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

#152789 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What atheism is actually at war with, is this fundamental truth:
"In the beginning, God..."
War is a harsh word. But yes, we deny that this is a 'fundamental truth'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152790 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose?
My purposes in life: to love, to learn, to teach, to help, to experience, to share.

More specifically, I have devoted a fair amount of my life to understanding mathematics and physics and teaching the same. I am married and love my wife and support her life choices just like she supports mine.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152791 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Stop being such a coward, there are no CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE. Now that is a FACT. Any other accounts of Jesus were written decades after his existence. That is also a FACT. Don't be a pussy, now, show me your evidence, and not your holy book, that shows that the Jesus you spastically believe in, existed.
Paul was writing about it 20 years later and churches had already been formed. Tacitus made reference to the events.

Something happened.

You have very few eyewitness accounts to any event in the distant past, including some of your more cherished ones. Almost all were records and interpretation of events written by some scholar. You won't have contemporaneous accounts until the advent of newspapers and such mass media.

You will find controversy about the Jordanian lead codices, but those were mass media of the day. Sheets of lead turned into tracts. You carve your message in wooden blocks, and stamp out lead sheets. Printing without ink.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152792 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing for an "absolute morality" which, according to you includes "love God".
First, I would argue that there is no such thing as an "absolute morality" as all morality is defined by humans.
Even ignoring that, any "absolute morality" would by definition have to be applicable to everybody, including Buddhist, or it could not be considered "absolute".
So, your argument for any "absolute morality" fails on at least 2 levels.
Oh but that's right ... you're just making stuff up.
I understand your argument.

But it is however absurd.

You cannot define anything unless you have a standard to define it against.

So what "standard" do you define "subjective morality" with?

Really try to think about this question, so far it seems you have not understood it.

You have to appeal to an ultimate standard, to prove any standard.

With morality, what is your ultimate standard?

Societies opinion?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152793 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Showing you don't know what a virtual particle actually is. Or that their effects have been detected.
A virtual particle is a math construct to make numbers crunch, which means the numbers and formulas in the beginning are in error.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152794 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Pronoun problems - define what you mean "they"?
The laws of logic (usually quoted as 3 - sometimes 4), do a quick google search, standard philosophical terminology.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152795 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you have them.
You know you have them.
You are missing the point.
As an atheist you cannot account for it.
Because you have to deny the self evident truth that you were intelligently created with a spiritual purpose, whilst claiming the right to that purpose.
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose?
Actually, it is you who is missing the point - and tragically so.

You keep repeating (ad nauseum, I might add) that people who don't believe in a god can't account for morality or reason or purpose or destiny and on and on and on.

You keep repeating this as if it were a fact, when clearly it is not.

However, you have to keep repeating it because, in your mind, it is inconceivable that people can have or be these things without the benefit of believing in your god.

You chose to believe something and once you did that, you closed your mind to all other possibilities.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152796 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is shown, it is tested, by the very post you have here.
You argue absolutes, which can only be accounted for by an intelligent First Cause.
You have been built a certain way and the makers signature is written into every aspect of your life.
But due to your desire to sin, you have to deny your maker, whilst appealing to his workmanship as the basis for your denial.
Which is of course absurd, and fully explained in the scripture.
LOL...so the proof of your god's existence is that I don't believe in your god?

Oh well, I guess that means Leprechauns and unicorns are real too....

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152797 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that as if it is something wrong...
Are moral laws produced by secularism the same thing?
Obviously they are, so you would then be arguing against those as well...
So you admit that "sin" is a man made concept and not something handed down by an imaginary god.

Bravo! You're making progress!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152798 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A virtual particle is a math construct to make numbers crunch, which means the numbers and formulas in the beginning are in error.
No it is a measurable physical disturbance that has been detected.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152799 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your argument.
But it is however absurd.
You cannot define anything unless you have a standard to define it against.
So what "standard" do you define "subjective morality" with?
Really try to think about this question, so far it seems you have not understood it.
You have to appeal to an ultimate standard, to prove any standard.
With morality, what is your ultimate standard?
Societies opinion?
The happiness and fulfillment of people with fairness.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152801 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you who is missing the point - and tragically so.
You keep repeating (ad nauseum, I might add) that people who don't believe in a god can't account for morality or reason or purpose or destiny and on and on and on.
You keep repeating this as if it were a fact, when clearly it is not.
However, you have to keep repeating it because, in your mind, it is inconceivable that people can have or be these things without the benefit of believing in your god.
You chose to believe something and once you did that, you closed your mind to all other possibilities.
If you weren't exposed to the concepts via the existing religion it is unlikely you would develop such on your own.

You have to have something to think about before you can think about it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152802 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is a measurable physical disturbance that has been detected.
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.

