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

#153295 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a category which includes everybody who is not in the category theism.
Atheism is NOT a "worldview" any more that theism is. Doesn't matter how many time you present this strawman, it's still wrong.
The Humanistic worldview is guided by reason and inspired by compassion. It has evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
Humanism recognizes that ethical values (morals) are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare.
So account for absolute standards of morality, by which you define subjective morality...

You cannot seem to grasp this most basic concept.

It would baffle me, if I did not know why...

Absolute morality requires an intelligent First Cause.

You don't want that, so you think the Herd should set morality...

Problem there is, that once you set that as the standard, you can never complain about any standard of morality anywhere, as the Herds opinion is just that, an opinion.

It is not right or wrong, good or bad.

You argue subjective morality, and then appeal to objective morality to prove your point...

Denying Christianity, whilst borrowing from Christianity to make your argument.

A pickpocket of morality...:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153296 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are arguing for an infinite regress.
Yes/no?
No, although it is a possibility, that was not my argument. Read it again.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153297 Feb 11, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>From Universe Today
How do scientists determine the age of a meteorite? Mainly by studying the minerals found within them, lead isotopes to be specific. Uranium has been found to decay into certain isotopes of lead on a predictable schedule. Uranium235 will decay into the isotope Lead207 every 7.13×108 years and is used in radiometric dating. Scientist also know that uranium238 will decay into Lead206 every 4.468×109(4.468 billion) years. The presence of the lead daughter isotopes gives scientists a clue into the age of a meteorite.
A relatively large number of meteorites have been found on Earth. Each has been tested along with various rocks that are original to our planet. Samples from the Moon were tested as well. The results all show an approximate age of 4.6 billion years. That has led scientist to state that all of the material(this includes planets) in the Solar System is 4.6 billion years old. So, by extrapolation, the answer to ”how old is Mars?” is 4.6 billion years old.
I'm going to have to start charging you the education I'm providing for you, since it appears your too lazy to learn o your own. I'll be nice this time....no charge!!!
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14852/how-old-is...
Thank you. From your own link, dumb ass:

"Today, scientists believe that Mars, and the remainder of the Solar System formed about 4.6 billion years ago from the solar nebula."

Oh good, they BELIEVE.

"Since no one has ever retrieved a piece of Martian rock for study, this assumption is arrived at by studying meteorites..."

As I said, it's an assumption. Nothing more.

Thanks again, duder.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153298 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
The Humanistic worldview is guided by reason and inspired by compassion.
Account for reason and compassion as a humanist...

No?

Didn't think so.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153299 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are arguing that the laws of logic are in no way related to causality?
I am saying that causality does not follow from the rules of logic. It is an empirical question whether causality holds or not.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153300 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to use the "first cause" argument, you would have to prove that everything has a cause. Modern physics has proven that it doesn't, therefore the entire "first cause" argument is bogus to begin with.
In order to argue that a "deity caused everything" you would need to provide a foundation for your claim that a deity does in fact exist. Then you would have to further show evidence that it was your particular version of a deity that caused everything.
You have never even tried to show any evidence of your first premise. You simply make the claim and expect everybody to just take your word for it.
Modern physics has not proven that an uncaused cause exists.

It has theorised about the possibility and like most atheists, you have taken a theory and tried to pretend it is empirical evidence.

You have no evidence for this, only the faith that atheism requires...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153301 Feb 11, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
As a side note.....science and scientist ALWAYS deal with the real world, the discover, test, evaluate, categorize, subject there finding for peer review. I'm smart enough to trust what mainstream science tells me is true, at least its true in this moment in time.
Good. So you blindly follow what assuming scientists tell you?

And yet you have the nerve to accuse Christians of blindly following?

You're a hypocrite.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153302 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simply - In Leviticus 14 does the Bible make any kind of statement about any cure for leprosy? Does this stated cure work?
I have already answered this, but again:

Your premise is false.

You assume that the instructions are universal and absolute in all instances of leprosy.

You also have no knowledge of the levitical laws being prophetic, so you cannot comprehend what they are actually representative of, on the prophetic and symbolic level.

But that is ok, because it is not for you anyway, unless you repent of your secular suppression of God.

Hence your confusion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153303 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The First Cause has to be eternal, even your atheist buddies here know that.
Why would a first cause have to be eternal?
That is why one of them is currently arguing for an infinite regress...
Who is doing that? I have argued that it is a *possibility*. I don't know if it is actually the case.
They just want the caused to be eternal, because they cannot accept the First Cause to be eternal.
You have made a LOT of claims without proof.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153304 Feb 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Obvious?!?
Yes, it's obvious that atheists spend a whole lot of time on a religion and a God they claim to not believe in.
What's wrong? Worried about your afterlife? You wanna be able to tell God that you always hoped He was real?
The carnal mind is at war with God.

Seeking to suppress the truth.

Simple point to prove.

I have no desire to spend my time and energy trying to persuade certain people that there forefathers were not lizard men from Mars.

It is something that I simply dismiss as illogical.

Yet here are the atheists purposing (without any reason to purpose as an atheist), to deny and promote the non-existence of God.

Just as the Bible says they would...

With much vitriol anger and hatred.

As I said the other day, a suicide bomber would be impressed with the religious zeal many of these atheists express on this forum and all over the internet...

