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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170000 Jun 25, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Man... your religion makes you sick. It's ok to be human.
For who?

Who is it ok for?

Don't you see the madness in the world?

Do you live in denial of that?

Christianity accounts and supplies the solution for this madness.

If you truly believe in a pollyanna atheism that does not face reality, then are you not also a part of that madness?

What is your solution for the madness in the world?

What does atheism offer, other than a nihilistic acceptance of the futility of humanity?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#170001 Jun 25, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are in Hell, you will have eternal painful proof. I've written you off as a permanent idiot.
More ineffectual and irrelevant christian threats

Perhaps you should read the topix TOCs, particularly the section on threatening behaviour

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#170002 Jun 25, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Previous atheists got proof back in the Old Testament, yet still didn't believe. Why do you think you would if given proof?
Like I said, you really don't want proof because if it were given to you, you would then have to say, "I believe in God!". And we know you really wouldn't want to say that, as evil as you are.
Plus , you asking the question that you know we will never be able to satisfactorily answer to you, gives you temporary ease of mind that you can follow through with your cult of atheism.
You are a bitter coward, through and through, you loser.
The OT and its forerunner, the Tanakh are not proof, they are a collection of stories written by bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word proof proof is not belief, contrary to your belief

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170003 Jun 25, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're right. Better to put our faith in the mad ramblings of a backwards, bronze age book and the sick, twisted, morally repugnant god that it describes.
You are aware that this is a logical fallacy don't you?

Assuming that because knowledge is old, it is therefore fallacious?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170004 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Our senses are not the basis for ascertaining truth, they are the instruments by which we observe the physical universe in the limited sphere we have.
Yes, they are *part* of the basis for discerning truth. If I claim there is an elephant in my room and you go in there and do not see an elephant, that is sufficient to conclude that my claim is false. That is solely based on the senses.

Of course, another aspect is that we can use our minds to create hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses will not fit the evidence (from the senses!) but a few will. Those we keep and test further. The senses allow us to determine which of our hypotheses are false and thereby eliminate those falsehoods.

General propositions are always somewhat uncertain because new evidence in cases not tested previously might show the proposition to be false. In that case, we need a new hypothesis that covers all of the previously tested cases AND the newly tested case. Once again, the senses are what determines the falsehood of a proposition.
The problem humanity has, is that it is not logical or reasonable, it has an inbuilt desire to twist reality to fits its own desires of what reality should be like.
So the senses, are only as good as the mind and heart behind them.
This is where atheistic empiricism fails as it does not address this key issue.
Incorrect. The fact that individuals can make mistakes, be biased, and have agendas is dealt with by having a variety of people from different backgrounds with different biases and different agendas looking at the evidence independently, often with the *goal* of showing some ideas to be wrong. Those hypotheses that manage to survive this treatment are more reliable than those only tested by one person.
Humanity is not rational, humanity is half crazed.
More accurately, humans are sometimes rational, sometimes crazed, sometimes biased, and sometimes objective. The goal of science is to eliminate the biases and craziness and leave the rationality and objectiveness. No system is perfect, but by repeated testing with the goal to show ideas are *wrong*, we can eventually eliminate the falsehoods. What remains is the truth.
Therefore the senses cannot be relied on, because that which is behind them is untrustworthy and uses them rather than submit to them to preserves its own paradigm.
The senses may not be completely reliable (optical illusions alone show that), but they are much better than the arm-chair philosophy that doesn't take into consideration the results of testing through the senses. Checks and balances can minimize the biases and mistakes over time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170005 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are aware that this is a logical fallacy don't you?
Assuming that because knowledge is old, it is therefore fallacious?
No, but it is reasonable to question whether old ideas in areas that have undergone significant changes over time are still reliable. In particular, the world view of 2000 years ago with different physics for the 'sublunar realm' and the 'heavens' that was based on Platonic and Aristotelian physics is badly out of date. That bring into question anything that is potentially built on such ideas, such as the world view of early Christianity.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170006 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are aware that this is a logical fallacy don't you?
Assuming that because knowledge is old, it is therefore fallacious?
Enters Double Fine

To my old friends, followers and disciples. Double Fine is here. Double Fine is back. Bring on the wimmin'!

