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. Read more

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150923 Jan 30, 2013
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUP...

I loved New Orleans. Used to live there.

After 9/11 a friend of mine had one of those heart tests where they inject a little radioactive stuff in you. He got back and stopped at a coffee shop in Uptown. Parked his car and started to walk inside. This place has an actual parking area off the street. Two Customs guys jumped out of a car at the intersection behind him. He triggered radiation sensors they had in their vehicle.

Go to New Orleans and Mardi Gras. Have fun. Just don't step on the sidewalk with a drink in a glass. Plastic go cups only.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150924 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
If you are an agnostic, how can you then deny the possibility of God? That is contradictory.
No it's not. As long as you don't affirm or deny the possibility of a god or gods, you are agnostic. Agnostics like me do deny "God."

Who can say that no god of any description is possible unless the idea is logically impossible? I can't.

However unlikely, the idea of a god isn't logically impossible, therefore it is possible by default. It seems to me that we must all admit to a mustard seed of agnosticism.

But many named gods can be ruled out such as the one you call "God" ... Jehovah-Jesus. Doing so, however, doesn't make one no longer agnostic. It can't.

Why aren't you asking us what we believe and what we call ourselves rather than telling us? You need to understand what the terms mean to unbelievers, and how we use them, unless it is your intention to try to impose a preferred definition upon us.

If you are, I would suggest you think it through. There's only one outcome that I've ever seen come to pass whenever that happens.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150925 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. As long as you don't affirm or deny the possibility of a god or gods, you are agnostic. Agnostics like me do deny "God."
Who can say that no god of any description is possible unless the idea is logically impossible? I can't.
However unlikely, the idea of a god isn't logically impossible, therefore it is possible by default. It seems to me that we must all admit to a mustard seed of agnosticism.
But many named gods can be ruled out such as the one you call "God" ... Jehovah-Jesus. Doing so, however, doesn't make one no longer agnostic. It can't.
Why aren't you asking us what we believe and what we call ourselves rather than telling us? You need to understand what the terms mean to unbelievers, and how we use them, unless it is your intention to try to impose a preferred definition upon us.
If you are, I would suggest you think it through. There's only one outcome that I've ever seen come to pass whenever that happens.
Your frequent irrational rants against religion and the religious negate any reason or rationality you try to present.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150926 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Ok, let us just say you are a chemical accident. What purpose is there in you being a chemical accident?
To whom? To the universe? None.

To me and those that love me? What does it say about you that you don't know what purpose we serve, or even whether we experience a sense of purpose? I love many chemical accidents, and they love me.

Why do you want to demean humanity with such descriptions? Sure, it is technically correct, but it is horribly incomplete. Why do you distill the worst definition you can from the whole. We are so much more than that.

This chemical accident also has a sense of dignity, purpose, and self-worth. This chemical accident also has hopes and dreams for the future of mankind and the world.

Your worldview not only has impeded progress in the human condition, it cheapens the human experience. You should be proud of what you are, not all of which is an accident - just your biology. You are the abstract thinking ape, the one that uses language and numbers to contemplate, compute, communicate, measure and record. With a little practice, you can play a piano or guitar.

Do you still not understand where purpose, meaning and value come from? Not the belief in a god, nor in the belief that you were built to serve one. If anything, such a belief demeans you and perverts your sense of purpose.

