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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150069 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Non sequitur.
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?

You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...

The whole of scientific endeavour is built on the assumption that absolutes exist.

No absolutes, no science.

Morality is the same, no absolutes, no subjective interpretation of those absolutes.

No morality...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150070 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Its up there in the thread title :)
It seems to be discussing the pre-suppositional nature of atheistic beliefs...

But, if you see an entry requirement expressed there, I would love to see you explain it...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150071 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You dont have to believe in the Big Bang. Just to have the a healthy degree of skepticism and free thinking to absurd claims about the supernatural.
You presuppose that the universe only operates on empirical laws and you define them as "natural", correct?

Why do you presuppose that only empiricism is valid?

And if that is the case, why are you then arguing the big bang is viable?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150072 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
If you mean 'interpretations', like the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation, I do not use *any* of them. I simply use quantum mechanics. The interpretations are methods of attempting to explain QM in terms of classical notions. That is a fundamental error. You explain the old theory in terms of the new one, not the other way around.
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Well, the point is that a muon just before the decay is exactly the same as a muon at any other time. It is a fundamental particle, which means there is no 'internal clock' ticking that determines when it decays. The decay is inherently probabilistic (not possible to determine when it will happen no matter what information you have previous to the decay), and so is not 'caused'.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
Like I also said, the vast majority of quantum phenomena are un-caused. They are inherently probabilistic and not determined by previous conditions. Again, that is fundamental to how quantum mechanics works (no matter what the interpretation).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150073 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
If you want to claim that the decay of a muon is caused, please define the term 'caused' and we can test to see if it applies. In particular, since the phrase 'x is caused' means the same as 'there is a y such that y causes x', please define what it means to say that 'y causes x'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150074 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
You do realize that all the interpretations of QM give *exactly* the same observable predictions, right? They are *exactly* the same as scientific theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150075 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You presuppose that the universe only operates on empirical laws and you define them as "natural", correct?
Why do you presuppose that only empiricism is valid?
And if that is the case, why are you then arguing the big bang is viable?
Because the Big Bang theory gives testable predictions and those predictions agree with the evidence. The Big Bang theory, as used by cosmologists, says that the universe was once very hot and dense and has been expanding since that time. It uses general relativity, statistical mechanics, and quantum mechanics to describe the conditions and dynamics of the universe. At this point, it works very well from less than a nanosecond into the expansion phase until the present. In particular, the LCDM (lambda, cold dark matter) theory predicts the detailed nature of the cosmic background radiation and is the modern version of the Big bang scenario with inflation.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150076 Jan 25, 2013
Non sequitur.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?
You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...
The whole of scientific endeavour is built on the assumption that absolutes exist.
No absolutes, no science.
Morality is the same, no absolutes, no subjective interpretation of those absolutes.
No morality...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150077 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?
You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...
Wrong. We define a 'curvy line' to be a curve that fails to minimize the distance between every two points on it. See? We don't need to know what it means to be straight to define curvy.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150078 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber won't understand metrics like that.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. We define a 'curvy line' to be a curve that fails to minimize the distance between every two points on it. See? We don't need to know what it means to be straight to define curvy.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#150079 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly not. Training means you were taught. Experience is what shapes that teaching into something different if such occurs. How do you think cultural differences came about?
You are taught not to do some dangerous things, but you do them to get a thrill or knowledge. That is free will.
You can't freely choose to follow training too? Free will only occurs when you (freely) choose otherwise?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#150080 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?
You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...
Once again, I've not pre-supposed anything of the sort. How about we do this:

Evil: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evi...

So, now that we have a definition, back to the question:

"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"

I'm getting the distinct impression you are very uncomfortable with answering the question.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150081 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
mtimber won't understand metrics like that.
<quoted text>
Probably true, but it still shows that we can define 'curvy' without reference to 'straight'.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150082 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have anything rational to present?
To say "god dun it" is to presume you know something in spite of not knowing anything about the topic. It's called a cop-out, you are avoiding admitting to not knowing. Honest people say "I don't know," dishonest people say "god dun it."

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150083 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link is full of it.
A woman who is married without her consent and must submit to conjugal duties is being raped.
No, the Bible does not CALL it rape because did not consider any marital sex to be rape because women were property of men. We know this is nonsense.
Can you substantiate your claim with proof?

Please understand that conjecture is not proof.

This is the second time I have asked you for proof that these “War Brides,” were forced into marriage and raped.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150084 Jan 25, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
My grandfather married a German lady after the war and he failed to follow god's laws on the matter.
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
What?!?! He could sell her because he humbled her?!?!? What did you say that meant? LOL!
If you will recall, in previous statements you were insinuating that “humble her,” was rape which I very much disagreed.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html...

Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"

Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.

There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

In the New Testament, rape is not mentioned directly, but within the Jewish culture of its writers, rape would have been considered as sexual immorality. As such, both Jesus and His followers (including the apostle Paul) spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce when a person actively committed sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (Matthew 5:32). This would not, however, apply to the victim of rape, only the one who committed the act.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150085 Jan 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And from now on you will be reported for your copy and paste block spam. Fair enough? You come here to troll but then get furious when treated like a troll? I suggest if you can't handle it stay in the Christian forums.
Thanks Daffy.
Oh and I will be staying, for a long time regardless of how you wail and cry for getting what you ask for :)
<quoted text>
I want you to stay.

However, abuse that you so flagrantly practiced will not be tolerated any longer.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150086 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you will recall, in previous statements you were insinuating that “humble her,” was rape which I very much disagreed.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html...
Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"
Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.
There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
In the New Testament, rape is not mentioned directly, but within the Jewish culture of its writers, rape would have been considered as sexual immorality. As such, both Jesus and His followers (including the apostle Paul) spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce when a person actively committed sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (Matthew 5:32). This would not, however, apply to the victim of rape, only the one who committed the act.
That's all great apologetics garbage, but it fails to address the simple point he made, any arranged or forced marriage in which sex is performed is inherently rape.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150087 Jan 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all great apologetics garbage, but it fails to address the simple point he made, any arranged or forced marriage in which sex is performed is inherently rape.
I have yet to see any proof.

Please prove that these “War Brides,” were forced.

Conjecture and assumptions on your part does not constitute proof.

I’ll be waiting…………………………

Proof not conjecture.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150088 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you substantiate your claim with proof?
It's substantiated by the verses. Ancient Israelite marriages did not require the consent of the woman. The women who were CAPTURED by soldiers were married by the man's choice alone.

Conjugal relations were an expected part of wifely duties. The Israelites did not consider those sexual encounters to be rape, but I, and any reasonable person who does not view a wife as property of her husband, does.

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
Last Word + 2 2 min Kid_Tomorrow 821
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Buck Crick 743,369
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Anthony MN 544,843
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 3 min Kid_Tomorrow 4,237
Word association game (Aug '08) 6 min Kid_Tomorrow 53,419
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 min Dr_Zorderz 260,127
How will the world end? (Apr '09) 7 min Anon 88
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 48 min Clearwater 174,184
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Epiphany2 601,380

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE