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
165,561 - 165,580 of 226,243 Comments Last updated 26 min ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172460 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you use the word "reliable" in this way? Let's go into philosophy of morality for a round of discussion.
Is it wrong to kill a child? Is it wrong to rape a woman? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to cheat at a game or contest? Is it wrong to lie?
Science can't quantify or qualify the moral arguments. It can try to measure brain impulses through MRI, EEG, and chemical properties by blood and tissue testing, but that's only limited to the naturalistic scientific method.
Now you can argue that homo sapiens developed these moral ethics over time as a social or cultural construct to promote survival within a group, but if that's your argument, then it doesn't hold much weight with me for a very simple reason. If humanity has existed as long as Darwinian evolution proponents like to claim, then why hasn't our morality advanced as quickly as our technology?
First, morality is not absolute. It depends on the species, at the very least. If there was an intelligent species of spiders, it might very well be moral to kill a male after mating. Morality is determined by what allows stable societies to survive over the long term. In particular, that implies a government that listens to the concerns of the populace, is able to enforce some system that seems just to the populace, and that encourages people to live happy and fulfilling lives.

We do not progress morally as much as we progress intellectually because our species developed when most people lived in fairly small clans. We still very much have the clan mentality. Furthermore, the evolutionary pressure has been more towards conflict between clans rather than cooperation. So wars and extra-clan killings were and still are common. Without evolutionary pressure for cooperation, we don't expect it to become fixed in our genes. If anything, it is remarkable that it has done so as much as it has.

But I would also say that your claim that we have not developed morally is wrong. We no longer see slavery as justifiable. We no longer see it as good for women to be uneducated. We no longer see racism as being a positive value. So we are, very gradually, coming out of that clan mentality and starting to see *all* people as part of our clan.
There is still evil in the world. We recognize it in the evening news or the morning paper or when it happens to a loved one or friend. You would think that if we evolved according to the Darwinian model, that our morality would save us from hurting each other, and yet as human history has shown, we've become more efficient at killing, much more apathetic, and much more lazy.
Unfortunately, everyone being good with no enforcement is an unstable equilibrium: one person who is a 'mutant' can cause a lot of havoc. The question is how to form a stable society that can deal with those who don't follow the rules of that society in a way that is as fair as possible (for stability).
So how has science been able to measure the truth of the existence of evil? There has to be a measure of good to compare, so one knows what evil is. As C.S. Lewis famously said, one must know what a straight line looks like in order to know what a crooked line looks like. Science cannot quantify or measure morality, unless we're considering the latest FBI crime index reports.
And people don't agree on what is and is not evil. Sure, some basics are universal: don't kill those in your clan without reason. The development of morality has been the extension of the size of the 'clan' to cities, countries, and the world, as well as to minorities that didn't have a voice before.

But you are right. This is not a scientific endeavor. That is because morality is determined by what people want in the long run. We tend to want stable societies that allow us the freedom to find our own happiness. The particulars are mostly a matter of opinion, not of truth.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172461 Jul 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Polymath 257 has answered you better than I could have. he makes excellent points.
Yes he does. And so do you. Don't sell yourself short.
blacklagoon wrote:
Scientists are human and subject to all the human frailties and flaws as another human. Does that mean we should suspend all scientific endeavors?


Of course not. And Polymath is correct that there should be control measures to protect against fraudulent assertions or incorrect methods. However-
blacklagoon wrote:
You sited TWO examples out of hundreds of thousands of scientist.
Hundreds of thousands? Can you provide me a less vague figure? If there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, isn't it possible that there are many more scientists who will NOT admit that their worldview influences their method? Have there been more than one or two corrupt police officers in the history of criminal justice? And what is your opinion of this one scientist who admitted that the secular scientific community regularly and purposely rigs the methodology for the specific purpose of excluding supernatural phenomena? Isn't that dishonest?
blacklagoon wrote:
As was pointed out to you, Millers experiments were NOT dishonest, we was working with the information available at that time, he was NOT trying to deceive anyone.
How do you know that for sure?
blacklagoon wrote:
Yes, science is the ONLY way to discover whether something is either real or not or whether something is true. He asked you and so will I, do you know of any other way rather than science to discover if somethings true or real?
Experiential is one way to know truth. There is a medical condition known as CIPA which stands for "congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis." A person with this medical condition feels no pain.
Does such a person need a physician to tell them that they feel no pain? Or, do they go to the doctor BECAUSE they feel no pain and want to know why? I believe I would know if I wasn't able to feel pain. CIPA is a rare condition. Now imagine if it was the norm. Imagine that none of us feel pain; except you. Imagine you feel pain but nobody else around you does. Who are we to discount your experience? We might take tests, measurements, and conduct exams, but all we can do is confirm what you're already telling us.

So yes there is another way than science to know truth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172462 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
CIPA is a rare condition. Now imagine if it was the norm. Imagine that none of us feel pain; except you. Imagine you feel pain but nobody else around you does. Who are we to discount your experience? We might take tests, measurements, and conduct exams, but all we can do is confirm what you're already telling us.
So yes there is another way than science to know truth.
Pain in this case is an observation. And observation is the fundamental bedrock of science.

Now, if the lack of pain were the norm, then we would have a valid reason to doubt your claims to feel pain. The brain scans, etc, would be required to verify that you are not lying (a possibility).

Now, if *you* were experiencing pain, you would have knowledge of that. But you would not have knowledge of any causes for that pain without other observations and testing. You would have the observation (and experience) of pain, but without application of the scientific method, you know nothing except that direct experience.

So, here is a question. Suppose someone said to you that they saw a gnome in your garden. Would you automatically take their word for it, or would you assume at first that they were pulling your leg? if you became convinced they were serious (they did have the experience), would you not then default to being concerned about their sanity (the experience was not valid as a way of finding truth)? In the absence of collaborating evidence, would you not either assume they were lying or hallucinating? if several people claimed to see gnomes in your garden, but their stories varied wildly as to the characteristics of the gnomes, their heights, colors, etc, would you not first look at the possibility that there were hallucinogenic in your garden and be concerned for the safety of people in your garden? Suppose you saw a gnome in your garden. Would you not first assume you were hallucinating?

Would it not be only in the case that several people independently had the observation and the observations were consistent that you would start to think there really are gnomes in your garden?

Now, suppose that someone said to you that they 'experienced God'. Would you still not assume to begin with that they are lying, or, if you verify they are otherwise honest, to assume they had a hallucination? If several people made the same claim, but their individual experiences varied wildly, would you not assume that there was, perhaps, a hallucinogenic aspect to your garden? Suppose you 'saw God'. Would your first assumption not be that you were hallucinating?

So, observations are the basis of science. But we have to consider the reliability of those observations in making deductions from them. If there is consistency across many observations, then we are justified in thinking there is validity in them. If their are many inconsistencies or the observation is unique, we are justified in valuing the observation less. Which do you see as you look to the religions of the world?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172463 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Experiential is one way to know truth.
Only subjective truths. Not objective ones.
There is a medical condition known as CIPA which stands for "congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis." A person with this medical condition feels no pain.
There are also other conditions where patients report, for example, not seeing objects, but still they respond to them (blindsight, for example). Do people with blindsight actually see objects or not?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172464 Jul 18, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
How ironic, so do I!
Oh dear, now they'll call us unpatriotic as well as hellbound;0)
I was born here (USA). It's not as if I immigrated by my choice.

I continue to live here, mainly due to family obligations-- you know how those relatives require support.:D

I **have** considered moving elsewhere, and I may, when some family members are no longer breathing.

Meanwhile, I try to do the best I am able, with what I have to work with.

And, living as I do in Oklahomer--the reddest of the red-red states (ironic much? red==communism...) I don't have a lot to work with.

*sigh*

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172465 Jul 18, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good to be here :P
And I do appreciate the long-distance free-thinking support you secularists lend to those of us who must live in the Land of Ostriches (faith==head-in-sand).

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172466 Jul 18, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You have to understand that the story of the garden is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.
If not?

**BOOM** there goes 100% of your justification for your entire religion!

Right out the window it went, too...

... Let me congratulate you on becoming an atheist!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172467 Jul 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Pigeon chess.
Eeewwwww.... all that pigeon sh7t all over the board...

.... now, all the squares look kinda off-white...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172468 Jul 18, 2013
Ricky F wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, I miss your old avatar that you used for so long, that was awesome!
It's still there ... hidden under the red equality mantra.

:)

Too subtle? Maybe I should re-do it again, and lighten the red some more.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172469 Jul 18, 2013
Ricky F wrote:
<quoted text>You should get an all Topix pass or get out of jail free card for possible being the first registered poster on Topix? lol
I was one of the first, certainly not the first.

I started back in summer of '05, over on Evolution Debate threads.

Alas, the oldest they have there is from '06, after I'd been posting for some time.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172470 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
A specific population can't be sustained by just a single pair. That much is true. But I'm not interested in sustaining. What interests me is how the process starts.

It would seem that you would need two creatures that have reached sexual maturity at the same chronological point in time, in the same location, that they would successfully mate and produce offspring that could also repeat this process. That's what interests me. Where or how do these two biological creatures come into contact at the right place, at the right time, with the optimum health needed to reproduce and carry on?
Go look deeper into how population dynamics works-- it's never just a single pair.

Species comes from populations and groups of individuals. By definition 'species' represents a group of individuals who are fertile with one another, and generally speaking, in contact pretty much all the time-- or at the very least, in the same general area.

If evolution is true-- and all the facts and information say it is-- then there never was a single pair of "first humans".

Any more than you can draw distinct lines in a rainbow, to separate the colors-- oh, you **can** but it's purely arbitrary. The colors gradually fade from red to deep ultra-violet, without any steps in-between.

Evolution of species is like that: gradual, tiny baby-steps from one minor change to the next.

Such that, across any 10 generations, you could still likely (using a mythical time-machine) take a random pair, and get viable offspring.

The more you separate the generations, though? The more likelihood of a genetic defect, and non-viable offspring.

Eventually, with enough generational separation, that the pair won't even be interested in trying to breed, let alone be capable of it.

There's no single event that separates the 1000-generation apart individuals-- there's literally hundreds of millions (or more) of microscopic steps.

All of which add up to: a different species. Even though they probably look very much the same on the outside.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172471 Jul 18, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they said two men no longer have it after the "transplant" not treatment.
Yes. It's unclear what happened-- but these men are not taking any anti-AIDS drugs, and haven't for some time.

And they continue to test AIDS-free.

The mechanism at work is not clearly understood: did destroying their own marrow (a required initial first step before receiving donor marrow) also destroy the repository of the AIDS?

Or was something in the donor marrow responsible for repressing the AIDS virus such that it no longer manifests in testing?

More study is going to be needed.

But it's welcome news.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172472 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
On what grounds is it a false claim?
1) that you have zero supportive documents

2) language studies do not show it to be older

Just for starters.

Wishful desires do not an argument make.
Roman Apologist wrote:
There is a growing number of scholars who are starting to take this hypothesis seriously enough to research it.
Desperate to find something to counter the current methodologies that pretty much show Paul's works are the oldest, and Paul's Jesus is Pure-Spirit?

Which destroys the man-god meme pretty much completely?

Starting research does not a conclusion make.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Does that mean we will eventually reach that conclusive verdict? No. But it does warrant at least a fair examination to determine the plausibility. If something is plausible, that means it's believable.
Anything is believable. So what?

Lots and **lots** of folk regularly put on hats lined with aluminum foil, to "block the orbital mind-control lasers".

That does not mean anything.

Reality does **not** care if you believe in it or not-- it's still reality.

And, reality is whatever is left over, after you **stop** believing in flat-earths, alien abductions, Santa Claus, etc.
Roman Apologist wrote:
The next step after establishing plausibility is to see if it's probable. I don't want to re-write history just to prove a point any more than you would want to. That would be dishonest. But if a historical hypothesis has some merit (plausibility) to it, why not at least investigate it?
Without a working Time Machine? There's little to investigate...

... seriously. This stuff is old, and well and thoroughly researched already.

Unless you can magic up a cache of original documents written by Jesus himself?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172473 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
How did you come to that conclusion? I'd like to know your reasoning for that. If we're going to debate this with intellectual integrity then it seems prudent for me to understand how you reach your conclusion with such confidence to make such a bold assertion.
Ummm... by reading the bible?

But also using modern word-pattern search features of electronic bibles, you can easily search for yourself.

Limit your searches to the books attributed to Paul.

Eliminate the ones that scholars consider to be "ghost written" by others, who were writing **as** Paul.(not hard to find out which is which--- sorry, I do not remember any longer, it's been many years here).

Now, search the subset of Pauline books for the word "savior" or "jesus".

Look at each of the results, and see how Paul describes jesus--**always** in spiritual or celestial-being terms.

Never as a mortal, human or flesh-and-blood.

It takes time, is all-- but the results are consistent.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#172474 Jul 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And I do appreciate the long-distance free-thinking support you secularists lend to those of us who must live in the Land of Ostriches (faith==head-in-sand).
:D
Free thinking is in our blood :)

We have a small population of bible thumpers that wants the prime minister and his speeches with god bless sweden and most people just laughed at them (=

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172475 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Also, is it possible that you're giving too much weight to the issue of who wrote first?
No.

The oldest (first author) texts will be the closest to the events in question.

The more the events are separated in time? The less accurate are the stories---

-- or have you never played the game "telephone" or "gossip"?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172476 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Another flaw is to suppose that any person who existed is obligated to write something down to prove his or her existence. Are you obligated to write your own autobiography to prove you existed?
I'm not claiming to be "the savior of mankind".

Nor am I claiming to be a god of any sort.

Your Jesus claimed to be both.

I expect-- at a bare minimum of standard-- a **god** to be very aware of the up-and-coming issues, if he did **not** write down,**very clearly** the messages he wanted the future generations to know.

Anything less? Would be ...

... merely human.

Your description above? Is of a person who was...

... just a man....

..... and **only** a man-- not a god at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172477 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Your location reads as Tulsa, Oklahoma. It's the middle of July. You said you are self-employed in the air-conditioning business right? I remember how hot it can get in Oklahoma in July. I was stationed at Fort Sill in 1987. You seem to post a lot. Is business slow right now?
Hot-- damably hot, hereabouts.

100+ in the shade, most days. Humidity levels exceeding 70% in some areas.

And I **have** been quite busy of late. I just come inside to cool off now and again, when I am able.

And there's some personal health issues currently (not me-- but details are private) that are limiting my work this week.

Normally, I'm off by 8am, home by ... whenever ('til it's done)

This week's been unusual, for July.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172478 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
The theory of evolution does not make those claims.

What you are complaining about is classic Creationist Myth (bs to be blunt).

Evolution speaks of life **after** it appears on earth, and how life evolved into it's present day forms.

The origins of life are currently unknown.

However.

Continued research into that area, has shown many interesting results.

*IF* you put the simple chemicals together? They automatically begin to self-organize, due to the simple laws of chemistry.

Given that life first shows up on earth about a billion years after earths' beginnings?

That is ample time to go from simple chemistry to self-replicating molecules.

Toss in another billion or so? And you go from simple self-replicating molecules to multicellular life forms.

Just as the fossil record seems to support.

There is no reason at all to invoke an "answer" which raise MORE questions than it purports to solve!
Roman Apologist wrote:
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
Then you'd be **ignoring** 99% of all modern science.

The earth is 4.something years old. Life shows up after roughly a billion years in, and mulicellular life, pretty much near the end.

That's not millions of years-- that is **billions** of years here.

Besides: if your god exists entirely outside of space-time?

He could not **possibly** interfere with space OR time.

That is what outside means.... if he is INside? He's subject to it's rules too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172479 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
What created your god?

If you use special pleading to claim "always was", why not remove the overly complicated step, and say the **universe** always was in one form or another?

Why introduce an infinitely more complicated set of problems (god) which really do not answer the basic questions at all?

**HOW** did this god find the energy to create the universe?

If your god has **infinite** energy, that would overwhelm the universe, rendering it uninhabitable.

If your god has **limited** energy (see above), then that implies it has a beginning of some sort..

... and we are back to who or what created your god?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 6 min andet1987 4,325
Last Word + 2 8 min Hannah V 492
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 10 min Stephania 599,788
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 11 min Hannah V 1,004
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 19 min curiouslu 732,702
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 20 min WasteWater 94,640
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min WasteWater 257,840
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 44 min seriously the ori... 538,786
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••