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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153055 Feb 10, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There is evidence of avoidable suffering.
Therefore no all powerful compassionate god can exist.
<quoted text>
In a universe were free will is permitted, suffering is also a consequence of the rejection of God...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#153056 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
You are aware that, on a quantum level, there are uncaused effects?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153057 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It certainly goes a very long way to proving something to be true. But I'll take reliable documentation, pictures, abundant corroborating and contemporary first hand accounts, scientifically proven and tested be true, and of course any physical evidence. None of which you have for either Jesus or your God thing. Not surprising since Christian doctrine says they are one of the same, all apart of this holy trinity BS. I do so love this religious mumbo jumbo. Christian Voodoo.LOL
Laws of logic are immaterial and universal and cannot be verified by empiricism, yet they are true, so on that basis, do you reject them?

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#153058 Feb 10, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
so i have to believe in a god to quote the bable ?
No you don’t have to believe in God to babble.

Babbling is what occurs when the incoherent try to communicate. Also known as blatant jibber gibberish. A language that means nothing and says nothing remotely intelligible.

So you are welcome to quote the “bable” if you like through your babbling jobber gibberish nonsensical language.[Tipping Hat]

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153059 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
The First Cause must account for:

1. Laws of logic.
2. Laws of morality.
3. Laws of nature.
4. Existance of intelligence.
5. Purpose and meaning to life.

Now, if each of these are logically taken back to the First Cause, God is self evident.

But, if you want to deny God, then you have to avoid taking these back to the First Cause.

And this is your problem.

Because you are inherently predisposed to reject God, you have to reject any line of reasoning that leads back to God.

And as God is the foundation of all reasoning, you have to reject reason itself.

You do that by abandoning the laws of logic which will lead an open mind back to God.

The truth is self evident.

Error is just as self evident, as it rests on absurdity and arbitrary inconsistency.

Which you would of course expect when someone is denying the truth.

As has been displayed over and over again when your worldview has been examined and discussed.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153060 Feb 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
Okay, tell me what these "absolute universal laws" are, and perhaps I will.
On the other hand, if they're all that, why would I? I don't have to account for them - just observe them.
If you're going to claim them as evidence of a deity, you first need to define that deity, and then show how only that deity could have been responsible.
Let me give you one that is easy to understand.

The law of non-contradiction.

A law of logic that is transcendent and universal.

Now you say you don't have to account for that law, you just have to accept it.

But that is the whole point, as an atheist you cannot account for it, but you still use it.

But that law is an expression of Gods character.

So if you were in the business of denying the God that has revealed Himself to you, then yes, you would take that line.

Like the kid who steals sweets from the shop and denies it even though there is sugar all over their cheeks...

The question is:

Where did you get that law from, did you steal it from the Christian Worldview?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#153061 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
"Therefore the universe caused itself and always was."

LOL!!!

Sounds like a wild card to me.

Instead of goddidit you say shit happens.

Your scientific approach is remarkable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153062 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know that you cannot absolutely know.
Yet you absolutely know that God does not exist...
I never said that. At this point, the evidence doesn't support the existence of a deity.
But back to the point.
If you only believe that for which you have forensic empirical evidence for, than I assume you do not believe in the laws of logic?
As they are non-material and universal, but cannot be examined forensically...
Logic, like mathematics, is an abstract system. I believe logical statements when they follow from the axioms of logic via the rules of deduction.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#153063 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
In the beginning God...
no you do not

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#153064 Feb 10, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don’t have to believe in God to babble.
Babbling is what occurs when the incoherent try to communicate. Also known as blatant jibber gibberish. A language that means nothing and says nothing remotely intelligible.
So you are welcome to quote the “bable” if you like through your babbling jobber gibberish nonsensical language.[Tipping Hat]
stop babbling nonsense!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#153065 Feb 10, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not for me.
Mars is inhospitable.
I'm heading to San Jose del Cabo.
Lots of fish and crustaceans, and it's the whale migration season through March.
Great weather, too.
I spent a bit of this time of year up the other way in Monterey back in 1976, and spent a lot of that around Point Sur. Watching the whales, seals, and sea otters. A beautiful spot. Big change in temperature around that bend.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153066 Feb 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You are aware that, on a quantum level, there are uncaused effects?
That is a matter open to much debate.

A mathematical model that cannot account for a cause, does not prove there is no cause.

It simply states that it cannot account.

And that is as far as anyone can take quantum mechanics.

Which leaves us with the next question:

Do you have any empirical evidence of an uncaused event?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153067 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery,
Is this an absolute statement of truth?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153068 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know that you cannot absolutely know.
Yet you absolutely know that God does not exist...
But back to the point.
If you only believe that for which you have forensic empirical evidence for, than I assume you do not believe in the laws of logic?
As they are non-material and universal, but cannot be examined forensically...
There are several different types of logic: propositional logic, quantifier logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic. Each has different assumptions. They are not universal since they don't apply in the realm of any of the others. They are axiom systems.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153069 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that. At this point, the evidence doesn't support the existence of a deity.
<quoted text>
Logic, like mathematics, is an abstract system. I believe logical statements when they follow from the axioms of logic via the rules of deduction.
How do you deduct that the law of non-contradiction is universal empirically?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153070 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a matter open to much debate.
A mathematical model that cannot account for a cause, does not prove there is no cause.
It simply states that it cannot account.
And that is as far as anyone can take quantum mechanics.
Which leaves us with the next question:
Do you have any empirical evidence of an uncaused event?
First define what *you* mean when you say something is caused.

yes, the empirical evidence shows that causality, as typically defined (a cause necessarily implies the effect) is false. Look at Bell's inequality and the experiments supporting it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#153071 Feb 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.
If you can claim that Adam Lanza's murders weren't religiously motivated (even though he was a Christian), you must extend the same reasoning to all of those you cite.
Their atheism was incidental.
How do you come to the conclusion that Adam Lanza was a Christian?

Was Judas Iscariot a Christian?

Because he walked into a Church?

If that’s the case then anyone that walks onto Harvard’s campus can claim,“I have been to Harvard.”

But I would say there is a big difference from visiting a top University and graduating from that University with honors.

One can be a visitor or even a regular attendee to a church. Does that mean they are a Christian?

The only way to tell if someone is indeed a Christian is by their own declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. And they follow and obey Christ teachings.

Adam Lanza may have been a hearer of the word of God but he was not a doer. Obedience is a requisite to being a Christian.

Now the scripture has very defiantly defined where a unrepeated murderer stands with God.

Revelation 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

James 1:22

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153072 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice attempt at a rescuing device.
Your argument against the First Cause so far is:
1. I don't know what it is, but I know isn't God.
2. There was a non-causal cause.
Wrong yet again.

My point is that every caused event has a *physical* cause. This is supported by all the evidence. So any initial cause is a physical, uncaused event. I separately, and independently of this argument, claim that quantum events are examples of physical, uncaused events.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#153073 Feb 10, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
stop babbling nonsense!
Amen, you can start by writing the word, "bible" instead of babbling. I don't have to make you look like a fool. You don't need help in that regaurd.[Tipping Hat]

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153074 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you deduct that the law of non-contradiction is universal empirically?
By seeing if models where it fails are able to predict the results of observations. Generally, our models pre-suppose propositional logic, so

not(P and (not P))

is a theorem (not an axiom, by the way).

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 Brian_G 14,649
Christianity Created Hitler 6 hr Uncle Sam 213
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 7 hr Luke1981 7
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 7 hr NoahLovesU 1,245
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 7 hr NoahLovesU 2,844
The Consequences of Atheism 8 hr ChristineM 77
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 15 hr Mikko 1,496
More from around the web