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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174709 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Bob you can't prove anything, some quantum guy you are.
I have no need to show "no creator".
All I have to demonstrate? Is that the universe NEEDS NO creator to exist!
This is quite easy to do, too-- and has already been done, in fact.
The present universe needs no creator.
In one step? Your whole reason to get up in the morning has just been invalidated.
I pity you your loss.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174710 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob I am just not wasting my time. I know you have access to books I've read, and things I have done. You choose not to do them, because it is just not you. You wouldn't even take my word on anything I tell you, making describing such things as Past life Regression, to you. A total waste of time. I do believe you not believing what people tell you reflects on your own honesty. You are a fundamentalist, therefore you believe in going through any extreme to sell your belief. I don't want to nor do I have any reason to sell you on my beliefs, but your beliefs really suck, and God only knows why you want to sell others on them. Thank God in my world you are wrong. Yes Quantum in my world, and what does Quantum mean Bob, you loss get over it. What is much worse your faith. In Quantum the first rule is all just know themselves, and does not know exactly what others are going through. I believe you for what you claim to be a soulless Godless person. I take you for your word because I honestly give mine.
NOTHING in the above describes your god.

Nothing.

You did not even TRY to describe your god.

Why?

Are you afraid to describe your deity-of-choice?

Hmmm?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174711 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no cause, therefore there is no cause and effect in the universe. That is just too funny. Bob this is the utterings of a madman. Do yourself a favor. Find another hobby. This trying to convince everyone you know everything thing is a pure waste of time. Not to mention how rude you are about it. The funniest part of it after this statement "The universe has no cause" Is your claim of you NOT being a fundamentalist. It is an insult to your intelligence to believe you when you say that. But go ahead Bob spend more time trying to get me and others to see things exactly as you do. You should be anti-Quantum Bob.
NOTHING in the above describes in ANY WAY, your god-of-choice.

You did not even TRY to describe your deity!

Fail.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#174712 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Yes I'm aware of these worn out philosophical musings, but they don't answer my question at all Bob. There is always another perspective from which to observe and analyze such philosophical questions. The above philosophical arguments represent very linear thinking because they only present them as "either/or" propositions.
Pardon me for interrupting, but if you honestly believe in a perfect deity, then its morality necessarily must be perfect. So you would, in fact, be debating only "either/or" propositions. Either your deity is conceived of being perfect or it's not.

If your deity is perfect, morality for it would be perfectly knowable - i.e., obvious. Black and white.
This is merely an intellectually dishonest attempt to pigeon-hole what is beyond our understanding, to conform to our presuppositions for the purpose of rejection and self-justification in doing so.
Exactly what are you referring to here?
So again, is there a way we can depart from the linear thinking of ancient philosophers and explore the issue of evil from a multitude of perspectives? I think we can Bob. You and I both share common ground. We both recognize that evil is a fact of life in the world we live in. To deny the presence of evil is the same as denial that rain falls. Furthermore, we both possess some intuitive sense of good. If we didn't, we would have no way to identify the presence of evil.
If by "evil" you mean "human suffering and misery" then I have to agree.

Does it have to exist?
To defeat the linear ancient philosophical argument, we must acknowledge that we are free to make conscious moral choices.
If we acknowledge that God's original plan was to have an eternal relationship with all mankind, and that Satan deceived mankind into rebellion, then we see the beginning of evil in our world.
There are a number of issues with your comments here. Mainly:

1. I don't accept that your deity, or anyone else's, is real. Yes, they're subjectively real for you believers, but certainly not objectively real. Hence, why should I accept an argument resting on the existence of an imagined being? I could accept such a claim as the basis for an enjoyable discussion as in a logical proof: "If X exists, then..." but that would, in no way, entail the objective reality of the claim.

2. If you claim your deity is perfect, how can you claim that its own creation - i.e., the trickster in your religion - is not part of the plan? That seems pretty uncritical to me. You're basically saying that a perfect creator could not create a situation where it would have a relationship with all humans and, in fact, its own creation (the trickster deity) is getting in the way.

3. If you add hell onto that last bit, the logic becomes even more ridiculous: when the trickster deity, created by the perfect creator, gets in the way of the creator-deity's relationship with humans (another creation), the creator-deity punishes the humans.

Sorry, obviously I'm failing to understand your religion here.
Love cannot be forced. So God has allowed evil to exist as a consequence of human rebellion. If we are willing to learn what God really wants, then we must acknowledge that we have choices to make. If God allows evil to exist, it's because He is allowing us the right and duty to choose. We either love Him more, or we love ourselves more.
If you believe in hell, then you believe love can be created through the threat of torture. It's kind of funny that you wouldn't believe love to be forced, if you believe in hell.
I'm aware that many cannot grasp this or will dismiss it as a "just so" canned apologetic answer. But at the heart of the matter of evil is the fact that we have a choice to recognize that evil exists, and then then we have an obligation to choose love or evil.
Or pay the price - that's the threat.

You have such a crazy religion!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174713 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I just know myself and you just know yourself. I am happy to make that clear for you.
"just knowing" is not proof-- nor is it fact.

It's BELIEF which is just another word for "big lie"

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174714 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
It is very simple, until man does know everything every belief does require faith. Atheism more so than the rest of them. I can't help you if you can't see that
I have no faith-- at all.

The DEFAULT state therefore? Is atheist.

I would LOVE for there to be a beneficial god watching out for humans.

But preventable EVIL proves to 100%, that ain't so...

... if god is real? He's just an uncaring dick.

Pretty much like...

.... you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174715 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I'm aware of these worn out philosophical musings, but they don't answer my question at all Bob.
It answers it **exactly**... there is only confusion if you do not read what I wrote.
Roman Apologist wrote:
There is always another perspective from which to observe and analyze such philosophical questions. The above philosophical arguments represent very linear thinking because they only present them as "either/or" propositions.
You cannot excuse **preventable** evil.

No amount of word-twisting will do that-- either evil is **preventable** and should therefore be prevented.

Or it is **not** preventable-- and nothing can be done.

The world is full of **preventable** evil-- proving what Epicurus said was correct--

-- that there can be **no** deity who gives a crap.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174716 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It really does not matter to me personally what you, and by extension Topix atheists, think of me since the subject is really not about me, but about God.
When you stop being a coward and are able to prove the god your creationist cult sent you here to lie about, please let us know.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174717 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
So again, is there a way we can depart from the linear thinking of ancient philosophers and explore the issue of evil from a multitude of perspectives? I think we can Bob. You and I both share common ground. We both recognize that evil is a fact of life in the world we live in. To deny the presence of evil is the same as denial that rain falls. Furthermore, we both possess some intuitive sense of good. If we didn't, we would have no way to identify the presence of evil.
To defeat the linear ancient philosophical argument, we must acknowledge that we are free to make conscious moral choices.
If we acknowledge that God's original plan was to have an eternal relationship with all mankind, and that Satan deceived mankind into rebellion, then we see the beginning of evil in our world. Love cannot be forced. So God has allowed evil to exist as a consequence of human rebellion. If we are willing to learn what God really wants, then we must acknowledge that we have choices to make. If God allows evil to exist, it's because He is allowing us the right and duty to choose. We either love Him more, or we love ourselves more.
I'm aware that many cannot grasp this or will dismiss it as a "just so" canned apologetic answer. But at the heart of the matter of evil is the fact that we have a choice to recognize that evil exists, and then then we have an obligation to choose love or evil.
Nothing you said refutes what I said:

**preventable** evil should be prevented from happening.

The key word here, is >>preventable<<.

Evil that cannot be prevented is another thing-- it's demonstrative of an uncaring universe for one thing.

And that humans are ill suited to exist in a universe that is mostly hostile to life, for another.

Both of **those** conditions says much about any alleged creator, too-- and none of it is good.

But back to **preventable** evil--

-- mere humans take great pains to do what they are able, to **prevent** evil when and where they can.

The whole idea of Rule Of Law is one herculean effort to do exactly that-- to try to **prevent** evil from happening in the first place.

But to a **god**?

**ALL** evil is theoretically preventable!

But nevermind that-- certainly there are huge swaths of evil that a **god** could easily circumvent, WITHOUT DESTROYING FREE WILL AT ALL.

