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

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147834 Jan 10, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>1. You shouldn't worship the pope, especially Darth Sidius.
2. There is nothing wrong with Sagan other than his hair cut.
1. I don't worship a pope. Don't even know his name.

2. That is your opinion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147835 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Which parts? The part of the Big Bang that it actually happened?
That the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state.
Or the part of evolution that says all life originated naturally?
No, that is not part of the theory of evolution.
Which parts have been proven?
That biological species change over geological time.
To my knowledge, nothing has evolved that we have seen & tested.
This is false. We have watched new species of mosquito evolve in the London train tunnels. We have produced reproductively isolate populations of fruit flies (counting as new species by the standard definition of species).
Strange attitude. You accept that a scientific outlook is different between a person from Japan & a person from America. Why can't you accept that people put religion first sometimes?
Oh, I *know* that some people put religion first. Such people tend not to be scientists because they can't handle the evidence-based and skeptical aspects of science.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a religious person is either ignorant or superstitious.
Well, I consider *any* belief in a supernatural to be superstitious. Belief in the absence of evidence (or, better, when there is contrary evidence) is ignorant.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147836 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Again,*independent* verification.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147837 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Not for long. Science is worldwide, not just an American thing. All science is constantly being tested and retested by scientists with every possible religious, social, political, etc. background. That's what makes it truly independent.

Like I said, the more independent testing and verification, the more confidence. But confidence never, ever reaches 100% because there is always some variant of every scientific question that has not been tested yet and science recognizes that it can never test for every variation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147838 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But it has a point.
It is far from clear that the anamorphic term “god” is even a meaningful concept, let alone something that can be said to exist.
In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.
When it comes to the question of 'God', there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible. Until the properties that must be met are agreed to, the issue simply cannot be properly addressed and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.
Now some properties that are usually associated with a deity are: omnipotence, omnipresence, a 'cause' for the universe, a 'giver of morals', etc. It is rather straight forward to show that each of these properties are paradoxical and, taken together or separately, could not exist in the natural universe as we find it. The predictable retort to this problem is that "god" exist outside of nature (supernatural) or is beyond mere human understanding. But even considering these apologetics, there must be some measurable impact of "god" or again consideration of existence is meaningless.
I would also like to point out that it *is* possible to prove a negative. I can reliably and with complete justification determine that there is not an elephant in my room. The *reason* I can do this is that the properties of elephants are such that any elephant in my room would be detectable. The fact that none is detected *is* good enough to prove no elephants exist in my room.
The difficulty with the God concept is that it is not well enough defined so that it is possible to say when, exactly, and in what manner, an existent deity would be guaranteed to be observable. So, once again, the lack of definition is part of the problem. But it is not a problem for the atheists. It is a problem for the theists. They are the ones with the responsibility to define their concept well enough to be testable.
Finally, does it make sense to say that something exists where there no possible way of testing its existence? To this question, I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's position -- "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."
The upshot is that the God concept is, at best, meaningless, and at worse demonstrably false. Certainly the 'old man in the sky' version is simply false. Certainly the 'creator of the earth 6000 years ago' is also false.
In short, without a clear definition of what is meant by the term "god" any consideration of existence is meaningless and absurd.
(ref: theological noncognitivism or ignosticism)
Very nicely put!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147839 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Perhaps one or two are. But, eventually, reality wins out via the scientific method: things stop working if you based your work on false ideas.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147840 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very nicely put!
That actually is based off of a rant you did a number of years ago, which I used for a while with your permission. I have expanded it somewhat since then, but the elephant example and a few other pieces are still classic Polymath!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147841 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstood.
Go figure....
Possible. It does happen. However, In my defense I would posit that Poe's law was in play so it is exceeding difficult to know when you're kidding and when you're not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147842 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That actually is based off of a rant you did a number of years ago, which I used for a while with your permission. I have expanded it somewhat since then, but the elephant example and a few other pieces are still classic Polymath!
maybe that's why I agreed with so much of it!:)

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#147843 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apatheist.
Any other good variants?
for some reason that reminds me of kong

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#147844 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't worship a pope. Don't even know his name.
2. That is your opinion.
yup

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147845 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
No, that is not part of the theory of evolution.

Belief in the absence of evidence (or, better, when there is contrary evidence) is ignorant.
Very good. Then anyone that thinks ToE is fact is ignorant.

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

There are no facts to support that claim.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147846 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again,*independent* verification.
Sure. "Independently" bought.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147847 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. "Independently" bought.
Most all of the scientists in all the Earth sciences in every industrialized country and every religion in the entire world for the past 150+ years. That would be one unbelievable conspiracy ... Or just your paranoia.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#147848 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops. I know, I typed an L instead of a N...
... and a G instead if an M... Sorry, it won't wash. You obviously had the two words confused. Why not just admit it? Folks will overlook mistakes more easily than they will dishonesty.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#147849 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
No, independent verification means that other scientists are able to duplicate the original results each and every time that they undertake the same process. It's not just others saying, "Oh, yeah, that's right." Maybe you're thinking of peer review, where a group of scientists in the same field look over one scientist's work for errors in the process before publication or its results. Peer review is usually rigorous--scientists are notoriously competitive with others in their specialties--but not perfect.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147850 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Most all of the scientists in all the Earth sciences in every industrialized country and every religion in the entire world for the past 150+ years. That would be one unbelievable conspiracy ... Or just your paranoia.
"one unbelievable conspiracy" ?

Why is there one fact of science?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147851 Jan 10, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
... and a G instead if an M... Sorry, it won't wash. You obviously had the two words confused. Why not just admit it? Folks will overlook mistakes more easily than they will dishonesty.
Hey, when I make mistakes I admit it.

I know the difference.

I misspelled.

Toguh shit.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147852 Jan 10, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
No, independent verification means that other scientists are able to duplicate the original results each and every time that they undertake the same process. It's not just others saying, "Oh, yeah, that's right." Maybe you're thinking of peer review, where a group of scientists in the same field look over one scientist's work for errors in the process before publication or its results. Peer review is usually rigorous--scientists are notoriously competitive with others in their specialties--but not perfect.
I'm not suggesting it happens a lot - or even often, but I'm sure it does happen.

Think about it.

There's a book called Merchants of Doubt, which spells out ways that scientists work together to achieve a goal for their own interests and the interests of politicians. That interest is money.

"small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147853 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. Then anyone that thinks ToE is fact is ignorant.
"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
There are no facts to support that claim.....
False. There are a great many facts to support that claim, ranging from paleontology, to genetics, to comparative anatomy ,geology, and mineralogy.

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) 6 min Robert F 550,871
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 7 min Mandela 37,346
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Stilgar Fifrawi 753,586
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 8 min Johnny 3,804
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 22 min lil whispers 602,781
Arizona is wrong (Apr '10) 24 min whatsbuggingyou 1,302
I need r woman in Cape Town between age 21- 25 ... 44 min Thandoh 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 53 min Rider on the Storm 174,539
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RADEKT 262,076

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE