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

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184094 Nov 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
The odds that life exist elsewhere in the Milky Way? Are pretty much 1:1.
There are what, around 8 million species of life on this planet alone and 90% of all known species are now extinct. That’s over over 700 million species on this one ball of rock.

Water and carbon are the main prerequisites for life

There are several other galactically local planets known to have water (hence oxygen) and carbon with more being discovered every week.

Given these facts then to say that life cannot exist beyond earth is terribly narrow minded.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184095 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actual courtroom colloquy:
Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
A: We both do.
Q: Voodoo?
A: We do.
Q: You do?
A: Yes, voodoo.
Who do?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184096 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it proof.
For all I know, you're talking and someone else is typing.
Or maybe you have Siri typing for you..,
Prove you have hands.
So you are calling me a liar, how pathetic.

Who is Siri? And where does Siri live? Perhaops Siri has extremely long fingers but that does not show that I am a liar.

And you believe in a god with no proof whatsoever – go figure

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184097 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Christine's proof of hands is all the hand-jobs she does for money.
She pays them money, I mean.
So you are inadvertently backing up my proof that I have fingers/hands, thank you. I mention both fingers and hands because RR seems to have changed his mind.

Anyway you seem to know a lot about hand jobs, had good training have you?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184098 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
*smack, smack*
Whatever turns you on –anyway if you threw up then at least your kids can eat tonight
Thinking

UK

#184099 Nov 14, 2013
By your logic, the Atheist Feynmann could have achieved nothing.

Don't judge everyone by your own low standards.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is reserving judgement - exactly.
It is not possible for an atheist.
Your claim is false, therefore.
Thinking

UK

#184100 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick dropped a lot of soap in the prison showers. His Mr Big made the best fist of it he could.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are inadvertently backing up my proof that I have fingers/hands, thank you. I mention both fingers and hands because RR seems to have changed his mind.
Anyway you seem to know a lot about hand jobs, had good training have you?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#184101 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You also don't need a switch or a finger to flip it. You don't need agency at all, by which I mean a sentient, self-aware, deliberative, purposive and potent being.
What could account for the existence of such a thing, maintain its structural integrity, and allow it to act except blind laws, so cut out the middle man and start there, not some being that you suppose is their byproduct.
Your mind is stuck in the box it found itself in.

You think you have a grasp of the utter reality by what is visible looking out toward it. Not you looking so much, but what you accept others see. That means you are tied to the strictly physical you can react to. Although you reach way out there beyond in some of your secular humanism ideas. What they call wishful thinking.

They and you both can't see past the physical barriers of this universe. And they are claimed to be expanding.

You're a doctor, maybe you can understand this example.

You are a baby in the womb. That is your reality until the time comes.
Thinking

UK

#184102 Nov 14, 2013
"He's making it up as he goes along!"
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mind is stuck in the box it found itself in.
You think you have a grasp of the utter reality by what is visible looking out toward it. Not you looking so much, but what you accept others see. That means you are tied to the strictly physical you can react to. Although you reach way out there beyond in some of your secular humanism ideas. What they call wishful thinking.
They and you both can't see past the physical barriers of this universe. And they are claimed to be expanding.
You're a doctor, maybe you can understand this example.
You are a baby in the womb. That is your reality until the time comes.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#184103 Nov 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck Crick dropped a lot of soap in the prison showers. His Mr Big made the best fist of it he could.
<quoted text>
I have asked him this before and he has not seen fit to deny it

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#184104 Nov 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"He's making it up as he goes along!"
<quoted text>
That is a reality of existence.

Unless you are strictly a machine or live in a highly structured world.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184105 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mind is stuck in the box it found itself in.
You think you have a grasp of the utter reality by what is visible looking out toward it. Not you looking so much, but what you accept others see. That means you are tied to the strictly physical you can react to. Although you reach way out there beyond in some of your secular humanism ideas. What they call wishful thinking.
They and you both can't see past the physical barriers of this universe. And they are claimed to be expanding.
You're a doctor, maybe you can understand this example.
You are a baby in the womb. That is your reality until the time comes.
I congratulate you again, Dave, for revealing more insight than is contained in 500 postings from other members here.

They will read it as gibberish, and my recognition of it as, well,...whatever insult they can think of in their tiny brains.

Nevertheless, be assured it is recognized by at least one person.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184106 Nov 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
By your logic, the Atheist Feynmann could have achieved nothing.
Don't judge everyone by your own low standards.
<quoted text>
It is not my logic. It is logic.

To claim to be an atheist, then claim to treat god-claims with "skepticism" is a fundamental self-contradiction.

