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

#184259 Nov 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The estimation is in the many billions. As yet astronomy has only scratched the surface of the local area of the milky way. See the Keplar mission
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-kepler-resul...
and
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
There is however another limitation (to life as we know it), not only solar goldilocks zones but also theorised galactic goldilocks zones
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/habitablezones/ghz....
Which does reduce the possible candidate planets to -… still many billions.
But then there is the possibility of life as we don’t know it.
With that many chances?

Even if the odds were a million to one against?

We'd still see hundreds of millions of life-inhabited planets-- live as we know it here (i.e. carbon/DNA-like protein-based life)

Of course-- there are a number of details in DNA that could just as easily have been slightly different (left hand rotation, versus right hand rotation to name one of the more interesting).

That would mean, if by some amazing tech, the two life systems would not be compatible with each other.

And, as you point out? Life as we do **not** know it?

Means that there are billions of life-filled planets out there.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184260 Nov 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
To make such a claim (earth is the only island of life), is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of statistics.

Of course?

The success of any given lottery-- and by success I mean the people who have become filthy rich **running** these things?

Proves that most folk **are** ignorant of statistics.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184261 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
To be skeptical simply means that you're not easily convinced and that you have doubts or reservations about something.
Wrong.

But, given you are a god-robot? It's understandable you are clueless as to the meaning of a word you **never** use to describe yourself.

At least-- you never use it **accurately**.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So you are skeptical of Santa Claus, that means you think he *may* be real, but you have your doubts....
Yep. The level of doubt approaches 1:1. Which means I behave as if S.C. is myth.

But since I cannot know the entire universe? Well...

...only religious idiots and the batshit insane claim otherwise.

Moreover, S.C. is based on several real-world, historical persons most likely-- so in a way, there once was a "santa claus" like figure.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're a loon.
LMAO!

Says the fool who believes that a sky-daddy was lonely, created a mud-man and a rib-woman, failed to watch over them, allowed them to be deceived by a known deceiver, grows upset when **his** own creation doesn't work (for lack of attention), and then drowns the whole lot for mistakes he, himself made, he then proceeds to rape an underage teen so he can be born and then kills himself to pay himself back for the mistakes he, himself did in the first place.

And you say **I** am crazy?

<laughing so loud here, my cat is wondering what's going on>
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#184262 Nov 14, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
X rays produce results that are observable and measurable. Your god does not.
One can be exposed to x-rays and not even know it. Unless you have a dosimeter badge at the time of the exposure. There’s no way to know you had a exposure unless it was radical and severe.

How do you prove someone was inadvertently exposed to x-rays without the dosimeter badge? There’s just no way that I’m aware of. The energy has passed through the body and is gone.

That’s the danger of x-rays and radiation. The exposure can occur and the individual has no idea they’ve been exposed. Some chemicals are the same way.

My point being this, some things can’t be proven and are hidden from the human eye. When Rontgen accidentally discovered x-rays in 1895. Prior to that no one knew anything about it. Mine workers were exposed to radiation prior to Rontgen’s discovery.

Atheist want proof of a spirit. But the spirit of God is unseen. Demonic spirits sometimes can be detected by the stupid stuff they do like turning on and off lights, slamming doors and breaking stuff.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184263 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You just described yourself as agnostic.
I don't dictate words to you, their definition does.
Why do you fear that title? What's so special about "atheist" to you that you feel the need to cling on to it falsely?
I'm an agnostic atheist.

You do not **get** to dictate the meaning of words.

Society does.

And under the larger, world-wide use of both words?

And also, the way that people OF WHOM THE WORDS APPLY TO use the words?

I'm an agnostic-atheist.

Only batshit insane idiots try to re-define words to fit their pre-concieved agenda.

You **have** to have atheists being People Of Faith.

That is a blatant attempt to try to **JUSTIFY** your own batshit-insanity (faith).

But it just ain't so-- atheists do not have faith in gods.

That is what atheist means: no faith, the "a" and the "theist" root-words.

Agnosticism? That pertains to **knowledge** or **knowing**.

You really need to start paying attention to reality.

Wait... you can't.

I almost forgot-- you are a god-robot-- reality isn't part of your worldview.

Is it?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#184264 Nov 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
With that many chances?
Even if the odds were a million to one against?
We'd still see hundreds of millions of life-inhabited planets-- live as we know it here (i.e. carbon/DNA-like protein-based life)
Of course-- there are a number of details in DNA that could just as easily have been slightly different (left hand rotation, versus right hand rotation to name one of the more interesting).
That would mean, if by some amazing tech, the two life systems would not be compatible with each other.
And, as you point out? Life as we do **not** know it?
Means that there are billions of life-filled planets out there.
I don't know which one is scarier.
If there is, and indeed many technology driven societies with their own biospheres and predators.
Or there isn't and we are indeed alone.
At least the first way isn't boring as hell?

But then there is the fact that if there isn't....we will be the ones to deposit life elsewhere to evolve, into...
who knows what sort of things?
If we can survive anyway.

