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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#147570 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Is that why violent crime rates are higher in the UK? Or why there is a complete gun ban in Mexico but they have the highest murder by guns than any other country?
Violent crime isn't the same as murder. Another creationist attempt to move the goalposts and argue a strawman.

At the end of the day the statistics about gun murders in your country are shocking. Simply shocking.

But what is more shocking is your attitude towards the damning facts of your country's murderous way of life.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#147571 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice also how these are just the Violent crimes detected in only England an Wales not the entire UK and they still out weigh Americas violent crime rates.. per capita.
Quoting your own quote doesn't make it more valid. Gun crime in the US is miles above any other country, the solution is the remove guns.

Its a pity the spoilt toddler that is the the US, won't let mommy reason take the toy away after they killed someone with it.

Perhaps the problem is that basic moral education was substituted with religious cr*p and that's what makes you folk so f*cking stupid when it comes to guns.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147572 Jan 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem like such a kind & loving person.
<quoted text>
I don't drink & drive. Ever.
And I don't speed.
So....
<quoted text>
No, that means IF some piss head wants to shoot at me, he'll likely think twice about it because I can shoot back. He'll more likely shoot you straight through you protest sign.
So it has been said by people with more knowledge of me than you but thanks anyway

Does that mean that no one drinks and drives and no one speeds? Oh what a wonderful world we live in… No wonder the traffic police are being stood down and reassigned…(Bit or sarcasm for you just in case you didn’t get it)

Ehm, drunk!! He is not even going to consider thinking twice.

Despite your kind words earlier you don’t know much about me do you – what protest sign?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147573 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line is we wrote these things into law because of your country. They worked then to defeat you as the oppressor of my country. I find it slightly curious it is now your country that is the biggest supporter of disarming this country.
No I favor a assault weapons and high capacity clips ban , but not any outright bans or national registration.
I also think we need address the issue in schools as well as mental health screening from middle school on up, along with security in the schools.
The reason is simple you will never be able to remove access to all guns Christine , it is guaranteed under the second amendment.
But the fact remain also Christine , while there are les murders with guns over there , per capita violent crime is actually higher over there too.
Yes however civilisation has progressed over 300+ years, most civilisations anyway.

Does my country have any say in disarming your country? I can make my opinion known just as you can, that’s freedom for you. The difference is that in your country I do not get a vote.

So your idea of freedom is to limit the type of weapon to those who you think should be allowed to carry them – fine… How about the guy down the road with the semi automatic over the fire in his lounge and the shotgun on display in the back window of his suv who likes to drink until he’s falling over drunk every Friday night, does he not get a say in this?

You also seem to be in favour of “compulsory” screening to see if one is fit to carry a firearm, where is the freedom in that? Double standards or what?

Try looking up the definition of amendment FYI CHANGE. It’s down to the will of the people as to whether the majority of guns are removed from the public. It can never be all guns, there will always be some few (even in the UK) who consider unregistered guns to be a turn on (or big them up to their gang) but that goes into the realms of obsession and you cant legislate against that.

Quote
The manner in which America's crime rate compared to other countries of similar wealth and development depends on the nature of the crime used in the comparison.[30] Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits.
Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
Endquote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_Uni...
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Oh but you want to impose on my freedom just two post ago ?
Hypocrite much?
Three posts – your freedom to wear a seat belt? Look, if you don’t want to wear a seat belt that up to you but don’t come crying to me when some p|sshead rams you head on and you wife and kids are mutilated in the devastation.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#147574 Jan 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So it has been said by people with more knowledge of me than you but thanks anyway
Does that mean that no one drinks and drives and no one speeds? Oh what a wonderful world we live in… No wonder the traffic police are being stood down and reassigned…(Bit or sarcasm for you just in case you didn’t get it)
Ehm, drunk!! He is not even going to consider thinking twice.
Despite your kind words earlier you don’t know much about me do you – what protest sign?
Good example. Applying Lil Ticked's creationist logic - "if we ban speeding, speeding would only be in the hands of criminals"

One to add to the creationist hall of shame I think

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147575 Jan 8, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I live here and thanks be to God you don't.As to the rest of your post is had ZERO relevance to what I was commenting on.I assure you I don't give a rats ass what you or any other Brit else thinks about the USA.
Good because I don’t give a rats a$$ about you.

But your facetious and sloping shouldered response really shows your (lack of) intelligence in responding to valid (and no doubt uncomfortable) comments made in response to your own posts and about the wording of your own post…

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147576 Jan 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting your own quote doesn't make it more valid. Gun crime in the US is miles above any other country, the solution is the remove guns.
Its a pity the spoilt toddler that is the the US, won't let mommy reason take the toy away after they killed someone with it.
Perhaps the problem is that basic moral education was substituted with religious cr*p and that's what makes you folk so f*cking stupid when it comes to guns.
The solution is for us to decide also Skeptic, and not for foreigners to make policy in America.
But it's not religion that makes policy either.
It was the ratification of the bill of rights in our constitution.
I suggest you read this carefully.

