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: May 10

Location hidden

#156102 Feb 24, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>

I know, you christians are despicable for supporting the porn industry.
The atheist-founded ACLU supports distribution of not just pornography, but of child pornography, and has gone to court to say so. They have sent their lawyers to argue for NAMBLA and free distribution of kiddie-porn in a case where it led to the murder of a child by a pedophile.

Look it up, moron.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156103 Feb 24, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists do not care which deity you choose to worship. We do not believe in deities or any religions that support these imaginary beings. Science is expanding, and with it our vision of the universe. Although this new and constantly changing view may not always give us comfort, it does have the virtue of truth according to our most effective resources for acquiring knowledge.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains.
The modern scientific method, and the biggest advances, started under the Church.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#156104 Feb 24, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the reward?
I already have my life. Is there something else?
No. There is nothing else. You are the totality of the universe.

Congratulations.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156105 Feb 24, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Been there.
When I stand in front of the saviour and he asks me: "Are you worthy of being in Heaven?"
I'll say, "I'm just here for your leg."
Little one, atheists don't believe in deities.

Why do you display such an anger against a non-existent deity when it was random chance and reactions that cost you your leg? Was Jesus driving that car?

You are a beautiful young woman with a lot of soul and intelligence. Without that leg missing you would just be another one of millions. With that leg missing you become more unique and precious. If danger appears and you had two legs, you would run for your life by yourself. With one leg you will have a huge crowd gather about you to protect you.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156106 Feb 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They love evolution, except for certain things. Then they hate it.
They have head issues.

Inferior product unless they can overcome them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#156107 Feb 24, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Works of fiction don't do anything other than entertain. Humanity created your God. They did this for when they felt alone, sad, or felt awestruck and wonder at what they saw but didn't have the answers to explain it away.
Humanity is now growing up and it is time to put away childish things.
<quoted text>
What humanity does or does not "create" for comfort has no bearing whatsoever on whether there is actually a god.

A god or higher power could exist, and humans could also invent something more or less similar, or not similar at all. Or, humans could discern from the best of a frail intuitiveness certain things about the nature of this god, and be somewhat correct. Nobody knows, certainly not you.

Your argument is entirely empty and irrelevant as to whether there exists a higher creating power, as in "a god".

You lack the basic tools of logic to comment intelligently on such existential questions, reducing you to meaningless commentary and spiteful bluster. This places you in the majority of atheist on these posts. If it's any comfort, some are even dumber than you.

Hope this is helpful to you.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#156108 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
Send your daughter to me. I abort them up to 9 months!
The Roman Empire was doing pretty well, until them damned christians took over.
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#156109 Feb 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The modern scientific method, and the biggest advances, started under the Church.
"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." ~James Watson (Discoverer of DNA)

“The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology... I wanted to understand.”~James Watson

“Science improves with time. Religion improves by dying out.”~Quandong Loonata

you are late for church DAVID

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#156110 Feb 24, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes, and every walk of life works together to eliminate slavery in all forms.
Not really. Here in the U.S., the government determines that if you work, you must work a portion of the year for the federal government, and they get to set the percentage.

Involuntary servitude. That's slavery.

That's also why the founders specified in the Constitution that this would not be permitted.

Then came liberalism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156111 Feb 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Or incorrect gravity calculations, which the creation of dark matter would make the numbers crunch to make them "right". Easier than getting a different take on how things work.
Alternative theories of gravity were also tried. For example, MOND and TeVeS. None of the alternatives have been able to make predictions agreeing with observations. Even MOND, for example, requires dark matter to agree with observations.
How things should work versus how they do work. That is the difference between a math head physicist and a real physicist.
And if you can come up with a *detailed* alternative theory that explains the observed phenomena, then you will be listened to. But a *detailed* theory will have to give precise mathematical predictions that can be tested. Your dismissal of math simply means you refuse to use the language required to really understand the universe.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#156113 Feb 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not unless stupidity is damning.
Ain't you lucky for that!! You WAGs kill me! lol!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156114 Feb 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is all based upon the identification and definition of the physical forces from long ago. All formulas and expectations are based on those. Very simply, the observations at that time may have been close approximations good for the time and total knowledge for the time, but they have failed as knowledge has advanced. If they failed, they are wrong. The basic model needs revamping.
You seem to think that hasn't been tried. It has. In multiple ways. It has failed.
The only claim they can give for "detecting" dark matter, or even the normal nuclear particles, is because of old math models. They really haven't "seen" this stuff. Just measurements on a dial calibrated to the old models.
There is a lot of bullshit in theoretical physics.
Even alternative models of gravity require dark matter in order to agree with observations. You seem to think that nobody has thought of the possibility that our model of gravity is wrong. The problem is finding a model of gravity that agrees with the observations. In particular, the measurements we have at the level of the solar system don't allow much flexibility away from the standard model. That is a very tight constraint on any alternative models. Then, to get the velocity data from stars in other galaxies to agree *also* restricts the possible models even further. If we then require that the model agree with observations from colliding galactic clusters (like the Bullet Cluster), things get even harder because the gravitational effects aren't localized to where the matter is. Finally, getting the whole thing to agree with the cosmic background radiation data has excluded all proposed alternative theories of gravity that do not include dark matter (it is possible some of the alternatives work when dark matter is included).
The real knowledge will come from R&D in existing technology, not those guys.
There are many lines of we can use to increase understanding.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156115 Feb 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Alternative theories of gravity were also tried. For example, MOND and TeVeS. None of the alternatives have been able to make predictions agreeing with observations. Even MOND, for example, requires dark matter to agree with observations.
<quoted text>
And if you can come up with a *detailed* alternative theory that explains the observed phenomena, then you will be listened to. But a *detailed* theory will have to give precise mathematical predictions that can be tested. Your dismissal of math simply means you refuse to use the language required to really understand the universe.
As I said, I am one node on a network. One human, one brain. One person out of many can see a path, but it can take many of them to cut through it.

So, I, who lacks the math training, is supposed to supply all of you experts (in the hundreds of thousands?) in that field with detailed plans, road maps, and the whole shebang prepackaged for you?

BTW, I am not the only one who sees that alternate path.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156116 Feb 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that hasn't been tried. It has. In multiple ways. It has failed.
<quoted text>
Even alternative models of gravity require dark matter in order to agree with observations. You seem to think that nobody has thought of the possibility that our model of gravity is wrong. The problem is finding a model of gravity that agrees with the observations. In particular, the measurements we have at the level of the solar system don't allow much flexibility away from the standard model. That is a very tight constraint on any alternative models. Then, to get the velocity data from stars in other galaxies to agree *also* restricts the possible models even further. If we then require that the model agree with observations from colliding galactic clusters (like the Bullet Cluster), things get even harder because the gravitational effects aren't localized to where the matter is. Finally, getting the whole thing to agree with the cosmic background radiation data has excluded all proposed alternative theories of gravity that do not include dark matter (it is possible some of the alternatives work when dark matter is included).
<quoted text>
There are many lines of we can use to increase understanding.
Your model of gravity is based on the inside working out. Some magical force emanating from the nucleus. This is what the Big Bang is derived from. You are totally ignoring this universe being created from the outside pressing in. I have posted quite a bit about space being a super liquid type medium that formed whirlpools and closed spheres of whirling space forming "particles", and the density differential caused by that motion being gravity.

Why is modern physics so focused on looking out and determining how the universe was formed instead of looking backwards to see how it could be formed? We have the knowledge and the technology to follow that path.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156118 Feb 24, 2013
It is really hilarious when you have these modern physics experts such as Poly tell you there is no deity because they haven't found one. Not that they were looking for one. So just sit back and take their assurances there is no deity, they are the experts in the matter, and ignore the fact they have made many huge mistakes in their past and continuing determinations of how things work. But they will sing to high heaven the minor predictions they make with their Holy Math worship.

Like I said before, they are just another sect of number worshipers and their high priests that go back a very long ways.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156119 Feb 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your model of gravity is based on the inside working out. Some magical force emanating from the nucleus. This is what the Big Bang is derived from. You are totally ignoring this universe being created from the outside pressing in. I have posted quite a bit about space being a super liquid type medium that formed whirlpools and closed spheres of whirling space forming "particles", and the density differential caused by that motion being gravity.
Why is modern physics so focused on looking out and determining how the universe was formed instead of looking backwards to see how it could be formed? We have the knowledge and the technology to follow that path.
Why is it when you religatards refute science you refer to mainstream theory as "Your Model" ?
Indeed many of those who want to argue standard physics and science
try to downgrade the subject matter by personalizing with the
person talking about standards. You should refer to it as
The Standard Model not Your Model. Or Classical Physics and not "your theory".

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156120 Feb 24, 2013
Verily, verily I say unto thee, there is no god higher than Number.

So sayeth the worshipers of Nu and divide,mber.

Numbers are tools of men. Men have turned them in too gods.

In the beginning there was no numbers. There was just that which existed. The All. You can call it one if you wish. But since man usually had 10 fingers handy, he started dividing that all, and got mesmerized by this ability to divide. And divide, and divide, and divide, and divide, and divide, until he removed himself from one and began to fancy himself as unique.

He has been dizzy ever since with all these division he created.

Or something like that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156121 Feb 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it when you religatards refute science you refer to mainstream theory as "Your Model" ?
Indeed many of those who want to argue standard physics and science
try to downgrade the subject matter by personalizing with the
person talking about standards. You should refer to it as
The Standard Model not Your Model. Or Classical Physics and not "your theory".
Why do Topix atheists dispute the established definition of atheist?

The Your Model is a reactive description due to the advancement of it as a basis for non-belief by those non-believers who believe there is no deities.

If the non-beliefers kept the physics to simple analysis of cause and effect, then that sort of reaction would be less likely to come up. Curiously, though, is those non-believers then try to use that model based on cause and effect to advance the notion there is no cause and effect. Shit just happens.

Get some more balanced headed non-believers on here to discuss physics.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156122 Feb 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Topix atheists dispute the established definition of atheist?
The Your Model is a reactive description due to the advancement of it as a basis for non-belief by those non-believers who believe there is no deities.
If the non-beliefers kept the physics to simple analysis of cause and effect, then that sort of reaction would be less likely to come up. Curiously, though, is those non-believers then try to use that model based on cause and effect to advance the notion there is no cause and effect. Shit just happens.
Get some more balanced headed non-believers on here to discuss physics.

Now you are squirming around and making stuff up.
You are confusing standard physics with QM , you know they don't seethe same things the same. Atheists do not agree with the theist definition of atheist, for much the same reason a black man does not agree with the white mans definition of him.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156123 Feb 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are squirming around and making stuff up.
You are confusing standard physics with QM , you know they don't seethe same things the same. Atheists do not agree with the theist definition of atheist, for much the same reason a black man does not agree with the white mans definition of him.
It's just a name tag. There are existing ones to describe one's self as a non-believer. Why the big deal? The term atheist has always been considered the term of one who "denies" the existence of a deity. Why the desperation to change the definition? If you are right, then you are right, right?

You are one of barely a handful of professed atheists on this forum that displays any intellect, original thinking, or human characteristic of a higher order. Most are nothing but screaming memes, spouting the same bullshit and insults. Reason and discourse evaporate when the noise level escalates. So much so I am classified as a Christian fundamentalist. You have got caught in the association with them.

Speaking of noise and the evaporation of reason and thinking. Have you thought of changing the type of music you seem to like? Something that allows you to think?:-)

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min It aint necessari... 773,456
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 48 min Dolphin 441,751
Why black people smell like poop (Nov '11) 48 min Politically Incor... 25
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr hojo 558,855
IRA fading away, analysts say (Sep '08) 1 hr rock white 14
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr arabian 5,492
kelly bright 3 hr bigbadwolf91869 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr AussieBobby 264,978
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr lil whispers 604,737
More from around the web