Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 8,879)

Showing posts 177,561 - 177,580 of216,364
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184996
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I got from RR isn't that he didn't know why a theocracy is worse than a secular democracy.
I thought he implied a theocracy was superior to a secular democracy.
Bur really, IANS. RR isn't worthy of a serious conversation.
He's an ignorant wiseass who likes to play word games, control others, and dominate in order to make up for his lack of substance.
I agree with all of your points, above.

He did claim to be an atheist previously. I have my doubts about that-- since he is clueless what it means to be either a skeptic or an atheist.

I suspect when he was an "atheist", he just didn't go to church 3 times a week for a bit-- and suddenly? He's an "atheist"...

... riiiight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184997
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's only one God darling, only one.
Prove it.

So far?

You have failed to 100%.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184998
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
[laughing] Well, I have had dogs over the years. They were always German Shepherds. Mainly because they were good protectors and only a fool would jump in the backyard. A man could fight off one dog maybe but two?
We loved them and had a lot of fun with those dogs. The kids next door would sometimes accidentally throw their football into our yard. All you would hear is a bunch of growling and it a couple of minutes that football was shredded into pieces.
Dogs have a relatively short life compared to ours and it just broke our heart to see them get old and die. So we no longer have dogs.
But today we have only one cat. Our first cat and we have had him since 2001. He loves his play time everyday. And he gets mad if he doesnít get to play. Cats have their loyalties and even understand human language. He knows when he is being talked about.
Thereís not that many kids around where I live now. When my grandkids are staying with me things get a little loud. But unlike when we were kids Bob. Kids play mostly inside these days. When we were kids we practically lived outside but thatís not the way it is today.
I have been blessed both in Houston and where I live now to have some really good neighbors.
Wow.

You actually think it's funny when a kid's football-- which he likely cannot afford to replace-- gets shredded by your mutts.

You **are** that guy....

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184999
Nov 16, 2013
 
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's only one God darling, only one.
Go on.

I've seen some that crumbled at my foot.

Will he say the same, "OK OK OK let go" or will this one be different?
davy

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185000
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You think I am Jesus?
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
More likely you were seeing your own reflection.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185001
Nov 16, 2013
 
davy wrote:
You think I am Jesus?
<quoted text>
Davy Davy Jebus... king of the wold fronteer! hehehe

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185002
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eagle 12 wrote:
It's the truth. You Atheist are like parrots in that you just repeat the same things over and over. Just take a moment and go back a few pages and look for yourself.
I see what you mean. Right away I found these from Dave Nelson

post184737 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184740 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184741 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184827 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

He seems to be objecting to evidence based thinkers repeatedly offering evidence to support their opinions. Is it that kind of repetition that you think make us unbelievers "like parrots ... repeat[ing] the same things over and over"?

Or perhaps you are referring to the two dozen or so fairly similar rebuttals from assorted skeptics to Buck Crick's equal number of posts insisting on the limiting the usage of the word "atheism" to his preferred definition of it. I know that I repeated myself so many times trying to explain how language is actually used to him that I finally refused to do so any more. Would that be another example of the kind of redundancy from skeptics that you are referring to?

Anyway, if we unbelievers will stop repeating ourselves so much, we can spend more time discussing assorted and varied topics such as your atheist father, how God is real, how you know because you just "know that God is real" even though you "canít prove it but God is not proven. He is experienced," even if he can't be seen like an X-ray without a dosimeter, or can't be demonstrated like a dream, a demonic spirit (unless he turns the lights off and on), or evidence to 1700s miners.

This will also free up time to discuss how Bob's brain and batteries are wired, radiators are flushed, WD40 erodes springs, teflon sprays can take fingerprints, and more. Because variety is the spice of life.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185003
Nov 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

boooots wrote:
I had accumulated over 40 some years which convinced me that there is no substance to the belief in a God, because not anything has ever been confirmed to be true, and many things, that believers hold as truth, have been confirmed to be false.
Furthermore, faith in gods and in the Christian god in particular has been sterile. There has been nothing learned about this god or the world in the last 2000 years attributable to faith, prayer, prophecy, or scripture - a reliable indicator of it being as ill-founded as astrology, alchemy, and humorism, the four-humor theory of disease, and for the same reason: None of them have ever generated anything of value.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185004
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bongo wrote:
Wheres your manners and respect for an ancient diety who is Omni everything.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry. Respect must be earned. Eternal torture for failing to worship is a deal killer.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. for me, respect is a human entitlement and should be freely given otherwise disrespect reigns supreme ..
.. does each individual establish a standard for respect? Do we then expect people to measure up to our individual standard without telling them what it is? That sounds unfair ..
.. to avoid conflict, it is my contention that we must all respect each other ..
I think we're talking about two different things that share a word. Consider these two definitions of respect:

1. a feeling of deep admiration
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

I was using the word in the first sense (and assumed from context that Bongo was as well), you in the second. Everybody gets the second kind of respect automatically until they lose due to some low act or base quality, whereas the first must be earned by virtue of some venerable act or quality.

Would you agree?

[Sorry, theists, if we are boring you by repeatedly delving into such matters as integrity, virtue, respect, and character. My apologies in particular to Dave Nelson for quoting an authoritative source to support my claims rather that "freethinking" as he means the word]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185005
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

boooots wrote:
Nobody is "sure" that God does not exist, Buck, because that is something that is impossible. We cannot prove something does not exist.
I disagree, assuming that by "God" you mean Jehovah-Jesus. Some things can be shown to be impossible by reason. They are (analytically) false because of the way they the words used to describe them are defined. Analytically false statements are false because their predicates contradict the facts implied by the definitions of their subjects.

Analytically true statements are true because their predicates say something about their subject already implied by their definitions, such as "That bachelor is an unmarried man." These are also called tautologies.

The god of the Christian bible is defined as perfect, and then is shown making many mistakes. I can rule out the possibility of a perfect god that makes mistakes without searching the whole universe or even getting up out of my chair as easily as I can rule out the possibility of finding any married bachelors.

=========

@ Riverside Redneck:

This is another proof of the nonexistence of your god. You may recall an earlier post where I told Dave Nelson that his featureless, amorphous god could not be refuted. If it has no qualities, its description can't be self-contradictory, and its existence cannot be ruled out. But your god is said to possess or have done many mutually conflicting qualities, which is the sure sign that it doesn't exist. You might argue that all that means is that men have mischaracterized it, but if the bible was written by this perfect god, it cannot contain errors.

There are dozens more proofs just like this one, such as the proof that an omnipotent, omniscienct, omnibenevolent god cannot possibly be loving and protecting us given how life proceeds - the theodicy problem. This link (sorry, Dave) discussed the problem and offers Christian apologetics in rebuttal: http://www.gci.org/God/theodicy

I'm guessing these proofs are bouncing off your antiprocess shields like bullets off of Superman. Why? Faith based minds are closed minds. They will not consider evidence fairly and impartially, and will not allow themselves to be convinced by a compelling argument if it contradicts their faith. They simply reject the arguments out of hand. I mentioned Morton's demon to Buck Crick recently. Did your insatiable curiosity to learn more lead you to click on the link I provided in that post? If not, here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/...

@ Dave Nelson:

Sorry about the link and the additional education, Dave. You can repeat your quote that you use to mock the use of supporting quotes if you like. I realize that this is not the kind of freethinking you admire, which assiduously avoids external input and mocks the citation of authoritative resources.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185006
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
River Tam is a violinist as I recall.
River Tam wrote:
I do fiddle around occasionally.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. yes, I know ..
I few f-hole joke come to mind now, but I doubt that you ladies would like to hear them. http://snipurl.com/286k7x7

How's that for respect - both definitions intended.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185007
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
No, and no. But I like to think-- within the limits of his brain-- he shows great affection.
In a human, his actions would be associated with love. But he's a cat, and will always be framed by his cat instincts, which are stronger than his intellect.
That's one of the principle differences between humans and other mammals-- yes, humans have instincts, but they are very, very low-key, most are subconscious urges.
And any human has the capacity to go against his or her instinctive drives, if given sufficient motivation.
What is interesting with humans, though-- is that they also possess many subconscious urges that are *not* instinctive, but are instilled by the very culture they were raised in as a child.
It is very difficult to separate the actual, DNA-created instincts, and the culturally generated ones (if the latter can even be called such).
But, no matter how much my cat may wish to, he cannot overcome his instinctive behaviors. Many similar animal studies have confirmed this, in cats and other animals.
Humans appear to be singular in this ability-- to overcome our own innate natures.
Good post. I like anything about thinking about thinking.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Faith/belief, what's the difference? I see none. Both are irrational, if based on nothing (i.e all religious faith/belief).
How about belief based on evidence? Belief in this sense is partial knowledge - what is possibly or probably true - based on what is known to be true.

I am making a distinction between belief, by which I mean evidence based partial knowledge, and belief in, by which I mean faith based belief grounded in nothing. Using that language, you can say that you believe many things, such as that there is intelligent life in the universe based on local evidence of the nature of life and celestial bodies, but that you believe in nothing, such as lizard people already hear on earth.

And I offer this for your consideration: You used the word intellect with reference to your cat. I would reserve that word for human minds. Cats, like people, have intelligence in the sense that they can learn and solve problems. But I reserve the word intellect for referring to the strictly human capacity to manipulate abstract symbols - to think and speak in language, and to calculate.

And as always, I apologize to the theists present, especially Eagle, for repeatedly referring to such matters - the philosophical examination of ideas - which you have indicated bores you to tears with your recent complaint about our endless repetition.

And out of respect for Dave Nelson and his form of freethinking, I left out any links to outside references and gave only my own thoughts here, although I confess that I did corrupt Bob's ability to freethink as you and Riverside Redneck conceive the word when I shared them with him, something you both equate with lockstep thinking just before tittering about it.

Thanks, guys, for helping me keep it real.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185008
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eagle12 wrote:
God was the first designer, engineer, architect, builder, creator. He loves his garage projects. It keeps him busy.
I've got another argument ruling out the perfect god of Christianity for Riverside Redneck to reject: such a creature couldn't create or change anything without going from perfection to a lesser state.

Consider a perfect circle. What could you change about it apart from moving it, rotating it or changing its diameter without losing perfect circularity?(This comment should also get Buck going)

This is why ideas like drowning all of life save a handful of each kind or making new covenants is impossible for a perfect god. Either a former state of perfection is lost, or the former state wasn't perfect.

This argument not only precludes any action on the part of a perfect god, it's couldn't even think, which would constitute a change in its mental state.

I notice that a few Christians have begun saying that their god is not perfect. Smart move. This is why. Look at how many of the arguments against the existence of this god are based on the claims of its perfect knowledge and perfect love. This is an area that is in sore need of your revisionism, just like the creation myth and the status of Old Testament ethics.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185009
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So far?
She's managed to evoke a deeper than I usually do response.
That ought to be worth something, right?
:)
Good job, you two.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185010
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I few f-hole joke come to mind now, but I doubt that you ladies would like to hear them. http://snipurl.com/286k7x7
How's that for respect - both definitions intended.
Can you play that again in G spot major?

No just the G string.

I've pretty much heard it all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185011
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> It would be a lot more interesting than you vs skom!
Yikes! That was horrible, wasn't it? Me and Buck isn't much better.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185012
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
I would follow neither group. If I am in that bad a shape and they are, too, then I will not be a further burden on them
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is why I don't take discussion with you seriously. It's a waste of time.
Dave Nelson wrote:
LOL!! You set the scenario, I answered with what I would have done.
That's why I chastised you for your answer. I didn't ask you what you would have done. I asked you "is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do or not? How can you decide which one is describing reality?"
Dave Nelson wrote:
You made a piss poor attempt at setting up a logic to fall your way and on your terms. But yourself got in the way. You assume others would be as desperate as you are to live and have no compunction about putting others at risk to save your worthless hide.
You were trying to set up having to make a choice of faiths, but your ego blew it on the intellectual level.
Like I said, this is why I don't take discussion with you seriously, and why I say that they're a waste of time.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Now, to answer that question, I would ask both groups if they saw any green in their mirages. Vegetation that tends to grow around decent water in deserts. If one did, I would suggest all heading in that direction, with or without me. Carrying me would wear them out faster, limping along would take longer. An unknown, just a best guess. They need the best odds they can get. In addition, since there was a hostile act in a hostile area, there were likely hostile actors around they would also have to deal with. Probably near the water hole. They wouldn't need any extra weight. Now, if that wasn't a patrol in the 19th or early 20th century, meaning it was in this era, that being an ordered patrol and all, they would be carrying a radio. If they radio was destroyed, those who sent them out will be dispatching at least a heavily armed helicopter to look for them after contact had been broken. Probably with water on it. And a radio to call Medevac. The Army is a system, after all.

You shouldn't be trying these intellectual exercises under the influence, IANS. You have trouble enough when sober. You go chasing mirages when you are sober, you get lost in them when you aren't.
You're an idiot twice over, once for each paragraph. You think you have a supple mind, but you don't. It's concrete notwithstanding your aimless moonbeamery. You seem to be oblivious to the point of the exercise despite it having been given in its opening statement:

IANS wrote: "You seem to be making the argument that the people who disagree with one another have a better handle on what the authentic nature of reality is than those who agree. Here's a question ... "

Then came, "Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide?"

Recall that my comment was in response to yours:

Dave Nelson wrote: "They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said. None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable. The theists on here at least show some originality of thought and uniqueness of personality. Real people versus mass media clones."

Look at how bad your answer is in the light of that, which, once again, is what makes you a waste of time. You took so long providing a good faith answer that you forgot what we were discussion.

Your vegetation comment is the only part that comes close to a responsive answer, and it not only wouldn't be useful - mirages may contain green, and genuine oases might not - it avoids the stated purpose of the exercise.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185013
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Furthermore, faith in gods and in the Christian god in particular has been sterile.... None of them have ever generated anything of value.
Statement of flat untruth - knowingly and willfully.

I am forcing myself to be polite.

This is why you lose credibility.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185014
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
Bur really, IANS. RR isn't worthy of a serious conversation.
There's a lot of that here.
Catcher1 wrote:
He's an ignorant wiseass who likes to play word games, control others, and dominate in order to make up for his lack of substance.
And there's a lot of that, too.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185015
Nov 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Statement of flat untruth - knowingly and willfully.
I am forcing myself to be polite.
This is why you lose credibility.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am forcing myself to be polite.
That's so fuckincool.

Can you force your fingers to stop typing again?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 177,561 - 177,580 of216,364
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••