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

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#202266 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>That may be but Jesus words are still true even if man is a liar.
Then why don't christians pay attention to them at all? You're so full of sh!t.
Jim

London, UK

#202267 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson wrote a goddamned book based on the four gospels and provided it to the Indians.
He voted multiple times for acts which stated, specifically, the purpose of advancing Christianity among the Indians. He built them a goddamned Catholic Church. Do you know what they do in those Catholic churches? They promote a religion. I'm dead certain of that.
These are not nuances. If they are not enough to convince anyone of the fact that Jefferson sought to promote religion, as Barton says, as Throckmorton denies, then there is no point in discussing it.
What you suffer from, can't be regarded as mere opinion - it is certifiable mental illness.

Nobody sane thinks the earth is 3000 years old. Its a fact even the great buck cannot deny.
Jim

London, UK

#202268 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year
Creationists always point fingers at others when it is they who must provide answers for their continued fraud.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202269 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year
What?
Jim

London, UK

#202270 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> youre dealing with bounded rationality and possible anti-process . Topix atheists are as faithful to their cause as the faithful are to being faithful.
Atheism is a simple disbelief in god and religious liars like you Creationist Cult Members.

When creationists realise they have no points to make against Atheists, they start trying to refine Atheism thanks to religious arrogance.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202271 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't made the case that imaginary in this context means divorced from reality as it does in other contexts, like an imaginary friend. Many other concepts that you would call imaginary - concepts like negative numbers, zero, pi, complex numbers, dx, and e are essential to predict and at times control matter.
<quoted text>
That describes everything in mathematics. Seven doesn't exist except in the mind, just like red. It's only physical correlate is photons with a certain wavelength and frequency - both mathematical quantities.
Merely calling infinity an imaginary thing does not mean that reality doesn't contain infinites.
Numbers represent quantity in the real world.

For infinity, you have to alter rules of operation with those numbers, so as to avoid absurdities - bizarre conflict with those representations in the real world. That's a clue.

Nothing infinite can exist. It is impossible, by virtue of the term itself. For anything that exists in the universe , we can begin to count it, or quantify it.

That proves it cannot be infinite. It's existence in the universe disproves it's infinity, no matter what item we are talking about. Why? Because we begin with a quantifiable presentment, it is finite, and no addition to it can reach infinite. Each addition becomes the next finite quantity, and so on, and so on. So if it exists, it is not infinite. Therefore, the infinite cannot exist.

If someone says otherwise, who has the evidentiary burden? I renew my invitation for an example.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#202272 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No it isn't. Its based on the idea that some things are made by man and some aren't, and that each of these concepts needs a name. Who thinks that man does not follow the laws of nature or physics? Nobody.
<quoted text>
I disagreed with the coherent part.
The rest was your usual assortment of unsupported speculations ("You are elevating mankind to godhood" and "Man can do no wrong") and your sciency poetry ("Extensions of the mass and energy that it is to accomplish balances of matter and energy" and " As the plant will produce chemicals to bend leaves to the light, man will do things to enhance its existence within the constraints imposed by the planet itself").
Wow!

That one zoomed right over your head.

If man is exclusively a product of nature and physical forces then there is no such thing as morality as you proclaim. He just does what is directed by the forces that sprang him into action. Your passing judgement is nothing more than a link in the larger physical process that created us all. Not "right" or "wrong", just energies trying to find a balance.

What man makes is not artificial. It is just nature extended.

Like I said, you elevated man to godhood in believing you can destroy that which created and controls you.

You are confused, IANS. You seem to think man is holy and supernatural. Where ever could you come up with such a concept in this neighborhood of the Greater Universe and beyond?
Jim

London, UK

#202273 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> That may be but Jesus words are still true even if man is a liar.
Who are you trying to convince? Atheists just don't believe your lies anymore.
Jim

London, UK

#202274 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Challenge it on the grounds of interstate commerce or the common good.
The government has a right to limit activities that can be harmful to the maintenance of the nation or public good by improper use of resources. Personal decisions of whether to continue the process of creating a resource the nation needs to stay a viable entity providing for the good of all can lead to the supply of such resource being reduced or even eliminated. People are the prime resource for humankind. They can't live without them.
The act of creating was initiated voluntarily in most cases. Such usually then draws upon public resources in some fashion, such as pre-natal care, which I believe is a given under Obamacare. I believe termination is also included, as is prevention. Prevention allows for personal choice before drawing upon public resources.
The child is needed for future taxes and support of the whole. Society has an investment in its production that trumps the ill conceived actions of the individual that initiated the process.
It isn't a matter of personal liberty, it is a matter of survival of the species.
There is probably a considerable body of law already in practice that has supported similar legislation, and even in advancement of your social agendas.
Cults like Creationism have lied to people for so long, they have lost the respect of everyone.
Jim

London, UK

#202275 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Challenge it on the grounds of interstate commerce or the common good.
The government has a right to limit activities that can be harmful to the maintenance of the nation or public good by improper use of resources. Personal decisions of whether to continue the process of creating a resource the nation needs to stay a viable entity providing for the good of all can lead to the supply of such resource being reduced or even eliminated. People are the prime resource for humankind. They can't live without them.
The act of creating was initiated voluntarily in most cases. Such usually then draws upon public resources in some fashion, such as pre-natal care, which I believe is a given under Obamacare. I believe termination is also included, as is prevention. Prevention allows for personal choice before drawing upon public resources.
The child is needed for future taxes and support of the whole. Society has an investment in its production that trumps the ill conceived actions of the individual that initiated the process.
It isn't a matter of personal liberty, it is a matter of survival of the species.
There is probably a considerable body of law already in practice that has supported similar legislation, and even in advancement of your social agendas.
Athiests often wonder why Creationist Cult Members can't swallow their pride and admit god isn't real and that they have no proof.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#202276 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
So thinking for one's self eludes you?
Nice reactive non-thinking response. You are doing well. Primed for Topix atheism 102.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202277 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am very familiar with Story. I acquired learning in Story Hall.
Stare decisis is adherence to court precedent, not to Constitutional language.
And stare decisis is not binding--the supreme Court may reassess, just as some today want the Supreme Court to do on Roe v. Wade. Do you?
In other words, if the court determines a prior decision got it wrong, it so decides. Do you think the court got it right on abortion? If not, what can be done--under our system?
"Stare decisis is adherence to court precedent, not to Constitutional language.'

Do you think you are pointing out a distinction here??

The precedent I have been referring to was "court precedent" on "Constitutional language.
Jim

London, UK

#202278 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice reactive non-thinking response. You are doing well. Primed for Topix atheism 102.
You can't answer his question and simply look foolish.
Jim

London, UK

#202279 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Stare decisis is adherence to court precedent, not to Constitutional language.'
Do you think you are pointing out a distinction here??
The precedent I have been referring to was "court precedent" on "Constitutional language.
Reminder:
Other Verified Creationist Cult Members active on the Topix Atheism forum:
1.Buck Crick (Convicted Felon)
2. Riverside Redneck (Cult Member)
3. LCNin (Paid Propogandist / Educated What )
4. Bongo (LCNin sock puppet / Cult Member)
5. Dave Nelson (Creationist Cult Member)
6. Eagle 12 (Creationist Cult Member)
7. antiatheist (LCNin sock puppet)
8. transdiode (LCNin sock puppet)
9. number 4 / number four (Creationist Cult Member / Comment Spammer)
Please share and warn others. Creationist Cult Members are active on the Topix Forum and employing the following propoganda techniques:
1. Religious Article Spamming
2. Conversation Diverting
3. False Personal accounts of religious conversions
4. Political Lobbying (Anti-Abortion, Anti-Science, Anti-Atheist)
5. Judge Icon Spamming (programatic downvoting)
6. Playing Victim (anger an Atheist deliberately then use 2 comment out of context as an example)
7. Aligning Atheism dishonestly with unrelated ideologies (often religious ) Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
8. False / diverted /debate / conversation - changing the topic to Love, Philosophy, Criticism of Evolition (there is no valid criticism backed by evidence)
Please be warned that ALL of these Creationist Cult Member & Propoganda Techniques are being used in this forum.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#202281 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't answer his question and simply look foolish.
I envy you. The batteries powering your brain must last forever.

How ever can you do that?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202282 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha!!
Spontaneous generation was taught as fact for nearly 2,000 years.
But it was never a fact.
I bring it up because I wonder what "facts" we're being taught today that will be discovered aren't facts.
That's called a "Learning Curve".

What has religion learned? EVER???

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#202283 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Reminder:
Other Verified Creationist Cult Members active on the Topix Atheism forum:
1.Buck Crick (Convicted Felon)
2. Riverside Redneck (Cult Member)
3. LCNin (Paid Propogandist / Educated What )
4. Bongo (LCNin sock puppet / Cult Member)
5. Dave Nelson (Creationist Cult Member)
6. Eagle 12 (Creationist Cult Member)
7. antiatheist (LCNin sock puppet)
8. transdiode (LCNin sock puppet)
9. number 4 / number four (Creationist Cult Member / Comment Spammer)
Please share and warn others. Creationist Cult Members are active on the Topix Forum and employing the following propoganda techniques:
1. Religious Article Spamming
2. Conversation Diverting
3. False Personal accounts of religious conversions
4. Political Lobbying (Anti-Abortion, Anti-Science, Anti-Atheist)
5. Judge Icon Spamming (programatic downvoting)
6. Playing Victim (anger an Atheist deliberately then use 2 comment out of context as an example)
7. Aligning Atheism dishonestly with unrelated ideologies (often religious ) Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
8. False / diverted /debate / conversation - changing the topic to Love, Philosophy, Criticism of Evolition (there is no valid criticism backed by evidence)
Please be warned that ALL of these Creationist Cult Member & Propoganda Techniques are being used in this forum.
Keeping track? LOL! Get a life.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#202284 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why don't christians pay attention to them at all? You 're so full of sh!t.
you were a poor disciplined one, many are. It takes diligence and a soft heart.. Regardless of the human condition, the faithful are saved. All their transgression pardoned, much to the chagrin of the non believer.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#202285 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you trying to convince? Atheists just don't believe your lies anymore.
so what ,stfu. if youre offered a gift and you refuse it, who does it belong to?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202286 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Mac Nuggets.
The clause prohibits Congress making a law for an established religion, which means a national church.
How does "Congress" apply to any legislative body?
When a local school district in a state allows a voluntary prayer,...
What "law" did they make, and how did Congress do it?
You want some sauce with those fiction nuggets you just swallowed?
Pfft.

Voluntary prayer has never been banned in any school I know of - do you know differently?

And I've "established" a religion all my own. No Congress required.

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
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 2 hr thetruth 1,233
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr thetruth 2,841
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr thetruth 14,507
Christianity Created Hitler 3 hr thetruth 129
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life Mon Thinking 22
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... Sun polymath257 41
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism Sun polymath257 276
More from around the web