"In September 1789, the first Congress of the United States approved 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sent them to the states for ratification. The amendments were designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure

and to bear arms;

and that powers not delegated to the federal government would be reserved for the states and the people."

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147577 Jan 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes however civilisation has progressed over 300+ years, most civilisations anyway.
Does my country have any say in disarming your country? I can make my opinion known just as you can, that’s freedom for you. The difference is that in your country I do not get a vote.
So your idea of freedom is to limit the type of weapon to those who you think should be allowed to carry them – fine… How about the guy down the road with the semi automatic over the fire in his lounge and the shotgun on display in the back window of his suv who likes to drink until he’s falling over drunk every Friday night, does he not get a say in this?
You also seem to be in favour of “compulsory” screening to see if one is fit to carry a firearm, where is the freedom in that? Double standards or what?
Try looking up the definition of amendment FYI CHANGE. It’s down to the will of the people as to whether the majority of guns are removed from the public. It can never be all guns, there will always be some few (even in the UK) who consider unregistered guns to be a turn on (or big them up to their gang) but that goes into the realms of obsession and you cant legislate against that.
Quote
The manner in which America's crime rate compared to other countries of similar wealth and development depends on the nature of the crime used in the comparison.[30] Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits.
Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
Endquote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_Uni...
<quoted text>
Three posts – your freedom to wear a seat belt? Look, if you don’t want to wear a seat belt that up to you but don’t come crying to me when some p|sshead rams you head on and you wife and kids are mutilated in the devastation.
Screening for potentially mentally disturbed people is not imposing on freedom, and specifically with all the school shooters there were warning signs that were ignored. Screening is just putting someone to look and not ignore these signs.

But I suggest it go further and since we do bear arms we should be responsible enough to give training and discuss this problem with the children openly. After all this is really a mental heath issue
aside from gang wars and people who are going to break laws regardless.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147578 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>The point is... Make a law banning guns then only criminals will have guns.
Yes, and gang members who want to feel big in front of their buddies, that would not change by very much. However the chances that the average Joe flips his lid, or gets stinking drunk or holds a grudge pulling out a gun and indiscriminately kills children and/or shoppers diminishes to almost zero.

Criminal behaviour (particularly violent criminal behaviour) is quite rare and even more rare in countries that have gun control. It is no coincidence that the number of violent crimes involving firearms is between 4 and 20 times worse in countries without gun regulation than countries with gun regulation.

Tell me do you associate with criminals and gang members? Do you go shopping? Do you have kids in school?

What you are advocating is a cold war between criminals and the average Joe. When the criminal knows he is likely to be faced with a firearm he is more likely to take the stance of - do onto others as they would hath done unto you, only do it first.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147579 Jan 8, 2013
Exactly my point. Different metrics.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Crimes detected in England and Wales 2011/12
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/sci...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...
Happy reading.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147580 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Time is part of space they are connected, therefore they are both part of the universe. God is outside of the little box that holds his creation, our universe. That is why God can be the Alpha and the Omega.
And, if true, it shows that God cannot be the causal factor for the start of the universe.
2) I have to really doubt you here.
As in the Theory of chaos. It would be Impossible to prove one event did not in some way start another event.
Actually, it *is* possible. Look up Bell's inequalities some time. The universe is not a causal place at the quantum level. In particular, the time of decay of a muon is not caused. Nothing happens 'just before' the decay that is any different than at any other time.
3) This is easy. See there is this book called the Bible and it tells us that there is only one God.
And why should we believe that collection of stories more than any other collection of stories? You have to show the existence of God *first* and *then* show the Bible is a reliable guide to the thoughts of that God.
4) again the Bible explains creation. A single cell is more complex then any and all thing made by man. Hence intelligent's
Complexity does not require intelligence.
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
Since that is NOT the typical atheist position, there is no problem. The typical atheist merely points out that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a deity.
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).
Wrong yet again. Part of the difficulty in proving a non-existence is having a definition that is precise enough to allow testing. But the theists cannot seem to agree with what testable properties God actually has. And, without testable properties, the question of existence defaults to non-existence (just as it would with any other thing in the universe).
To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
Garbage. To show the non-existence of God simply requires the properties be well enough established that they can be tested. Your turn: give a test that you would agree would show you wrong if, in fact, you are wrong.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147581 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Screening for potentially mentally disturbed people is not imposing on freedom, and specifically with all the school shooters there were warning signs that were ignored. Screening is just putting someone to look and not ignore these signs.
But I suggest it go further and since we do bear arms we should be responsible enough to give training and discuss this problem with the children openly. After all this is really a mental heath issue
aside from gang wars and people who are going to break laws regardless.
That is exactly the same attitude Hitler took when screening for mentally disturbed people to segregate them from society. Tell me, would you sterilise them too as Hitler did? I assume you would need to use a national register to identify those that fail your test?

Sorry I am confused by your double standards here,

Honey, the difference between you and I is that I get by digs in directly.

I am sure you wrote
“but not any outright bans or national registration.”

Yet you are also advocating what can only be national screening and national recording for those that don’t meet your standards? How is this to be policed?

Surely national licensing and some form of test/examination at the time of application is a better option than stigmatising a whole nation of children en mass on the chance that some may not be up to your standard…

Anyone, no matter how mentally stable can have a breakdown. Anyone can go one a bender, anyone can develop a grudge. You don’t need to be a schoolchild.

And you call it a problem? If you see gun ownership as a problem why do you advocate it?

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147582 Jan 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly the same attitude Hitler took when screening for mentally disturbed people to segregate them from society. Tell me, would you sterilise them too as Hitler did? I assume you would need to use a national register to identify those that fail your test?
Sorry I am confused by your double standards here,
Honey, the difference between you and I is that I get by digs in directly.
I am sure you wrote
“but not any outright bans or national registration.”
Yet you are also advocating what can only be national screening and national recording for those that don’t meet your standards? How is this to be policed?
Surely national licensing and some form of test/examination at the time of application is a better option than stigmatising a whole nation of children en mass on the chance that some may not be up to your standard…
Anyone, no matter how mentally stable can have a breakdown. Anyone can go one a bender, anyone can develop a grudge. You don’t need to be a schoolchild.
And you call it a problem? If you see gun ownership as a problem why do you advocate it?
We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147583 Jan 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly the same attitude Hitler took when screening for mentally disturbed people to segregate them from society. Tell me, would you sterilise them too as Hitler did? I assume you would need to use a national register to identify those that fail your test?
Sorry I am confused by your double standards here,
Honey, the difference between you and I is that I get by digs in directly.
I am sure you wrote
“but not any outright bans or national registration.”
Yet you are also advocating what can only be national screening and national recording for those that don’t meet your standards? How is this to be policed?
Surely national licensing and some form of test/examination at the time of application is a better option than stigmatising a whole nation of children en mass on the chance that some may not be up to your standard…
Anyone, no matter how mentally stable can have a breakdown. Anyone can go one a bender, anyone can develop a grudge. You don’t need to be a schoolchild.
And you call it a problem? If you see gun ownership as a problem why do you advocate it?
Hitler didn't screen for mental health , he screened for potential enemies, if you were not a Nazi, you were the enemy.
It started with disarming the Jews, then calling anyone who was not a Nazi a communist.
It was easy to locate and raid anyone who was potentially a threat to his regime from inside because of the reregistration.

“God of War”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147584 Jan 8, 2013
He then rounded up Jewish people who had no ability to resist because they had been disarmed and proceeded to exterminate them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147585 Jan 8, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> To me "eternal" in and of itself is beyond the realm of the natural world.We can't explain it.That something or anything just "is" and always has been is something that feels visceraaly wrong to me.
And yet, you would say that about your deity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147586 Jan 8, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>I'm willing to take mathemactians at their word when they explain beyond my comprehension. However I also can't discount the the beliefs and opinions of people like John Lennox the Oxford mathematician who whole heartedly believes in God.What I find too much of on these threads is radicals insulting each other and making assumptions about posters who they suspect is the enemy.
Of all areas of 'science', mathematics seems to be the subject with the most theists. Perhaps that is because it doesn't actually deal with the real world (which is why I don't actually count it as a science). But I will agree, there are many intelligent people who believe in a deity. The person that was going to be my physics PhD advisor believed. many of my colleagues believe.

But what I have found is that their belief is not based on the science or the mathematics. It is more based on faith and a *lack* of evidence. Those that believe can certainly be good, even great scientists. But they have to set a strong boundary between their faith and the science they do. In the case of my advisor, he certainly knew the universe to be billions of years old.

And, from my viewpoint, it doesn't bother me that someone believes in a deity as long as they allow for scientific evidence to prevail for understanding the physical world. That means acknowledging that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and that evolution really does happen. As long as that separation is kept between truth and belief, I have no problem with religion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147587 Jan 8, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
Anyone here familiar with CTMU theory?
I looked it up and read one of the treatises explaining it. It seems to be more of a philosophical mish-mash than anything actually useful. There were some things that I consider to be laughably wrong and a few things that I thought were correct. I'm willing to wait and see if anything useful comes out of it. I doubt it will.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#147588 Jan 8, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
Atheist live in the here and now. Because they live in the natural world. It’s beyond their comprehension the idea of a spiritual world.
The Emperor's New Clothes, ploy? Again?
KJV

United States

#147589 Jan 8, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>But omniscience means he knows my decision before I make it.
Knowing it and forcing you to make it are two very different things.

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
Casual Dating in Your Area 2 min Mark 10
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min set free in truth 574,624
Christianity And Islam 9 min set free in truth 4
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 10 min Insults Are Easier 269,125
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min Wyle E Coyote 810,684
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 21 min set free in truth 39,672
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 50 min Antique Annie 608,311
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 14 hr busted 165
More from around the web