Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
165,641 - 165,660 of 225,701 Comments Last updated 55 min ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172542
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
May I comment here? I think transparency is a good rule. That's why I'm going to say this in public. Atheists are ***not*** human trash. Some atheists actually embody the Christian ethics better than self-proclaimed Christians do. Some atheists know the contents of the bible better than some self-proclaimed Christians, even if I think they are incorrect in their conclusions. Atheists are not our enemies. They just haven't found what they're looking for yet.
I conduct real-world apologetic evangelism meetings, and I can tell you from experience, that atheists are turned off by 3 things in particular, and all of them involve Christian behavior.
1) Self-righteous, pompous fundamentalists who threaten and insult.
2) Timid believers who don't know why they believe and run.
3) People who try to tell atheists what they (atheists) think.
I strongly suggest that if you're going to use public Wi-Fi, that you not bring shame upon the very thing you're trying to promote.
Do you honestly believe that everyone in that McDonalds is impressed by your actions? I'm not even there and I'm not impressed.
So please go to the counter, ask for a tall cold cup of humility, a side order of sincerity, and ditch the self-righteousness. It's not healthy for your spiritual life. It was the self-righteous RELIGIOUS leaders who turned Christ over to the Romans for execution. And your actions here are doing it all over again in a symbolic way.
Thank you for this. Even though we disagree, there is no reason to be disagreeable. All too often your co-religionists are disagreeable.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172543
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
The fact that Paul wrote his letters first doesn't mean anything since the Jews of that time depended on oral tradition to communicate. 1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates this fact. Paul uses the language associated with formal transfer of oral tradition.
It means everything: prior to Paul? There simply **was** no single group calling themselves "christians".

Likely there was hundreds of individual, small groups--most of whom were still practicing Jews as well.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the term "christian" did not come into use, until after Constantine's army began force-converting people. They clearly needed a name for the newly-minted cult, so "christian" was used here.

In either case, the oldest stuff (that we have left) comes from Paul-- and Paul (if you remove all the books falsely attributed to him) never wrote about a human Jesus.

Always, Paul writes about a celestial being-- a spirit, a ghost if you will-- never mortal flesh-and-blood.

That is the most telling bit of historical fact right there: the oldest authority we have-- thought Jesus was some sort of mythical figure not unlike Mithras.

The Jesus-as-man comes much later, and appears to be tacked on to the basic Pauline mythos.

And not tacked on very eloquently either...

... which begs the question:

Why?

Why is it all such a mish-mash of contradictory information?

If, as they all claim, it's so damnall important?

Hmmm?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172544
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena?
He was a nutjob at best. A bald-faced liar, most likely.

You get that sort of "sciency-type" from time to time-- they don't do real science-- they do pseudosciency garbage.

As we often said back in my computing days? Garbage in? You get garbage out.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172545
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes.
That means nothing of the sort!

Do you have a LINK to this alleged offense?

Or is your information just coming from someone who's been universally banned from scientific circles, because he's ... well.. batshit insane?

The fact is?

**anything** that is supernatural is-- by definition-- not natural.

And science cannot test anything that is outside of reality (not natural).

Again-- BY DEFINITION.

So it's not a bias against supernatural per say-- it is a bias against ...

... bullshit.

So far? All "supernatural" claims have proven bogus.

All.

That's pretty telling right there.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172546
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics.
I am **so** going to need a link to this alleged "expert".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172547
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
Sorry to hear of health problems and that they had an impact on your work. I hope everything improves for you soon.
Thank you.

Alas, it's a condition that is difficult to diagnose, so it'll be a few more days, I expect, before the doctors are able to do anything apart from prophylactic measures.

I do enjoy reading what you have to say, by the way-- you make me stretch, mentally.

