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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155266 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course your indoctrinated atheist mind tells you that the only source of light is the sun & stars.....
The inherent limited perspective of a Topix atheist mind. Simplified to the max perpsective of taking a step from here to there, and forgetting where the path started.

If there wasn't something to see the light, then there would be no light. Modern physics even says so.

You can set there shivering your ass off on a cold dark night, but you don't get light and warmth until the match is struck.

Or something like that.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#155267 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Because The_Box says so?
LMAO
What part do you take issue with?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155268 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
There has to be a predefined code before it even starts to learn. That external stimulus has to be routed the right ways.
Um, no there doesn't. The brain develops it's "code," it is more accurate to say "language" really, as it learns. The only part that was defined by genetic where how the nerves were wired for it to receive the input, that's it. This is the reason why when infants get hurt they just cry, but when an older child gets hurt they stop doing it, the brain has to learn what does what and what means what before it can actually do anything more than basic functions. You heart is actually the only real automated system, everything else is learned.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155269 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no there doesn't. The brain develops it's "code," it is more accurate to say "language" really, as it learns. The only part that was defined by genetic where how the nerves were wired for it to receive the input, that's it. This is the reason why when infants get hurt they just cry, but when an older child gets hurt they stop doing it, the brain has to learn what does what and what means what before it can actually do anything more than basic functions. You heart is actually the only real automated system, everything else is learned.
You lack a sufficient overview of the process to know what you are professing.

Try creating the material architecture that will accept the code you now write. It is all much more complicated than you are capable of understanding now. There is a lot more to it than just translating it into machine language.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#155270 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Scar, when you look at a tree, you see a tree. I see a tree in a forest. And more.
Sure, Dave, sure.

But really, it's more than a forest or tree, isn't it? There are numerous analogies that could be made here that sound mysterious and really "special", I'll leave that up to you, since you see further than ...<<<<- yeah I'll leave those analogies to those that enjoy them, you. Oh vanguard of ancient knowledge lost and only known by a few wizened elders!
Dave Nelson wrote:
You probably won't understand the significance of that.
hahaa....

That's what you say to just about every person on the thread or any thread you post to.

Because, after all, no one understands things like you~/, do they, Dave?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#155271 Feb 20, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
What part do you take issue with?
This part:

"None of the Gospels have known authors; they're anonymous. Assigning them to Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is simply church tradition. Jude is likely pseudepigraphical.
Moses didn't write squat.
The Book of Daniel wasn't even written by Daniel."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155272 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack a sufficient overview of the process to know what you are professing.
Try creating the material architecture that will accept the code you now write. It is all much more complicated than you are capable of understanding now. There is a lot more to it than just translating it into machine language.
A "material architecture" is nothing like a learning engine, nothing at all. We are actually developing computer programs that do it, they are written to mimic the human brain perfectly, I worked on a few of them myself, and they don't start with a predefined "code" at all, it's randomized from the start and learns everything. The problem is that we cannot get the processing power we need for it to work as quickly as the biological brain.

Then at the end you just reworded what I said, it's not "code," it's a language, the brain develops a language for comprehending the world around it, even the simplest concept like the number zero has a very complex set of neurons firing when you just think the value. It's a language, not a "code" at all. You just admitted it, so at least you're learning still.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#155273 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the neat thing about Christianity - it needs no correction.
Except for slavery, and oppression of women, and belief in a supernatural, etc, etc, etc.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#155274 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Every form of like we know starts as a seed in some fashion.
Wrong. Bacteria are a counterexample.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#155275 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This part:
"None of the Gospels have known authors; they're anonymous. Assigning them to Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is simply church tradition. Jude is likely pseudepigraphical.
Moses didn't write squat.
The Book of Daniel wasn't even written by Daniel."
But all of that is correct based on the scholars studying the topic.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#155276 Feb 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Cletcher,
How ya' like those California gas prices?
Liberal policies are great, huh?
Bwhahahahahahahaaa..
Hope it goes to $20 a gallon. You guys would still vote for liberal democrats.
And you should,...'cause you deserve them.
Rick Perry(R) and Texas will take your rich refugees for you. You know,...the guys who employ people?
Bwahahahahahahaaaaa....etc.
But there's hope...Detroit (Liberal) will likely default. Their govt.-tit-sucks might move to Cal!
Bwahahaaaa (repeat)
Our gas prices are over the roof, and my BMW sucks up that high test the way you do Budweiser. Good thing I can afford it.

Liberal policies my ass, just another instance of oil company ripoffs.

I don't know much about Detroit, but as for Rick Perry, he can have as many of our refugees as he wants as far as I'm concerned. Catcher is staying right where he is.

And loving it.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#155277 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I love reading this forum and seeing those wonderful displays of Topix atheist intellect and reason come poring forth.
To reach the same level of thought would require me to chase down cats and step on their tails, or to develop boils or painful zits I really wouldn't want to have.
I haven't done any poring.

You must be enrolled in Eagle school.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#155278 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This part:
"None of the Gospels have known authors; they're anonymous. Assigning them to Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is simply church tradition. Jude is likely pseudepigraphical.
Moses didn't write squat.
The Book of Daniel wasn't even written by Daniel."
Please be more precise about what you have a problem with.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#155279 Feb 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This part:
"None of the Gospels have known authors; they're anonymous. Assigning them to Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is simply church tradition. Jude is likely pseudepigraphical.
Moses didn't write squat.
The Book of Daniel wasn't even written by Daniel."
I try not to be, because I should be used to it by now, but I'm continually amazed at just how little Christians know about the books that they claim to know and understand so well.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155280 Feb 20, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> Sure, Dave, sure.
But really, it's more than a forest or tree, isn't it? There are numerous analogies that could be made here that sound mysterious and really "special", I'll leave that up to you, since you see further than ...<<<<- yeah I'll leave those analogies to those that enjoy them, you. Oh vanguard of ancient knowledge lost and only known by a few wizened elders!
<quoted text>
hahaa....
That's what you say to just about every person on the thread or any thread you post to.
Because, after all, no one understands things like you~/, do they, Dave?
Yes, they do. I'm just one of the foolish ones trying to explain it to the rocks and logs.

I "know" nothing, but I am a real quick study in figuring things out.

You can describe the overall process only in metaphor and analogy. You can try to describe in pictures, but you still have the issue of that first pixel and how it is perceived. There I go getting metaphorical again.

The "ancient knowledge" is not lost, it is just buried under bullshit. Thank you for your contribution.:-)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155281 Feb 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't done any poring.
You must be enrolled in Eagle school.
It was an amalgam of pouring and boring. Took a little poetic license, even though I knew you wouldn't understand. Sorry, I meant couldn't.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#155282 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Every form of like we know starts as a seed in some fashion. DNA is a bootstrap program, DNA is "alive" as it has energy coursing though it. This see then can be triggered into growth.
In plants these seeds are assembled as chemicals in packets exposed to the elements. They have a life span of their own. They can dry out or interact with the environment in a fashion where their growth can not occur.
In animals these seeds are protected within the body of the parent. Egg bearing gets the warmth for the chemicals and programming to occur. Live bearing gets the warmth and nutrients, and is even subject to changes of its host occurring after it's growth began.
There is a force that is constant and passed on in all of those processes. Show me where DNA that has not been maintained in some sort of nutrient environment, the basic raw chemicals, has been used to activate life. Show me where plants have been grown from dead seeds, and how the seeds were "rejuvenated".
The living active creature can modify it's blueprint, its seed. The purely reactive chemical processes can not do that. However, those things are done on a very low awareness level of the creature. They are not "conscious" acts.
You are stretching chance and randomness beyond their limits asserting life is strictly a chemical process. It is a combination of chemicals and programming, and with that programming is a desire to continue existing. To keep watching this movie unfold.
There is nothing to prove that "thought", or "spirit", did not create or assemble the chemicals needed to exist in this manifestation.
Man, for one, is well known for exploiting what is available to survive. Plus, he has developed the ability to even manufacture some of that. Your view would like to believe he just appeared magically out of total chaos, becoming a deity on his own able to do those things, when the truth may be he is just a chip off the old block.
I'm back to instruct you on just how WRONG you are here. You make these statements that make you appear that you know what you're talking about, when in fact, you are completely WRONG. DNA is NOT "alive." Here for all to see is your ignorant statement for all to see. "DNA is "alive" as it has energy coursing through it.(so do batteries and light bulbs) This seed can be triggered into growth."..........Wrong all the way around. Here, class is in session, pat attention>>>> >>

DNA is a chemical compound, chemical compounds are NOT alive. DNA is non-living because it is a MOLECULE not an ORGANISM. DNA cannot maintain homeostatis on its own. It also cannot GROW. The process of replication is NOT growth but simply DUPLICATION. More information if you need it and it appears as though you need lots of information before you open your uneducated mouth. Just here to help and save you those totally embarrassing moments. LOL

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155283 Feb 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Bacteria are a counterexample.
Bacteria are atheist.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#155284 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
A "material architecture" is nothing like a learning engine, nothing at all. We are actually developing computer programs that do it, they are written to mimic the human brain perfectly, I worked on a few of them myself, and they don't start with a predefined "code" at all, it's randomized from the start and learns everything. The problem is that we cannot get the processing power we need for it to work as quickly as the biological brain.
Then at the end you just reworded what I said, it's not "code," it's a language, the brain develops a language for comprehending the world around it, even the simplest concept like the number zero has a very complex set of neurons firing when you just think the value. It's a language, not a "code" at all. You just admitted it, so at least you're learning still.
If you didn't have something for the code to be stored in, you would get nowhere in a hurry. You need material and an architecture for it to be stored and recalled. In addition, you need the means to even generate the code. Which again, requires that material architecture. There is quite a loop in the process.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#155285 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an amalgam of pouring and boring. Took a little poetic license, even though I knew you wouldn't understand. Sorry, I meant couldn't.
Good try, Dave.

And keep on poring your amalgams.

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
Stump a theist with 2 questions 58 min Thinking 20
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 22,140
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 6 hr Patrick 189
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 9 hr Jaimie 71
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 12 hr Patrick 42
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 18 hr Patrick n Angela 3
The Ultimate Evidence of God Mon sriKim 120
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••