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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158253 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, no and another no.
Well then. Damn the people doing the actual investigating, I want their research budgets to go to you! Clearly you are an authority on the subject, let's get you some money!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#158254 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound insincere.
Not so.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158255 Mar 3, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW Have you seen this:-
http://isohunt.com/torrents/...
I think you might enjoy it.
Thanks! Will check it out.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158256 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
CHA-CHING!
Damn you.
But hey, that explanation makes a lot of sense to Redneck.
Yaaaaaaaaaaay!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158257 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What's Christmas like in Japan?
Annoying :)

First, the music starts as early as November, sometimes right at the beginning. It mostly signals a change in fashion seasons.

Then it gets better. The day itself is for couples. The boy takes the girl out to a really expensive restaurant, and then hotel where she returns the favor.

Ah, Christmas!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158258 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do public school evolution teachers tell junior high students to be critical of the scientists they read? No. They just teach it. The children aren't old enough or experienced enough to be critical. Default indoctrination.
As the twig is bent.
What do you want children to learn? You want them to be not be told what the consensus of scientists is and what the state of the discipline is?

Evolution is the framework theory for all biological sciences. It the only scientific theory that unifies all disparate biological phenomena under one explanatory umbrella.

So...what should we tell them? Should we just lie to them and talk about magic?

Should we have Muslim biology after Creationist Biology? Alchemy after Chemistry? Astrology after Astronomy?

Should we teach them "yeah, scientists have these ideas about how planets orbit the sun, but there are competing theories about solar evolution that include God doing it 6000 years ago. Sure, it's a 17th century idea that is officially removed from Catholic doctrine, but we're going to teach it to you anyways. Equal time for all ideas! And now, class, on to the validity of Mayan human sacrifice instead of Easter."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158259 Mar 3, 2013
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2478299

Seed imbibition producing heat.

Think process, not materials. It is mainstream science that came up with the big bang singularity, expansion, and cooling, not me.

Add the way matter and energy is distributed. Filamentous, web like, and the 99% of matter EM active plasma that does the primary combining and shaping of matter.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158260 Mar 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Not so.
Not true.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158261 Mar 3, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you want children to learn? You want them to be not be told what the consensus of scientists is and what the state of the discipline is?
Evolution is the framework theory for all biological sciences. It the only scientific theory that unifies all disparate biological phenomena under one explanatory umbrella.
So...what should we tell them? Should we just lie to them and talk about magic?
Should we have Muslim biology after Creationist Biology? Alchemy after Chemistry? Astrology after Astronomy?
Should we teach them "yeah, scientists have these ideas about how planets orbit the sun, but there are competing theories about solar evolution that include God doing it 6000 years ago. Sure, it's a 17th century idea that is officially removed from Catholic doctrine, but we're going to teach it to you anyways. Equal time for all ideas! And now, class, on to the validity of Mayan human sacrifice instead of Easter."
What if they learned about evolution, and then read a book by a evolutionary scientist about how those mean and women should be?

If you teach life began only as a chance combo of chemicals you shaped their brains. Teach they don't know if it was done by design or chance. Leave it open until they grow and do their own study. It is default teaching atheism if you don't do that.

PERIOD

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#158262 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The "sensations" are not even "nearly identicle" to and NDE.
"NDE'S" have happened in many cultures. They are different for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jaguar, Frog or Earth worshiping Animist. Culture plays heavily in the experience. People who talk about "core" experiences, are basing that on thousands of cases, and every case doesn't include all of the core experiences. You'd think if there was a reality to the NDE, there would be a set of, say, five experiences that always happen.

A "core" experience just needs to have, for instance, one out of a possible ten of those "core" experiences. This is never really mentioned. I'll add sometimes a person may experience "7" of the core events.'Core experiences", gives the impression all of them happen, always. That isn't the case.

Not all NDE's incorporate a deity experience. Not all NDE's indicate(as related by the person experiencing it) that there is a perceived expectation of 'afterlife".

Many NDE survivors(they never actually died), mention that its an entirely non religious experience.

It seems for some people it might be religious, for others, not "religious" at all. That seems odd to me.

It could be just that, the person was near to death, and they didn't die. The brain(proven to do a similar thing in traumatic injuries), provided a comfortable environment, instead of replaying the last thing a person saw before coming close to death, such as a 60 ft plunge off a cliff, or a 100 mph car crash into a Big Rig traveling at 60 mph....over, and over, and over, and over, till consciousness is resumed.

And when you do, you might be insane from watching Aunt Jenny's head vaporize on impact with the CD player. Repeatedly.

While you are close to death it isn't unreasonable to think the mind places you in a waiting room, filled with numerous things drawn from the subconscious mind and memory. Either chemically induced, or chemically and subconsciously initiated, like a deep dream state. I wouldn't assert that's what happens, however.

We can't even begin to know the effects of all the drugs that are given to heart attack patients(a high #% of NDE reports), and what that does to the mind. Info like that isn't collected in the emergency rooms and may never be. Saving the life is the priority in that setting. Stick'em, drug'em, shock'em, beat on'em, repeat as needed.

Here's the thing, you'd have to die to know if it's actual experience or precursor to some sort of after life, and it isn't a NDE then. Is it?

Its a "DE" (death experience) at that point.

No one survives death, and by death, I mean life>death>rigor mortis.

NDE's and the books written about them and the musings offered are nothing more than speculation. That's all that can be said or asserted about NDE's. Much like deities, they can be neither proven or disproved.

It's a futile debate in thinking you'll prove whatever it is you think they are. It doesn't matter if you're the most brilliant mind on the face of the earth, that you think you've had a NDE, and that others believe your observations must be given more weight than a Wino that says he had one too is an error in reasoning.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#158263 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24 78299
Seed imbibition producing heat.
Think process, not materials. It is mainstream science that came up with the big bang singularity, expansion, and cooling, not me.
Add the way matter and energy is distributed. Filamentous, web like, and the 99% of matter EM active plasma that does the primary combining and shaping of matter.
Vol. 25, No. 5, May, 1898

Nice to see you are keeping up to date.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#158264 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's assume I take your word for that.
Do you know if the universe, at its inception, contained properties designed with the propensity to produce life?
This would require, of course, some intelligence independent of the universe in space and time.
And if the elements and properties present in the exploding birth of our universe had this built-in propensity for life, how would the present picture differ, scientifically, from what we observe today?
I submit it would not necessarily differ at all. The possible exception might be the signs indicative of intelligent design.
But wait! Is that even an exception? Some conclude it is there.

What makes you think it would have to be independent of itself?
The time it took to produce this biosphere is suggesting the universe itself an evolutionary entity, and us it's eyes and ears to see itself. If no life is found throughout the universe.

It now has us to engineer life to spread throughout the universe.
You imply the universe itself as great and grand as it is need something else to be old and wise, but it is simply the oldest thing we know of. But maybe you cannot see it's wisdom being right in front of your eyes and all?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158265 Mar 3, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
"NDE'S" have happened in many cultures. They are different for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jaguar, Frog or Earth worshiping Animist. Culture plays heavily in the experience. People who talk about "core" experiences, are basing that on thousands of cases, and every case doesn't include all of the core experiences. You'd think if there was a reality to the NDE, there would be a set of, say, five experiences that always happen.
A "core" experience just needs to have, for instance, one out of a possible ten of those "core" experiences. This is never really mentioned. I'll add sometimes a person may experience "7" of the core events.'Core experiences", gives the impression all of them happen, always. That isn't the case.
Not all NDE's incorporate a deity experience. Not all NDE's indicate(as related by the person experiencing it) that there is a perceived expectation of 'afterlife".
Many NDE survivors(they never actually died), mention that its an entirely non religious experience.
It seems for some people it might be religious, for others, not "religious" at all. That seems odd to me.
It could be just that, the person was near to death, and they didn't die. The brain(proven to do a similar thing in traumatic injuries), provided a comfortable environment, instead of replaying the last thing a person saw before coming close to death, such as a 60 ft plunge off a cliff, or a 100 mph car crash into a Big Rig traveling at 60 mph....over, and over, and over, and over, till consciousness is resumed.
And when you do, you might be insane from watching Aunt Jenny's head vaporize on impact with the CD player. Repeatedly.
While you are close to death it isn't unreasonable to think the mind places you in a waiting room, filled with numerous things drawn from the subconscious mind and memory. Either chemically induced, or chemically and subconsciously initiated, like a deep dream state. I wouldn't assert that's what happens, however.
We can't even begin to know the effects of all the drugs that are given to heart attack patients(a high #% of NDE reports), and what that does to the mind. Info like that isn't collected in the emergency rooms and may never be. Saving the life is the priority in that setting. Stick'em, drug'em, shock'em, beat on'em, repeat as needed.
Here's the thing, you'd have to die to know if it's actual experience or precursor to some sort of after life, and it isn't a NDE then. Is it?
Its a "DE" (death experience) at that point.
No one survives death, and by death, I mean life>death>rigor mortis.
NDE's and the books written about them and the musings offered are nothing more than speculation. That's all that can be said or asserted about NDE's. Much like deities, they can be neither proven or disproved.
It's a futile debate in thinking you'll prove whatever it is you think they are. It doesn't matter if you're the most brilliant mind on the face of the earth, that you think you've had a NDE, and that others believe your observations must be given more weight than a Wino that says he had one too is an error in reasoning.
You wouldn't look at the remembered experiences, you look at the personality changes. The memories are strictly physical, and will be made to fit the culture. When you are in that extreme of a situation, you are deep in the subconscious. Your memories later will be a result of the event translated where you can understand them. Somewhat, anyhow. Those translated physical memories are what let you reintegrate back into this physically conscious world. But the curtain is closed on the subconscious. You are left with nothing more substantial than emotions and perceptions you can't put a finger on.

Look at those personality changes, and you seek impressions they had, not the actual "memory". There is a commonality across cultures on that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158266 Mar 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think it would have to be independent of itself?
The time it took to produce this biosphere is suggesting the universe itself an evolutionary entity, and us it's eyes and ears to see itself. If no life is found throughout the universe.
It now has us to engineer life to spread throughout the universe.
You imply the universe itself as great and grand as it is need something else to be old and wise, but it is simply the oldest thing we know of. But maybe you cannot see it's wisdom being right in front of your eyes and all?
Whoo?

The boy is finally getting a grasp of some things.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#158267 Mar 3, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Even the panspermia people accept that they're just moving back the time at which abiogenesis happened, and the location to somewhere else.
Unless you are a creationist-panspermia-ist and believe that God Created life on some other planet for some other chosen people and then it drifted here. That would be pretty ironic.

We knowing meteor impacts can create amino acids is a definitive piece of evidence also. Not as much as the whole panspermia theory but a piece of evidence that abiogenesis is feasible.
But the deep ocean vents , extremophiles, the deep Earth bacteria
the knowledge brought by the Miller/Urey Experiment research into RNA
and (Im sure you know loads more are all hints that abiogenesis took place.

I know I'm not telling you anything , but this isn't really for you but to add to your post as to what evidences there are of it.
Of course primitive cells may have come via panspermia also, but the possibility is much greater with the knowledge of all these things. BTW hiya hiding we missed your presence.:)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#158268 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
What if they learned about evolution, and then read a book by a evolutionary scientist about how those mean and women should be?
If you teach life began only as a chance combo of chemicals you shaped their brains. Teach they don't know if it was done by design or chance. Leave it open until they grow and do their own study. It is default teaching atheism if you don't do that.
PERIOD
Your suggestion is ridiculous. The design inference is in no way supported by any of our sciences. If we were to teach children that life could have been produced by design or chance, as you put it, we would be lying to them.

Biology class is for teaching biology, not fantasy or religion.

The real heart of your problem is that you recognize that biological science supports the atheist position, and you don't like it. Tough. Children can also go to religion classes if they want to understand that, and can go to social science classes to understand how people work.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#158269 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. But that would take away our free will.
<quoted text>
Not exactly, He *exists* in the future, and the present, and the past. But for the sake of your ignorance, we'll say yes.
<quoted text>
For you, yes.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
(cue the "free will is a myth" argument....)
So your God can't intervene in the suffering of little children because that would nullify the free will component he decided was important. At what point does the kind, caring, loving, compassionate shit kick in?

He exists IN the future be he can't "exactly" see the future? Explain!! And what makes my statement about God seeing the future ignorant?

You love to put words in peoples mouths, I NEVER said the concept of free will was a Myth, I said it was an illusion. You can never fully deal with this can you. If tomorrow you decide to take a train rather than a bus, did God know which you were going to do? This is your future and only God can know which you will do. Ever action you take affects the next action, and so on, down through time. Alter on of these actions and your entire future changes, unless you want to admit that God has no idea what the future holds for you, then you have to accept the fact that your future is already cast for you. Is it possible for you do chose something other than what your future holds for you? Can you do anything other that what God KNOWS you will do? Could you have possibly taken the bus rather than the train? If so, your entire future would have been altered thereby changing the pathway that God had chosen for you. You had no choice but to take the train, hence, free will is an illusion.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#158270 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
If I was an atheist, I'd agree with your friends. I'm not an atheist and I've spend all of maybe 5 minutes of my life on atheist websites - usually just to get a laugh.
<quoted text>
Do they try to stop any and all Buddhist or Shinto rituals? Especially those in public? Atheists do that in America a lot. They claim to be tolerant, but most of them only seem to be tolerant of people that agrees with their opinions.
We have a big white cross here, on Mt Rubidoux. An atheist complained about it because it sits on city property. The FFRC filed a lawsuit against Riverside to have it removed, even though the majority of Riversidians wanted the cross to stay - even one atheist friend of mine. He said the cross is meaningless to him except for bring a city landmark (it's been there since 1907). The city is selling the property to a private owner to shut up the FFRC.
Riverside isn't selling the property with the cross on it to shut up anybody.

The sale is required so that the City doesn't run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Heard of it? First Amendment and all that?

Even Buck knows about that.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#158271 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, man.
Don't worry about it.

But don't do it again, either.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#158272 Mar 3, 2013
I mentioned the green smoky trail in my NDE surprising me. And the wrestling with it.

This was one of those surprise events I encountered in that experience. There was absolutely zero reason for me to see such a thing. Later someone said it sounded like my kundalini. I had no knowledge anything like that existed. Never delved into or got acquainted with those sort of things. Totally ignorant of them.

But there I was after going through the black tunnel and drifting to the back of the van looking back toward the front and groaning about the mess I would have to straighten out, and then catching the sight of this green trail coming over the divider I had passed through. Without ever having giving it a thought I passed through a divider. I was totally focused on seeing what was going on. The only reason I caught sight of it was because it was backlit by sunlight coming through the front. It wasn't a straight path. The divider was solid on the bottom and grill at the top. It came through the grill and then dropped before going to the back and heading into me. The exact path of my consciousness and its "vision".

It scared me to death, Kind of a pun there. All I could think at that moment was snake and it was going for me. There was a furious whirlwind type tussle for a few seconds, and then my consciousness collapsed, exhausted. And the realization I just died. I was in the back of the van. My body was laying in the front. Never even thought to take a look at it.

That was the first change of consciousness, and when I considered inserting myself into someone else. When that was over, another occurred. No thinking in words, no memories, no nothing tied to this world and the conscious thinking we do. It was time to go. Then came the wakeup, and the wanting to go back to sleep to escape where I was. Then a period of I can't remember, and a re-emergence back into the van, and a gazing out of where I was going next.

There was not the tiniest bit of anything I could have expected from my physical consciousness. Death had always been this vague thing you did some day. A bridge to be crossed when you got there.

But that green trail kundalini thing was really interesting, looking back at it. Who would ever expect to be bit by a snake in a van after a traffic accident? I didn't.

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
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 1 hr Thinking 3
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Thinking 2,293
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr TheHeadlines 145
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 10 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 11 hr Thinking 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Sat polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Sat Yiago 148
More from around the web