Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
163,221 - 163,240 of 224,156 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170014
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are *part* of the basis for discerning truth. If I claim there is an elephant in my room and you go in there and do not see an elephant, that is sufficient to conclude that my claim is false. That is solely based on the senses.
Of course, another aspect is that we can use our minds to create hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses will not fit the evidence (from the senses!) but a few will. Those we keep and test further. The senses allow us to determine which of our hypotheses are false and thereby eliminate those falsehoods.
General propositions are always somewhat uncertain because new evidence in cases not tested previously might show the proposition to be false. In that case, we need a new hypothesis that covers all of the previously tested cases AND the newly tested case. Once again, the senses are what determines the falsehood of a proposition.
<quoted text>
Incorrect. The fact that individuals can make mistakes, be biased, and have agendas is dealt with by having a variety of people from different backgrounds with different biases and different agendas looking at the evidence independently, often with the *goal* of showing some ideas to be wrong. Those hypotheses that manage to survive this treatment are more reliable than those only tested by one person.
<quoted text>
More accurately, humans are sometimes rational, sometimes crazed, sometimes biased, and sometimes objective. The goal of science is to eliminate the biases and craziness and leave the rationality and objectiveness. No system is perfect, but by repeated testing with the goal to show ideas are *wrong*, we can eventually eliminate the falsehoods. What remains is the truth.
<quoted text>
The senses may not be completely reliable (optical illusions alone show that), but they are much better than the arm-chair philosophy that doesn't take into consideration the results of testing through the senses. Checks and balances can minimize the biases and mistakes over time.
You present an idead in your argument that men have different biases.

Whilst that is indeed true on a socialogical level, where it falls down is that it does not recognize the universality of the sin problem that all humanity suffers from.

One inherent trait of that sinfulness, or abberation, is that it is experienced by all humanity.

With that in mind, it then makes it very difficult to trust "group think", when "group think" has the same problem in every individual.

It is that inherent problem in humanity that fuels the war against truth, logic and knowledge, which are all inherent from God.

Mankind is born with the propensity to fight against God, whom it also knows exists.

So when men agree on something that attacks God, it is not a great surprise that we would indeed see unity in rejection of God.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170015
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Double Fine wishes to interject here.
Old knowledge can still hold water. Newton's Theorems are still used today, at university level.
But if the old knowledge provides tales of seas parting, talking snakes and global floods.... Then its fulla shit
I assume from your response that you are a naturalistic empiricist and you presuppose your ability to rationalise is not tainted with any biases, like naturalistic empiricism?

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170016
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Causality is not required for empiricism. For example, quantum mechanics is a thoroughly empirical science, but is not a causal theory.
<quoted text>
More accurately, the ultimate standard for falsehood is our senses. We eliminate the falsehoods, require testability, and see what is left.
<quoted text>
That is why we require observations to be repeatable by people with different biases and different ideas on how things 'should be'. Anything that doesn't produce *some* observational effect that could be detected in *some* way by *some* observer is irrelevant and not deserving the designation 'truth'.
Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...

You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170017
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
So... You would chuck the observable proof, in favour of one lunatic rolling on the ground, because "the holy ghost is in him"?
Too many strawmen here to rationally respond to.:-)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170018
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume from your response that you are a naturalistic empiricist and you presuppose your ability to rationalise is not tainted with any biases, like naturalistic empiricism?
:-)
Heavens, no. Double Fine's only bias is towards women. They all seem to want Double Fine. Especially the lesbians. They love Double Fine alot, though less frequently than the straight ones.

But all silliness aside.

There are things like veriafable claims and unsubstantiated claims. Verifiable are those we can measure, document etc. I can find a fossil in strata and measure it, using Strontium and get a set age. Another researcher an do the same and if we both did it correctly, we get the same age. Verifiable.

Unsubstantiated claims like 'feeling Jesus inside me' etc are very ambigious. I understand that your culture and upbring lets you put heavy trust in that, but think of this. I can make any unsubstantiayed claim, and you cannot prove me wrong.

