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
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175106 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious about your definition of the term 'determinism'. Some care is required in terminology, the term 'chaos' is used technically for certain types of evolution in deterministic systems (ones where initial conditions determine later ones).
One of the interesting aspects of the Bell inequalities is that they apply to *any* locally causal, realist system. In this, the term 'realist' means that things have definite properties at all times and 'locally causal' requires that all events are caused and the causes do not travel infinitely fast. It turns out that any such system will automatically obey certain inequalities in the correlations of certain observations. These inequalities are called Bell inequalities. It turns out that these inequalities are violated in the real word. In other words, the actual universe is either acausal, has causes that travel infinitely fast (which is sort of acausality also), or things do not have definite properties at all times.
Quantum mechanics is an acausal theory where particles often do not have definite properties and it also violates the Bell inequalities. it does agree with the observations.
well, as I explained, I have not studied physics. I just read lots of philosophy. My definition of determinism is very loose and that is why I refer to a variety of determinism and do not pin it down. I am more of an agnostic about more than just religion, and thus do not assert any sort of strict determinism or define it carefully - I use it more to complain against folks who believe in free will and sin and all the nonsense about people making choices and having to suffer for them. Since my emphasis is on ethics, that is the approach that is meaningful to me. Your emphasis is on physics - though I suspect your ethical views would be similar enough to mine that I would be comfortable with them - so you approach determinism in the context of science - which I candidly cannot keep up with.

My interest is in matters like what are the consequences for a criminal justice system, for child rearing, etc, if one disputes free will and believes in some type and degree of "determinism" on the human level - nature and nurture. I am not interested in nor able to follow the issue of determinism in the context of physics and the scientific explanations you revel in. That is not a criticism nor even an admission. Both aspects are extremely important in their own ways.
Thanks for your wonderful patience in trying to explain things in scientific terms however, and I trust others will understand them better than I do. At least you open my eyes and my mind to matters (that is a pun) which I would not normally read or think about.
I was raised as a very contented agnostic, and not knowing about God or the intricacies of nature never bothered me a bit. I just try to know the names of every evil Republican I want to see defeated somehow, and to be informed about public policy matters.
I think the ground on which we would meet with both approaches in the most interesting way, would be on the issue of global warming and climate change. I approach it as a matter of risk assessment.
What are the consequences if one is wrong, and acts accordingly - I am a climate change worrier, and that is sufficient. I do not need final proof, since I think final proof would be death by heatstroke or drowning, and a bit too late to be helpful.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175107 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Scandinavian nations have not experienced the 200+ years or scale of multiculturalism the USA has. Patience, you will get your share, and much faster.
Scandinavia and the US is the difference between a nice tony suburb and the inner city.
I do not mind nice-enough folks from other cultures, or of other races. I object to rightwing nuts. I mostly objected to the Batista supporting Cubans, the Cruz types. I dislike rightwing nuts of all religions and groups however.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175108 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There are many people who would be also be atheists if they had not had experiences that defied any rational explanation. And, no, I'm not describing schizophrenics. Not everyone who is a believer IS one "through" faith.
It is a big leap from experiences that defy rational explanation to belief in a rotten nasty God, and a bunch of very silly stories. If one goes into a mystical relationship with a Thou type God, I would be very interested to know more about your particular description of such a God. I read I and Thou, by Martin Buber, and liked the implications for relationships between persons - the ethics of treating a person as a Thou instead of an it. But I have a Thou relationship with certain music, when I am in the mystical mode.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175109 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Scandinavian nations have not experienced the 200+ years or scale of multiculturalism the USA has. Patience, you will get your share, and much faster.
Scandinavia and the US is the difference between a nice tony suburb and the inner city.
From what I've heard, Sweden has almost had its fill of multiculturalism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175110 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I think the ground on which we would meet with both approaches in the most interesting way, would be on the issue of global warming and climate change. I approach it as a matter of risk assessment.
My viewpoint about climate change is unsettled. I am truthfully not very easy with the assumptions built into the models that are typically used, nor the quality of the evidence. That said, and even in the worst case scenario, it looks like the temperature won't get as high as the average 30 million years ago, let alone that from certain part of the Paleozoic. The earth will be quite fine with that. Whether *we* will be is another question.
What are the consequences if one is wrong, and acts accordingly - I am a climate change worrier, and that is sufficient. I do not need final proof, since I think final proof would be death by heatstroke or drowning, and a bit too late to be helpful.
And I am not nearly so clear about the relative costs. I have more issues with the use of carbon fuels because of overall air quality than I do specifically about climate change. That has a direct impact on the health of people *today*. If the sea levels rise, there will have to be a migration of people away from low lying areas and a general shift of agriculture towards the poles, but I am not at all convinced it will have the dramatic effects predicted. On the other hand, working towards other sources of energy just seems intelligent.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175111 Aug 20, 2013
Lelouch0 wrote:
What exactly does it mean when they call them sheep? Does that mean that they regard them as nothing more than sheep, or does that have an even scarier implication than I think? Does that mean they merely think of them as puppets in their religion?
Jesus also called his followers his flock, i.e, his family.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175112 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My viewpoint about climate change is unsettled. I am truthfully not very easy with the assumptions built into the models that are typically used, nor the quality of the evidence. That said, and even in the worst case scenario, it looks like the temperature won't get as high as the average 30 million years ago, let alone that from certain part of the Paleozoic. The earth will be quite fine with that. Whether *we* will be is another question.
<quoted text>
And I am not nearly so clear about the relative costs. I have more issues with the use of carbon fuels because of overall air quality than I do specifically about climate change. That has a direct impact on the health of people *today*. If the sea levels rise, there will have to be a migration of people away from low lying areas and a general shift of agriculture towards the poles, but I am not at all convinced it will have the dramatic effects predicted. On the other hand, working towards other sources of energy just seems intelligent.
You realize of course, that by having such a scientific attitude, and by wanting more information, more complexity, you can be made to appear to tacitly support the rightwing greedy fossil fuels agenda, and lend it a legitimacy that it will claim for itself - despite the fact that it is not your intent to do so. Scientists only need to be partway to the whole truth to see indicagions of danger ahead in the real world, and they need to take into consideration the human and political and economic consequences of inaction, and also the inertia and disorganization of masses of individual persons, compared to the purposeful organized greed of the fossil fuel industry. I do not want to argue with you as if you were on the other side, but please do not give aid and comfort to the enemy by insisting on too much complete and exact knowledge. Delaying tactics profit the greedy types, and endanger many persons and animals and plant species and ecosystems - and endanger ways of life. I appreciate it that you answer me so promptly and thoughtfully, and I do not think you are the enemy because you are not as worried as I am. I do expect nonbelievers in a conventional God to also be nonbelievers in a fantasy afterlife of everlasting heaven. If life on this planet is all we have, then I think we should be concerned that it not be thrown away because we have not been watchful enough, or worried enough early enough.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175113 Aug 20, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
lol again with the misdirection ill keep bringing u back do you have any factual proof or evidence that god exsist (omitting the bibile and faith)
You keep talking about an invisible man; have you watched that movie where Kevin Bacon became invisible? He didn't touch everybody on the planet, just those he wanted to.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175114 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>...
Einstein was wrong about a great many things. He initially thought the universe should be static...
He may yet be proven right...

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-univ...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175115 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> You realize of course, that by having such a scientific attitude, and by wanting more information, more complexity, you can be made to appear to tacitly support the rightwing greedy fossil fuels agenda, and lend it a legitimacy that it will claim for itself - despite the fact that it is not your intent to do so. Scientists only need to be partway to the whole truth to see indicagions of danger ahead in the real world, and they need to take into consideration the human and political and economic consequences of inaction, and also the inertia and disorganization of masses of individual persons, compared to the purposeful organized greed of the fossil fuel industry. I do not want to argue with you as if you were on the other side, but please do not give aid and comfort to the enemy by insisting on too much complete and exact knowledge. Delaying tactics profit the greedy types, and endanger many persons and animals and plant species and ecosystems - and endanger ways of life. I appreciate it that you answer me so promptly and thoughtfully, and I do not think you are the enemy because you are not as worried as I am. I do expect nonbelievers in a conventional God to also be nonbelievers in a fantasy afterlife of everlasting heaven. If life on this planet is all we have, then I think we should be concerned that it not be thrown away because we have not been watchful enough, or worried enough early enough.
I understand you points and even agree. There are those who demand that we drag our feet on issues that need to be immediately addressed. My problem is that I have some idea about how the simulations are made that lead to the climate change predictions and the quality of the data they are using. And, truthfully, I am not convinced the risks are what they say they are. As I said, the earth has been through much worse that what we are doing (although our impact on species diversity is pronounced). I am also not convinced that the cure isn't worse than the disease in this case.

My problem is that on one side we have the climate deniers that want to ignore any possibility that we are affecting climate in a way that will cause us grief. On the other hand, we have those who seem to go way beyond the quality of the data and the reliability of the models and claim we are going to destroy everything. Neither is correct. The question is, as far as I can determine, how to weigh the possibilities. We can take measures that may hurt our economy now, but lead to better energy sources in the future or we can attempt to have a stronger economy now with the possibility that coastal cities will have to deal with a water problem and where the growing region for crops shifts north.

One reason for my skepticism is that we are still learning fundamental aspects relating to climate like how cloud growth will differ as the temperature rises, exactly what the extent other greenhouse gases than CO2 affect the thermodynamics and chemistry of the atmosphere, and how simple things like dust can affect cloud formation. As far as I can see, we simply don't know enough of the basics to create realistic models.

Again, I am *much* more concerned about the collapse of the bee population than I am in climate change. The lack of bees will significantly affect our food supply and is already starting to do so. The only two honey bees I have seen this year were *fighting*--literally dive bombing each other. That scares me more than the temperature going up a couple of degrees.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175116 Aug 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them Dave , you know non belief in America is a small but growing percentage. But 30 years ago probably like 1%.
Most everyone I know is religious, and most ridiculously so.
See Jesus on the cheese toast, and floating in the coffee religiousnutty.
Maybe you should pass that sentiment on to all of your family, every day, like you do on Topix? Grace them with your contempt 24/7.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175118 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus also called his followers his flock, i.e, his family.
No he didn't you dont even have any proof jesus was real person, you creationist liar.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#175119 Aug 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove your god or f*ck off its that simple you ignorant creationist troll with no morals.
This thread shows on the Top Stories forum, so get over it, loser.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175120 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>This thread shows on the Top Stories forum, so get over it, loser.
Says the idiot with no proof of god.
LCNlin

United States

#175121 Aug 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
No he didn't you dont even have any proof Jesus was real person, you creationist liar.
Immature name calling seems to be the atheist Defense Mechanism?
Afraid of differing opinions in the United Kingdom?
LOL

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#175123 Aug 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>This thread shows on the Top Stories forum, so get over it, loser.
In your view, what makes somebody a loser and what makes somebody a winner?

Are you a winner?

Who else on these threads do you consider to be a winner?

Losers you have identified. I'm curious about winners.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#175125 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice rant, Glad to give you something to vent with.:-)
My ego is less self centered than your ego.
Those get along lessons were passed to later generations as religions.
Yes, secular humanism existed, but only for the ruling group. Ask the slaves used for anal sex by their Greek masters.
Christianity was the first religion to go global worshiping a universal creator on a personal level. No tribe, no political group exclusivity, nor even ritual worship. It was there, but it wasn't part of the teachings. It also ended blood sacrifices.
Oh well, there goes another irony meter;0) The darn think just exploded *chuckles*
xianity is EVIL

Tecumseh, Canada

#175126 Aug 20, 2013
Satanists Evil Exposed wrote:
<quoted text>Atheists are satanists who are afraid of the devil.
tell us more chunkyboy

why are you afraid of something thats not real?
xianity is EVIL

Tecumseh, Canada

#175127 Aug 20, 2013
Satanists Evil Exposed wrote:
<quoted text>Are all atheists gay or are all gays atheist. They have the same defense mechanisms
why do you ask

are you ready to COME out from the closet?
LLL

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#175128 Aug 20, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Scratch a christian and out pops Fred Phelbs and fundamentalistic christianity
And one is already one too many!

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... 10 min woodtick57 2,321
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 55 min Thinking 125
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr polymath257 23,189
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 1 hr Crazy Mess 1
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 17 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 17 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 19 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web