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

#184183 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Hiding saw this post of yours, you'd catch it big time, dude.
Yeah.

She would spin out 4,000 characters - all completely missing the point.

While discussing the life cycle of every effing beetle in China.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184184 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who here would in your view qualify as an "open-minded inquirer"?
I'm thinking.

...no, I guess I'm about the only one.
Thinking

UK

#184185 Nov 14, 2013
Not me.
I'm a 6 (or 6.9!) on the Dawkins scale.
I think a lot posting here are too.
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Is Buck snooling you? Being pragmatic, I think your description of rational skeptic/atheist is troubling. Most atheists ive ever met unequivocally assert there is no God, not, I think theres no God maybe there is.
Thinking

UK

#184186 Nov 14, 2013
If no one is there to hear a tree fall in the forest, you are still wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
She would spin out 4,000 characters - all completely missing the point.
While discussing the life cycle of every effing beetle in China.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184187 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"Disbelief" is a belief.
Everyone who lacks belief in deities is not an atheist.
In fact, someone who simply "lacks belief" is not an atheist.
He could be an agnostic, a verificationist, or in a coma.
An atheist believes there are no deities. None.
Disbelief is not belief, its disbelief - that's why there's a separate word in the dictionary for it.

If it was called belief, we would say Atheists believe there is no god.

But atheists don't believe there is no god, we simply disbelieve the claims made by religious liars with no evidence of god.

This is not the same as believing there's no god.

Part of the mental illness of creationism assumes that "god is" and that everything in the world must be in reference to this disproven and childish delusion.

If creationists spen more time trying to prove their made up gods, they would have no need to redefine the words "atheism" & "disbelief"

Rejecting some stupid sh*t that loudmouths brainwashed idiots say is universal truth isn't a belief, its the normal reaction to being lied to.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184188 Nov 14, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
"There is no Big Brother in the sky...." LOL
Always amused by UK atheists, agnostics if they think about it?, lecturing Americans
while the House of Lords
has Bishops of the Church of England.
Amusing
What can an exposed and desperate creationist liar say? when asked for proof of his so called mighty delusion?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#184189 Nov 14, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the ole days we all had to do tune ups on our vehicles. Setting the points and timer. With fuel injection and computer controlled systems itís a rarity now.
Now about flushing that radiator. I hope you donít use those flushing agents. Because inevitably they cause the seals to go out on your water pump. Iím a firm believer nothing but distilled water and antifreeze should ever go into a radiator.
Iím totally illiterate when it comes to music. My wife played the trumpet in school and my son teaches music. I know it takes thousands of hours to be proficient with the trumpet. Then one must keep their armature in shape to maintain proficiency.
My expertise is much different than yours Doctor. And thankfully those days of working with class ďAĒ poisons is behind me now. We have had some commonality in our trades. Monel Alloy used in your trumpet valves was extensively used in the Chemical industry. Especially where Chlorine was used.
Do you ever play the flugelhorn?
Yes, I own two Flugelhorns. One for classical stuff the other for more jazzy or contemporary music.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#184190 Nov 14, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Nothing like a nice lunch time apophthegm.
As the solar activity is pretty low right now, resulting in a chill here not normally associated with the current temp and sunshine, and consequently freezing by bony old ass off, I will take this opportunity to elucidate a little further in the hope the thinking and typing will increase my blood flow to a level to compensate for the lack of sufficient EM input and resultant heat my body so desperately craves.

Speaking from a strictly modern physics viewpoint.

There are only four basic forces. These four forces are responsible for ALL physical events and phenomenon and processes, etc,etc. And even up to the point of what we call thought.

These forces are the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and EM.

The strong and weak forces are only felt within the atom. The only range beyond that would be their gravitational contribution to the accumulation of mass, which one can consider as focal points of gravity. Gravity itself is universal, but it in itself does nothing more than collect those individual collections of mass and pile them up against each other. Like a dirt pile. The only shaping and forming it can do is determined by what gets in the way of it. There is no possibility of the manifestation of intelligence within it, just as there is none in the nuclear forces.

However, the EM force is a bit more flexible even though it is identified and associated somewhat incorrectly. The magnetic portion is derived from the balance of force between the nucleus and its interface with space, the electron shells. Which are the things that keep gravity from scrunching nuclear particles together. It's relationship to electricity is similar to the relationship of those nuclear forces to gravity. Motion is initiated by differentials in values within the atoms and molecules by both. One moves the mass, and the other moves the charge.

The difference between magnetism and electricity on a practical basis is you can emit a pulse or wave of magnetism from one mass to a far distant one. Radio waves and light are good examples. Electricity is limited to a particular mass. It is packets of that magnetism relatively directly affecting the valence bonds of interconnected atoms. You can think of it as a magnetic pulse or light that hasn't had time to form a packet before impacting the next atom. It couldn't blow a bubble.

