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

#192091 Dec 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
There's the Dave we all miss - Space Cadet Dave.
I like this Dave better than political Dave, self-loathing, "TMI" Dave, jonesing for a butt Dave, or waxing nostalgic "runny horse shit" Dave.
But it's true.

There is no way Earth accreted , or the other inner planets, from scratch this close to the sun. The solar wind alone would have dispersed the dust. There was insufficient mass to hold an orbit. Jupiter and Saturn are planet nurseries. Gravity, distance and and protection from the solar wind for moons to form. Earth got a lot fatter after it got kicked out with some meat on its bones to start accreting.

There will be artifacts of original man found way down deep. Like in miles.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#192092 Dec 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Seems to be a popular activity in CO around the Denver area. The kid killed himself, but shot and injured 3 others with a shotgun. He was after a teacher.
Denver is affluent and very liberal before you say anything.
Has to be something with games and internet that spawned this monster of kids killing kids. I haven't looked, but I can't help but wonder if drugs are a common denominator.
Something is wrong.
It appears there is some controversy about psychiatric drugs involved in those shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#...

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
uIdiotRaceMAkeWo rldpeace

United States

#192093 Dec 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My particular philosophy of politics and economics is often identified with wealthy people.
It just happens that it is the most honest and rational philosophy.
A guy doesn't have to be rich to be honest, rational, and super-intelligent.
Not to mention ruggedly handsome and hung like a racehorse.
lol! Those in power see you as a work horse, slaves, cannon fodder, Imps... Bahahahahaaa

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#192094 Dec 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Your Topix "witness" is a great testimony to the faith based life.
Lmao.

“The..”

Since: Dec 12

"..who whating how with huh?"

#192095 Dec 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone knows a Topix atheist will stab a baby Jesus if given the opportunity. Look at the rants on here and the wanting to kill the religion.

A few extra aches and pains today.
Trust a topix religinut to bring up stabbing a baby.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#192096 Dec 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Just an observation.

I just love your avatar pic - it sort of reminds me - when studied - a teddy bear on coke 0 looking for a fix!

:o)

Seriously - I like it. Good choice.

:o)

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#192097 Dec 13, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Just help you with the dot thingy.
Children are not adults.
Adults learn that they need to adopt socially supported imaginary friends.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Thereís people that claim that men didnít walk on the moon. They claim it was all staged. Just because these people didnít personally make the journey to the moon and walk on the moon they claim it was all a hoax.
Those people aren't in my camp. They're in yours.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Buzz Aldrin has a different belief about that as the other 11 that walked on the moon. Their belief is based on a experience. In fact thousands experienced the Apollo program because someone had to design, build, move, fill and launch these space vehicles.
Okay, you'll get no argument from me.

I'm a rational skeptic, not an irrational one, like those who deny evolution and the moon landing.
Eagle 12 wrote:
You claim thereís no God. Ok, that means you have never experienced God. And you probably will never experience God. Your opinion that you think so highly of is based on a non experience.
People have claimed to experience countless different deities. Your evidence, and thus your opinion, is no better than their's.

My lack of belief in any deities is based on the absence of evidence that would support your supernatural claims or those of any other theist.

My "belief" that there is no God is no more a belief than denying the existence of married bachelors. The Bible contains the definition for "God", and that definition describes an entity that cannot exist.

IANS should have links to several posts covering the contradictory nature in the description of "God". Ask and ye shall receive. Read'em and ye shall weep.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#192098 Dec 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you think so? Perhaps.
It's hard to imagine how or why things might have progressed less well without that fiction, unless it would be because of a near universal belief in a god and the need to believe that it wouldn't punish them. If so, then this would be a case of religion solving another problem that it created, the way that a cigarette meets a need.
I think the nod had to be in there somewhere, even if it was just an empty gesture.

It would have been a hassle if a movement started to disown the "Godless Document".

But I see it the same way you do.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Agreed. God beliefs are no more helpful than cigarettes.
I would add that as well as the power to enforce rights, that there also needs to be the will to do so, or you have nothing - god or no god.
Has anyone told Dave that he has the right to remain silent?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#192099 Dec 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Meaningless?
Those words allowed you to be free, and accomplish everything you have ever done.
If you had been born in various countries without those words, you would understand the "discernible difference". Some of us understand it even here.
Dave's personal animus against Reagan overtook his rational mind. With you, it's religion.
This post was brought to you by the power of Papa Smurf.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#192100 Dec 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows a Topix atheist will stab a baby Jesus if given the opportunity. Look at the rants on here and the wanting to kill the religion.
A few extra aches and pains today.
Good heavens you delirious dissenter of stupidity. Atheists ...topix or not, aren't in the baby stabbing business. You might try the Pharaoh's or Caesar's , but far from being atheist they had the nasty habit of believing themselves to be gods. You big ole topix spoof !

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#192101 Dec 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The government doesn't "provide" rights. That's the whole point.
The government is to secure certain rights from being usurped - rights provided by other sources.
Human imagination is the source of the concept of rights.

The only rights we "have" are provided by law, by government.

Securing rights IS providing rights. My right to a fair trial is provided when it is secured.
Buck Crick wrote:
And you have no idea whether the concept of inherent rights by virtue of supernatural creation is fiction.
Yes, it's fiction. If fiction exists at all, this has to be one example.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your post, however, is fiction.
This post was brought to you by the power of Grayskull.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#192102 Dec 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
If rights come from men, they are at the discretion of men, to be assigned arbitrarily, or taken away.
There hasn't been a shred of evidence to suggest it is otherwise.
Buck Crick wrote:
The ways that would be worse are obvious and unlimited.
For one example, certain men could justify the right of enslaving other men by their position as a priveliged class of men. It is the inherent nature of the rights of all men that preclude this.
The specific deity mentioned in our founding documents, Bible God, condoned slavery quite often. His system of justice is completely unjust. Most of his advice is disadvantageous, vague, or unimpressive.

It seems that if our rights actually came from deities, at least those that people actually believe in, we'd be worse off.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left."
-Chief Justice John Jay
Lost in this discussion is the initial point - creation by a Creator is, factually, the basis asserted by the founders for our rights - including those protected in the Constitution.
What that means is a different argument than whether it is, indeed, the basis.
Our constitution could provide all the same rights if they had called them Smurf given.

If there had been a lot of Smurfing Smurfers back then, they wouldn't have supported a Smurfing thing without Smurfing their Smurfs name on it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192103 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You haven't explained how references to a god matter. Are you suggesting that if the Founders had claimed that rights come from men, that the nation would have somehow been worse, or different in any way? That's a huge assumption for which you have provided no evidence, just the repeated claim that the god mention was important.
Buck Crick wrote:
If rights come from men, they are at the discretion of men, to be assigned arbitrarily, or taken away. The ways that would be worse are obvious and unlimited.
For one example, certain men could justify the right of enslaving other men by their position as a priveliged class of men. It is the inherent nature of the rights of all men that preclude this. "Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left." -Chief Justice John Jay Lost in this discussion is the initial point - creation by a Creator is, factually, the basis asserted by the founders for our rights - including those protected in the Constitution.What that means is a different argument than whether it is, indeed, the basis.
I don't see an argument here, Buck, nor an answer to my question about how anything would have been different without claiming that rights come from a god, except that it obviously would have been different, and in an unlimited number of ways.

This is then followed by an example of what might have happened if the rights were not ascribed to a god, which is something that actually did happen despite the god mention: slavery, a practice sanctioned by the Christian bible.

It was the rational ethics of humanism that declared that god and its ethics wrong, and chose to share those rights with dark skinned people, a great example of the DANGER of bringing gods into the mix.

I still don't find where god beliefs or where Christianity made any positive contribution to America.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192104 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
I agree that there's some historical significance in this endowed by creator mumbojumbo. But seriously, Buck. Surely you don't think there is a deity out there for real. Bottom line, and our protection from arbitrary rule, as I see it, is the Constitution--what it states, what protections it provides, and how it's interpreted along the way by those entrusted with that task by the Constitution itself. No deity has any control over anything in the real world, and you know it.
I think Buck was implying that a BELIEF in a deity as the source of rights was significant apart from whether that was true or not, as if without that belief, that we couldn't or wouldn't have had those rights.

My contention was that the words alluding to a god added nothing, and wouldn't convince a Christian who thought he knew his god's will of anything. The Christian god has nothing to do with rights or freedom. It is apparently opposed to the exercise of free will, for which the most harsh penalties imaginable are imposed.

I can envision Christian preachers everywhere objecting strenuously to ideas like gender equality, the freedom to work on the sabbath, and the freedom to blaspheme.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192105 Dec 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Yep. Seems to be a popular activity in CO around the Denver area. The kid killed himself, but shot and injured 3 others with a shotgun. He was after a teacher. Denver is affluent and very liberal before you say anything. Has to be something with games and internet that spawned this monster of kids killing kids. I haven't looked, but I can't help but wonder if drugs are a common denominator. Something is wrong.
Liberalism and drugs. Sure - that MUST be it. The kid put on some Grateful Dead, smoked a joint, contemplated the role of government in guaranteeing civil rights and ensuring that no one is in need, then shot up a school.

Is there no possible role for Christian culture, which embraces ideas like Armageddon and Judgment Day, or conservative gun culture?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192106 Dec 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Everyone knows a Topix atheist will stab a baby Jesus if given the opportunity. Look at the rants on here and the wanting to kill the religion.
It's pretty hard to find any flaw in that thinking.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192107 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There's the Dave we all miss - Space Cadet Dave.
Dave Nelson wrote:
But it's true. There is no way Earth accreted , or the other inner planets, from scratch this close to the sun. The solar wind alone would have dispersed the dust. There was insufficient mass to hold an orbit.
Who taught you geology?

By the time the central collection of helium gas had collected itself into a mass sufficiently dense and massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star, the rest of the solar nebula had had time to form not just dust, but pebbles, boulders, and mountain sized chunks of stone (asteroids and comets). The solar wind would have almost no effect on these. It strips atmospheres from planets not shielded by magnetic fields, not solid matter, like their crusts or the stones resting on them..
Dave Nelson wrote:
Jupiter and Saturn are planet nurseries. Gravity, distance and and protection from the solar wind for moons to form. Earth got a lot fatter after it got kicked out with some meat on its bones to start accreting. There will be artifacts of original man found way down deep. Like in miles.
Sure. That must be it. Or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_ev...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192108 Dec 14, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Just an observation. I just love your avatar pic - it sort of reminds me - when studied - a teddy bear on coke 0 looking for a fix!:o) Seriously - I like it. Good choice.:o)
I've got a joke for you. Do you know what a Rorschach test is?

========

A guy goes to a shrink who administers a series of Rorschach ink blot test. "Tell me what you see here," says the doctor.

"I see a nude woman," replied the patient.

"And here?"

"I see a couple making love."

"And here?"

"I see an orgy."

"Sir, I think that you are overly preoccupied with sexual issues. You have a sex problem."

"*I* have a sex problem? You're the one with a desk full of dirty pictures."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192109 Dec 14, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
The Bible contains the definition for "God", and that definition describes an entity that cannot exist. IANS should have links to several posts covering the contradictory nature in the description of "God". Ask and ye shall receive. Read'em and ye shall weep.
Yes I do, but Eagle isn't interested. That kind of material has no impact on faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192110 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's hard to imagine how or why things might have progressed less well without that fiction, unless it would be because of a near universal belief in a god and the need to believe that it wouldn't punish them. If so, then this would be a case of religion solving another problem that it created, the way that a cigarette meets a need. on
Tide with Beach wrote:
I think the nod had to be in there somewhere, even if it was just an empty gesture. It would have been a hassle if a movement started to disown the "Godless Document". But I see it the same way you do.
I don't argue that there wasn't value in telling religious people that their god not only approved of human and civil rights, but was also its source.

What I do argue is that this is not a benefit of a god belief or religion, nor a reason to thank or value religion.

Christianity only solves the problems of its own making, like cigarettes do. It posits an immortal soul, sin, a fall, and the doctrine of damnation, redemption and salvation via its priests and its man-god..

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) 15 min Eman 22,540
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 43 min indict WOLF BLITZER 16
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr NightSerf 526
Glorify God, our Heavenly Father 2 hr nOgOd 2
Becoming a parent changed everything. 3 hr Patrick 22
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 4 hr Chiclets 16
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 4 hr Patrick 364
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••