Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[RiversideRedneck]

Adam wrote:

A few key points:
They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.

Matthew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

[mtimber]

Adam wrote:

A few key points:
They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.
Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth.
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth.
1. The gospel writers contradict each other.
2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.
3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.
4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

Seriously, this stuff is kindergarten stuff.

A simple examination of the counter arguments would resolve these.

Its not worth bringing up here, go read some websites that deal with it, is my suggestion.

[RiversideRedneck]

Adam wrote:

The obvious conclusions.
1. The Bible is not the word of God.
2. Christianity is based on the Bible, so is not an inspired religion.
3. The evidence shows religions are man made and in the mind.

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?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the main reason is that the secular schools no longer teach kids how to think, but rather what to think.
As can be evidenced on this board by the constant anger against the attacks on secular religion and anti-theism on this board.

Although it is refreshingly honest of you to admit that you are in fact "attacking" people on this forum. I

t is also telling that you can't understand why your attacks might not be welcome here.

I think part of your problem is a lack of understanding and fear of those who think differently from you. Case in point is your reference to "secular religion" when the word "secular" itself is the state of being separate from religion.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you still trying to churn out this rubbish?
Seriously.
Account for morality and then you can judge the biblical morality.
Upon what basis is any of the above immoral in an atheistic worldview?

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?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not a matter of evidence.
Evidence will never convince you.
So why give you more evidence.
You are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in suppressing the truth.

You've never given any evidence to begin with.

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you pointing to Bells theorem of inequality as empirical evidence?

The experiments showing Bell's inequalities fail in the real world are empirical, yes. The fact that they are required in a causal system depends on your definition of a causal system.

[mtimber]

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...:-)

[polymath257]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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.

[mtimber]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[mtimber]

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...

[RiversideRedneck]

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.

[mtimber]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[mtimber]

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.

[mtimber]

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...

[Hedonist]

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".

[mtimber]

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.