Then we can say..
A long long time ago
In a galaxy far far away... heheheh

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#184265 Nov 14, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
One can be exposed to x-rays and not even know it. Unless you have a dosimeter badge at the time of the exposure. There’s no way to know you had a exposure unless it was radical and severe.
Yeh, it can be detected and measured. Your god can't. Thanks for proving my point.
Eagle 12 wrote:
But the spirit of God is unseen. Demonic spirits sometimes can be detected by the stupid stuff they do like turning on and off lights, slamming doors and breaking stuff.
And just how do you determine it was evil spirits and not a power surge? What tests would you run?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184266 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Fraudulent science would be an example of something else.
<quoted text>
Such a thing must have happened at sometime, whether it was there or elsewhere.
Is your comment part of a point, or a rebuttal of some sort? Will there be an explicit claim or question coming up?
<quoted text>
I don't know. Nor do I or have much interest in the matter.
I care about the part of science that is legitimate, and leave the policing to others.
<quoted text>
I doubt it.
Does your comment mean that you believe that all of science is unreliable and find none of it of use?
If not, what is your claim? Do you have one, or is this a smear by the innuendo of association effort on your part? Can you show us where it isn't or even might possibly not be such a thing?
And if you can't, why do you do this? Why do you work to undermine science? As I said earlier, you may not think that you aid and abet the Christian church, but "arguments" like yours do just that nevertheless.
Do you know the cost to the nation of undermining confidence in science?
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.

The point is clear.

I am a rational skeptic of science.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#184267 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.
The point is clear.
I am a rational skeptic of science.
That's a high fluting way of saying you're religious..lol

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#184268 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.
The point is clear.
I am a rational skeptic of science.
Good for you.

But do read, or reread, NightSerf's masterful statement:

I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to use words as precisely as I can, at least within my own frame of reference. For me, God, gods and goddesses are mythical/fictional characters in books (or Books) that some believe also exist in the physical world. Within the context of those stories, they are just a real as Luke Skywalker is within the context of a Star Wars movie, and when I'm reading a book or watching a movie, TV show, or play, they are real for me, too because I engage in a deliberate suspension of disbelief to enhance my enjoyment. But when I leave the theater or turn off the tube, or even become distracted by something real-world, that suspension ends.

I think that we begin life in a similar condition. In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility. That's the quality that allows people to have faith in all sorts of ideas, not just religion: we believe because we want to, not because the evidence is compelling, and then search for evidence to support our beliefs.

We all begin life doing that, atheists, too. But some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics. Again, this applies to all beliefs, not just religion.

The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.

The further we go on the path of skeptical analysis, the more we separate ourselves from the mainstream culture that operates with a different balance between skepticism and faith. Religion is the place where these differences clash most severely because religious people us their reasoning skills only to defend their beliefs, never to question or reevaluate them.

From an ideological perspective, we atheists and skeptics are an alien culture to the theists. They make feeble attempts to understand us only for the purpose of refuting us, even trying to persuade us to return to their systems of faith. They try to imagine what could cause someone to turn away from their faith, but their imaginations fall so far short of the reality that their suppositions say more about them than about us.

This is not likely to change. Skepticism cannot be taught--trying to do so would only create people who believe in skepticism but don't know how to practice it. So the basic argument between skeptics and believers will go on as long as humanity endures even if the beliefs about which we argue change.

Welcome to skepticism, gang, and fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184269 Nov 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I don't know which one is scarier.
If there is, and indeed many technology driven societies with their own biospheres and predators.
Or there isn't and we are indeed alone.
At least the first way isn't boring as hell?
But then there is the fact that if there isn't....we will be the ones to deposit life elsewhere to evolve, into...
who knows what sort of things?
If we can survive anyway.
Then we can say..
A long long time ago
In a galaxy far far away... heheheh
:)

The only saving grace about all this? Is that the universe is nearly unimaginably huge.

And that creates (as far as we know now) insurmountable barriers between the various islands of life (planets).

It's almost like the "the floor is lava" game we played as kids-- only instead of lava, it's huge, vast distances.

I do hope we are wrong about that, though-- it'd be cool if there was a way to traverse the gulf between planets.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184270 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you.
But do read, or reread, NightSerf's masterful statement:
I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to use words as precisely as I can, at least within my own frame of reference. For me, God, gods and goddesses are mythical/fictional characters in books (or Books) that some believe also exist in the physical world. Within the context of those stories, they are just a real as Luke Skywalker is within the context of a Star Wars movie, and when I'm reading a book or watching a movie, TV show, or play, they are real for me, too because I engage in a deliberate suspension of disbelief to enhance my enjoyment. But when I leave the theater or turn off the tube, or even become distracted by something real-world, that suspension ends.
I think that we begin life in a similar condition. In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility. That's the quality that allows people to have faith in all sorts of ideas, not just religion: we believe because we want to, not because the evidence is compelling, and then search for evidence to support our beliefs.
We all begin life doing that, atheists, too. But some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics. Again, this applies to all beliefs, not just religion.
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.
The further we go on the path of skeptical analysis, the more we separate ourselves from the mainstream culture that operates with a different balance between skepticism and faith. Religion is the place where these differences clash most severely because religious people us their reasoning skills only to defend their beliefs, never to question or reevaluate them.
From an ideological perspective, we atheists and skeptics are an alien culture to the theists. They make feeble attempts to understand us only for the purpose of refuting us, even trying to persuade us to return to their systems of faith. They try to imagine what could cause someone to turn away from their faith, but their imaginations fall so far short of the reality that their suppositions say more about them than about us.
This is not likely to change. Skepticism cannot be taught--trying to do so would only create people who believe in skepticism but don't know how to practice it. So the basic argument between skeptics and believers will go on as long as humanity endures even if the beliefs about which we argue change.
Welcome to skepticism, gang, and fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight.
Interesting analysis, there.

A good read, too.

Thanks!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184271 Nov 15, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> This incredulous rebel cant handle the fact that he is created and anything he says or does may be used against him. Its no big brother, its a Father, who has a plan and forgives those who submit to him. The ones who don't, well, that's foreboding.
If I were to worship something freely and sincerely, it wouldn't be something that tortures. The Christian god simply isn't worthy of respect or affection.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#184272 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello, old friend! What a coincidence seeing your post seconds after leaving a musical post myself. You play either a Höfner Beatle Bass or a Rickenbacher guitar like John Lennon did if I recall correctly. I seem to recall you playing in a Beatles tribute band of sorts. I almost never play any more. My latest passion is contract bridge.
Actually, I play a Rogue copy of the violin shaped Hofner. I'm playing mostly jazz a les Cats and the Fiddle and other Harlem stylists. I've taken to playing with a fellow burnout who's girlfriend sings like an angel, too. Fun--and he manages to find well-paying gigs from time to time, too.

Dang, I wish I could truck myself down to your piece of Mexican Heaven for a little jamming.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#184273 Nov 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were to worship something freely and sincerely, it wouldn't be something that tortures. The Christian god simply isn't worthy of respect or affection.
Hi, IANS!

I wonder if you are 'awed' nature ? That is to say, appreciate the power and majesty of the world. Can sit and smile during a summer rain or drive in terror through a blizzard. That sort of thing.

Has nothing to do with God or anything. Just something I wondered.

I don't so much "worship" that which I call "God" (for lack of a better word in English) but am in 'awe' of the entire Universe and the laws that govern it.

To me, the mysteries of how two individual cells combine to create every baby in history is more awesome than "God got Mary pregnant".

The again, I never liked magic shows but loved the science behind the illusions.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I haven't been able to sleep tonight/morning.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184274 Nov 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
NightSerf on skepticism: In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility ... some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics ... The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.
I would say that Night Serf's and my description of skepticism are essentially the same:

IANS: The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first ...[S]kepticism is ... an intellectual perspective and a method of processing claims that asks you to question what you would have accepted without doubt otherwise.

Notice also the difference between the way that people like he and I use definitions, and the way our faith based disputants do. One is a gentle, pliable effort to distill into a few words the essential features of an object, activity, relationship or quality as people generally understand and intend it, the other an attempt to rigidly restrict how people are permitted to use language.

Those are the essential differences between the descriptive and prescriptive lexicographical temperaments.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184275 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.
The point is clear.
I am a rational skeptic of science.
Just because you reject science doesn't give you the right to benefit from it.

If you deny evolution, stand by your principles and reject science in its entirety??

or are you chicken?
truth

Perth, Australia

#184276 Nov 15, 2013
if i need i will remove all of you

who say thatyt

this planet as well others re less them marble

love your evil posessors yee
for your posession you nweed be killer

YOUR CREATOR NOT CREATED EVIL KILLERS

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184277 Nov 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong. "Disbelief" is a belief. Everyone who lacks belief in deities is not an atheist. In fact, someone who simply "lacks belief" is not an atheist. He could be an agnostic, a verificationist, or in a coma. An atheist believes there are no deities. None.
Keep trying, amigo. This is a critical issue. If you ever prevail, you will no doubt make it a better world.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184278 Nov 15, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
"There is no Big Brother in the sky...." LOL
Always amused by UK atheists, agnostics if they think about it?, lecturing Americans while the House of Lords has Bishops of the Church of England. Amusing
I tried and tried, but couldn't find the amusing part of this. Are you implying that if his country makes a mistake, he should make it, too, or ridiculing his opinion because it contradicts his nation's policy?

Do you disagree with him? If so, what makes your opinion less amusing. How do you suppose UK atheists view US theists? How do you suppose the world views you?

If you'd like to know how Hollywood and the entertainment media view you, check out how religious people are depicted in movies and television shows. They are generally depicted either as predators, money lusting charlatans, ineffectual counselors for people with life problems they could no nothing about, or as ridiculous and comical characters angrily or hypocritically judging others - never as people to admire or respect.

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
Heaven 50 min susanblange 41
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Evidence for God! 3 hr Uncle Sam 38
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 4 hr tha Professor 76
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr _Bad Company 1,103
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 19 hr Dally Mama 5,583

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE