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 7,084)

Showing posts 141,661 - 141,680 of217,258
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147456
Jan 7, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you would think this. Those that have studied life and the chemical reactions that are required for it are in a better position to discuss the origins of life than the average person. Even better are those who are trained in both microbiology and organic chemistry, who know the conditions required for the molecules that make up life to form. In particular, there are scientists that have studied biochemistry as well as the chemistry of the early earth and that have performed experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life are easily formed in the environment of the early earth (as well as in space) and that are investigating how those molecules can combine in the ways that lead to life.
The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and the question of how such a collection of reactions gets started is one for chemistry, in particular organic chemistry. We have a lot to learn yet, that is true, but we are farther towards understanding than we were 50 years ago and progress is being made continually.
Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147457
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> ...Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate?...
We know that, dying stars.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147458
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
The chemicals that were on the early earth were formed in the gas and dust clouds that collapsed to form the sun and solar system. The elements in those clouds (except for hydrogen and helium) were formed in supernova explosions via nuclear reactions. That should be enough for any biologist. Yes, you can ask about what happened even earlier, but you are then about 9 billion years before life started and are talking cosmology and not biology.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147459
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?
Absolutely nothing that all people can agree on.

For the most part there's general consensus on omnipotent, but upon closer examination, this property is itself meaningless and absurd. An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination.

And quite a few go with omniscience (all-knowing), but the implications of this would be a loss of any free will and humans become puppets performing predetermined rolls. Again, absurd.

And let's not even consider omnibenevolent (all-loving) as the very idea of hell makes this property absurd, even if possible.

Which leaves the vague concept of "creator of the universe", but then you have the "turtles all the way down" paradox and that one falls apart. Or you argue the Kalaam Cosmological position (or some such variant) and end of with the fallacy of begging the question.

So, there is no set of properties that anyone can describe for any entity which could possibly exist and could rightly be labeled a deity.

Care to take a stab at it?

(ref: theological noncognitivism)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147460
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
Good enough. Now how do we test that idea? What predictions can be based on that idea that we can test in experiment? How do the predictions based on this idea differ from those based on the usual ones? And, what exactly does it mean for something to exist 'separate and apart from what we consider nature'? Either it exists and has detectable effects (at some point), or it does not exist.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147461
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Atheist live in the here and now. Because they live in the natural world. Itís beyond their comprehension the idea of a spiritual world. A world not seen by the natural eye. In some ways I understand their reluctance.

Theyíre so emphatic about their assurance there is no God. They wonít even remotely experiment in testing the waters sort of speak. Iím afraid itís a lost cause for the majority of atheist when it comes to faith.

I do not hate them for their unwillingness to even try to reach out to God. We can not and we will not be able to reach everyone. Some will be lost at their own choosing. I have often wondered why God doesnít reveal himself in the natural.

But he did once and many believed. Through his miracles he was able to draw in great crowds by the thousands. At some point in the distant future he will reveal himself again the natural world. How far away that time is? I have no idea. I donít believe it will be in my lifetime.

First the Anti-Christ (World Leader) will take the scene. To the atheist this is all make believe and a fairy tale. We must understand that those of us that believe will not change them,(Atheist).
Rich

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147462
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no you have not.
Nothing is known about a deity, that's your problem.
Teapots as we know them were created in China. Thats a fact.
The first rocket into space was the German V2. Thats a fact
In the time since 1944 there is no evidence of a teapot being launched into space,that is evidence against a teapot orbiting .

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147463
Jan 7, 2013
 
Rich wrote:
<quoted text>
Teapots as we know them were created in China. Thats a fact.
The first rocket into space was the German V2. Thats a fact
In the time since 1944 there is no evidence of a teapot being launched into space,that is evidence against a teapot orbiting .
First, "we know them" is a qualifier that states that there are different types of teapots, which is true, thus it could just be an older one, or an alien one.

"no evidence of a teapot being launched into space" ... just as there is no evidence of any god as of yet. Which was the entire point of the assertion anyway. So you just helped demonstrate that your god is unlikely to exist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147464
Jan 7, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know. We do not even know if the question makes any sense (time being required for causality and time also possibly beginning at the Big Bang).
<quoted text>
At this point, it looks like the multi-verse, if it exists, is eternal: it exists whenever there is time.
<quoted text>
But the way to find out is not to simply throw up our hands and give up. Instead, we need to obtain deeper understanding of how the universe works, what the laws governing the universe (or multi-verse) are and what that means for the question of origins. At the very least, we will need a testable theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, we don't have such.
I'm with you.Makes sense and its reasonable.I believe "something" has to be eternal for any of it to make sense. Unfortunately neither of us is likely to be around for the answers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147465
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, "we know them" is a qualifier that states that there are different types of teapots, which is true, thus it could just be an older one, or an alien one.
"no evidence of a teapot being launched into space" ... just as there is no evidence of any god as of yet. Which was the entire point of the assertion anyway. So you just helped demonstrate that your god is unlikely to exist.
Well given what we know about teapots and space launches I think it was safe to say there is good evidence against any being discarded in space. However no such evidence exists "against" the existence of a diety.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147466
Jan 7, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I overstep reality when I say it isn't really possible a human looking god existed billions of years before humans?
What would you base the idea that a being that looked just like us existed billions of years before humans did?
Yes and now explain why it would wait billions of years to create us.
while creating a system of life that would take half a billion years to evolve into us. Wait the right amount of time for us to evolve naturally, and then create us. You see it doesn't make sense does it?
I am arguing diety.You have translated that to be a specific being.There is a difference. However to answer part of that question, an eternal being would be unaffected by the constraints of time. So billions of years or trillions,its of no consequence when time is eternal.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147467
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
I believe "something" has to be eternal for any of it to make sense.
And that "something" could be the "Universe" or the "Multiverse".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147468
Jan 7, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that, dying stars.
So now that raises the question what is the origin of the dying star...and so on.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147469
Jan 7, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The chemicals that were on the early earth were formed in the gas and dust clouds that collapsed to form the sun and solar system. The elements in those clouds (except for hydrogen and helium) were formed in supernova explosions via nuclear reactions. That should be enough for any biologist. Yes, you can ask about what happened even earlier, but you are then about 9 billion years before life started and are talking cosmology and not biology.
Indeed. That is what so fascinating.The desire and need to know where,how and why.Its the central mystery of our lives.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147470
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Well given what we know about teapots and space launches I think it was safe to say there is good evidence against any being discarded in space. However no such evidence exists "against" the existence of a diety.
Well now, you are adding an assertion to create a strawman argument. There was never a mention of it being "discarded" only that one is there, not to mention the type of teapot was never detailed, so the ones we associate today with "teapot" are not the only possible ones applicable.

Then you attempt to shift the burden of proof yet again. You still have no evidence that your deity exists, that's it. Until such evidence is presented then your deity is just an assumption.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147471
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
So now that raises the question what is the origin of the dying star...and so on.
Stars are the result of matter-energy interaction.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147472
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I'm with you.Makes sense and its reasonable.I believe "something" has to be eternal for any of it to make sense. Unfortunately neither of us is likely to be around for the answers.
So an eternal intelligence is required to create humans but was not itself created makes more sense to you than an eternal universe?

(which may or may not be cyclic ... or the "expansion" we perceive could just be a local phenomenon that goes beyond the range of our sensors ... or countless other natural explanations which may at least be testable at some point).

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147473
Jan 7, 2013
 
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. That is what so fascinating.The desire and need to know where,how and why.Its the central mystery of our lives.
At least you are willing to ask questions! That is a far cry better than most theists we experience on here.

Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147474
Jan 7, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll check the menu for veg food. It's in their website. And all the fish is fresh, so no malodor.
Streak means you go to an event where there are a lot of people, you take off all your clothes, and you run across whatever the event is that the spectators are focusing on.
Sometimes the police or sports team players chase the person, sometimes they tackle him or her right in the middle of a stadium with thousands in the stands.
In this case it would be streaking through a taping, or filming, so they could redo, or edit out the streaking. But it would be fun anyway, no?
Oh, I know what u mean but i didn't know it was called that.

I remember this one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

lllllllllllol!

There was another one with a female at snooker but I can't find that one!

I'll do it BUT only if Lesbo does it too. She can get her police uniform on and pretend to chase me then she could join in too! It's less embarrassing if more than 1 person does it and it'll have a bit of a twist too.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147475
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.
The thing was that he sent her(army woman) a msg from the other parallel dimension, but how can a msg jump the different realities? I don't know how to explain but I know the film was very confusing.

How the hell does that look like a date movie? It was scary and confusing!!! u like watching scary films on a date? Lol, if I watched a scary film with my guy i would end up bruising his hand, coz I would squeeze it ever time I got scared. Saw has to be the worst 'squeeze hand' film EVER!!!!! Well, I warned u, now it's up to u about what film u want to watch. Oh also, I pinch people when I get scared, too!:-)

No, I can't remember watching Donnie Darko, these films are scary, man!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141,661 - 141,680 of217,258
|
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.

635 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min RiversideRedneck 680,892
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min LTM 512,341
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 min Student 38,032
avandia 2014 6 min LisaTx 81
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 9 min lalala 287
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 10 min Harrison Freebird 23,834
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 12 min -USA-1 109,759
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 49 min Joshuas Polaris 2000 596,624
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Toby 89,609
•••
•••
•••