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

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185718 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No. By saying you agree with the quote, you are saying you agree that the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is significant enough that, in Dawkins' case, HE PREFERS TO REFRAIN FROM CALLING HIMSELF AN ATHEIST. You said you agree with that, after spending years defending calling yourself an atheist on the same grounds Dawkins' calls himself an agnostic. So no, you do not agree. And yes, I was correct.
Which quote? And where are my words that you claim mean what you say they do? Your bare unsupported claim has already been refuted with evidence at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... Where's your rebuttal to all of that evidence contradicting your bare claim? Was this it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185719 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
And on Behe, you lied. You presented a snipped passage from a trial transcript to convey a conclusion you assert - that Behe thinks astrology qualifies as a scientific theory on the same grounds for ID being a legitimate scientific theory.
Wrong. This bare claim has already been refuted with evidence at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... that put your claim to the lie.
Buck Crick wrote:
You used that deception to ... impune the legitimacy of ID theory.
There is no ID theory.

From Paul Nelson, Creationist and PhD in philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory, quoted in the NOVA documentary at
and elsewhere:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Dr. Nelson says there is no theory of ID.

So does Phillip Johnson, the born-again Christian considered by many to be the father of the intelligent design movement.

"I also donít think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatís comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that itís doable, but thatís for them to proveÖNo product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Do you see how I do this, Buck? Rather that just posting unsupported opinions and crowing about my victory as you do, I support them with evidence, in this case, the opinions of two prominent design proponents that outright contradict you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185720 Nov 19, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Here's my logic ..
1. Humans are powerless over most everything including death. Do not confuse this premise with responsibility. One must accept the hypothesis of powerlessness before proceeding.
2. Like a child or pet, some humans seek a powerful being to protect them.
3. Under the umbrella of this infallible superhero, the believer acquires power and no longer feels powerless.(Think prayer, afterlife, etc.)
I have no substantive dispute with this.

I would choose slightly different language than "Humans are powerless over most everything" Yes, we are powerless over things like death, the weather, the price of gold, and much more.

But many people have a considerable degree of control over many other things such as their diets, where they live, what kind of work they do, how they spend their leisure time, and who they choose to live their lives with.

But I fully agree with your principle thesis. The love of worshipers for their notion of a god is more like the love of a child for a parent than like that of a parent for the child.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185721 Nov 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is the problem right here. You ignored two of three questions asked of you,
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I did not ignore them, WTF is wrong with you?

"It aint necessarily so wrote: let's see what god you worship. Is Jehovah perfect? Did he write the bible? Is he omniscienct, omnipotent, and perfectly loving?"

"RiversideRedneck wrote: "Jehovah" is a Hebrew word for "God". I don't speak Hebrew so no, I don't worship Jehovah, I worship God. Yes, I believe He's omniscient. No, I don't believe He's omnipotent. Yes, He's perfectly loving."

I answered all three, IANS.

You're not even reading my posts, no wonder why you think our discussions are irrelevant.
You don't see three different statements each ending with a question mark there? Let me help you.

Question 1: Is Jehovah perfect?

Answer: None provided

Question 2: Did he write the bible?

Answer: None provided

Question 3: Is he omniscienct, omnipotent, and perfectly loving?

Answer: Yes, I believe He's omniscient. No, I don't believe He's omnipotent. Yes, He's perfectly loving.

It's this kind of thing that makes effective discussion with you impossible, and why I didn't bother providing you those disproofs. You're not adequately prepared for it. You don't have the prerequisite skills necessary for this kind of activity.

Look at how much effort I have had to expend here to get you to see the questions, let alone answer them. I'm simply not willing to work this hard to make this little progress.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185722 Nov 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
But the god of the Christian bible is said to be perfect. It obviously isn't, so it doesn't exist.
Buck Crick wrote:
Bull shit. You employ the 'Fallacy of the False Dilemna'. From Wiki:"A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

The alternative is that what is "said to be" about features of the god is inaccurate, but the entity does exist.
By this reckoning, Santa Claus exists. "[W]hat is said to be about [his] features ... is inaccurate, but the entity does exist." The features that need to change in this case is the part about him living at the North Pole with elves making toys and distributing them to the children of the world through their chimneys using a sleigh piloted by flying reindeer.

Likewise with Jehovah. He exists as long as we change his features from those given in the Christian bible. I will grant that. The necessary changes include that he is not supernatural, did not create the universe or the life in it, did not author any "word," did not flood the earth, does not answers prayer, and a few other things - just like my dog.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185723 Nov 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You didn't give me a definition of close minded, just one example of something that you think would qualify ... And close-mindedness is unrelated to any claim of knowledge.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are closed minded because you think you are absolutely right in your methods and conclusions as you sit looking around inside your little box.
You also failed to provide a definition - yet again - and clearly not only don't know what the word means, you give no indication that you understood the post to which you responded. You not only didn't rebut claim that "close-mindedness is unrelated to any claim of knowledge," you immediately made a claim of close-mindedness and justified it with a particular claim of knowledge.

Once again, close mindedness is not defined by one's conclusions, but rather, by the method by which they are reached, and by the way they are treated thereafter.

I am not close minded about anything, including the claims about faith. Provide me evidence that it is a valid way of thinking, and I will consider that evidence impartially as I did in the past when I rejected it. If the evidence is compelling, I will recognize that and revise my conclusion.

Once again, open- and close-mindedness are not determined by the conclusions we reach, but how we reach them and how we treat them thereafter.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#185724 Nov 19, 2013
Your general demeanour. You don't strike me as a good person.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think I didnít help?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185725 Nov 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think you've screwed up the [Law of noncontradiction]. The way you'd apply it to God would be to say that He cannot both be perfect and imperfect. But trying to use it to say that a perfect being can't create any imperfect is not logically sound.
I don't think I screwed up, but it doesn't matter to the discussion. My claim is that a god cannot be both perfect and imperfect in the same way at the same time. Perfect means not making any mistakes.

From Wiki: "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity")... is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that ... a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

The claim is made that a perfect god exists that communicated with us through what is called his Word - the Christian bible, a book filled with errors of scientific fact, failed prophecies, unkept promises, self-contradictions, and descriptions of failed projects undertaken by that god including failed (fallen) angels and men.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185726 Nov 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The argument is that "evil," by which I mean malice and similar things, is proof that no all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly loving god is protecting us.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That is your guess. nothing more.
It is not a guess that what theists call evil - things such as violence, betrayal, and dishonesty - exists.

And it is obvious by virtue of that fact that no all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly loving god is protecting us from such things, not a guess. the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus also understood this:

ďIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
RiversideRedneck wrote:
My guess is that evil exists because it's human nature and God allows us our free will to do as we choose. You blame God. I blame humans.
That's not a rebuttal to the claim that no all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly loving god exists. The god you describe is different. Many gods of many descriptions are logically possible, but not the god said to have written the Christian bible, where it is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly loving. The existence of "evil" makes that impossible.

You said, "If it's proof, I can't ignore it. Try me. Show your proof that God doesn't exist" to which I responded "Of course you could ignore a proof" and predicted that "these proofs are bouncing off your antiprocess shields like bullets off of Superman."

I was and remain convinced that you cannot or will not allow yourself to be convinced by a compelling argument that challenges your cherished faith based assumptions.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#185727 Nov 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck and Dave have degrees in Madeupology from the University of Theirtrailer.
<quoted text>
I though they were just certificates issued for being there.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#185728 Nov 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't.
I've already told you this several times.
I'm not gonna play your Topix atheist merry-go-round.
And yet other people have confirmed my statement Ė go figure

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185729 Nov 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I define intelligence as the ability of an organism to discriminate between different stimuli and to make decisions about differentially based on them in ways that benefit it more than random responses would. At a higher level, intelligence also includes the ability to learn and to adapt to environmental change, meaning to do those things better with time.
Buck Crick wrote:
Let's hope those definitions don't get changed tomorrow.
That would not be my hope, and I don't understand why it would be yours.

I hope that language continues to change to meet the needs of speakers as those needs change. If more is learned about intelligence, and better ways of conceiving, describing and naming it can be devised, there will surely be corresponding adaptations to the lexicon made in the service of that growth.

Doing so would be an example of intelligence as defined above. Resisting that process for no reason and to no benefit would be something less.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185730 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
MTM is not living in a society that had not heard the more selfless principles of finding salvation, as opposed to the ritual ones being enforced.
How is that relevant? What does salvation as Jesus conceived it have to do with Jesus being wise? I consider that nonsense.
Buck Crick wrote:
More importantly, MTM doesn't risk being killed if she speaks them.
Why is that important? Do you remember what we were discussing? You referred to "the wise man they called Jesus" and I asked you if you "Care[d] to defend that claim that Jesus was wise - more wise than say Mary Tyler Moore." Does your conception of wisdom entail speaking potentially lethal words?
Buck Crick wrote:
I'm unaware of incidents where you defied power for something larger than yourself, knowing full well it would likely cause your death. If you do such things, perhaps you could share.
Is that part of your definition of wisdom? That sounds more like courage. Actually, I have defied power at great personal risk, but not at the risk of death. I would not share them with somebody as hostile and disrespectful as you. I already know how you would react.
Buck Crick wrote:
And accumulating cash for helping people, then running with the money to Mexico doesn't count.
Actually, that is wisdom. The sine qua non of wisdom is making choices that increase satisfaction. To do that, one must know where to find happiness, and how to get there. Notice how that relates to the definition of intelligence that I provided: adaptation to circumstances that maximizes benefit. This is a special case of that, the one that incorporates ethical values into the decision process.

Let's pause a moment to reflect: Over the last several days, I have provided you with good working definitions for a variety of concepts including rational skepticism, freethinking, atheism, organized religion, belief versus belief in (religious faith), evil versus malice, pseudoscience, scientific theory, the scientific vetting process, biological evolution, analytic truth and tautology, arrogance, the functional (operational) definition of a Christian, prescriptive versus descriptive lexicography, equivocation fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, the law of noncontradiction, respect, assorted comical words (quibberdick, mome, breedbate, snool, and snoutband), open- and closed mindedness, mature versus infantile love, spirituality versus spiritualism, ego, intellect, intelligence and now wisdom.

I hope that you benefited from the consideration of these ideas whether you agreed with my conclusions or not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185731 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
He's compassionate enough not to hit you with a lightening bolt for being batshit stupid. That's more compassion than I have.
This is a nice illustration of how values inform judgment in the pursuit of happiness. Wisdom is the quality that allows one to optimize one's level of happiness. Compassion correlates positively with happiness.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185732 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
That is not impressive.
I know what impresses you. It's not what impresses me.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185733 Nov 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all Bill Gates is agnostic.
Secondly there may be small pockets of charitable donations from individual Atheist.
But I can assure you the impact of Atheist charitable organizations helping the recent disasters in the Philippines is practically nil.
And same goes for the response to central Illinois.
Most of your average Atheist donít have a reputation of giving to charitable organizations. At least thatís the way I see it.
Atheist do have a reputation of spending resources fighting Christmas traditions.
Iím sorry Doctor, Atheist just donít care about their fellow man . Not one Atheist came on topix and asked for donations to the Japan Tsunami or the Philippine storm tragedy. Thereís a reason for that. They simply donít care.
The Atheist Creed,ďMe, Myself and I.Ē
.. would you please reconsider your position ??..

.. KIVA is a non-profit organization that helps entrepreneurs in 3rd world countries through micro-financing. For personal reasons, I no longer support this organization but check this out ..

http://www.kiva.org/teams

.. the #1 lending team is atheists, agnostics and skeptics. Christians hold the #2 spot but are approximately $4,000,000.00 behind ..

.. Eagle, people will be people regardless of belief or non-belief. Some are charitable, some are not. Religion has nothing to do with it ..

.. your line of reasoning is, well, unreasonable ..

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185734 Nov 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You depraved and repressed idiots think **everything** is about sex.
.. how did you find out so much about me ??..

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185735 Nov 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Gave him a tiny penis.
.. thanks anyway, I already have one ..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185736 Nov 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet other people have confirmed my statement Ė go figure
OCB?!

Lol, sure Chris.

Her word is like stone, huh?
GameFace

Fayetteville, NC

#185737 Nov 19, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't thank me, thank your adoring fans.
You represent atheism well. We all know they are close to your level of intelligence and maturity.
It looks like someone doesn't realize that this is a public forum and anyone can judge any post. It makes him/her/it look like the real idiot.

Just ignore the troll.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 min Epiphany2 604,953
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min June VanDerMark 559,305
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Dally Mama 774,904
Moses never existed 8 min KiMare 742
Why do Mexicans try to be white so bad? (Mar '09) 21 min nomoreillegal 625
bless the jews (Nov '08) 24 min Set free 7,055
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 25 min Ratloder 119,643
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 38 min Barnsweb 441,764
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Aura Mytha 265,082
More from around the web