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: 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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147407 Jan 6, 2013
Ooops. Donnie Darko.

Danny is my name. I'm Darko too.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#147419 Jan 7, 2013
Not a designer you dolt a brewer! The tea pot billions of years got all steamed up and blew it's top which was the Big Bang. As it boiled it's divine tea for lack of a better word it poured out batches that were the various stars, suns and planets.

After a while it decides to boil up a batch of microscopic life that could simmer on our planet until it simmered to human beings who will either believe in the tea pot or burn forever in the scalding non decaf of the underworld!

You can't prove this didn't happen and it's just as likely as any deity you care to mention. More likely than Jesus by a lot.
Freebird USA wrote:
<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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147420 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your biggest misconception is that gun owners, specifically those that have guns for home protection, live in fear.
It's not living in fear, not at all. It's acknowledging that threats exist and using whatever means you can to protect yourself from those threats.
As is typical for an RR comment, you have no real understanding of the psychology behind your claim.

Acknowledging the threat exists and then arming yourself to counter the threat is driven by basic human emotion, FEAR.

How you choose to dress it up is entirely up to you but it makes no difference to the facts.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#147421 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> There is more of a probablity for a diety than the teapot.
Please talk to your doctor about Haldol.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147422 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> You're delusional. I for one am grateful you don't have a gun.But then your type prefers to use government to infringe on the rights of those you disagree with,the law be damned.
What is delusional about understanding that ANYONE, whether they are armed or not can have a breakdown?

What is delusional about the fact that someone with access to a gun is FAR more likely to shoot a person or persons than someone without access to a gun?

Rights? Are you talking about the “unalienable” rights of Americans that just happen to have been amended?

Rights? Are you talking about why Americans are not subject to the International Declaration of Human Rights?

The US is the only country in the world other than the collapsed state of Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The US is the only 1st world country and one of only a handful of countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The US has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The US has not ratified it’s own American Convention on Human Rights.
The US provision for human rights is abysmal but if you think that packing a gun makes if for that defect well, you live there…

FYI, The government in the UK is democratically elected by public vote.
FYI, You can legally own a firearm in the UK.
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms_licensing/f...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147423 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.
Which requires a sample size greater than 1 and a set of outcomes to calculate any probabilities. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

I'll stick with observable and measurable evidence that is independently verifiable and will consider outcomes in direct proportion to the amount of this evidence.

Thus far, there is gathering evidence for the expansion of the universe and no evidence of any magic from an invisible supernatural sky deity.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min atemcowboy 558,841
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min BenAdam 773,394
Moses never existed 6 min UWarRaceMaKEWORLD... 717
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 8 min UWarRaceMaKEWORLD... 4,678
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 8 min andet1987 5,701
bless the jews (Nov '08) 12 min Alive jews freedom 7,047
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 13 min AN NFL FAN 119,633
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 43 min WasteWater 264,975
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Catcher1 175,509
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr lil whispers 604,737
More from around the web