Is this the case in the world?

No.

And **that** is definitive proof that Epicurus was spot-on.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174718 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I'm aware of these worn out philosophical musings, but they don't answer my question at all Bob. There is always another perspective from which to observe and analyze such philosophical questions. The above philosophical arguments represent very linear thinking because they only present them as "either/or" propositions.
This is merely an intellectually dishonest attempt to pigeon-hole what is beyond our understanding, to conform to our presuppositions for the purpose of rejection and self-justification in doing so.
So again, is there a way we can depart from the linear thinking of ancient philosophers and explore the issue of evil from a multitude of perspectives? I think we can Bob. You and I both share common ground. We both recognize that evil is a fact of life in the world we live in. To deny the presence of evil is the same as denial that rain falls. Furthermore, we both possess some intuitive sense of good. If we didn't, we would have no way to identify the presence of evil.
To defeat the linear ancient philosophical argument, we must acknowledge that we are free to make conscious moral choices.
If we acknowledge that God's original plan was to have an eternal relationship with all mankind, and that Satan deceived mankind into rebellion, then we see the beginning of evil in our world. Love cannot be forced. So God has allowed evil to exist as a consequence of human rebellion. If we are willing to learn what God really wants, then we must acknowledge that we have choices to make. If God allows evil to exist, it's because He is allowing us the right and duty to choose. We either love Him more, or we love ourselves more.
I'm aware that many cannot grasp this or will dismiss it as a "just so" canned apologetic answer. But at the heart of the matter of evil is the fact that we have a choice to recognize that evil exists, and then then we have an obligation to choose love or evil.
Its because you're another simple minded liar with no proof of god that you cannot prove any of the rubbish that you type.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174719 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point. But again I have to ask, how would you compare your own atheism with what Thomas Nagel says? That he doesn't want God to exist. What's your philosophical position on his blunt honesty about it? How does his philosophy compare with your own?
I guess it's his viewpoint, but I don't get it. I don't particularly care one way or the other. I am more interested in knowing the truth of the matter than I am in a particular outcome. I had more emotional investment in MOND and TeVeS (alternatives to dark matter), but those turned out to be wrong, and I accept it.
Oh, here's a joke you might enjoy.
Question: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
Answer: Somebody who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.:D
Amusing, but rather old.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174720 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no cause, therefore there is no cause and effect in the universe.
Please give a definition of the term 'cause'. By all standard definitions, quantum events are uncaused. Causality happens because large numbers of random events have predictable result.
That is just too funny. Bob this is the utterings of a madman. Do yourself a favor. Find another hobby. This trying to convince everyone you know everything thing is a pure waste of time. Not to mention how rude you are about it. The funniest part of it after this statement "The universe has no cause" Is your claim of you NOT being a fundamentalist. It is an insult to your intelligence to believe you when you say that. But go ahead Bob spend more time trying to get me and others to see things exactly as you do. You should be anti-Quantum Bob.
If the universe is due to a quantum fluctuation then it is strictly speaking uncaused. That is because quantum fluctuations, which we know exist and happen all the time, are uncaused. The alternative, of course, is that the universe is eternal: that is didn't start at the Big bang, but instead the BB was a transition between states. In either case, to use the word 'cause' as applied to the universe as a whole (as opposed to parts of the universe) is a misuse of the word. Causality happens *in time* and time is part of the universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174721 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It seems Topix atheists cannot even get a basic characteristic of God right. God outside creation is there from the first verse and it is too difficult for them!
it isn't too difficult to understand. It is simply incoherent.
Yes you can. God outside creation is there from the get go and atheists are obtuse when they argue God must be inside time to exist! Or nothing can exist outside time!
Everything we know exists is in time. All causality we know of happens in time. YOU are the one claiming that there is an existence outside of time and a causality outside of time. And you do so without any actual evidence that these are possible.

So, for example, exactly what do you mean when you say that 'A causes B'? I think that if you look at the concept, you will find that time is essential for causality.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174722 Aug 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.
You begin by removing the use of them and deadly devices from the mass media and games as a gratuitous means of expression and conflict resolution.

They never show the real world repercussions of using firearms. Even law officers of the old west were put on the grill when they shot someone. The legal system most emphatically discouraged the use of guns.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174723 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No. It is whatever begins to exist. Not whatever exists. I can do little about your comprehension problems except point it out.
Why do you think that anything that begins to exist must have a cause? Why do you think that it is possible to have a non-physical cause?
Time space and matter had a beginning at the big bang and are co-dependent. <quoted text> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-...
Yes, that is one of the main possibilities. But since time begins with the BB in that model, causality is limited to things since the BB. It is literally meaningless to talk about the cause of the BB in that model.
The argument is a logical absurdity. The universe did not create itself anymore than Hawkins created himself or his parents found him in a pumpkin patch.
There is a difference between being self-caused (which I agree cannot happen because causes happen earlier in time than effects) and being uncaused (which is possible and even known to happen).

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174724 Aug 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give a definition of the term 'cause'. By all standard definitions, quantum events are uncaused. Causality happens because large numbers of random events have predictable result.
<quoted text>
If the universe is due to a quantum fluctuation then it is strictly speaking uncaused. That is because quantum fluctuations, which we know exist and happen all the time, are uncaused. The alternative, of course, is that the universe is eternal: that is didn't start at the Big bang, but instead the BB was a transition between states. In either case, to use the word 'cause' as applied to the universe as a whole (as opposed to parts of the universe) is a misuse of the word. Causality happens *in time* and time is part of the universe.
You have intellectualized yourself out of reality.

Quantum fluctuations are caused. Quantum is not a thing, it is an effect. Quantum mechanics is an expression of those effects used as a tool.

The BBT is a bud or seed that emerged from a larger "universe".

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174725 Aug 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I have no need to show "no creator".
All I have to demonstrate? Is that the universe NEEDS NO creator to exist!
This is quite easy to do, too-- and has already been done, in fact.
The present universe needs no creator.
In one step? Your whole reason to get up in the morning has just been invalidated.
I pity you your loss.
You are too funny you can't prove any of that, and never will be able to. If I had your beliefs it would be worthy of pity. If you are correct you loss. I do believe you are correct about yourself, as a person of quantum beliefs should and would. You are Atheist Bob the great denier, not Quantum God, the searcher.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174726 Aug 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
NOTHING in the above describes your god.
Nothing.
You did not even TRY to describe your god.
Why?
Are you afraid to describe your deity-of-choice?
Hmmm?
AGAIN! The tread is "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" Not Robert Stevens explain your beliefs. I never posted my beliefs are more than that. Unlike you I respect that your beliefs are part of you. As mine are me. I believe your thoughts of others beliefs being delusional is reflecting only upon yourself. just as a people that do not believe others, are liars themselves. This tread is your chance to prove. Honestly you can't do it. For me to post on this tread my beliefs or to try to persuade you would make me as Fundamental as you are. I also accept you as you are, you do offer your own truth. If you find that slanderous, by all means you should never try to spread your BELIEFS. Cut and dry you can't prove it and doing so is a waste of time. I have no problem admitting I have beliefs.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174727 Aug 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no faith-- at all.
The DEFAULT state therefore? Is atheist.
I would LOVE for there to be a beneficial god watching out for humans.
But preventable EVIL proves to 100%, that ain't so...
... if god is real? He's just an uncaring dick.
Pretty much like...
.... you.
I admit that statement is true for those that are atheist (note the small a) and don't give it much thought or even any at all. Not investing time to share or persuade others. You are an Atheist, not an atheist. In some circles that suggest respect.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174728 Aug 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no faith-- at all.
The DEFAULT state therefore? Is atheist.
I would LOVE for there to be a beneficial god watching out for humans.
But preventable EVIL proves to 100%, that ain't so...
... if god is real? He's just an uncaring dick.
Pretty much like...
.... you.
You question perfection you are not the first and won't be the last.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 min woodtick57 2,328
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 27 min _Bad Company 126
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 37 min _Bad Company 23,190
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 2 hr Crazy Mess 1
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 18 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 18 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 19 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web