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

#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?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152810 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality is relative, it requires no absoluteles. Especially absolutes conjured up by people who suffer from the mental illness of faith.
You realise you have refuted your own argument here, don't you?

You have made a moral judgement that those of faith absolutely cannot define morality due to their mental condition.

So you make an absolute moral statement to prove absolute morality does not exist.

And you want to convince me that yours is the "sane" position?

Why would I assume that, when you contradict yourself?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152811 Feb 10, 2013
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152812 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
YOur moral system fails because you choose to invent a god and make that your moral absolute.
The problem is that god isn't real and you're lying about it.
You've had since the beginning of time to put your morality where your mouth is, but time and time again, you guys continue to talk about a deity that simply does not exist.
That's why you're in a cult I suppose, you have problems with facing reality, probably afraid of the impermanence of life I think.
To claim another moral system is a failure, you first have to account for the absolute morality with which you condemn it with.

Please account for the absolute morality you keep appealing to.

You cannot of course, because that implies the First Cause.

So the only thing you can do is make arbitrary claims and assert arbitrary opinions, which reveal that in fact you want to be the definer of absolute morality.

That way, you get to set the laws and do what you want.

But of course that road leads to anarchy, which any intelligent person will appreciate.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152813 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about religion and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting religious dogma is nigh on impossible it seems...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152814 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are NOT shifting of arbitrary values assigned to objects. Thew values are not arbitrary.
Take a sheet of paper. Label it "X" at the top.

This is your universe and transfers of energy and mass within it.

Draw a circle near the bottom left hand corner. 1.37774996006006 inches perpendicular to the edges if you wish. Put a "1" in it. Fill the rest of the sheet with shapes and assign numbers according to the ratio of the volumes to your original circle. You can use relative energies if you wish.

This will be 1/X interacting with all of those other values. Each and all other shapes have a direct line effect on the volume of that first circle, the total effect between any two determined by the distance away. Statically you have this attractive force we will call gravity exerting a pull on the volume of that 1/X. The cumulative effect locks 1/X in place, and has a fixed effect on any energy transfers within it. Now go to the top right and move one of those shapes. Now recalculate the cumulative effect. Which will get real hard because they all start moving.

That is where your virtual particles and weakness in physical perception come into being.

It gets harder to keep track of when you get energetic streams you call EM emissions.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152815 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.
It is a subjective interpretation of effects, nowhere near a direct observation.
http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-real-...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152816 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Humanists see humans and human ethics and ideals as an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Humanists don't have values which are edicted on society, we see the best of society and give voice to what is. Humanists see that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Humanist see ethical values as being derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We see that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness and therefore life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
So morality is merely a tool for biological advancement?

And is therefore just a matter or expediency and not a statement of absolute good or bad.

So again, with that in mind, what did Hitler do wrong?

What does the society that rapes and pillages another society do wrong?

They are not doing anything wrong, according to your expressed worldview, they are just acting expediently.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152817 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume "purpose and destiny" without ever showing evidence for these concepts as anything more than your wishful thinking.
Are you arguing that purpose and destiny are not something inherent in humanity?

It seems you are, that these concepts are just wishful thinking.

That being the case, why are you arguing with me, when your life has no purpose?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152818 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...
To strike a spark requires substance and momentum.

You will get more light striking butter with a plastic knife than striking a standard Topix atheist's brain with reality.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152819 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Carnivals must love you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152820 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The "truth" of God is self-evident to you, and to those who believe as you do, it is NOT at all self-evident to many others including myself. Your problem is that you start with a faulty premiss and then build everything around this premiss. It always comes down to whether or not your beliefs are TRUE. True in the demonstrable way. You have a belief, a belief that can not be demonstrated to be real. I'm sure its very real to you, but you can never convince anyone else that its true without..........OK....the scariest word for all Theists..........Evidence.
I think you need to realize what truth means, When you say "The TRUTH of God" you're i big trouble. It's a wonderful sounding phrase but total bullshit. Here......TRUTH, "That which is true or in accordance with FACT or REALITY. And FACT..."A piece of information used as EVIDENCE....or FACT.."that which is INDISPUTABLY the case. So as you can see, your flowery religious phrase is without merit.
Do you know how childish you sound when you state your beliefs as factual? "You were created by God for a purpose." You can't even prove this mythical being exists let alone has given us a purpose. When you do this, you are making a positive claim, "You were created by God for a purpose." The burden of proof now falls squarely on your shoulders, prove God exists, and then we ca move on to the purpose bullshit. So what was Hitlers purpose, how about John Wayne Gacey, or any number of psychopathic killers? Yeah, Yeah, they had a purpose but ignored Gods recommendations. LOL
Of course I can account for purpose and destiny. Why do you think this is such a huge mystery? I can only feel intense pity for you, unable to navigate through life without an imaginary outside agent, you poor bastard. I decide my pathway through life, I decide my purpose, I control, up to a point, my destiny, not some outside agent. Why is it so very difficult for you to accept that anyone can decide their purpose in life. I personally have devoted my life to the creative arts and passing on what I have learned to others. THIS IS MY PURPOSE IN LIFE. Others have chosen to improve the lives of others by devoting their live to medicine or the sciences.
I can't suppress this knowledge of God when there is NONE. Beyond you holy book, there is NO knowledge of God that is demonstrable within reality.
I am not making an argument.

I am making an absolute knowledge claim.

The self-attesting God has revealed Himself to you.

But your nature, sinful and selfish is at war with Him.

So you suppress that truth.

But you cannot be consistent with that suppression, as your whole existence has been defined by the One who created you.

So you will end up suppressing those things that God has revealed to you as best you can.

Unfortunately for you, as you will be judged on this, that suppression is self evident as you have to deny the obvious in order to maintain your denial of truth.

You do it here, by insisting you have "a purpose", but you cannot ACCOUNT for why you would have a "purpose" when you are an smear on the windscreen of the universe...

Revealing the very point of truth I am pointing out to you and proving the case.

The only option for you is to run around making arbitrary knowledge claims and demand everyone agrees with you, completely avoiding the problem and reinforcing my point.

I will make it again, so you can see it clearly:

HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSE IN THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152821 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So morality is merely a tool for biological advancement?
And is therefore just a matter or expediency and not a statement of absolute good or bad.
So again, with that in mind, what did Hitler do wrong?
What does the society that rapes and pillages another society do wrong?
They are not doing anything wrong, according to your expressed worldview, they are just acting expediently.

In this age of information sharing , morality is well defined by a worldwide set of definitions.

Long ago this was not possible , so morality was regional, or even dictated locally. In the end morality is defined by the consensus within a group. What the accepted terms of morality are, depends on the group defining them. So absolute morality would be what was decided by the largest set of people. But there could never be a true absolute morality, not as long as two sets exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152822 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.
Your claims are arbitrary, appeal to anti-theist propaganda and are false.

There are plenty of studies out there, by Christians and non-Christians that assert the existence of Jesus.

Also, your argument that the Bible is invalid has also been shown extensively to be unsound.

Denying the obvious, arbitrarily, does not make you right.

But because you are suppressing the truth, on every level you can, with a religious zeal that a suicide bomber would be impressed with, you will believe any piece of nonsense that supports your suppression of the simple fact of Jesus' existance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152823 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are intelligent beings that are able to plan. That makes our plans have purpose (our specific goals). We also get to plan aspects of our lives, which gives our lives purpose.*We* create the purpose.
No, it is not self-evident that were have been intelligently designed. If anything, it is evident that we are not.
So you purpose because you purpose.

That is a circular arbitrary claim.

WHY do you purpose?

Answer that question.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Mikko 21,912
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 4 hr Patrick 37
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 6 hr Patrick 4,083
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 7 hr Patrick 176
What Bums Me Out Most About Being an Atheist 8 hr californio 88
The Ultimate Evidence of God 9 hr susanblange 119
Stump a theist with 2 questions 13 hr NightSerf 9
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••