It is a subjective interpretation of effects, nowhere near a direct observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152803 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A virtual particle is a math construct to make numbers crunch, which means the numbers and formulas in the beginning are in error.
Actually, no. The theory describes particle interactions in terms of successive approximations. The first approximation does not have virtual particles, but successive approximations do. But we use successive approximations because it is easier to compute what the theory says in that way than to do it directly in one fell swoop. Virtual particles come up naturally in the theory in terms of their effects on the probabilities of the overall reaction.

We know you don't like math and are scared of being precise, but modern theories of physics are mathematical because the math gives very precise predictions that can be tested against reality. And *that* is the point. The theory without virtual particles isn't even internally consistent, but with them it predicts the results of actual experiments.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152804 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.
No, they are NOT shifting of arbitrary values assigned to objects. Thew values are not arbitrary.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152805 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws of logic (usually quoted as 3 - sometimes 4), do a quick google search, standard philosophical terminology.
The laws of classical logic:

"The Law of Identity: Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

The Law of the Excluded Middle: Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"

The Law of Noncontradiction: Metaphysically, this law asserts:: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false." "

From the editthis article:

"These axioms are axioms for classical logic. Not all thought or even all logic.

It is also important to avoid conflating or confusing the so called laws of thought with set of nomological (Physical) laws for the universe. Logic is not cosmology. It is not descriptive of how the universe works'. It is prescriptive: it sets forth a method of examining arguments.

The universe is not 'logical'(or illogical), it merely is. When a star radiates within a certain spectrum of light, appearing to us as "red" this is simply due to this physical cause and not due to its 'adherence' to logic.

It is also important not to confuse classical logic with psychology. The so called laws of thought are not rules for human behavior, they don't even cover all human thought: in our dreams, we are able to imagine contradictions, like being both the victim and the attacker, or being both young and old at the same time - human thought contains rational, irrational and non rational thought - both logic and emotions, impulses and instincts.

Finally, there is no reason to hold that these axioms are "immaterial", or transcendental. Such claims are matters of theology or dualistic philosophy, and are merely incidental issues in logic qua logic. These claims are usually based on arguments from ignorance. An incomplete physical account for abstractions is not a positive argument for an immaterial account for abstractions. Second,'immateriality' is a negative concept, and a negative definition devoid of a universe of discourse, is meaningless. Unless someone can show how something immaterial can exist, how something immaterial can act without violating the principle of conservation of energy and how something immaterial can interact with physical brains, then the claim that these logical laws that people create are transcendent or immaterial remains incoherent."

http://editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classi...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152806 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
That is the creation of Adam in the bible right? Pretty damn silly indeed.
<quoted text>
So, the design and formation of man by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being is something you regard as nonsensical.

But the design and formation of man by a rock is something you regard as sensible.

Would you explain why accounting for the designed with a designer is less attractive than accounting for the designed by a rock, intellectually?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152807 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. The theory describes particle interactions in terms of successive approximations. The first approximation does not have virtual particles, but successive approximations do. But we use successive approximations because it is easier to compute what the theory says in that way than to do it directly in one fell swoop. Virtual particles come up naturally in the theory in terms of their effects on the probabilities of the overall reaction.
We know you don't like math and are scared of being precise, but modern theories of physics are mathematical because the math gives very precise predictions that can be tested against reality. And *that* is the point. The theory without virtual particles isn't even internally consistent, but with them it predicts the results of actual experiments.
You will not see the contradictions in your logic no matter how hard someone tries to bring it to your attention. Try reading it several times.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152808 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
But your god in the old and New Testament advocates for slavery, are you saying he was immoral for that?
I got a hundred bucks that says he dodges and avoids questions :)
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, is that humanity is enslaved in sin.

Due to their rebellion, they continue in that condition.

So the consequence of God having to deal with slavery is not an unexpected situation.

But before you get off on crying out against a moral standard you do not agree with, you first have to explain how you arrived at an absolute moral standard to make a basis for judgement from...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152809 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one absurdity here. It comes from the person claiming that god exists without a single shred of proof.
Until you've proven the god you are lying aboutm non of your "arguments' hold any weight here.
If you apply your brain a little bit you'll realise that none of your opinions matter at all, because you'll never be able to prove the god that you lie about.
I am not trying to "prove" God.

God's existence is self evident.

The fact you can even argue about concepts of "truth" prove the case.

Try to actually deal with this:

Does "truth" exist?

Where does "truth" originate if it does exist?

Now, is you are following the sinful natures desire to suppress the truth, you will have to deny truth exists if you begin to realise that truth has to be accounted for by something outside of time and space...

Lets see.

What will it be?

Does truth exist?

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... 1 hr Uncle Sam 2,282
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr _Bad Company 143
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 hr polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 20 hr Yiago 148
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) Sat thetruth 34
God' existence Sat thetruth 67
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists Fri Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web