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

#153807 Feb 13, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
To sacrifice the few for the many is to be amoral.
The current amoral scientific belief system is bound to produce destructive action, that is, the attitudes of scientists lead them to be less careful of life than they should be. They separate themselves form the natural world by viewing all life as objects to be examined. They view human life the same way, casting man adrift as meaningless biological debris. This intent automatically alienates the scientist from his own spiritual nature and turns him into a mechanic.
Do you wish to ban scientific and medical inquiry?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153808 Feb 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you omitted the part about supporting the rational over the superstitious. I guess you know you're on the latter side.
Rational thought is relative, hence the omission.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153809 Feb 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Sorry that you have no proof of god. maybe one day when you grow up you will discover morals and realise that lying is not a good way to live. You may also realise why atheists don't believe a word you have to say.
I already know that, Septic.

Maybe one day you'll realize that theists don't give a crap what atheists have to say.
I will leave you to continue whining at the fact that you have no proof of god.
See? Crap.
Meanwhile you can easily go and get a DNA test which proves you are descended like all of us from a common ancestor to apes. But this fact of life is too difficult for you to comprehend or accept, because you are arrogant and willfully ignorant.
I know we're descended from apes.

And?

Gotcha there, I'm no creationist.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153810 Feb 13, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to ban scientific and medical inquiry?
Do you wish to be one of the guinea pigs?

It's the only life you will have, remember?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153811 Feb 13, 2013
Oh, another memory from the past.

Women had real tits.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#153812 Feb 13, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to ban scientific and medical inquiry?
I'd like to see science climb out of its box of objective materiality and expand its horizons to include studies that explore the subjective spiritual nature of humankind.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153813 Feb 13, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to see science climb out of its box of objective materiality and expand its horizons to include studies that explore the subjective spiritual nature of humankind.
Too scary for the gatekeepers. As you observed, they detach themselves from the natural world in the name of being objective. It is a learned behavior contrary to the natural makeup of humans. A forced denial of the total reality, leading them down a false path.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153814 Feb 13, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yah.
It's a vector sum.
Not even a hard one.
But Dave is afraid of math and denies that it is useful for understanding anything. So even a simple vector sum is 'abstract nonsense' according to him. That it also shows his ideas are garbage only adds to his conviction.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#153815 Feb 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Too scary for the gatekeepers. As you observed, they detach themselves from the natural world in the name of being objective. It is a learned behavior contrary to the natural makeup of humans. A forced denial of the total reality, leading them down a false path.
Exactly.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153816 Feb 13, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to see science climb out of its box of objective materiality and expand its horizons to include studies that explore the subjective spiritual nature of humankind.
And how would that work? Psychology isn't a very good science to begin with. it tends not to actually test its ideas, nor does it tend to repeat experiments to make sure they are correct. But studying the 'subjective' is, by definition, a matter of psychology and not of any of the other sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, etc).

So, what testable hypotheses do you have? What techniques do you propose for measuring 'subjective spiritual' things?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153817 Feb 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Too scary for the gatekeepers. As you observed, they detach themselves from the natural world in the name of being objective. It is a learned behavior contrary to the natural makeup of humans. A forced denial of the total reality, leading them down a false path.
The 'subjective spiritual' aspects of humans were center stage for thousands of years and got us exactly nowhere. Without testable hypotheses and repeatable results, all you have is personal *opinion*, not actual knowledge. But you don't know the difference between the two.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153818 Feb 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Dave is afraid of math and denies that it is useful for understanding anything. So even a simple vector sum is 'abstract nonsense' according to him. That it also shows his ideas are garbage only adds to his conviction.
Afraid?

Gravity is a force, a something that does something. Your substitution for it with an abstract math thingy shows you are disconnected from the real physical aspects.

Simple fact. If you are orbiting in a gravity field 90% of the surface, then your material construction exists in a gravity field 90% of the surface. If you are skydiving you have a continual change in that force until you hit the ground.

I posted that link about center of mass a couple of days ago. A nice description of barycenters and the relative centers of gravity. Gravity works two ways. You have that relative straight line relationship with far distant bodies, but you also have it within the individual bodies themselves. With the same barycenters, etc applying. You have a rippling relationship because of the motion and periodicity on the local scale which does carry on to the distant scale. And it is a two way street. The force of that distant object is added to the local. This is then redirected within the local.

The body's molecular arrangement and development was done in a particular gravity field. This governs the charge relationships and symmetry of those particles. Over a period of time the body changes cells. Time spent in a lower gravity field will result in relative abnormalities in the assembling. The body is being rebuilt in a different environment.

Centrifugal force is very directional. The body was developed where it had varying gravity that extended beyond one direction. Draw a vertical line on a circle. You have lots of mass, all loaded with gravity, tangential to that straight line down we are so used to. That straight down is a result of the most mass concentrated in a straight relatively continuous collection of matter combined with the addition of the gravitational forces from the rest of the cosmos concentrated toward the center. But there is even more in cones emanating from you to the rest of the volume of earth. One reason you can catch your balance when you slip. You have pull on one side being slowed by the pull on other sides.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#153819 Feb 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to be one of the guinea pigs?
It's the only life you will have, remember?
I participated in a clinical trial years ago. Millions of people have been "guinea pigs" over the years.

Wanna try again?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153820 Feb 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The 'subjective spiritual' aspects of humans were center stage for thousands of years and got us exactly nowhere. Without testable hypotheses and repeatable results, all you have is personal *opinion*, not actual knowledge. But you don't know the difference between the two.
Not exactly nowhere. They got you here with your new religion.

Could be in circles, but, hey, at least we are moving.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#153821 Feb 13, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to see science climb out of its box of objective materiality and expand its horizons to include studies that explore the subjective spiritual nature of humankind.
What would you like to see measured?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#153822 Feb 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly nowhere. They got you here with your new religion.
Could be in circles, but, hey, at least we are moving.
Still no proof of god, give up Dave, your creationist ways are finished and your cult is dead.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#153823 Feb 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no proof of god, give up Dave, your creationist ways are finished and your cult is dead.
You are amusing if nothing else.

Prove something for me to prove your proof of proof is provable.

Prove that a creative force MUST prove itself to a creation it made in a way that creation has to understand.

Let's say you are a computer engineer that designs and builds a computer with a rather high degree of logic and analytic programming in it. Plus the hardware to realize such.

Does your computer know you exist? Perhaps it has unresolved equations leaving it with nagging suspicions, or inabilities to accomplish a particular task. But how would IT know you exist?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153824 Feb 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Oh, another memory from the past.
Women had real tits.
And man didn't dye their hair blonde or where skin tight pants...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153825 Feb 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And how would that work? Psychology isn't a very good science to begin with. it tends not to actually test its ideas, nor does it tend to repeat experiments to make sure they are correct. But studying the 'subjective' is, by definition, a matter of psychology and not of any of the other sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, etc).
So, what testable hypotheses do you have? What techniques do you propose for measuring 'subjective spiritual' things?
You only say that because humans are ignorant of exploring and explaining the human spirit.

No doubt someday somebody will figure out how to actually test for and verify that the Spirit actually exists.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153826 Feb 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Still no proof of god, give up Dave, your creationist ways are finished and your cult is dead.
Wrong.

Christianity is currently rising at a rate of 1.3%.
The worlds population is growing at 1.2%.

Sorry bout yer luck.

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
Our world came from nothing? 47 min Richardfs 698
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Heaven 4 hr susanblange 2
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 6 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 6 hr Patrick 152
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 14 hr Patrick 140
Is Religion Childish? 17 hr Patrick 3

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE