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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#176309 Sep 3, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
<The Dave> is obsessed with being numero uno in all things. Knowledge, physical prowess, unique experiences and prodigious physical attributes...ad nauseum.
Shhhhh.....don't ask him or he'll tell you.*wink* He's a regular Energizer Bunny in the hot air department.
That is not true. I would never ever even consider trying to outdo you for bitchery.

It just isn't in my makeup.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176310 Sep 3, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
xianity is EVIL wrote:
and to sum up
Atheism is simply,,LACK of belief in god(s).
There is no belief required for atheism.
And since faith is “belief in something for which there is no proof” such as gods,how can an atheist, who has no positive belief need faith?
Answer is we do not... Atheism requires no faith.
Many theists will say; atheists must have faith that god does not exist”. That statement is false for a few reasons.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists,
and they do not completely rule out the existence of some kind of UNdefined god(s),
but rather, they find god(s) to be improbable, see no evidence that would indicate god-belief is rational, or both.
Faith does not play a role here, facts are whats important.
And just because we dont know how the universe or life originated does NOT prove gods existence,claiming that god created all,is an argument from Ignorance Fallacy.,,a belief without evidence!
Until theists prove god exist,its only rational to remain atheist
So Faith is not necesary to be atheist
<quoted text>
Off Topic Chunkyboy!
not that theres anything to discuss anyway,youve lost..
LLL
You may be right about not needing faith to be an atheist. In your case you do. I keeps you chatting about it. An atheist that would never partake in conversations like this one, most likely invest no thought on the topic, therefore no faith. This person would never compare. You and Little Red Bobbing Hood, cross the line from faithful to fanatics. You can't prove your belief, and with each post you prove you have faith. I don't think having faith is a bad thing.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176311 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you *will* die and become worm meat. That is a simple fact. What you want is *in addition* that your consciousness continue after you die and become worm meat. But there is absolutely no reason to think that consciousness without brains is possible. So you come to the wall separating your desires from the facts and you choose the comfortable desires rather than the uncomfortable facts.
Thank God I am not an Atheist.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176312 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, string theory is *speculation*. But it is a leading condender because it is one of the few proposals that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity in a natural way. There are even results that suggest that *any* proposal that combines these two must have the general outline of string theory (this is controversial, though).
What is true, though, is that the position that there is an all powerful creator for the universe has no evidence in its support. Nothing that we see in this universe points to an intelligent creator. We see laws of physics that operate to produce all the structure we see around us.
Now, is it *possible* there is a multi-dimensional race of creatures that has learned the technology of how to produce universes out of the quantum background? It is *possible* that our universe is one of the universes created by such a multi-dimensional race? The answer to both questions is *yes*. But, I would assert, this has *nothing* to do with your conceptions of deities. These multi-dimensional beings would NOT be 'all powerful', or 'all knowing' and certainly would *not* be 'determiners of morals'. They would be intelligent beings with a certain technology and acting through the laws of physics.
Now, what was *your* speculation again?
I disagree, and I believe as most scientist that discuss it on The Discovery Channel that Quantum Physics proves there is a God.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#176315 Sep 3, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been a lot of floods my friend. Many ancient myths tell these stories, not just Christianity. They occurred at different times all over the world (floods do occur in plenty of places.) The ancient Greeks had a flood myth, so did the Mayans in South America.
I'll agree that the ancients were striving for truth and understanding in the best ways they knew how....at the time. Most Kings simply wanted to shore up the belief in "divine right" to rule. An excellent example of that is the KJV version of the bible, King James wanted to preserve his power and the secret passageway connecting his bedroom to his male lover's bedchambers is still intact. But I digress.
I've read the bible, cover to cover....no it is neither true or especially good literature. It's a mish-mash of contradictory authors cobbled together to try to make a point. It fails.
Don't warn me about your gawd's imaginary judgement from a poorly written book. If that's the best salvo you can fire.....you fail.
Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.

Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176316 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree, and I believe as most scientist that discuss it on The Discovery Channel that Quantum Physics proves there is a God.
Cite reference to what program, or scientist who said that.
We all know some scientists believe, but more often than not the scientist's words are twisted around or used out of context by creationists to support their own belief.
So you saying the above has very little value, or meaning without showing their words and not yours.. but I can tell you this. That very little physicists or cosmologists believe in god the way you think of a god. Some may make reference to "god" meaning anything beyond human understanding at the present, but you can count the percentage of believers with one hand when it comes to the hard sciences and belief in you bible god.
EXPERT

Cottonwood, CA

#176317 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite reference to what program, or scientist who said that.
We all know some scientists believe, but more often than not the scientist's words are twisted around or used out of context by creationists to support their own belief.
So you saying the above has very little value, or meaning without showing their words and not yours.. but I can tell you this. That very little physicists or cosmologists believe in god the way you think of a god. Some may make reference to "god" meaning anything beyond human understanding at the present, but you can count the percentage of believers with one hand when it comes to the hard sciences and belief in you bible god.
You are so full of it...
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#176318 Sep 3, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it does....in your head, anything is possible...that's the beauty of having a minimal IQ.....
http://imageshack.us/a/img375/3484/brainx.jpg
that one is a PATHOLOGICAL Liar,,or mentaly retarded..probably both

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176319 Sep 3, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
Medieval people including Kings weren't noted as being particularly smart, in fact most were very poorly educated.
Most of all science was wrong and distorted by religion.
In fact religion was the binding power of the Kingdom, so your point is that those who were uneducated , knew very little real science, who were highly religious thought they were something they were not. Bravo, you have proven yourself to be as ignorant as them.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176320 Sep 3, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of it...

Then cite reference to the quantum physicist that say's quantum physics prove there's a god. Should be just that easy, or maybe it isn't huh?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176321 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Definition of theory (n)
Bing Dictionary
the·o·ry
[ th&#63484; &#601;ree ]
1.rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2.speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3.idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Speculation. There are those that when they speculate it gets a lot of respect. A proven theory is a fact. If the right person has a theory the wheels of research begins. It is to be respected but it is not prove. In regards to String. There are many different theories, as I mentioned as a whole it is either amongst the most respect or the most respected.
I'm sorry...I think I was confused about what you were speaking of. In my previous posts I was talking about the big bang theory being fact.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#176322 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Medieval people including Kings weren't noted as being particularly smart, in fact most were very poorly educated.
Most of all science was wrong and distorted by religion.
In fact religion was the binding power of the Kingdom, so your point is that those who were uneducated , knew very little real science, who were highly religious thought they were something they were not. Bravo, you have proven yourself to be as ignorant as them.
Yeah the moderns are the smartest persons in the room and they are right and everybody else is dumb because they don't see things the way the moderns do. LOL! Is that an argument! LOL!

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#176323 Sep 3, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
You are a bad Christian.
I asked you what the devil looks like, and you ignored me.
Wait until judgment day.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176324 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the creator or nature has planned it this way. Knowing oneself is one of the oldest philosophies. My case by case theory as I have admitted here, and it didn't take a heat lamp or power tools to get it out of me. With out doubt will never be able to be proven. I stand by it until someone else could prove what they have. That will not happen in this life time I am now enjoying.
If there is a creator then it is certainly possible that they may have planned it that way. I, myself, doubt that...but it is simply because I do not have a belief in a "god". However, if you are correct in your belief, then I actually do hope that you get to see the second coming, and then there will be no doubt on the rights and wrongs of creation ;)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176325 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll come back and respond to others later. I think part of the problem is they knocked The Gnostic Atheist off line. They not only gave a much better game, they did it with much better manners.
Did you mean to say Agnostic Atheist? Most Gnostic Atheists that I have spoken with and have watched conversations from have pretty bad manners sometimes....Or I guess a better way to put it would be to say that they don't have the best people skills because frustration gets the better of them. Of course this is just my opinion.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#176326 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny Dave, seriously.
We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.
But when you get to the punchline, "We are designed." you lost a cohesive narrative. I mean it's like giving the directions for cooking rice. And the saying.......
Bring 3 cups water to boil, add 1 cup rice, add butter and salt,
let come to boil, stir rice once, reduce heat and cover.
The sky may turn purple.
Excellent.

That is most likely the best line on topix all day.

"The sky may turn purple"

<The Dave Nelson> "Damn him, I was gonna say that..."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176327 Sep 4, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree, and I believe as most scientist that discuss it on The Discovery Channel that Quantum Physics proves there is a God.
Discovery channel?? You have to be kidding! Sorry, but it hardly counts as a valid source of scientific information. Why not? Because it is written so that people like you can hope to understand even a *bit* of what is going on. That means it plays to your hopes, fears, and biases just so it can get a sliver of information into your head. It is sort of like thinking the History channle gives valid history.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#176328 Sep 4, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
<The Dave Nelson> " THAT was an example of my virtual intelligence..."
Bloody. Dave has rediscovered Boyle's Law?
Whatever shall we do now?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176329 Sep 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true.
Actually, of course, this is exactly the opposite of what happened historically. First, people assumed it was true. Then they really started looking into the details and found the conflicts between the books, between the legends and the books, and between the books and actual history.
The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted.
And fundamentalists are hostile to the facts about how the Bible was constructed. How it was put together for politcal reasons and there was considerable controversy about many of the books that made it into scripture and also about many that didn't. They ignore the historical fact that there were many forgeries in the second and third centuries where people wrote 'scriptures', attributed them to apostles, merely to promote a particular theological position at the time. Some of these are in the modern Bible.
Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Most of the Biblical scholars pointing out the flaws in the standard story are Christians. They believe in the basic story, but know that the Biible was written by humans and put together by humans for human reasons and human goals.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes.
Actually, ancient documents are typically *not* given the 'benefit of the doubt'. They are analyzed quite extensively for biases and motivations. They are analyzed for context and for whether they were written by the claimed authors. then they are analyzed for consistency across many different sources for historical placement.

What you object to is treating the Bible just like we would any other document from history. When we do, you claims of perfection are easily seen to be false.
You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine?
Their power was based on their being Christian princes. In many cultures, having a geneological connection to a god or mythical hero was consisdered to be important for deciding the persons ability to rule. For example, Juliusa Ceasar was supposedly a decendant of Venus through Aenaeus.

In a very similar way, the European kings claimed decent from David or some other Biblical figure to justify their rule.
Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
No, they *claimed* to come from Noah to support their rule. Nothing else. Geneology was important for power at the time. What better way to claim power than to claim descent from a Biblical figure? Even those at the time knew these to be mythical (although dangerous to question).
spugun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#176330 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Discovery channel?? You have to be kidding! Sorry, but it hardly counts as a valid source of scientific information...
I think the Discovery channel and History channels are pretty good on popular science and history, and more educational than most of what you get on the TV. I think they try to present information in a popular format but without any bias.

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... 1 hr serfs up 815
Pastafarian former porn star Asia Lemmon allowe... 8 hr tha Professor 1
10) Experts debate reality of God (May '10) Thu Morse 8,934
"No Master! No God!" - Isms, Religion and Atheism (Aug '13) Thu God worships Sin ... 2
Siro is writing a new book Thu Siro 2
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Friend of all 14,431
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu Morse 1,418

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE