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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#176315 Sep 3, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been a lot of floods my friend. Many ancient myths tell these stories, not just Christianity. They occurred at different times all over the world (floods do occur in plenty of places.) The ancient Greeks had a flood myth, so did the Mayans in South America.
I'll agree that the ancients were striving for truth and understanding in the best ways they knew how....at the time. Most Kings simply wanted to shore up the belief in "divine right" to rule. An excellent example of that is the KJV version of the bible, King James wanted to preserve his power and the secret passageway connecting his bedroom to his male lover's bedchambers is still intact. But I digress.
I've read the bible, cover to cover....no it is neither true or especially good literature. It's a mish-mash of contradictory authors cobbled together to try to make a point. It fails.
Don't warn me about your gawd's imaginary judgement from a poorly written book. If that's the best salvo you can fire.....you fail.
Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.

Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176316 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree, and I believe as most scientist that discuss it on The Discovery Channel that Quantum Physics proves there is a God.
Cite reference to what program, or scientist who said that.
We all know some scientists believe, but more often than not the scientist's words are twisted around or used out of context by creationists to support their own belief.
So you saying the above has very little value, or meaning without showing their words and not yours.. but I can tell you this. That very little physicists or cosmologists believe in god the way you think of a god. Some may make reference to "god" meaning anything beyond human understanding at the present, but you can count the percentage of believers with one hand when it comes to the hard sciences and belief in you bible god.
EXPERT

Cottonwood, CA

#176317 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite reference to what program, or scientist who said that.
We all know some scientists believe, but more often than not the scientist's words are twisted around or used out of context by creationists to support their own belief.
So you saying the above has very little value, or meaning without showing their words and not yours.. but I can tell you this. That very little physicists or cosmologists believe in god the way you think of a god. Some may make reference to "god" meaning anything beyond human understanding at the present, but you can count the percentage of believers with one hand when it comes to the hard sciences and belief in you bible god.
You are so full of it...
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#176318 Sep 3, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it does....in your head, anything is possible...that's the beauty of having a minimal IQ.....
http://imageshack.us/a/img375/3484/brainx.jpg
that one is a PATHOLOGICAL Liar,,or mentaly retarded..probably both

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176319 Sep 3, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
Medieval people including Kings weren't noted as being particularly smart, in fact most were very poorly educated.
Most of all science was wrong and distorted by religion.
In fact religion was the binding power of the Kingdom, so your point is that those who were uneducated , knew very little real science, who were highly religious thought they were something they were not. Bravo, you have proven yourself to be as ignorant as them.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176320 Sep 3, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so full of it...

Then cite reference to the quantum physicist that say's quantum physics prove there's a god. Should be just that easy, or maybe it isn't huh?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176321 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Definition of theory (n)
Bing Dictionary
the·o·ry
[ th&#63484; &#601;ree ]
1.rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2.speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3.idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Speculation. There are those that when they speculate it gets a lot of respect. A proven theory is a fact. If the right person has a theory the wheels of research begins. It is to be respected but it is not prove. In regards to String. There are many different theories, as I mentioned as a whole it is either amongst the most respect or the most respected.
I'm sorry...I think I was confused about what you were speaking of. In my previous posts I was talking about the big bang theory being fact.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#176322 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Medieval people including Kings weren't noted as being particularly smart, in fact most were very poorly educated.
Most of all science was wrong and distorted by religion.
In fact religion was the binding power of the Kingdom, so your point is that those who were uneducated , knew very little real science, who were highly religious thought they were something they were not. Bravo, you have proven yourself to be as ignorant as them.
Yeah the moderns are the smartest persons in the room and they are right and everybody else is dumb because they don't see things the way the moderns do. LOL! Is that an argument! LOL!

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#176323 Sep 3, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true. The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted. Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes. You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine? Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
You are a bad Christian.
I asked you what the devil looks like, and you ignored me.
Wait until judgment day.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176324 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the creator or nature has planned it this way. Knowing oneself is one of the oldest philosophies. My case by case theory as I have admitted here, and it didn't take a heat lamp or power tools to get it out of me. With out doubt will never be able to be proven. I stand by it until someone else could prove what they have. That will not happen in this life time I am now enjoying.
If there is a creator then it is certainly possible that they may have planned it that way. I, myself, doubt that...but it is simply because I do not have a belief in a "god". However, if you are correct in your belief, then I actually do hope that you get to see the second coming, and then there will be no doubt on the rights and wrongs of creation ;)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#176325 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll come back and respond to others later. I think part of the problem is they knocked The Gnostic Atheist off line. They not only gave a much better game, they did it with much better manners.
Did you mean to say Agnostic Atheist? Most Gnostic Atheists that I have spoken with and have watched conversations from have pretty bad manners sometimes....Or I guess a better way to put it would be to say that they don't have the best people skills because frustration gets the better of them. Of course this is just my opinion.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#176326 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny Dave, seriously.
We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.
But when you get to the punchline, "We are designed." you lost a cohesive narrative. I mean it's like giving the directions for cooking rice. And the saying.......
Bring 3 cups water to boil, add 1 cup rice, add butter and salt,
let come to boil, stir rice once, reduce heat and cover.
The sky may turn purple.
Excellent.

That is most likely the best line on topix all day.

"The sky may turn purple"

<The Dave Nelson> "Damn him, I was gonna say that..."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176327 Sep 4, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree, and I believe as most scientist that discuss it on The Discovery Channel that Quantum Physics proves there is a God.
Discovery channel?? You have to be kidding! Sorry, but it hardly counts as a valid source of scientific information. Why not? Because it is written so that people like you can hope to understand even a *bit* of what is going on. That means it plays to your hopes, fears, and biases just so it can get a sliver of information into your head. It is sort of like thinking the History channle gives valid history.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#176328 Sep 4, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
<The Dave Nelson> " THAT was an example of my virtual intelligence..."
Bloody. Dave has rediscovered Boyle's Law?
Whatever shall we do now?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176329 Sep 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Critics have the Bible down as myth until proven true.
Actually, of course, this is exactly the opposite of what happened historically. First, people assumed it was true. Then they really started looking into the details and found the conflicts between the books, between the legends and the books, and between the books and actual history.
The moderns were wrong on a number of assumptions including David and the non existence of certain locations mentioned in the New. They were wrong about the late dating of Go John. These are just a few things. It is the moderns who marginalize everyone and claim they are right including the Kings of Europe. They are just hostile towards Scripture and God depicted.
And fundamentalists are hostile to the facts about how the Bible was constructed. How it was put together for politcal reasons and there was considerable controversy about many of the books that made it into scripture and also about many that didn't. They ignore the historical fact that there were many forgeries in the second and third centuries where people wrote 'scriptures', attributed them to apostles, merely to promote a particular theological position at the time. Some of these are in the modern Bible.
Their only real interest is protecting their atheism. I don't know why you would consider my example a warning. Just saying by your standard of measure it may be measured out to you.
Most of the Biblical scholars pointing out the flaws in the standard story are Christians. They believe in the basic story, but know that the Biible was written by humans and put together by humans for human reasons and human goals.
Modern history gives ancient documents the benefit of the doubt and has methods to glean information for historical purposes.
Actually, ancient documents are typically *not* given the 'benefit of the doubt'. They are analyzed quite extensively for biases and motivations. They are analyzed for context and for whether they were written by the claimed authors. then they are analyzed for consistency across many different sources for historical placement.

What you object to is treating the Bible just like we would any other document from history. When we do, you claims of perfection are easily seen to be false.
You come in here, take a few cheap shots and then bug out. I don't see any substantial arguments coming from your posts. A lot of claims. You really don't have any to make. The Kings of Europe had some ulterior motive for example. Did you pull that one out from where the sun does not shine?
Their power was based on their being Christian princes. In many cultures, having a geneological connection to a god or mythical hero was consisdered to be important for deciding the persons ability to rule. For example, Juliusa Ceasar was supposedly a decendant of Venus through Aenaeus.

In a very similar way, the European kings claimed decent from David or some other Biblical figure to justify their rule.
Where is your evidence? Fact being they believed they came from Noah and you have nothing from history to counter except unfounded accusations. LOL!
No, they *claimed* to come from Noah to support their rule. Nothing else. Geneology was important for power at the time. What better way to claim power than to claim descent from a Biblical figure? Even those at the time knew these to be mythical (although dangerous to question).
spugun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#176330 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Discovery channel?? You have to be kidding! Sorry, but it hardly counts as a valid source of scientific information...
I think the Discovery channel and History channels are pretty good on popular science and history, and more educational than most of what you get on the TV. I think they try to present information in a popular format but without any bias.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176331 Sep 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah the moderns are the smartest persons in the room and they are right and everybody else is dumb because they don't see things the way the moderns do. LOL! Is that an argument! LOL!
Well, we have learned a few things over the last 400 years since the rise of science. The vast majority of the kings of Europe were illiterate until fairly recently. There was no knowledge of physics, chemistry, medicine, anatomy, or many other basic subjects. Their view of the universe had the earth at the center with the sun, planets, and stars moving around it. They believed different rules applied above the moon (the heavens) than what applied below (the earth). They were steeped in mythology and superstition. Often, they didn't travel more than a few miles away from where they were born. Those that did were held in wonder.

So, yes, the ancients did understand less about how the universe works than we do now. Communication was much less reliable and home-spun stories were commonly taken as history. Even stories about Byzantium were highly distorted compared to the realities.

So, yes, the ancients were ignorant of science, history, geography, and their own geneology past a few generations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176332 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Heat is energy that energizes. It is also produced by energy that encounters resistance.
No, heat is simply the average kinetic energy of the molecules. Friction stimulates the molecules to move, producing heat.
You change the ambient temperature and you change the energy acting on the atoms and their EM fields.
If you change the temperature, you change the average kinetic energy of the molecules, and so you change the strength of the collisions between those molecules. But until there is an actual decomposition of the molecules into atoms (causing an actual chemical change), most of the collisions are 'elastic', meaning the atoms have the same energies before and after.
You produced a lot of words that didn't say anything.
But what I said was essentially the fact. The repelling EM fields caused the expansion of the molecules, read mass, in the relative vacuum. Nothing else could.
The molecules did not expand. The distances between molecules expanded. The EM forces are only relevant during actual collisions and even then give eleastic collisions. There is no significant increase in mass (relativistic effects are way below the ability to measure in this context). You have essentially evewry detail wrong.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#176333 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny Dave, seriously.
We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.
But when you get to the punchline, "We are designed." you lost a cohesive narrative. I mean it's like giving the directions for cooking rice. And the saying.......
Bring 3 cups water to boil, add 1 cup rice, add butter and salt,
let come to boil, stir rice once, reduce heat and cover.
The sky may turn purple.
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent.
That is most likely the best line on topix all day.
"The sky may turn purple"
<The Dave Nelson> "Damn him, I was gonna say that..."
What created the "uncertainty principle"? Other than man?

Other things I could go into about chilling and temperatures.

I've seen purple sky, and sickly green, and colors in between. Haven't you? It depends on the light cast upon what you are viewing. And how you perceive it. You can consider that a quantum effect.

Worshiping theories instead of that which gave rise to the creating of them blinds you. You are worshiping words, not reality.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Scar, when you gonna get back to interjecting some thought, wisdom and insight instead of taking potshots? The uncertainty principle appears to have reversed your sights and interfered with your trigger squeeze. Random firing neurons at pivotal points in your logic process are getting the best of you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176334 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If everything was so well defined and understood as you allege then we should be a lot further along the way, shouldn't we? All of those brains and they can't do a thing with it.
You are stuck in an academic/theoretical loop of thinking that has separated you from the more mechanical aspects of physics, meaning the ones technology works on, the stuff that actually works. It is called left field. If and when you get out of that field and out into the productive end of science you will understand that.
You aren't looking at nature, you are playing with math models and not comparing them to "reality".
Actually, of course, the math is *continually* tested by reality. That is sort of the whole goal of science. To test the ideas by actually looking at reality. And guess what? Your ideas have failed.

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) 4 min jethro8 559,660
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Stilgar Fifrawi 775,779
SMOKING: One of the dumbest - deadliest human h... 4 min pusherman_ 42
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 8 min Pip 664
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 10 min Dr_Zorderz 265,203
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 21 min Jolly 23,977
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 25 min RiccardoFire 37,827
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 29 min preteen girl 605,066
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
More from around the web