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 7,090)

Showing posts 141,781 - 141,800 of217,134
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147586
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147590
Jan 8, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR.
I see.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147591
Jan 8, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Now that's some fancy singin' and dancin' there! So I cannot do anything that is inconsistent with my nature, so by this twisted logic I would be omnipotent too. That's absurd.

To accept this argument is to redefine the word "all" such that "all powerful" is some strange twilight zone parody of "all". You really fell for this lame apologetic?
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147592
Jan 8, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>If you refuse to provide evidence of your assertions, then you are more dishonest than I had originally thought.
No I refuse to repeat myself. I'm sorry you missed it on the first 3 or 4 times that it was posted.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147593
Jan 8, 2013
 
The bible says god isn't omniscient.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing it and forcing you to make it are two very different things.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147594
Jan 8, 2013
 
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>The CIA factbook does not show its methodology for arriving at those figures nor is there any indication of how old the data on which it is based are. Other sources are more transparent, notably the Pew Forum and ARIS. Without that metadata, there is no way of knowing how reliable its statistics are.
"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.

Ok let's look at this.

"nor is there any indication of how old the data on which it is based are"

July 2012 est.
This date is not good enough for you?

You say you like the Pew Forum.

"In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."

This is a bit older but it's all I have found from pew.

As far as the lot her issues with The CIA fact book you have the capability to go to the web site for your other answers.

"A survey published in the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious." In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by Encyclopedia Britannica survey did not include Buddhist in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be theistic or atheistic."

Wikipedia:

"Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population.[citation needed] It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not"

Wikipedia :

"2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States were most sure of the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)"

Wikipedia :

"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population"

"In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."

"Global atheism is shrinking and demographic changes in the United States and the world are expected to shrink the influence of American secularism.

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.
In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of

Missionary Research:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147595
Jan 8, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me if I go with the guy who doesn't depict the crusades as simply "killing brown people".
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Way to skip past the point to nitpick one of the summaries. Majority is wrong more often than not, end of story.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147596
Jan 8, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
Nice! He touched on the big issue; "FEAR". To get a group of people to do anything, it seems that it takes fear.

Germany in the 1930's & 40's. Does anyone really believe that Germans hated the Jews? They did not, they feared hitler and the ss. Would you give up your family or would you turn on your neighbor? Far too many of us would quickly turn on our neighbor.

What about christians? If you didn't worry about spending eternity in hell, would you still believe? I don't think so. Even if your church is not the fire and brimstone type, you are taught from the beginning, that there is major consequences for not believing properly. Why would a god torture you for eternity, just for not believing that which you cannot verify?

Americans, how do you think the Patriot Act got voted in? Why are we unlawfully searched at airports? Simply, we are afraid. Some of you remember the 60's & 70's; it seemed like every week, some was highjacking an airplane.

Fear, still the best form of control.

The second best form of control; pull at the heart strings. Who doesn't feel for the children on the christian children's fund? But who sits down and figures out how to prevent hungry children? Like, stop having children that you cannot possible feed! The hard reality is, we feed these children, they survive and have children that they cannot feed, we feed them, they survive and have children that they cannot possibly feed and no one seems to say, "STOP having children! Learn how to deal with the environment or move to a place where you can deal with it. Get an education/trade."

Nope! Just a, "You are heartless for even suggesting that they take responsibility for their actions!"

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 141,781 - 141,800 of217,134
|
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.

584 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The sad REALITY of being a gay atheist 5 min Adam 7
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 9 min Ed Teach 52,518
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Gods R Delusions x Mine 512,275
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 15 min Adam 36 36,108
Why do homosexuals approach little boys in thei... 15 min Adam 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Catcher1 680,620
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 22 min Adam 596,600
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 1 hr Haydos 272
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr Uzi 109,735
•••
•••
•••