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

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152830 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets test your claim:
Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.
See, here's your problem.

You make these statements that are completely and wildly inaccurate and then base the rest of your argument on the belief that what you start with is true - which it isn't.

This is why everyone mocks you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152831 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.

All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.

God is that ultimate standard.

The proof is in your denial of absolutes, whilst appealing to them, showing that you will not allow logical arguments to take you to logical conclusions.

You suppress logic and truth to maintain your opposition to the truth.

You cannot help it, your sinful nature will not allow you to do otherwise.

You are a lost cause.

If it were not for Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging you to reason logically and correctly, bringing you to repentance and to your true purpose in life.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152832 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And the present worldwide morality is defined by Christian ideals. A universal brotherhood of mankind and individual rights because it is "the right thing to do".

The Romans weren't too good at that until they got religion. You won't find such advanced much in any other religion, including those Eastern ones.

Jesus 1
Atheists 0

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152833 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not my point.
My point is that the truth is self evident.
You suppress that truth.
But have to keep acknowledging that truth.
As you keep doing this very thing, then you prove the point.
If I said that you were a tap dancer because you were wearing tap dancing shoes and tap dancing, you would not argue the point.
Your behaviour is exactly what the Bible reveals it will be.
The Bible also gives a full account for your behaviour.
So it predicates, I apply the test, you confirm the results and the truth is in.
You are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Yawn. If the truth (at least the version of the truth of which you are speaking) were, in fact, self evident, there would be no atheists.

However, not only is that truth NOT self evident, it does not exist. Your religion itself says as much as it is completely based on faith. Not facts, faith.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any proof of any god's existence.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152834 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The happiness and fulfillment of people with fairness.
Define:

"happiness"
"fairness"

As you claim there is only subjective morality, please explain why you make appeals to absolutely moral standards like:

"happiness"
"fairness"

You see, you have been caught in the cookie jar here.

You are denying absolute moral truth, whilst appealing to it, to make your case.

Revealing that your anti-theist position is in fact illogical and contradictory.

You prove yourself wrong...

All I have to do is point that out to you, in the hope you will start to think logically and turn to God, so He can help you think straight.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152835 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you purpose because you purpose.
That is a circular arbitrary claim.
WHY do you purpose?
Answer that question.
Because I can plan. I can plan because I am intelligent.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152836 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
If god's existence is self evident then why do you need faith?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152837 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
Wrong. It is far from being self-evident. In fact, it is most likely false.
All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.
Which is observation of the universe.
God is that ultimate standard.
Your claim. No proof.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152838 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.
God is that ultimate standard.
The proof is in your denial of absolutes, whilst appealing to them, showing that you will not allow logical arguments to take you to logical conclusions.
You suppress logic and truth to maintain your opposition to the truth.
You cannot help it, your sinful nature will not allow you to do otherwise.
You are a lost cause.
If it were not for Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging you to reason logically and correctly, bringing you to repentance and to your true purpose in life.
Spoken like a truly hopelessly brainwashed fundie.......

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152839 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
An appeal to an arbitrary biased authority...

That proves it.:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152840 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you "purpose to love" as an atheist?
Because that is my choice.
You are merely a smear on the windscreen of the universe.
Irrelevant to purpose.
How do you account for this "purpose to love", that you adhere to.
I am an emotional being and love is a pleasant emotion that promotes understanding and sharing between people.
Of course, God gave us this absolute standard of morality for you to do this, so it can be accounted for because of that, but you do not accept that, so how do you account for this self evident truth?
I don't agree that it is a self-evident truth. In fact, I deny it is a truth. Morality is based on how humans interact with other humans, not with how humans attempt to do what they imagine an invisible sky-daddy wants.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152841 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Account for Truth.

No?

Didn't think so.

The most basic failing of atheism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152842 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
An appeal to an arbitrary biased authority...
That proves it.:-)
They point out some typical mistakes people make when talking about the 'Laws of Logic'. I notice that you make many of those mistakes yourself.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#152843 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I can plan. I can plan because I am intelligent.
But your plans won't work unless those virtual particles allow them. Random little buggers, ain't they?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152844 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Which of course the Bible states is the case.

This behaviour is to be expected.

Good job, because you would go mad if you did not know they are not capable of anything else, unless they repent and turn to God.

When the Bible states they cannot do anything other than suppress the truth, then it gets a little less frustrating.

They are singing the song they have no choice to sing.

They cannot escape it, only God can deliver them from it.

But as they are at war with God, it is a difficult situation for them to be recovered from.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152845 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you state that any moral system is a failure, if you do not have a basis for defining morality?
Which you clearly do not...
It's a failure by YOUR BASIS. How many times do I have to tell you that?

You keep trying to pass the buck, but it won't work.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152846 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<
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...
I have a purpose because I can plan and I *decide for myself* what my purpose is. It is not a 'cosmic purpose', so being a 'smear' is irrelevant. I don't have an ego large enough to think that anything I do is relevant for the universe as a whole.
HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSE IN THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE?
Humans are intelligent and can plan. Their purpose is what they *decide* it is according to their plans. It is a local purpose, not a cosmic purpose. it is personal, having to do with their own plans.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152847 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
But your plans won't work unless those virtual particles allow them. Random little buggers, ain't they?
I'm going to start ignoring you until you actually learn something and begin to make some sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152848 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Account for Truth.
Truth is a simply a shortened form for 'how things are'. There is no 'accounting for truth'; if things were different, the truth would be different.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152849 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Really.

So you are arguing that society at large has the consensus?

So during the dark ages, you would have been a practicing peasant farmer attending the local church because society dicated morality to you.

And you would have been morally bound to accept the world is flat.

Basically you are arguing that morality is an activity of the herd and wherever the herd goes, you are morally incumbant to follow...

And the only thing that defines your absolute morality is the herd you are born into.

So what makes one "herd" morally superior to another "herd"?

That is not a question you can answer I suspect...

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
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr ChristineM 5,952
The Perils of Belief 4 hr P_Smith 1
Pastor who gave up God for a year after getting... 4 hr P_Smith 1
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 6 hr Morse 23,268
Evidence for God! 6 hr Morse 373
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 hr RayOne 2,621
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 16 hr SnuffAGlobalisst 23
More from around the web