To the atheist, a god-claim is an absurdity.

To do so is not a rationally skeptical position, but it is the position of the atheist.

Some of you just want to have it both ways.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184107 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Your mind is stuck in the box it found itself in. You think you have a grasp of the utter reality by what is visible looking out toward it. Not you looking so much, but what you accept others see. That means you are tied to the strictly physical you can react to. Although you reach way out there beyond in some of your secular humanism ideas. What they call wishful thinking. They and you both can't see past the physical barriers of this universe. And they are claimed to be expanding. You're a doctor, maybe you can understand this example. You are a baby in the womb. That is your reality until the time comes.
You're projecting again with the wishful thinking comment, Dave. Nobody wishes that there is no god. We would all prefer to have such a marvelous and invaluable resource in existence.

The wishing comes from the people like you that claim to see a god. You also want there to be one, not being as objective or disciplined, you indulge yourself and see one. It's a well characterized phenomenon.

You recently accused me of having a closed mind, and I asked you to define an open mind, and explain why mine didn't qualify as one at
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Not surprisingly, you avoided the question (except possibly to mark it with disapproval icons), indicating that you weren't up to the task, and realized it.

But I am, and as the only one of the two of us able to define the term, I can tell you that it is you that has the closed mind despite it also being indiscriminate and undisciplined. Opening it to indiscriminate nonsense does not constitute an open mind.

And on that subject, I just want to advise you that if you are going to be channeling telluric currents, recall that they enter you through your seated ass and travel upward toward that marvelous mind of yours, meaning that you need to exercise adequate precautions and provide your head with adequate grounding, preferably made from tin or aluminum foil, and optimally fashioned into a the shape of cone in order to safely channel the currents up and out into space. Don't be alarmed if alien races or even gods receive your moonbeam broadcast and answer you back. It is to be expected.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184108 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, I remind you that you do not control how language is used. We go right on communicating with or without your consent. My usage happens to be the first one in this dictionary:
Full definition of ego
1 - the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2a - egotism, b - self-esteem
3- t he one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality — compare id, superego
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego
And I recall how fond you were of etymologies when discussing atheism. You seemed to think that a literal interpretation of the meaning of the roots was appropriate then. How about now? Do you know the etymology of the word? It is the Greek word for "I" as in myself.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
Your linguistic sophistry and attempted lexical prescriptivism is rather pointless, but fun to rebut until it palls.
I didn't have to look the word up to know you were wrong in your usage.

You were discussing philosophical issues, and used "ego" as "self".

Philosophy recognizes these as separate concepts, and such a discussion is gibberish if the distinction is not operative.

The ego is the imagined image of how you and others see yourself.

That is not "self", as it is used in the slang version you looked up and grasped at.

You can demean my claim, but following my prescription renders better communication than the nonsensical version you prefer.

To put it in terms, perhaps more familiar, you would not discuss the brain with a colleague and call it a "head".

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184109 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wide-angle lens?
(For the Buck-member)
Lol

No, the ultra zoom, for the RR experience....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184110 Nov 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes ...is that HL behind you? Man that had to hurt? That don't make you walk funny or nothing?
Don't be a hater.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184111 Nov 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Out of curiousity, who told you that?
Or did you make it up yourself?
The dictionary told me that.

Who told you that an atheist can also be agnostic?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184112 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pastor Catcher can be anything he wants.
Like an attorney or a pastor?

Or a catcher instead of a pitcher?

~sniggers

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184113 Nov 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
You need to look up the meaning of the word "skeptical"-- it does not mean what you think it means.
(this seems to be the case with most descriptive words...)
<quoted text>
Of course! Harry Potter only-- so far as we know-- exists in some movies and some books.
So I am highly skeptical that Harry Potter is real-- outside of one's imagination, of course.
<quoted text>
Again? Of course! There is 100% no empirical or objective evidences to show that **any** gods exist.
Including (and especially) your monster-bible-god.
And until you can muster up some of that? Facts, I mean?
Your god remains a myth.
That is not a matter of **faith**.
That **is** a simple matter of **observation**.
To be skeptical simply means that you're not easily convinced and that you have doubts or reservations about something.

So you are skeptical of Santa Claus, that means you think he *may* be real, but you have your doubts....

You're a loon.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 23 min Eman 22,000
Stump a theist with 2 questions 4 hr CunningLinguist 13
The Ultimate Evidence of God 6 hr sriKim 120
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 hr Jaimie 68
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 7 hr Patrick 178
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 13 hr Patrick 4,085
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 13 hr Patrick 38
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••