That EM force is what begets chemistry. Chemistry is the electron valences interacting with each other. If there are any nuclear changes it is through those actions. These differences of charge set up the transfers within the atoms. They unbalance the atoms and the toms seek equilibrium,and if there is something nearby it is going to grab it. That is usually supplied in the relatively neutral matter called chemicals used in the process. Presto chango, you have a new arrangement of charges.

It is that positive and negative seeking balance that puts things together as you know them.

Those DNA molecules are working on the electrical side of EM. Within, note "WITHIN" the coherent mass. Those molecules have to attract, select, and assemble those chemicals from "within" themselves.

Or do they?
Bongo

Hicksville, NY

#184191 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm thinking.
...no, I guess I'm about the only one.
So you've redacted the results of your inquiry about the events after your mommas call and emerging from the hospital. assuming youre joe, of course.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184192 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Not quite. The sine qua non of skepticism is the unwillingness to accept unsupported claims, but to question them and seek for evidence first. I could be easily convinced by evidence and still be skeptical.
Got any secularist examples of that?
That's also incorrect. Skepticism isn't about feeling uncertain. It's the philosophical position that only reason and evidence determine what is true, not unsupported claims, secret knowledge or revealed truth.
I have no active (psychological) doubt about Santa's existence, but I am still a skeptic. My doubt is purely intellectual - understood by virtue of realizing the limits of knowing, but not felt. Descartes alluded to this distinction with his famous "I think, therefore I am," which was also his way of saying that nothing else can be certain, however certain it seems or feels, even the presence of external reality, the existence of which he didn't actively doubt any more than you or I, but which his perspicacious mind understood could not be confirmed by any method.
If you can understand the distinction between intellectual and psychological doubt, you will understand skepticism better. Remember, one is felt, the other only understood. Skepticism is about the latter, and about the need for empirical and/or logical evidence before claims are accepted.
I've always seen supposed skeptics as pseudo intellectual 'freethinkers' who hide behind the rouse of critical thinking to support their lack of belief in anything they haven't read in Scientific American.

Don't ever take a skeptic to a magic show, they'll ruin the fun & mystery for everyone else.

Honestly, I don't know the distinction between intellectual and psychological doubt, can you elaborate (in redneckese)?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184193 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This one speaks to some issues raised here recently:
Dear Freethinkers:
The author of this article, published in the American Humanist Association's (AHA's) weekly Humanist Network News, is Treasurer of the AHA and also President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. He suggests that atheists, or at least those atheists who identify themselves as humanists, should be more accepting of "the terminology of religion," and specifically "spirituallity." To my knowledge, "spirituality" is a supernatural phenomenon, as "spirit" surely is.(I think that Dawkins referred to that during his recent debate with Chropra.) If atheists accept the existence of the supernatural phenomenon of spirituality, why should they not accept the existence of other supernatural forces or entities: qui, karma, angels, demons, even dieties? I disagree strongly with the author's contention that "may God bless us" in the Franciscan prayer that he endorses adds nothing that would be worth stripping out. The phrase explicitly recognizes the existence of a god, belief in the existence of which is rejected by atheists for the simple reason that there is no evidence of his/hers/its existence.
The "embracing" of "spirituality" by the military that the author seems to endorse is why American Atheists and the Freedom from Religion Foundation have opposed the inclusion of "spiritual fitness" in the Army's fitness evaluation.(The remainder of his sentence is garbled, but I assume it is referring to the identification of spirituality with religious belief. His statement that "Neither the Naval Academy nor my own alma mater, West Point, have any reference to a higher power" makes no sense to me.)
Finally, the author's reference to atheists not rejecting "a fun time on Sunday morning simply because Christians also do it" has nothing whatever to do with his contention that atheists should be more open to religious language.
I do not find the suggestion made in this article rational or meaningful. That the "humanism" represented by the AHA seems to be becoming steadily more "religious" is why I cannot identify myself as a "humanist," but only as a "secular humanist" as represented by the Council for Secular Humanism.
What do you think"
Ken C
Lol

Dear Freethinkers:

You should freethink this way.

