once again, Western Civilization was the first, EVER to outlaw slavery, and call it moral sin to own slaves.

No, that is not in the Bible. But not all Christians subscribe to Luther's Sola Scriptora, for which you argument would have to be based. The Church also as ORAL tradition equally as important as WRITTEN tradition, which condemn slavery outright.

Now how did that come to pass? Could it be that REGULATING how slaves was treated put into the minds of others the dangers of slavery entirely, which lead inevitably to its condemnation as a whole? History proves that this is a resounding yes ... minus Luther's Reformation which allowed slavery to creep back into the West temporarily.

You argument still fails, and Christianity is proven to be morally superior to all other moral systems, on HISTORICAL data alone.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min dirtclod 14,629
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 56 min Thinking 1,495
Christianity Created Hitler 59 min Thinking 199
why? 1 hr Thinking 47
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 2 hr thetruth 31
The Consequences of Atheism 4 hr thetruth 70
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 6 hr thetruth 300
More from around the web