To those of you who do not know Double Fine, I will offer you this brief intro:

I am the master of disaster,
The man that seems to always go faster.
The King of Kong, The Ding of Dong.
The Sing of Song, The Ping of Pong.
I am the Ayatollah of Rock n' Rolla,
I am the shit and the shinola
I make the ladies scream, I make the people dream.
I am the immovable object and the unstoppable force
I am the eternal Dark Horse.

The Guru of Greatness

The Shaman of Sexy

Double Fine

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170007 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are aware that this is a logical fallacy don't you?
Assuming that because knowledge is old, it is therefore fallacious?
Double Fine wishes to interject here.

Old knowledge can still hold water. Newton's Theorems are still used today, at university level.

But if the old knowledge provides tales of seas parting, talking snakes and global floods.... Then its fulla shit

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170008 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, science is based on the self evident truth that things exist in a universe that adheres to causality.
Empiricism is founded on that as well.
Causality is not required for empiricism. For example, quantum mechanics is a thoroughly empirical science, but is not a causal theory.
The problem with atheistic empiricism, is that if can never justify itself above the experiences of the human mind.
So the human mind and its reasoning become the standard by which empiricism is measured.
Would you agree with that.
That the ultimate standard for your "truths" are your senses?
More accurately, the ultimate standard for falsehood is our senses. We eliminate the falsehoods, require testability, and see what is left.
In other words, you can rise no higher than the reliability and capacity of your senses when it comes to measuring the universe.
Now here is the interesting part, what if there is something higher than your senses in your experience that drives how your senses are used?
What if you have an inbuilt desire to see the world contrary to its reality?
What do you do then?
That is why we require observations to be repeatable by people with different biases and different ideas on how things 'should be'. Anything that doesn't produce *some* observational effect that could be detected in *some* way by *some* observer is irrelevant and not deserving the designation 'truth'.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170009 Jun 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but it is reasonable to question whether old ideas in areas that have undergone significant changes over time are still reliable. In particular, the world view of 2000 years ago with different physics for the 'sublunar realm' and the 'heavens' that was based on Platonic and Aristotelian physics is badly out of date. That bring into question anything that is potentially built on such ideas, such as the world view of early Christianity.
Poly!! How you been, man?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170010 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Our senses are not the basis for ascertaining truth, they are the instruments by which we observe the physical universe in the limited sphere we have.
The problem humanity has, is that it is not logical or reasonable, it has an inbuilt desire to twist reality to fits its own desires of what reality should be like.
So the senses, are only as good as the mind and heart behind them.
This is where atheistic empiricism fails as it does not address this key issue.
Humanity is not rational, humanity is half crazed.
Therefore the senses cannot be relied on, because that which is behind them is untrustworthy and uses them rather than submit to them to preserves its own paradigm.
So... You would chuck the observable proof, in favour of one lunatic rolling on the ground, because "the holy ghost is in him"?

Anyways. Double Fine does not wish to debate. Not with so many lesbians on the thread. Double Fine rather charms them. Ot is a fact of life, all women like Double Fine.

If you want, we can talk about Jesus. What do you think he sounded like? I am betting like a Jewish hippy.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#170011 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>another atheist site pretending to be christian... why do atheist lie...
"Answers in Genesis" is an atheist site?

BWAAAHAHAHA!

It's a Fundamentalist Christian apologetics ministry, you halfwit!

"Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." - Wiki.

Or, if you prefer their own webpage: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ."

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#170012 Jun 25, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Poe. Calling it. If it hasn't already been called.
Seconded.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#170013 Jun 25, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Answersingenesis " is an atheist site? Your religion has utterly obliterated your mind.
Beat me to it - I elaborated a bit.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170014 Jun 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are *part* of the basis for discerning truth. If I claim there is an elephant in my room and you go in there and do not see an elephant, that is sufficient to conclude that my claim is false. That is solely based on the senses.
Of course, another aspect is that we can use our minds to create hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses will not fit the evidence (from the senses!) but a few will. Those we keep and test further. The senses allow us to determine which of our hypotheses are false and thereby eliminate those falsehoods.
General propositions are always somewhat uncertain because new evidence in cases not tested previously might show the proposition to be false. In that case, we need a new hypothesis that covers all of the previously tested cases AND the newly tested case. Once again, the senses are what determines the falsehood of a proposition.
<quoted text>
Incorrect. The fact that individuals can make mistakes, be biased, and have agendas is dealt with by having a variety of people from different backgrounds with different biases and different agendas looking at the evidence independently, often with the *goal* of showing some ideas to be wrong. Those hypotheses that manage to survive this treatment are more reliable than those only tested by one person.
<quoted text>
More accurately, humans are sometimes rational, sometimes crazed, sometimes biased, and sometimes objective. The goal of science is to eliminate the biases and craziness and leave the rationality and objectiveness. No system is perfect, but by repeated testing with the goal to show ideas are *wrong*, we can eventually eliminate the falsehoods. What remains is the truth.
<quoted text>
The senses may not be completely reliable (optical illusions alone show that), but they are much better than the arm-chair philosophy that doesn't take into consideration the results of testing through the senses. Checks and balances can minimize the biases and mistakes over time.
You present an idead in your argument that men have different biases.

Whilst that is indeed true on a socialogical level, where it falls down is that it does not recognize the universality of the sin problem that all humanity suffers from.

One inherent trait of that sinfulness, or abberation, is that it is experienced by all humanity.

With that in mind, it then makes it very difficult to trust "group think", when "group think" has the same problem in every individual.

It is that inherent problem in humanity that fuels the war against truth, logic and knowledge, which are all inherent from God.

Mankind is born with the propensity to fight against God, whom it also knows exists.

So when men agree on something that attacks God, it is not a great surprise that we would indeed see unity in rejection of God.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170015 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Double Fine wishes to interject here.
Old knowledge can still hold water. Newton's Theorems are still used today, at university level.
But if the old knowledge provides tales of seas parting, talking snakes and global floods.... Then its fulla shit
I assume from your response that you are a naturalistic empiricist and you presuppose your ability to rationalise is not tainted with any biases, like naturalistic empiricism?

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170016 Jun 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Causality is not required for empiricism. For example, quantum mechanics is a thoroughly empirical science, but is not a causal theory.
<quoted text>
More accurately, the ultimate standard for falsehood is our senses. We eliminate the falsehoods, require testability, and see what is left.
<quoted text>
That is why we require observations to be repeatable by people with different biases and different ideas on how things 'should be'. Anything that doesn't produce *some* observational effect that could be detected in *some* way by *some* observer is irrelevant and not deserving the designation 'truth'.
Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...

You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#170017 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
So... You would chuck the observable proof, in favour of one lunatic rolling on the ground, because "the holy ghost is in him"?
Too many strawmen here to rationally respond to.:-)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170018 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume from your response that you are a naturalistic empiricist and you presuppose your ability to rationalise is not tainted with any biases, like naturalistic empiricism?
:-)
Heavens, no. Double Fine's only bias is towards women. They all seem to want Double Fine. Especially the lesbians. They love Double Fine alot, though less frequently than the straight ones.

But all silliness aside.

There are things like veriafable claims and unsubstantiated claims. Verifiable are those we can measure, document etc. I can find a fossil in strata and measure it, using Strontium and get a set age. Another researcher an do the same and if we both did it correctly, we get the same age. Verifiable.

Unsubstantiated claims like 'feeling Jesus inside me' etc are very ambigious. I understand that your culture and upbring lets you put heavy trust in that, but think of this. I can make any unsubstantiayed claim, and you cannot prove me wrong.

Take that imbecile from Australia, claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus. Or the Mormons, who said Jesus showed up in heaven. Or that other lunatic who predicted that the rapture would happen in May 2011 and when it didnt, he said, "yeah, but it was a rapture in heaven". Hell, I can make a claim that Jesus have been hiding behind my couch all this time, and you cannot disprove my claim on any grounds, because it is unsubstantiated. Say you show up at my house, I simply say Jesus has his cloak of invisibility on, therefore you cannot see him.

It goes on.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170019 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many strawmen here to rationally respond to.:-)
What is the strawman? Because some churches do have the collapsing thing going on. Falling over, etc. It happens. Maybe not in yur church, but it does.

My question is this. When do you know you are feeling (as used in context) something real?

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
Siro is writing a new book 31 min Siro 4
Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren'... 2 hr P_Smith 1
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr thetruth 862
The Rapture of the Atheists (Nov '09) 2 hr thetruth 7,110
Studies show many Americans not reading the Bib... 3 hr thetruth 18
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr thetruth 14,435
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' (May '14) 3 hr thetruth 101

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE