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. Read more

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147398 Jan 6, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
That continues to be a matter of opinion.
You are always entitled to you own opinion, but not to you own facts. Evidence is not a mater of opinion. Evidence is observable, measurable, and available for independent verification.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147399 Jan 6, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> It is MORE probable that there is no teapot based on what "is" known about teapots and what has been shot into space.The best evidence available supports there being no teapot.
Okay. Same for deities.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147400 Jan 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Those stats are as accurate as possible. An atheist would label themselves as such.
An agnostic is not an atheist.
I care about the stats because its fun to put down atheist remarks that their numbers are growing.
And you are just looking at numbers of those that are self identified as atheists.

But since "a-theism" literally is "not-theism", you are creating false breakdowns that do not compare apples-to-apples. Sorry Just like Baptists are a subset of theism, Humanists are a subset of atheism. There are lots of subsets of both categories. The category atheists includes every subset that cannot be included in the category theism. Deal with it.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147401 Jan 6, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW, you idiot Topix atheists, the subject of this thread is about atheism requiring a belief system, not about proof of the religious beliefs of others.
If you don't know how something happened, let's take the creation of this universe for an example, then you have a belief system of some sort to account for your existence.
Unless you are mindless and exist as a rock.
And if I don't have a "belief system" but am instead awaiting evidence? How about if I just allow tacit approval in direct proportion to the available verifiable evidence?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147403 Jan 6, 2013
Silly! It's a divine teapot not one made of clay! It's invisible and beyond our comprehension but it created everything and if you don't believe in it you burn forever in the coffee pot underworld forever roasting in scalding hot decaf!
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> It is MORE probable that there is no teapot based on what "is" known about teapots and what has been shot into space.The best evidence available supports there being no teapot.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#147404 Jan 6, 2013
You may wanna rethink thy ultra lame dodge because you just said that there is no difference between god and your imagination.

Mulligan?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They shouldn't.
If you have faith, you'd know.
If you believed in God, you'd know.
Because once you do, He is there for you.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147405 Jan 6, 2013
Not to mention they want to have it both ways saying the only atheists are people who self describe themselves with the label atheist. But ok the other hand want to lump everyone in prison including refused to answer as an atheist lol!

Sorry but they need to pick their position and stick with it.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are just looking at numbers of those that are self identified as atheists.
But since "a-theism" literally is "not-theism", you are creating false breakdowns that do not compare apples-to-apples. Sorry Just like Baptists are a subset of theism, Humanists are a subset of atheism. There are lots of subsets of both categories. The category atheists includes every subset that cannot be included in the category theism. Deal with it.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147406 Jan 6, 2013
Clementia wrote:
LOL, u would do that for me? Thanks!
Who the blumin' hell hasn't seen ALL the back to future movies? They must be sad people, lol, I'm joking or am I?
Yh, I liked it too, but i'm soooo confused. When I watched the back to future movies, I was a kid, right, so u didn't think about the science behind the film and with those movies I don't even care about the paradox or things like that, but i'm so confused about source code, coz I started thinking too much about it and it doesn't make sense. How did he send her the text msg?
Another film that I cared about, being confused about, was room 1408, that was another good film, but too confusing.
I would have to watch Source Code again to explain it. I can't quite remember what the deal was with the text msg.

I haven't seen Room 1408. I just watched the trailer. It looks like a good date movie :)

Have you seen Danny Darko? You might find it confusing too, but I really like that one.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147407 Jan 6, 2013
Ooops. Donnie Darko.

Danny is my name. I'm Darko too.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147408 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to watch Source Code again to explain it. I can't quite remember what the deal was with the text msg.
I haven't seen Room 1408. I just watched the trailer. It looks like a good date movie :)
Have you seen Danny Darko? You might find it confusing too, but I really like that one.
1408 is good but see "Triangle".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147409 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are always entitled to you own opinion, but not to you own facts. Evidence is not a mater of opinion. Evidence is observable, measurable, and available for independent verification.
Evidence is interpeted and utilized to support probability. ANYTHING that is interpeted leaves room for opinion based conclusions.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147410 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. Same for deities.
There is more of a probablity for a diety than the teapot.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147411 Jan 7, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Silly! It's a divine teapot not one made of clay! It's invisible and beyond our comprehension but it created everything and if you don't believe in it you burn forever in the coffee pot underworld forever roasting in scalding hot decaf!
<quoted text>
Stock line.There is good evidence for the creation of the teapot and the methods of it potentially being placed in space. The teapot and the delivery system both can be proven to exist due to a designer. There is no evidence of that occurring.The rest is you engaging in the usual shots at some Christians beliefs.So I assue you believe there is a designer.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147412 Jan 7, 2013
Lo-cal god?
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> diety

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147413 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> There is more of a probablity for a diety than the teapot.
It is MORE probable that there is no deity based on what "is" known about deities.

Unless you'd care to define the properties of deity to enough level of detail that some sort of evidence can be observed / measured to support such a claim?

Without a clearly defined set of properties any consideration of deities is meaningless and absurd.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147414 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Evidence is interpeted and utilized to support probability. ANYTHING that is interpeted leaves room for opinion based conclusions.
Then it's NOT evidence. Did you miss the part about 'independent verification'. Or do you not understand what this means?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147415 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it's NOT evidence. Did you miss the part about 'independent verification'. Or do you not understand what this means?
Independant verification presupposes no bias.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147416 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is MORE probable that there is no deity based on what "is" known about deities.
Unless you'd care to define the properties of deity to enough level of detail that some sort of evidence can be observed / measured to support such a claim?
Without a clearly defined set of properties any consideration of deities is meaningless and absurd.

Arguing probability doesn't require "observable evidence". It simply concludes given a set of circumstances what is more likely.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147417 Jan 7, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really think so.
http://www.havocscope.com/tag/arms-traffickin...
Sorry, I am confused here, you said :-

Quote
Getting rid of guns will not prevent children from getting murdered…
EndQuote

And I replied
Quote
Nope but it will get rid of children being murdered with guns
Endquote

So you counter by showing how easy guns are to obtain?

How can arms trafficking and illegal possession of guns ever be classed as
Quote
Getting rid of guns
EndQuote.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147418 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguing probability doesn't require "observable evidence". It simply concludes given a set of circumstances what is more likely.
It also requires knowledge of the laws that apply to determine which set of circumstances is more likely. And the determination of those laws requires observational evidence to establish them.

To determine a probability, you need to know what the range of possibilities is and how many of those possibilities have the condition under discussion. Without *both* of those, it is impossible to determine a probability.

In the specific case under consideration, we are actually attempting to determine what is known as a conditional probability. Given the fact that the universe around us is as it is, what is the probability that there is a deity?

To determine a conditional probability, you need to know the range of possible universes which look like ours and then determine which of those has a deity and which do not. Clearly, we are nowhere close to even knowing what the range of possible universes is (is it even possible for the universe to be different---what does that even mean?). And we have no basis to determine which universes that look like our have or do not have deities that got them going.

So there is simply no way to even get started calculating a probability of there being a deity.

But, what we *do* know is that none of the scientific theories that agree with the evidence we have requires a deity to explain the universe around us. That alone suggests the probability of a deity is small.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Paul Porter1 817,989
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 min Student 39,982
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 30 min Good-Evil 69,902
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Good-Evil 2,016
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr ChristineM 441,984
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Roberta G 176,212
sexy hot chats 2 hr girls united states 16
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr True Truth 609,905
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr AussieBobby 270,173
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr oxbow 579,270
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 hr RiccardoFire 98,011
More from around the web