Take that imbecile from Australia, claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus. Or the Mormons, who said Jesus showed up in heaven. Or that other lunatic who predicted that the rapture would happen in May 2011 and when it didnt, he said, "yeah, but it was a rapture in heaven". Hell, I can make a claim that Jesus have been hiding behind my couch all this time, and you cannot disprove my claim on any grounds, because it is unsubstantiated. Say you show up at my house, I simply say Jesus has his cloak of invisibility on, therefore you cannot see him.

It goes on.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170019
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many strawmen here to rationally respond to.:-)
What is the strawman? Because some churches do have the collapsing thing going on. Falling over, etc. It happens. Maybe not in yur church, but it does.

My question is this. When do you know you are feeling (as used in context) something real?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170020
Jun 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You present an idead in your argument that men have different biases.
Whilst that is indeed true on a socialogical level, where it falls down is that it does not recognize the universality of the sin problem that all humanity suffers from.
One inherent trait of that sinfulness, or abberation, is that it is experienced by all humanity.
With that in mind, it then makes it very difficult to trust "group think", when "group think" has the same problem in every individual.
A perfect example of what happens to theists when they form churches. The difference is that science relies on observable evidence and religions rely on faith. of the two, faith has repeatedly shown itself unreliable.
It is that inherent problem in humanity that fuels the war against truth, logic and knowledge, which are all inherent from God.
Mankind is born with the propensity to fight against God, whom it also knows exists.
So when men agree on something that attacks God, it is not a great surprise that we would indeed see unity in rejection of God.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't realize the extent to which your own biases are distorting your thinking.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170021
Jun 25, 2013
 
timn17 wrote: "Answersingenesis " is an atheist site? Your religion has utterly obliterated your mind.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Beat me to it - I elaborated a bit.
By T-Towns logic, if it is capable of determining something logically that conflicts with his fantasy.......

It's atheist!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170022
Jun 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...
If you think that, then you don't understand it. Quantum mechanics is not theoretical in that sense. It has been repeatedly shown to be accurate in a wide variety of situations, including many that are quite counter-intuitive. By the way, this also shows your whole criticism of the senses fails: people were expecting QM to fail in many of these situations, but it didn't. Their biases did not determine what they actually observed.

QM is an acausal scientific theory. It is empirical and has been repeatedly tested. So it shows that your assumption that empiricism requires causality is wrong. And that was my point.
You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.
Yes, the senses are the way we obtain knowledge about the real world.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170023
Jun 25, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
Enters Double Fine
To my old friends, followers and disciples. Double Fine is here. Double Fine is back. Bring on the wimmin'!
To those of you who do not know Double Fine, I will offer you this brief intro:
I am the master of disaster,
The man that seems to always go faster.
The King of Kong, The Ding of Dong.
The Sing of Song, The Ping of Pong.
I am the Ayatollah of Rock n' Rolla,
I am the shit and the shinola
I make the ladies scream, I make the people dream.
I am the immovable object and the unstoppable force
I am the eternal Dark Horse.
The Guru of Greatness
The Shaman of Sexy
Double Fine
Triple Fine suffocated under a pile of women.

BE CAREFUL.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170024
Jun 25, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens, no. Double Fine's only bias is towards women. They all seem to want Double Fine. Especially the lesbians. They love Double Fine alot, though less frequently than the straight ones.
But all silliness aside.
There are things like veriafable claims and unsubstantiated claims. Verifiable are those we can measure, document etc. I can find a fossil in strata and measure it, using Strontium and get a set age. Another researcher an do the same and if we both did it correctly, we get the same age. Verifiable.
Unsubstantiated claims like 'feeling Jesus inside me' etc are very ambigious. I understand that your culture and upbring lets you put heavy trust in that, but think of this. I can make any unsubstantiayed claim, and you cannot prove me wrong.
Take that imbecile from Australia, claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus. Or the Mormons, who said Jesus showed up in heaven. Or that other lunatic who predicted that the rapture would happen in May 2011 and when it didnt, he said, "yeah, but it was a rapture in heaven". Hell, I can make a claim that Jesus have been hiding behind my couch all this time, and you cannot disprove my claim on any grounds, because it is unsubstantiated. Say you show up at my house, I simply say Jesus has his cloak of invisibility on, therefore you cannot see him.
It goes on.
Validity trumps age 24hours a day. Your bible info is old, but still lies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170025
Jun 25, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the strawman? Because some churches do have the collapsing thing going on. Falling over, etc. It happens. Maybe not in yur church, but it does.
My question is this. When do you know you are feeling (as used in context) something real?
When the lying creationist piece of sh*t produces some evidence instead of running scared from the question.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170026
Jun 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...
You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.
Yo.