What do you freethink?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184194 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even with my limited technical skills, I FOUND IT!!
NightSerf on skepticism:
I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to use words as precisely as I can, at least within my own frame of reference. For me, God, gods and goddesses are mythical/fictional characters in books (or Books) that some believe also exist in the physical world. Within the context of those stories, they are just a real as Luke Skywalker is within the context of a Star Wars movie, and when I'm reading a book or watching a movie, TV show, or play, they are real for me, too because I engage in a deliberate suspension of disbelief to enhance my enjoyment. But when I leave the theater or turn off the tube, or even become distracted by something real-world, that suspension ends.
I think that we begin life in a similar condition. In children we call uncritical acceptance of new ideas innocence, in adults gullibility. That's the quality that allows people to have faith in all sorts of ideas, not just religion: we believe because we want to, not because the evidence is compelling, and then search for evidence to support our beliefs.
We all begin life doing that, atheists, too. But some of us discount contradictory evidence when we encounter it and some of us question our beliefs: we become skeptics. Again, this applies to all beliefs, not just religion.
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling. That leads to a consideration of the nature of evidence, i.e., what is compelling and what is not, which in turn leads to questions about derivation and methodology.
The further we go on the path of skeptical analysis, the more we separate ourselves from the mainstream culture that operates with a different balance between skepticism and faith. Religion is the place where these differences clash most severely because religious people us their reasoning skills only to defend their beliefs, never to question or reevaluate them.
From an ideological perspective, we atheists and skeptics are an alien culture to the theists. They make feeble attempts to understand us only for the purpose of refuting us, even trying to persuade us to return to their systems of faith. They try to imagine what could cause someone to turn away from their faith, but their imaginations fall so far short of the reality that their suppositions say more about them than about us.
This is not likely to change. Skepticism cannot be taught--trying to do so would only create people who believe in skepticism but don't know how to practice it. So the basic argument between skeptics and believers will go on as long as humanity endures even if the beliefs about which we argue change.
Welcome to skepticism, gang, and fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight.
Huh...

NightSerf:
The ultimate skeptics reject all faith and accept only ideas for which the evidence is compelling.

--

So NightSerf must not believe in dreams, emotions or intuition...

If he does, he's full of shit.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184195 Nov 14, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Disbelief is not belief, its disbelief - that's why there's a separate word in the dictionary for it.
If it was called belief, we would say Atheists believe there is no god.
But atheists don't believe there is no god, we simply disbelieve the claims made by religious liars with no evidence of god.
This is not the same as believing there's no god.
Part of the mental illness of creationism assumes that "god is" and that everything in the world must be in reference to this disproven and childish delusion.
If creationists spen more time trying to prove their made up gods, they would have no need to redefine the words "atheism" & "disbelief"
Rejecting some stupid sh*t that loudmouths brainwashed idiots say is universal truth isn't a belief, its the normal reaction to being lied to.
-Skeptic- wrote:
But atheists don't believe there is no god, we simply disbelieve the claims made by religious liars with no evidence of god.
Would you believe me if I told you I had a dream last night?

Yes, you would.

Without evidence to support it.

Imagine that.
Bongo

Hicksville, NY

#184196 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not prescribing.
You talk freely, and I freely point out your errors.
Remember, your ego is not your self. So when your errors are pointed out and it wounds your ego, it really doesn't change the self.
The ego is a product of thoughts. Your self is not.
Youre a varmit who doesn't know what team hes on or who his head coach is? lost one for the gipper? First one? Thought he never lost a one?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184197 Nov 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a clever boy.
Thanks, Cletch.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#184198 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Thanks, Cletch.
Back off, he was talking to me!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184199 Nov 14, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I own two Flugelhorns. One for classical stuff the other for more jazzy or contemporary music.
Do you blow on those Splugelhorns or suck?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184201 Nov 14, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Youre a varmit who doesn't know what team hes on or who his head coach is? lost one for the gipper? First one? Thought he never lost a one?
That was a while ago.

I did a two-year stretch behind bars since then.

You know what an insult is?

When your boy drops your last name.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/07/ge...
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#184202 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a while ago.
I did a two-year stretch behind bars since then.
You know what an insult is?
When your boy drops your last name.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/07/ge...
The kid's the son of Jim King, not Joe King as you ficticously call yourself. You're so sick...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184203 Nov 14, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. hi ya Big Brother. How was your vacation ??..
It was on a hunting trip of sorts, Li'l Sis - in search of the gold master points needed to become a life master at bridge - my latest goal - and available only at sectional bridge tournaments like the one I just attended in Puerto Vallarta. I was successful: I got a little over half of the number I needed (25) this trip, meaning I only need to do this one more time. I went without the Mrs, which made it a bit of a drag.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. yes, ego is part of self and serves a vital purpose. At times, philosophers refer to the ego as the false self so I understand what Buck is trying to say .. sometimes the ego can be a monster of madness (think Skom). When you walk in understanding, compassion and gentleness, ego is absent .. like organized religion, the painful need to always be right, the words of hate, the desire for vengeance and the proclivity to divide and separate is part and parcel of Topix .. if there's a better way, we must find it through each other ..
The better way will follow the decline of organized religion. It's a sure thing.

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
Is A Race War Brewing? 2 min yon 53
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 559,647
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min WasteWater 265,189
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 9 min WasteWater 5,112
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 12 min WasteWater 96,747
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Aura Mytha 775,640
Most Topix Posters Are Douche Bags (May '09) 20 min d pantz 6
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 41 min preteen girl 605,050
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
More from around the web