Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[RiversideRedneck]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Both the BB and the SS had red-shifts due to expansion of the universe. Those have been verified and are a requirement of any new thoery. The cosmic background radiation shows the condition of the universe at a particular time: it was very hot and dense and expanding. Any new thoery will have to take that into consideration. The observed abundances of the light elements show that the universe was once hot and dense enough for fusion reactions *and* that those reactions were cut off before completion by the expansion. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
So, the essential aspects of the BB thoery are established: that the universe is expanding from a very hot, dense state. Furthermore, the details are incredibly well described by general relativity and statistical mechanics. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
You seem to think that it is a bad thing that science is able to adapt to new information by coming up with new thoeries that fit both the old evidence and the newer evidence. To the contrary, it is one of the shining advances the human race made when we realized that a sequence of increasingly good approximations is better than a single bad worldview. Religion is still stuck in the philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago, while science has progressed because it can learn and change.

"stuck in philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago"?!

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you under the impression that scientists are not also religious people?

[scaritual]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
In the beginning was the curd, and the curd was with Gouda, and the curd was Gouda.
Cheesus Christ, what am I saying?

1)Then mine eyes beheld a wheel of cheese, and yet another of another kind, both spinning, one within the first wheel, 2) and a loud voice coming down from the heavens spake, shaking the earth and said "Look unto the cheese, behold its unity, thus from this point on I give unto you, Colby Jack", and it was good. Psalms of Melt chap.2:1-2

[RiversideRedneck]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Provide one "absolute" truth.

I have 2 dogs.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you come up with those probability numbers yet?

What probability numbers?

You are approaching and rationalizing from a particular school of thought.

Yes, I am approaching the subject from a 'school of thought' that says that ideas need to be subject to testing via observation; that ideas need to be able to make specific predictions; and that precision is better than vagueness when attempting to understand the universe. This is also the 'school of thought' that has lead to scientific progress over the last 400 years.

Your vision, and therefore conclusions, of the whole will be wrong. Quantum effect.

Show me a specific prediction that is wrong as determined by actual observation.

Man has been using materials for construction for eons without understanding the true nature of the material, and did very good jobs. Just made adjustments when needed. Your thought is in the same league.

On the contrary, we now have detailed models that can make specific predictions about properties of materials (in many, but not all cases) and that allows us to design new materials with properties nobody even 50 years ago would have imagined.

[RiversideRedneck]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

How old is the Earth?
Not 6,000 years, as the bible clearly states!
.

Lucy!!

Jew got sum 'splaining to do...!

[polymath257]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
"stuck in philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago"?!
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you under the impression that scientists are not also religious people?

Many scientists are. But the good ones don't let their religious beliefs trump their science. None-the-less, the basic Christian world-view is based on middle Platonism and is, at base, wrong.

[polymath257]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I have 2 dogs.

What makes that an 'absolute' truth as opposed to simple 'a truth'?

[RiversideRedneck]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
That's an absolute lie.
What is absolute truth?

An absolute truth is an unalterable and permanent fact.

[scaritual]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I grew up in Miami and played with bugs for years. One day I was pruning a bush in the yard and got stung by a light green caterpillar we had down there that I had played with during that time and never got stung by. Didn't know they could even sting. That was absolutely the most painful sting I ever had in my life.

I've been burned and felt all sorts of pain(S). I'm sure you have too.

If it's the same creature, it is almost literally, indescribable.

I'm glad(not that you were stung) that you have possibly ran across the same thing because when you try to relate what it was like it just comes across as whining or "it can't have been that bad".

It was. hahaa, KUDOS, Dave.

[RiversideRedneck]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Many scientists are. But the good ones don't let their religious beliefs trump their science. None-the-less, the basic Christian world-view is based on middle Platonism and is, at base, wrong.

What do you consider the "Christian world-view" is?

[Dave Nelson]

Topix atheists are under the impression their "non-belief" is license to mock and ridicule religions and their adherents for not sharing their "non-belief".

They are protesting discrimination and alleging persecution of their "non-belief". They should be protected from religious persecution, they proclaim.

They have no belief.

They think they are above the laws they seek to protect them, that they are allowed to engage in ridicule and to proselytize their "non-belief".

They won't be prosecuted for being atheists, but for expressing hatred for religions.

Topix atheists are stupid.

[RiversideRedneck]

polymath257 wrote:

What makes that an 'absolute' truth as opposed to simple 'a truth'?

It's not permanent.

[Thinking]

Wrong. I said "any all powerful god". You took that to mean your myth.

So humans are to blame for all cot death? All miscarriages? All childhood leukaemia? And your all powerful god just lets it happen?

Your belief system is really evil.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
You're under the typical atheist assumption that suffering is caused by God and not humans.
At least you believe that God is real, that's a good start.

[Dave Nelson]

scaritual wrote:

<quoted text>I've been burned and felt all sorts of pain(S). I'm sure you have too.
If it's the same creature, it is almost literally, indescribable.
I'm glad(not that you were stung) that you have possibly ran across the same thing because when you try to relate what it was like it just comes across as whining or "it can't have been that bad".
It was. hahaa, KUDOS, Dave.

I've experienced a lot of pains, including rabies shots. That sting left the most lasting effect on my psyche of any I have experienced. Makes you want to jump out of your body, but it won't let you. You just can't shut it off until it fades on its own. They should use it for interrogating terrorists.

[polymath257]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you consider the "Christian world-view" is?

That there is a supernatural creator of the physical universe that decides morality and send 'his''son' as a sacrifice to save those who believe this story.

[polymath257]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not permanent.

So your having 2 dogs is NOT an absolute truth? And would the statement 'You have 2 dogs on February 26, 2013' be an absolute truth?

[polymath257]

Asimov:

[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

[Siro]

Thinking wrote:

Wrong. I said "any all powerful god". You took that to mean your myth.
So humans are to blame for all cot death? All miscarriages? All childhood leukaemia? And your all powerful god just lets it happen?
Your belief system is really evil.
<quoted text>

We serve God not vice versa Mr Entitlement.
Your last sentence shows you to be a maltheist

[Imhotep]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
What we know now in science would be deemed absurd by ancients. Legendary manner? There is no such thing.
No, I propose that Islam came from one man with no witnesses to his claims.
You don't get to accuse the dead of anything. You have the burden to prove they were lying, or even biased.
Almost all of the OT has been confirmed by outside sources and archaeology.
Philo does mention it.
What is a superstitious era? Prove it.
Exactly. Who would you go about proving the dead were liars?
Joseph Smith also has no witnesses. You now clearly show a lack of historical knowledge and the fundamental differences of the major religious claims.
Variations among the groups is evidence of the overall truth. Had they all been exact, that would have been suspicious.
Should be rejected without greater evidence? By what authority? By whose standards?
If your very dead great grandfather was accused of pedophilia, is the matter open for discussion? No, the dead are immune from accusations of falsehood, as they cannot defend themselves. The evidence must be overwhelming that any new accusations later in history are valid.
You are accusing the ancients of lying. Only you have the burden of proof, otherwise you are a fraud and liar yourself.
Nor does the truth of something depend upon us believing it. Your analogy of flying is absurd, of course I PERSONALLY would not believe in something that did not sound truthful. But if hundreds of witnesses testified to it, and a major social reform followed? Then my opinion has no weight ... and neither does yours now.

Wrong!

Moses and Jesus exist only in the Bibles each cult uses as 'proof'.

Both Roman and Egyptian history do not record these men of myth.

Supposed Jesus witnesses

Josephus - Born 37 CE
Phlegon - Born about 80 CE
Tacitus - Born 56 CE
Pliny the Younger - Born 61 CE
Suetonious - Born about 69 CE
The Babylonian Talmud - 200CE
Lucian - Born 125 CE
Phlegon - 2nd century

How exactly are these guys witnesses to something that happened before they were even born?

Hearsay isn't admissible in court for a reason.

--

Tacitus was born in 56 CE, more than two decades after the alleged execution.

In fact, his writings about Jesus were done in 116 CE. This cannot be anything but 3rd hand (if not 4th or 5th) retelling, and the historical validity of the tale is therefore nil.

Since he was the first to write about it, where did he get the info? Surely not from earlier writings, right?

[RiversideRedneck]

polymath257 wrote:

That there is a supernatural creator of the physical universe that decides morality and send 'his''son' as a sacrifice to save those who believe this story.

What makes you think God decides morality?