Quantum physics is not only in theory. Transistors work because of quantum physics. If we didnt understand QP, we would not be able to build transistors and therefore radios

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170027
Jun 25, 2013
 
Capillary Action wrote:
<quoted text>
Triple Fine suffocated under a pile of women.
BE CAREFUL.
Hehehe.. That is a good way to go ;)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170028
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think that, then you don't understand it. Quantum mechanics is not theoretical in that sense. It has been repeatedly shown to be accurate in a wide variety of situations, including many that are quite counter-intuitive. By the way, this also shows your whole criticism of the senses fails: people were expecting QM to fail in many of these situations, but it didn't. Their biases did not determine what they actually observed.
QM is an acausal scientific theory. It is empirical and has been repeatedly tested. So it shows that your assumption that empiricism requires causality is wrong. And that was my point.
<quoted text>
Yes, the senses are the way we obtain knowledge about the real world.
Yet you refuse to understand that acausal system and and senses obtaining knowledge is purely the mark of a product discovering itself. Its views based upon only what it is configured to physically observe are by necessity limited. However, this product has the ability to think beyond the purely physical, which means it is linked in some fashion to the world of that which created it. If that is not true, then your imagined thinking in the abstract in an "objective" fashion arising from the purely physical is fundamentally flawed. Your QM is just another religious belief.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170029
Jun 25, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where you find it.
Your argumentation and base of logic for it is seriously lacking in development.
Stand in the desert and gaze into the distance. If you see large patches of green or along line of trees you see water, the source of life. If you see people living there, then they are smarter than you all alone out in the desert looking at them.
They didn't gather there because there was nothing there.
You may be in there but you don't have the experience of looking back where you were to understand what you have and how you got it. So you mouth BS and criticize that which you don't know. It was always there for you.
Again, you will not understand that and will come back with some stupid pseudo-intellectual dodge or deflection.
<The Dave Nelson> "mmmm... Word salad with Meaningless dressing, my favorite"

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170030
Jun 25, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo.
Quantum physics is not only in theory. Transistors work because of quantum physics. If we didnt understand QP, we would not be able to build transistors and therefore radios
Transistors work because someone experimented. Same as the vacuum tubes before them. All based upon creating a valve for a flow, which existed long, long before QM came into being.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170031
Jun 25, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
timn17 wrote: "Answersingenesis " is an atheist site? Your religion has utterly obliterated your mind.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
<quoted text>
By T-Towns logic, if it is capable of determining something logically that conflicts with his fantasy.......
It's atheist!
Yah. Even if it's fubdamentalist.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170032
Jun 25, 2013
 
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>his comes from a guy that blows men! what does that say about your behavior?
That's not my behavior, which just shows, again, what a evil liar you are.

You talk about Jesus, but Jesus knows you not.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170033
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you're dumb
You're fake.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

791 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 min WasteWater 93,704
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 4 min Uzi 36,514
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min waaasssuuup 599,076
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Aura Mytha 720,444
Last Word + 2 11 min Richies Cool Man Diary 66
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 min WildWeirdWillie 172,358
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Liam 532,693
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 43 min Hate troublemaking arabs 115,055
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 9 hr bbbbbb 73
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••