“Drive by wire”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150927 Jan 30, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I am especially proud of my volunteer work and donations to the humanist cause. Every year I go to the Philippines and spend thousands on food,water, clothing and medicine for the needy there. After a horrific typhoon and flooding there I was there amongst others 14 hours a day handing out supplies, giving life saving injections and treatments to those who lost their home. I stood and watched as homeless children lined up easily 3 miles deep for a package of crackers sandwich fruit and bottle of water. Unwanted children who were born because the Christian ran theocracy light government makes it nearly impossible for a woman to obtain birth control. My wife is in pre-med classes and wants to practice medicine there free to help those poor children. Here in the states I collect donations for running in marathons with the money going to children's charities and cancer or HIV awareness programs.
I have seen first hand time and time again the damage and heart breaking situations brought on by theists. The same theists who come crawling to us to help fix their mess! Oh but while we are fixing it are we thanked? Nope. We barely get the figurative broom in hand and they are shrieking at us for not believing in their imaginary friend.
Honor? I guess it is a relative term. The dozen of urban low income students I assist for free with their biology and pharmaceutical homework at two different colleges locally would probably say good ole KJ is an alright dude.
Now if coming on topix and giving the theists a little taste of backbone, the theists who try to intimidate and silence non believers because they think we should all be meek and humble and tolerate their abuse and repeated logical fallacies makes me vile, Without reason, Disrespectful, In someone's opinion? So be it, hmmm I will chuckle about how vile And disrespectful I am Friday at U of L for the 6 hours I am assisting the students there as a volunteer. Or perhaps this summer as I am passing out thousands of dollars worth of free medicine and other essentials trying to save some more homeless from dying. Yes I was walking by a group of people there and they were huddled together praying loudly and crying. I looked in and a young girl was on the ground dying of dehydration. Instead of getting her water and rushing her to the hospital they stood there holding hands and praying! I grabbed my cell phone and called for an ambulance and started trying to get her to drink. Slowly she sipped the water as the praying continued. The ambulance came after almost an hour and reluctantly took her to the hospital, the paramedic said she was good as dead and best leave it in the hands of Jesus same thing the crowd thought. She died 18 hours later. They didn't even know her name and couldn't figure it out.
I guess I'll somehow deal with being called disrespectful.
<quoted text>
Add legend in own mind.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150928 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your frequent irrational rants against religion and the religious negate any reason or rationality you try to present.
You feel that any notion which opposes your irrational beliefs is irrational and an attack, this is called a defensive mechanism, and it's not a healthy version of one. You are becoming defensive because your god is really your super ego.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150929 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Actually, the lack of belief is agnosticism. It is a passive thing. Atheism is a denial, which is not passive, but definitive.
Langoliers wrote:
I might add this. Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight. Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.
Merriam - Webster
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
"who believes". That's a positive assertion. Seeing as there is no proof of your belief It's FAITH.
Faith:
"Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion"
You can't impose your preferred definitions on us. We define ourselves. You can only refuse to respect that, as you always have. Do you think that that tactic is helpful to your purpose?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150930 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You feel that any notion which opposes your irrational beliefs is irrational and an attack, this is called a defensive mechanism, and it's not a healthy version of one. You are becoming defensive because your god is really your super ego.
Hmmmmm.....

That was directed at IANS, yet you felt compelled to interject an objection to my notion which is evidently quite contrary to your beliefs system, oops. I meant non-belief system. IANS is one of 7 billion people, yet you took offense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150931 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You have no requirement to tell the truth in your worldview. And all you need after you lie is demand forgiveness. It's automatic, like from a vending machine.
mtimber wrote:
That is not correct. I am bound by Gods absolute moral law. That I can seek forgiveness, is not the same as requiring that I break Gods law, which seems to be what you are arguing.
I didn't say that you were required to break any law, only that you were free to.

I also said that with such cheap forgiveness on demand available to you, you are free to lie all you want, especially when proselytizing. Lying for Jesus is OK, right? Christians overrate their religious experience to others every weeks in church, telling them about the victory, and the overwhelming joy in their hearts. Nobody asks for forgiveness for doing that.

And you are bound by nothing. Faith is a choice. You submit to Christianity by choice.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150932 Jan 30, 2013
Speaking of New Orleans and the Topix atheist propensity to see reality in an illusory manner.

The train station in New Orleans is downtown. Busy street in front, tall buildings, an expressway running by it, and the Superdome behind it. Very urban place.

It has a circular drive leading to the front door, usually lined with taxis. There is a small park like area within the confines of that drive, with a few date palms planted.

One day I arrive to catch the train and damned if they aren't having a movie shoot there. A couple of bigger name actors, and I don't remember the name of the movie. But they were shooting an oasis scene in some desert sheik movie. Robes and head dresses. Might have been a horse or two. In the middle of New Orleans.

Topix atheists would pick some sort of "truth" out of that scene.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150933 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Speaking of New Orleans and the Topix atheist propensity to see reality in an illusory manner.
The train station in New Orleans is downtown. Busy street in front, tall buildings, an expressway running by it, and the Superdome behind it. Very urban place.
It has a circular drive leading to the front door, usually lined with taxis. There is a small park like area within the confines of that drive, with a few date palms planted.
One day I arrive to catch the train and damned if they aren't having a movie shoot there. A couple of bigger name actors, and I don't remember the name of the movie. But they were shooting an oasis scene in some desert sheik movie. Robes and head dresses. Might have been a horse or two. In the middle of New Orleans.
Topix atheists would pick some sort of "truth" out of that scene.
Yet you are the one using a 2000 year old copy of the National Enquirer as your source of knowledge. LMAO

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150934 Jan 30, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are the one using a 2000 year old copy of the National Enquirer as your source of knowledge. LMAO
Professing that we are just glorified circuitry being put to use by a higher form of life is based upon a 2000 year old National Enquirer?

Yeah, I can see a Topix atheist believing such. They all know we just got poofed here. They are "real" thingies that arose from maybe a fog. Or maybe a particle. Maybe even a different dimension. Maybe a bunch of numbers had a party and created us. Maybe even we emerged out of total nothingness. But those atheist, they be real. And in the know.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150935 Jan 30, 2013
I love being enthused in my old age. I recently discovered Buckethead, one of the premier guitar shredders, which is a music style I don't much care for. But I found out he also does some very mellow stuff. Check out his Electric Tears and Colma albums. This one here is betwixt and between those styles. Awesome musical talent.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150936 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...
Is your god an absolute?

If so, I'm guessing that you're giving it a pass on any demand that it have a cause. I'm guessing that you're going from strict and rigorous regarding the universe, to anything goes for the god. Am I close?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150937 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
If all that you have as evidence is many people agreeing, that is evidence for many people agreeing, not a god. There is also evidence of many people "sinning." Is that then an absolute moral standard and evidence for a god as well? It isn't, is it?
mtimber wrote:
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
That's a bare claim, not evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150938 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?
Who are you quoting here? Please show me where I said "all physicists"
mtimber wrote:
Also, please supply your source for this amended claim. Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...
What amended claim? If you are referring to the claim that most physicists accept the fact of quantum indeterminacy - that some events at the subatomic level are uncaused - please read the posts addressed to you.

See http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV... please note that "Quantum indeterminacy ... has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics."

Do you know what those words mean?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150939 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What moral principles are original to Christianity?
mtimber wrote:
God predates humanity...
Not by my reckoning. But it would be irrelevant even were it true, because surely you don't claim that Christianity predates man.

Then you have nothing at all to offer as original moral theory from the New Testament or the words of Jesus? Actually, I can name a few Christian ethical values that I believe Jesus was the first to articulate, although none worth saving.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150940 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The first cause argument is not applicable to the universe as an entity. The idea of causality is derived from experience with objects much smaller than universes that are contained in them. You cannot extend the inductions (generalizations) derived from studying the whole and apply them to the parts. That one is called a fallacy of composition. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compo... :

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."
mtimber wrote:
Actually, if the parts are based in facts that are incontrovertible, you can use them to establish the universal...
That is incorrect. Read it again. We are not discussing universals. We are discussing parts and wholes.

Can you not think of things are true about humanity, but not true about individual human beings? Can a single human being reproduce, or survive for millennia?

How about things that are true about a deck of playing cards, but not true about one card? Can you shuffle or cut one card?

And if you care to rebut a comment, do so. A simple claim to the contrary is merely an opinion, not an argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150941 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I've never said that. If you are going to keep changing my words, we won't accomplish much.
< crickets >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
My worldview - rational skepticism - is superior to yours - Christian fideism - based on the results each has produced both in my life and in the world.
Work with that. Please don't reword it and then argue with yourself again.
mtimber wrote:
I am not sure why you want to claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
Are you going to be dead weight in this discussion? I don't intend to drag you through it. Where did I claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
mtimber wrote:
I would say that logical deduction and induction should be the base of all skepticism by the way...
OK. I wouldn't.

But why tell me here and now? Did you think that your comment somehow related to mine?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150942 Jan 30, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
mtimber wrote:
So you argue that progression is necessarily better?
No. Why do you ask?
mtimber wrote:
You know that is illogical right?
I don't know what it means. They're your words.

I've already asked you to respond to my words as I write them, and not to immediately paraphrase them. You seldom get it right when you do. I don't intend to correct any more, just point out that I the words are yours, not mine, and reject your version.

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
Rajkot gay Topix 12 min manish 9
Is the problem of groping in India over exagger... (Jan '11) 13 min rajiv 477
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min USA Born 578,714
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min onemale 269,999
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 29 min Theswamiji 5,909
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 31 min Seentheotherside 69,881
www.mygiftcardsite.com balance - Mygiftcardsite... (Dec '12) 53 min Jim Wilson 42
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 53 min Hidingfromyou 817,290
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr AnnieJ 609,747
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 16 hr IWANNAPLAY 187
More from around the web