Which is good-- and a welcome change. That rarely happens when I read a theist's post-- usually I only have to think hard, when reading posts from crazy-smart folk, like Polymath.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172548
Jul 19, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me repeat back a summary of my understanding of your personal philosophy. I don't think it's wise to misrepresent people.
Are you saying that your philosophy for life is that skepticism is the default position for anything that cannot be materially or empirically confirmed?
Yes. In particular, the default position on the existence of something is that it does NOT exist unless there is evidence for it. And that is just as true for super-symmetric particles as it is for a God. At least with super-symmetry there is a possibility of testing the hypothesis.
In the age old argument of God vs. No god, what is your personal worst case scenario? What would upset you the most?
Your question really confuses me. Why would I be 'upset' in either situation? I could be wrong, but that is part of having incomplete data. It happens all the time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172549
Jul 19, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am **so** going to need a link to this alleged "expert".
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172550
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena? Isn't that a potential public relations nightmare for the scientific community? Doesn't that explicitly admit that there are scientists who purposely exclude supernatural causes as a foundation to deny the likelihood of Divinity?
The problem comes in the very nature of science. As you have pointed out, it is limited to consideration of natural phenomena. In particular, supernatural phenomena are excluded simply because they are untestable. If something *is* testable, it is, almost by definition, natural.
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes.
Actually, this is wrong. By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.
Polymath attempted some damage control by saying that scientists improve their control measures so that people conducting research can't fake or falsify their findings. But that didn't address the explicit admission that secular science deliberately keeps supernatural phenomena out of the lab and out of all hypotheses so they don't even have to look at it.
Give a specific way of testing the existence of a 'supernatural'. In particular, since on 'natural' devices are allowed, anything that interacts with them is, by definition, natural. It is a problem at the veru foundation of the concept of a supernatural and is one of the reasons I see it as without actual meaning.
I'm going to take a turn here from my usual mild-mannered methodology to a more aggressive nature aimed at the argument. Please do not take it personally, as none of it is directed at anyone here personally.
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics. This is a person who knows the agenda driven world of secular science. Specifically, I will be looking for:
1) The no-true scotsman fallacy.
2) Special pleading.
3) Damage control that does not specifically address this scientist and his damning admission.
I'm not being hostile or personal. I'm just not going to let this one off the hook so easily.
So how, in light of this revelation as to the intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning of some scientists, what are your opinions about his allegations?
it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172551
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

They can't even get their silly gospels to match up.
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>It still is.
In Judaism anyone can be a potential Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah is not a sin or blasphemy which proves that the Gospel of John is a pack of lies.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172552
Jul 19, 2013
 
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

That is one of the most **damning** proofs that the ugly bible isn't remotely divine in any way.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172553
Jul 19, 2013
 
Making a jackass out of yourself there? Ya I am sure people want to hear your critique on forum posts while eating dinner.

The employees humor you.

Damn what a loser!

Remember you said drowning infants is a kindness... Did you tell them that?
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>I'm in McDonalds using their Wi-Fi to show people in the store how ugly atheists are. I'm specifically showing them YOUR posts. I'm searching all of the threads you have infested and so far the crowd is appalled at how filthy you are as human trash.

Keep posting. We're really getting some great discussions going as to how you will be destroyed in Hell for your weak-willed and gutless deeds as an atheist.

Even the employees are getting in on this.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172554
Jul 19, 2013
 
Sad beyond words. A christhole has sunk to a whole new level of pathetic.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>What's going on here?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172555
Jul 19, 2013
 
hat's a long drawn out way of saying I have stumped you... Still no answers I notice just an excuse for your failures.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't ran in fear. I don't read every post. I'm sorry, I just don't. I engage in dialogue with people on various subjects and I do so at my leisure. Just because I haven't answered you doesn't mean I have ran away or surrendered. I ask questions to learn the responses I am going to face when conducting apologetic evangelism out in the real world. To be quite honest, I don't expect you or anyone else here to experience an epiphany based upon what I say. It's too impersonal to expect such a favorable result. I actually use this forum as a training ground to see what the latest most extreme views are, and how I can counter them in a real-world debate. You're helping me train. And I appreciate it. Thank-you.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172557
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem comes in the very nature of science. As you have pointed out, it is limited to consideration of natural phenomena. In particular, supernatural phenomena are excluded simply because they are untestable. If something *is* testable, it is, almost by definition, natural.
<quoted text>
Actually, this is wrong. By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.
<quoted text>
Give a specific way of testing the existence of a 'supernatural'. In particular, since on 'natural' devices are allowed, anything that interacts with them is, by definition, natural. It is a problem at the veru foundation of the concept of a supernatural and is one of the reasons I see it as without actual meaning.
<quoted text>
it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.
Sometimes the supernatural becomes testable, and then natural. But this hasn't happened in a very long time.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172558
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
I have worked with first responders at accident scenes.
Of the witnesses there? Each and every one has a **different** story as to what happened-- they were **all** there.
They **all** witnessed the **exact** same events.
Yet their stories are **all** different.
"oral tradition" is even worse-- each generation adds or subtracts from the stories to give it their own spin, their own personality.
By 2 or at most 3 generations? There are so many changes they are different tales.
So no.
I'll have to aggressively counter this one Bob. You're trying to mix two different concepts to come up with a conclusion that fits your personal beliefs. At an accident scene, there will be conflicting accounts. But what the investigators look for is the core. The incidental or peripheral details actually ADD credibility to the account. And to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I've been a licensed private investigator. I've investigated everything from the usual extra-marital affairs, to insurance scams, to wrongful death claims. One thing I can tell you for sure is that eye-witness testimony is credible, and just because people give some conflicting accounts, doesn't mean there is no central truth to the event.

At a death scene, the first thing any competent investigator does is separate the witnesses. This is absolutely critical. The investigating officer doesn't just limit the case to forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can only go so far. So what does the investigator do? He or she takes statements and isolate what the witnesses agree on. If they agree on too much, that's a sign of two possibilities.

1) The responding officers didn't separate the witnesses properly.

2) Or; the witnesses had already harmonized their testimony.

If either of these two things happen, the investigation is compromised.

What the investigators want to see are the differences. They separate these differences until they are left with only the similarities. This can also be done with the canonical gospels.
This is known as harmonizing. It works, and it can be done honestly.

As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too. In ancient Judea,(as well as other cultures) there were people who had the job of memorizing and passing along oral traditions. They were known as "Tradents." These tradents used creeds and other mnemonic methods to aid in memorizing. Tradents would often perform their duties in a temple setting, or popular gathering place. Tradents could use different techniques to tell the story, but they weren't allowed to distort or embellish so that it changed the truth of the events they were talking or singing about.
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:

1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.

2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172559
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
hat's a long drawn out way of saying I have stumped you... Still no answers I notice just an excuse for your failures.
<quoted text>
Give me your toughest question. If I can't answer it I'll admit it. I don't know everything. But I have to tell you very candidly, it's not the questions, challenges, or comments you make. It's your "tone."

Do you know what I mean by that?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172560
Jul 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Alas, it's a condition that is difficult to diagnose, so it'll be a few more days, I expect, before the doctors are able to do anything apart from prophylactic measures.
I do enjoy reading what you have to say, by the way-- you make me stretch, mentally.
Which is good-- and a welcome change. That rarely happens when I read a theist's post-- usually I only have to think hard, when reading posts from crazy-smart folk, like Polymath.
:)
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172561
Jul 19, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I like travel. But I hate airplane companies, so I rarely travel...
I have been to a blue state-- alas, my pay scale is commiserate with my extremely low cost of living (one of the few bennies here), and so the blue state was rather costly from my perspective.
But I did enjoy the plethora of choices for interest-- museums and such, aplenty.
A feature that is missing here in a region where most folk are challenged just opening a cardboard 12 pack carton ...
I'm too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. C'est la vie.

I do live in a University Town down in the bootheel and close to the Big Muddy, so the atmosphere is actually a little better than other locales I could easily think of. The younger people here bring in some new ideas and a spark of hope to offset the redneck woes;0)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172562
Jul 19, 2013
 
I saw a video clip about a pipe loaded with marijuana that was left in a happy meal at a McDonald's somewhere. I can't remember where they were located....3 employees were apparently goofing off at work and put there pipe into a happy meal....These are the people that "AIE" is using to help support his rantings lol... Don't get me wrong...smoke all you want, but do it at home...not at work. Of course the employees at the McDonald's that "AIE" has stationed himself to borrow the wi-fi for a crusade against atheism, obviously don't pay too much attention to their jobs either.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr NightSerf 369
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 1 hr inbred Genius 115
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 1 hr susanblange 293
If Christianity were true... 1 hr Thinking 155
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr Thinking 417
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 hr I can read 21,464
The Ultimate Evidence of God 14 hr religionisillness 44

Search the Atheism Forum:
•••