Atheists in general, seem to be the most intolerant and bigotted people out there.

And whatever you do, don't criticise their prime doctrine of homosexuality being a lovely thing.

That really gets the wrath of the herd going...

To be honest, though, this level of determined ignorance saddens me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153305 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying you think Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 are examples of good morals?
Or are you just trying to deflect the conversation?
I am bemused why you keep making absolute moral judgements.

When you keep denying there can be absolute moral judgements.

----------

It is this foolish contraction that prevents me treating your question seriously.

And no matter how many times it is explained that this is not quite right, you still keep doing it...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#153306 Feb 11, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic how people who don’t believe in God define who is and isn’t a Christian. As if to say you are some sort of authority on the subject.
Under your analogy Denis Rader known also as BTK was a true to the core Christian since he attended a Lutheran Church. Never mind that he was a mass murder. To you he was a fine example of Christianity.
I guess you would count Judas Iscariot a example of Christianity too. Even though history see’s him as the betrayer.
If I may use your words,“hallucinatory raving of an utter lunatic.” That phrase of yours would fit Denis Rader and you very nicely. Christianity requires more than occasional attendance but obedience to Christ teachings.
It doesn’t matter how the average infidel defines Christianity. It’s how God defines it.
This is an interesting quandary.

None of us can know what someone is really thinking or what their true motivations are. All we can go by is their outward statements of motivation.

So when someone claims to be committing some sort of atrocity because they are carrying out the work of their deity, we might conclude they are crazy, but we would still have to admit they thought of themselves as being highly devout and driven by religion.

And if we considered such a person to be crazy, would that also indicate that we don't really believe anybody could in fact be "talking to god".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153307 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, although it is a possibility, that was not my argument. Read it again.
You argument for the First Cause was one of the following:

1. Infinite regress.
2. Uncaused cause.
3. Don't know.
4. Not God.
5. Quantum.

But so far you have stated that it can be any of the above, but the one thing it cannot be, absolutely is:

God

Showing that you are actually totally opposed to the idea of God, right from the start.

Proving the case, that you are indeed suppressing the truth of God as you cannot even allow the idea of God to the table.

Which is not rational.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153308 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying that causality does not follow from the rules of logic. It is an empirical question whether causality holds or not.
Causality cannot happen without the laws of logic...

Causality is logical by its very nature.

As is reason,(when practiced properly).

All pointing to the logical First Cause.

But you don't want to go there.

So you have to deny either causality or the laws of logic to prevent yourself from going there.

Which one will it be today?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#153309 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So account for absolute standards of morality, by which you define subjective morality...
You cannot seem to grasp this most basic concept.
It would baffle me, if I did not know why...
Absolute morality requires an intelligent First Cause.
You don't want that, so you think the Herd should set morality...
Problem there is, that once you set that as the standard, you can never complain about any standard of morality anywhere, as the Herds opinion is just that, an opinion.
It is not right or wrong, good or bad.
You argue subjective morality, and then appeal to objective morality to prove your point...
Denying Christianity, whilst borrowing from Christianity to make your argument.
A pickpocket of morality...:-)
Let me type slow so you might be able to grasp this ---

There is NO such thing as an "absolute morality".

Modern societal morality (aka ethics) has evolved over time as a natural part of homo sapiens being a social species.

You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153310 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a first cause have to be eternal?
<quoted text>
Who is doing that? I have argued that it is a *possibility*. I don't know if it is actually the case.
<quoted text>
You have made a LOT of claims without proof.
How could it not be?

Time was caused, that is painfully obvious.

So whatever caused Time, had to be eternal/uncaused.

That time and energy regresses back to origin, is the reason that the Big Bang theory was proposed.

It is obvious that it all started somewhere.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#153311 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already answered this, but again:
Your premise is false.
You assume that the instructions are universal and absolute in all instances of leprosy.
You also have no knowledge of the levitical laws being prophetic, so you cannot comprehend what they are actually representative of, on the prophetic and symbolic level.
But that is ok, because it is not for you anyway, unless you repent of your secular suppression of God.
Hence your confusion.
Obfuscation at it's finest.

Does this stated cure work?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#153313 Feb 11, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am bemused why you keep making absolute moral judgements.
When you keep denying there can be absolute moral judgements.
----------
It is this foolish contraction that prevents me treating your question seriously.
And no matter how many times it is explained that this is not quite right, you still keep doing it...
Again with obfuscation.

So are you saying you think Exodus 21:2-6 and 20-21 are examples of good morals?
Or are you just trying to deflect the conversation?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153314 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me type slow so you might be able to grasp this ---
There is NO such thing as an "absolute morality".
Modern societal morality (aka ethics) has evolved over time as a natural part of homo sapiens being a social species.
You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.
Why then, do you keeping making absolute moral judgements about Christian Morality, it absolute morality does not exist?

Please try to concentrate and understand the critique you are being subjected to...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153315 Feb 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
You still have never even tried to define one (1) moral precept which you can show would not exist without Christianity. Just 1.
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind.

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
Islam for peace, or violence? 16 min JIN 36
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 25 min Thinking 22,989
Does Being 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Really... 1 hr Thinking 2
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Thinking 1,037
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' Mon Thinking 90
Man center of the universe. Mon Thinking 87
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Oct 17 Thinking 6

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE