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

“1000 Sting of Scorpion to you”

Since: Feb 07

Jurassic, Indiana

#172536 Jul 19, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to a post from "Atheism is evil"...Apparently he has decided that his time is better spent at a local McDonald's keeping the employees there from working by sharing all of the posts here on the Atheist forum. Not only does he disrupt any peaceful conversation that we may have here on these threads, but he has apparently decided to disrupt people from there job as well. Seems legit given his horrid people skills.
> Says the Danica Patrick wannabe! "I wanna be like Danica and race with the big boys", she says, while texting her boyfriend and ramming her Go Daddy car into several other cars. Damn women drivers! Danica... uh, I mean ISY ... go home and play with your Barbie Dolls and leave the grownup talk to us men ... ya hear!?
>:/

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172537 Jul 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
So let me repeat back a summary of my understanding of your personal philosophy. I don't think it's wise to misrepresent people.

Are you saying that your philosophy for life is that skepticism is the default position for anything that cannot be materially or empirically confirmed?

In the age old argument of God vs. No god, what is your personal worst case scenario? What would upset you the most?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172538 Jul 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Using all of the above?
Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.
More to the point?
DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.
Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.
There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.
Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.
To deny this?
Is to deny reality.
And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--
-- that is the nature OF reality.
There is **no** faith involved at all.
It just is.
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena? Isn't that a potential public relations nightmare for the scientific community? Doesn't that explicitly admit that there are scientists who purposely exclude supernatural causes as a foundation to deny the likelihood of Divinity?

That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes. Isn't this intellectually dishonest? I know you read my post, because you copied and pasted the first part, but didn't reply to the second part. Polymath attempted some damage control by saying that scientists improve their control measures so that people conducting research can't fake or falsify their findings. But that didn't address the explicit admission that secular science deliberately keeps supernatural phenomena out of the lab and out of all hypotheses so they don't even have to look at it.

I'm going to take a turn here from my usual mild-mannered methodology to a more aggressive nature aimed at the argument. Please do not take it personally, as none of it is directed at anyone here personally.

The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics. This is a person who knows the agenda driven world of secular science. Specifically, I will be looking for:

1) The no-true scotsman fallacy.
2) Special pleading.
3) Damage control that does not specifically address this scientist and his damning admission.

I'm not being hostile or personal. I'm just not going to let this one off the hook so easily.

So how, in light of this revelation as to the intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning of some scientists, what are your opinions about his allegations?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172539 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
But "telephone" is much different from "oral tradition."
False.

I have worked with first responders at accident scenes.

Of the witnesses there? Each and every one has a **different** story as to what happened-- they were **all** there.

They **all** witnessed the **exact** same events.

Yet their stories are **all** different.

"oral tradition" is even worse-- each generation adds or subtracts from the stories to give it their own spin, their own personality.

By 2 or at most 3 generations? There are so many changes they are different tales.

So no.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172540 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Even in our most modern communities. My son is in the Marines and they memorized their 11 General Orders, plus the Rifleman's Creed in their boot camp. They had to recite it out loud everyday until they had it down perfectly. So yes, oral tradition works. You may choose not to believe it, but look it up for yourself if you don't want to believe me.
Memorized from a written set of stories/instructions.

That's not oral-- that's writing. Someone, somewhere has written it down, or it **does** change with the generations.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172541 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now as for the gospel of Matthew, I must admit that I don't believe that Matthew wrote his gospel first any more than you do. But since Matthew was a tax collector, and therefore literate, it's completely plausible that Matthew did take notes or write short descriptions and refer back to them when writing his gospel. I believe Mark's gospel is first, although I have different reasons for believing that than you do.
But Matthew didn't write the gospel of matthew-- someone writing AS "matthew" or more formally, in the tradition of matthew wrote it.

And it's also quite clear, the un-named author used source material we no longer have, to write his story.

But none of the formal scholarship thinks the disciple "matthew" is the author-- he was long dead by the time it got written.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172542 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
May I comment here? I think transparency is a good rule. That's why I'm going to say this in public. Atheists are ***not*** human trash. Some atheists actually embody the Christian ethics better than self-proclaimed Christians do. Some atheists know the contents of the bible better than some self-proclaimed Christians, even if I think they are incorrect in their conclusions. Atheists are not our enemies. They just haven't found what they're looking for yet.
I conduct real-world apologetic evangelism meetings, and I can tell you from experience, that atheists are turned off by 3 things in particular, and all of them involve Christian behavior.
1) Self-righteous, pompous fundamentalists who threaten and insult.
2) Timid believers who don't know why they believe and run.
3) People who try to tell atheists what they (atheists) think.
I strongly suggest that if you're going to use public Wi-Fi, that you not bring shame upon the very thing you're trying to promote.
Do you honestly believe that everyone in that McDonalds is impressed by your actions? I'm not even there and I'm not impressed.
So please go to the counter, ask for a tall cold cup of humility, a side order of sincerity, and ditch the self-righteousness. It's not healthy for your spiritual life. It was the self-righteous RELIGIOUS leaders who turned Christ over to the Romans for execution. And your actions here are doing it all over again in a symbolic way.
Thank you for this. Even though we disagree, there is no reason to be disagreeable. All too often your co-religionists are disagreeable.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172543 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
The fact that Paul wrote his letters first doesn't mean anything since the Jews of that time depended on oral tradition to communicate. 1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates this fact. Paul uses the language associated with formal transfer of oral tradition.
It means everything: prior to Paul? There simply **was** no single group calling themselves "christians".

Likely there was hundreds of individual, small groups--most of whom were still practicing Jews as well.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the term "christian" did not come into use, until after Constantine's army began force-converting people. They clearly needed a name for the newly-minted cult, so "christian" was used here.

In either case, the oldest stuff (that we have left) comes from Paul-- and Paul (if you remove all the books falsely attributed to him) never wrote about a human Jesus.

Always, Paul writes about a celestial being-- a spirit, a ghost if you will-- never mortal flesh-and-blood.

That is the most telling bit of historical fact right there: the oldest authority we have-- thought Jesus was some sort of mythical figure not unlike Mithras.

The Jesus-as-man comes much later, and appears to be tacked on to the basic Pauline mythos.

And not tacked on very eloquently either...

... which begs the question:

Why?

Why is it all such a mish-mash of contradictory information?

If, as they all claim, it's so damnall important?

Hmmm?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172544 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena?
He was a nutjob at best. A bald-faced liar, most likely.

You get that sort of "sciency-type" from time to time-- they don't do real science-- they do pseudosciency garbage.

As we often said back in my computing days? Garbage in? You get garbage out.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172545 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes.
That means nothing of the sort!

Do you have a LINK to this alleged offense?

Or is your information just coming from someone who's been universally banned from scientific circles, because he's ... well.. batshit insane?

The fact is?

**anything** that is supernatural is-- by definition-- not natural.

And science cannot test anything that is outside of reality (not natural).

Again-- BY DEFINITION.

So it's not a bias against supernatural per say-- it is a bias against ...

... bullshit.

So far? All "supernatural" claims have proven bogus.

All.

That's pretty telling right there.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172546 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics.
I am **so** going to need a link to this alleged "expert".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172547 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Sorry to hear of health problems and that they had an impact on your work. I hope everything improves for you soon.
Thank you.

Alas, it's a condition that is difficult to diagnose, so it'll be a few more days, I expect, before the doctors are able to do anything apart from prophylactic measures.

I do enjoy reading what you have to say, by the way-- you make me stretch, mentally.

Which is good-- and a welcome change. That rarely happens when I read a theist's post-- usually I only have to think hard, when reading posts from crazy-smart folk, like Polymath.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172548 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me repeat back a summary of my understanding of your personal philosophy. I don't think it's wise to misrepresent people.
Are you saying that your philosophy for life is that skepticism is the default position for anything that cannot be materially or empirically confirmed?
Yes. In particular, the default position on the existence of something is that it does NOT exist unless there is evidence for it. And that is just as true for super-symmetric particles as it is for a God. At least with super-symmetry there is a possibility of testing the hypothesis.
In the age old argument of God vs. No god, what is your personal worst case scenario? What would upset you the most?
Your question really confuses me. Why would I be 'upset' in either situation? I could be wrong, but that is part of having incomplete data. It happens all the time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172549 Jul 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am **so** going to need a link to this alleged "expert".
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172550 Jul 19, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena? Isn't that a potential public relations nightmare for the scientific community? Doesn't that explicitly admit that there are scientists who purposely exclude supernatural causes as a foundation to deny the likelihood of Divinity?
The problem comes in the very nature of science. As you have pointed out, it is limited to consideration of natural phenomena. In particular, supernatural phenomena are excluded simply because they are untestable. If something *is* testable, it is, almost by definition, natural.
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes.
Actually, this is wrong. By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.
Polymath attempted some damage control by saying that scientists improve their control measures so that people conducting research can't fake or falsify their findings. But that didn't address the explicit admission that secular science deliberately keeps supernatural phenomena out of the lab and out of all hypotheses so they don't even have to look at it.
Give a specific way of testing the existence of a 'supernatural'. In particular, since on 'natural' devices are allowed, anything that interacts with them is, by definition, natural. It is a problem at the veru foundation of the concept of a supernatural and is one of the reasons I see it as without actual meaning.
I'm going to take a turn here from my usual mild-mannered methodology to a more aggressive nature aimed at the argument. Please do not take it personally, as none of it is directed at anyone here personally.
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics. This is a person who knows the agenda driven world of secular science. Specifically, I will be looking for:
1) The no-true scotsman fallacy.
2) Special pleading.
3) Damage control that does not specifically address this scientist and his damning admission.
I'm not being hostile or personal. I'm just not going to let this one off the hook so easily.
So how, in light of this revelation as to the intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning of some scientists, what are your opinions about his allegations?
it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172551 Jul 19, 2013
They can't even get their silly gospels to match up.
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>It still is.
In Judaism anyone can be a potential Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah is not a sin or blasphemy which proves that the Gospel of John is a pack of lies.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172552 Jul 19, 2013
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

That is one of the most **damning** proofs that the ugly bible isn't remotely divine in any way.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172553 Jul 19, 2013
Making a jackass out of yourself there? Ya I am sure people want to hear your critique on forum posts while eating dinner.

The employees humor you.

Damn what a loser!

Remember you said drowning infants is a kindness... Did you tell them that?
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>I'm in McDonalds using their Wi-Fi to show people in the store how ugly atheists are. I'm specifically showing them YOUR posts. I'm searching all of the threads you have infested and so far the crowd is appalled at how filthy you are as human trash.

Keep posting. We're really getting some great discussions going as to how you will be destroyed in Hell for your weak-willed and gutless deeds as an atheist.

Even the employees are getting in on this.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172554 Jul 19, 2013
Sad beyond words. A christhole has sunk to a whole new level of pathetic.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>What's going on here?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172555 Jul 19, 2013
hat's a long drawn out way of saying I have stumped you... Still no answers I notice just an excuse for your failures.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't ran in fear. I don't read every post. I'm sorry, I just don't. I engage in dialogue with people on various subjects and I do so at my leisure. Just because I haven't answered you doesn't mean I have ran away or surrendered. I ask questions to learn the responses I am going to face when conducting apologetic evangelism out in the real world. To be quite honest, I don't expect you or anyone else here to experience an epiphany based upon what I say. It's too impersonal to expect such a favorable result. I actually use this forum as a training ground to see what the latest most extreme views are, and how I can counter them in a real-world debate. You're helping me train. And I appreciate it. Thank-you.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Gods r Delusions ... 567,972
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Hidingfromyou 795,169
I want to be a sex slave to elder woman (May '13) 22 min phil 19
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 44 min RADEKT 267,400
Homosexuals are servants and human children of ... 1 hr doug 11
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr Just Think 120,695
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 1 hr Grunt56 221,537
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr AntiqueAnnie 607,179
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 23 hr Rashes 177
More from around the web