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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150985 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
Prove it.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150986 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not about evidence, it is about authority.
People do not reject God because of lack of evidence, they reject Him because they do not want to submit to His authority.
They reject your god because he's imaginary.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150987 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
So you think you can exempt your god from your own assertions? Doesn't work like that. If everything needs to be created, then so does your god, that means your god has to have a god as well.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150988 Jan 30, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, religion is merely a form of superstition.
Supernatural is supernatural.
You worship a god, some other guy doesn't travel on a Tuesday.
Hey IANS, this reminds me of another saying. Don't cheat:
El martes, ni te cases ni te embarques.
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.

You are a threat to humanity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150989 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
Keep repeating that. Perhaps someone will start to believe it if it is repeated enough times.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150990 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop sidestepping the question.
If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.
If you can, then account for it.
Morals are the rules of group cooperation. They exist because they are a benefit to our survival, without them civilization could not have occurred. They are subjective, depending on human wants and needs. Read The Evolution of Morality By Richard Joyce.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150991 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop sidestepping the question.
If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.
If you can, then account for it.
Stop sidestepping the question and explain a blind retarded girl with deformed limbs. How is a world full of unjust suffering compatible with the idea of a moral creator god? Did god screw up or does he not care about unjust suffering?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150992 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.
You are a threat to humanity.
Um ... actually no. The Romans saw the opposing religion as a threat, much like how the Muslims did when they first encountered christians and how the Egyptians did when a monotheistic religion attempted to move into their region. It was all about protecting their own superstitions.

Also yes, christians are superstitious people, nothing more.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150993 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.
You are a threat to humanity.
I'm a threat to humanity?

Who knew?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150994 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it, do you think, that you need to rule out the particular God?
Have you ever wondered why atheists display so much tension around the Christian God?
Because the Christians are the ones we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. They are the ones attempting to get their beliefs taught in schools, legislated by Congress, and supported by the government. If Islam was doing the same things here, we would 'display tension' about them in the same way. Both are dangerous, but in different ways. Today Islam is the more violent, although that has not always been the case.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150995 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um ... actually no. The Romans saw the opposing religion as a threat, much like how the Muslims did when they first encountered christians and how the Egyptians did when a monotheistic religion attempted to move into their region. It was all about protecting their own superstitions.
Also yes, christians are superstitious people, nothing more.
Yes and no. The Romans were quite happy to acknowledge other religions as long as they were willing to also accept the Roman deities. They also had a bias towards 'traditional' religions, meaning those that had existed for long periods of time already.

The Romans generally saw Christianity in the same category as other mystery religions, such as the cult of Isis or the Dionysian mysteries. They usually saw these cults as superstitious and because they were often secretive and exclusive, the Romans saw them as dangerous.

Christianity had the additional problem of being a new religion, although it was often seen as a side-branch of Judaism. When the Jewish wars happened, this caused a lot of bias against the Christians. So the Christians either had to associate with the Jews who were seen as disloyal and the cause of many problems OR they were seen as a new religion and hence a problem that way also.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150996 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
Please excuse my dumbing down the argument with some of the posters here.
The morality that you use, cannot be accounted for with your professed worldview.
Now absolute morality, which we all appeal to instinctively, has to have a source.
God is that source.
I think you are wrong here. I think the 'source' is simply the fact that we are a social species.
Because they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.
How do I know that?
God, who is self attesting, and also the absolute standard of morality, has revealed it in the scripture.
The evidence for this however, is plain to see, when the atheists buttons are pressed on this issue...
This only shows the unreliability of your scriptures. Atheists tend to be *more* interested in the truth than Christians. That is why they require proof for religious claims and see 'faith' as a dereliction of the duty to think. The fact that no proofs are given (only arguments full of holes) supports the idea that no proof exists. And that supports the idea that no deity exists.

What this does show is that you are not discussing these things in good faith. You inherently disbelieve what atheists say simply because they disagree with you, even when they are simply reporting their own beliefs. That is dishonesty on your part.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150997 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not about evidence, it is about authority.
People do not reject God because of lack of evidence, they reject Him because they do not want to submit to His authority.
Wrong. They reject *belief* when there is insufficient proof. And there has not been sufficient proof of God to warrant belief. All you have given is arguments that are full of holes and have been recognized as full of holes for centuries.

Authority has nothing to do with belief. Evidence does. No evidence means no belief.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150998 Jan 30, 2013
Mikko wrote:
there are no absolute moral standards! all moral is relative
mtimber wrote:
So if your neighbour decides to steal your car, you are ok with that?
You have no idea how we think and feel, do you?

Obviously the relevant values are relative. Can't you think of a single example where one wouldn't mind that having his car stolen, or might even be glad for it? I happen to have had that experience. When I got married, I had two cars, and my new wife one, which we wanted to sell. Somebody stole her car from our driveway, went joy riding, and totaled it. We were OK with that.

You cling to this word "absolute" like your soul depended on it even though nobody else acknowledges the validity of your claim to the existence absolute moral values. You're arguing with yourself.

When are you going to catch up with me? I've already stipulated to the existence of a creator god twice, and even to the existence of absolute moral values if you like. You don't need to prove that there is a god to me. All you need to do with me is to prove that that god and the author of the absolute moral values is Jehovah-Jesus ... unless you're willing to concede to me that that god is not (or might not be) Jehovah-Jesus.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150999 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
No, it's because "[you] believe in God [and] don't believe that Zeus is real." If you all convert to Zeustianity and start interfering with our lives as Zeustians, we'll refocus our attention there.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think you're lying.
Do you have a reason? Do you even need one? Common sense tells you that I'm not lying. Why would I continue to decry Christianity if it were irrelevant in the lives of unbelievers? And why would I welcome your intrusion into my life if you all became Zeustians instead?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Christianity and ONLY Christianity.
It's not personal and it's not a vendetta. But it is mostly against Christianity, although my focus is limited almost exclusively to public Christianity in America. Why would I care nearly as much about anything else to do with religion?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#151000 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Are you omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal? Because you would need to be that, just to be equal with God. How you will improve on that I don't know...
Is your god real? Does it know anything? Can it do anything? Has it existed even for a moment?

Because it would need to be in order to compete with me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#151001 Jan 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I couldn't find that quote, it's likely a lie.
And there you go again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"In God We Trust." It is the choicest compliment that has ever been paid us, and the most gratifying to our feelings. It is simple, direct, gracefully phrased: it always sounds well In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true. And in a measure it is true half the nation trusts in Him. That half has decided it." On page 394.
Page 394?

So, does that tell you that Twain was a believer?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#151002 Jan 30, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Hey IANS, this reminds me of another saying. Don't cheat:

El martes, ni te cases ni te embarques.
Uh-oh.

On Tuesdays, never get married nor take a trip (or begin something)?

[I'm putting it into Google]

"On Tuesday, neither get married nor you embark."

Hello! I am getting this.

Thanks.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#151003 Jan 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think you're lying.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Christianity and ONLY Christianity.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you have a reason?
Yes, when I wrote the very next sentence....

RiversideRedneck wrote:
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Christianity and ONLY Christianity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#151004 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The morality that you use, cannot be accounted for with your professed worldview.
Sure it can. And has been repeatedly on this thread alone.
mtimber wrote:
Now absolute morality, which we all appeal to instinctively ...
Actually, nobody here but you is doing that.
mtimber wrote:
... has to have a source. God is that source.
"God" doesn't exist. Neither so absolute morals.
mtimber wrote:
Yet atheists, whilst appealing to absolute moral positions, deny that absolute morality exists. The tension then is a strange one. Indicating contradictory beliefs. The outward denial of absolute morality.
The angst appears to be all yours.
mtimber wrote:
With the internal appeal to absolute morality.
This tension, which all atheists exhibit, clearly reveals an enmity between the two issues. That friction, that enmity reveals something deeper, the internal war in the atheist on the issue of accepting Gods claims on them, especially moral claims.
The internal war here is between you and your straw men.
mtimber wrote:
God, who is self attesting ...
Your bible is self-refuting.

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
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 2 min yon 3,359
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 743,775
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 7 min scirocco 118,286
I Will Plow My Mom In Week By Monday 5/28 (May '12) 17 min jaden 42
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 18 min Ricky F 1,807
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Liam 545,061
How to tell when a Topix poster doesn't have a ... 20 min Wildcard7 19
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min Aura Mytha 260,191
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 1 hr sandeeprajj 978
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 hr mdbuilder 174,202

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE