Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 237,766
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. Read more

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#186831 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have stopped reading at "I don't know" because propositional logic is greek to you.
The musings of madmen are entertaining, you can say...
"made you look" But your power ends there.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186832 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No verb makes sense absent time, including pure existence without change. Creation implies a process or transition with a before and after state. A creator might precede our universe's time, but would need to work from withing a meta-time, or higher order time, a point in which marks the beginning of time in our universe.
No, "precede" is not the proper term.

It could as well be "atemporal", without time.

Sorry, we don't get to name such requirements, and the infinite regression case is defunct.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186833 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Science is the only method for understanding the universe that has ever borne fruit,...
Buck Crick wrote:
Mystic Experience and Two Modes of Consciousness
adapted from the work of Arthur J. Deikman, M.D.
"Studies in perception and developmental psychology indicate that typically we exercise a significant selection process over the array of stimuli with which we are presented. For efficiency's sake, we have to pay attention to some things and not to others, and we automatize that selection process to such an extent that it becomes difficult to recover our perceptual and cognitive options. For that reason, mystical disciplines make use of a variety of means to bring about a deautomatization so that a new, fresh perception can occur. Deikman hypothesized that when this deautomatization is combined with an increased capacity for receptive-mode function (as a result of "spiritual" training), the event traditionally referred to as "awakening to the awareness of one's true nature" takes place."
"Our ordinary and habitual mode of consciousness can be called the action mode, organized to manipulate the environment and featuring an acute consciousness of past and future time. Its basic reference point is the experience of a separate, personal self. In contrast, we have the capacity for a different organization -- the receptive mode -- oriented towards the present, in which the personal self as a preoccupying orientation fades away and the world tends to be experienced as more unified and satisfyiing."
"Deikman points out that the first barrier is a cultural bias that tells us that "mystical states" are unreal, pathological, crazy, or regressive. Without knowing it, under the banner of the scientific method, our thinking has been constricted. He proposes that we have been indoctrinated to avoid looking closely at these realms, but that it is time to make the receptive mode, and the experience which it engenders, a legitimate option for ourselves and for science... We will be able to discriminate those instances in which the pathological or regressive are indeed present, but we will not miss seeing and exploring those phenomena that are truly mature and life promoting."
Was this a rebuttal?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186834 Nov 23, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Emotions manifest themselves in reality, they are observable, sorry you don't understand what observable means. The emotion love is in fact observable, and this emotion we have labeled LOVE, put whatever label you choose, the emotion can be observed.
Shit your stupid, a lie detector can monitor the effects that emotions have on a person, apprehension, nervousness, anxiety, trigger increased heart rate, skin temperature, blood pressure, all manifestation of emotions.
I'll bet you can OBSERVE when your wife is pissed at you, her emotion are manifesting themselves right before your scared little eyes. Ever see a child crying? Do you think their pleased over something?
Ok.

Then prove emotions exist.

Outside of your mind.

Go.

Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit on you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186835 Nov 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
So you can't answer the question of how nuclear particles can inititiate action and thought. That is basic physics, IANS.
Go on ....
Dave Nelson wrote:
I can tell you how the galactic swirl of gravitational forces can slush around those particles in your head and body, but does that mean you are a puppet of the moving mass of the universe? Is there some magic in this slushing causing an ordered thought pattern manifested as EM? Not likely, if you think you are moving to your own desires. Come on, IANS, you believe in this independent operator thing. Show us how such can originate just from the matter within us. This ability is also required for your DNA to process chemicals.

I just addressed this at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

[QUOTE who="Dave Nelson"]We are part of a larger mass. Components you would like to think are independent and intelligent. That larger mass dictates what we do by where it goes and what it does. You seem to be grasping for some of that universal intelligence and putting it in a bottle to feed your ego. That bottle is imaginary.
Thanks for clarifying that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186836 Nov 23, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he was Jesus.
The greatest trick you ever pulled was convincing your wife you're a man.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186837 Nov 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, hey, I needed a quarter once, and god whispered in my ear to lift the sofa cushion. To my surprise, not only was there a quarter, but a bonus nickel and three pennies. Thank you, Jesus. You are listening. The only bad part of the story is, in my excitement to spend god's gift, I got careless and walked in front of a bus.
If I lived in Cleveland, I would also walk in front of a bus.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186838 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Tendentious thought is undesirable where being impartial is helpful, such as when trying to evaluate evidence impartially.
Great word, huh?
Do you know the difference between disinterested and uninterested?
disinterested - not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.
uninterested - not interested in or concerned about something or someone.
A judge hearing a case should be disinterested, but not uninterested.
<quoted text>
Yes, I have considered them. They are substance-free. You could insert a sentence as meaningless as "Magnetic flux is the glue of space-time that determines the radial velocity of the field lines through the low density plasma infusion" into any part of any of his posts without a loss of coherence or even any way to tell.
Here is an actual post of his at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... that I have doctored up with various word transpositions and substitutions. Before looking at the link, see if you can pick out the parts that I altered or added, which I will tell you now are nonsense. See if outside nonsense randomly inserted into this post makes it any less meaningful or intelligible.or is even discernible:
"I can tell you how the gravitational swirl of galactic forces can slush around those particles in your head and body, but does that mean you are a vector of the moving mass of the galaxy? Is there some higher order purpose in this slushing causing an ordered thought pattern manifested as EM? Not likely, unless you are moving through space time of your own accord. Come on, IANS, you know you can't see this dependent operator. Show us how such can operate in the the force around us. This ability is also required for your synapses to process chemicals."
Try the same thing with a post from a writer that you think writes reasonable things reasonably, and see if the changes don't jump out
Here's his original posting, which makes no less sense:
"I can tell you how the galactic swirl of gravitational forces can slush around those particles in your head and body, but does that mean you are a puppet of the moving mass of the universe? Is there some magic in this slushing causing an ordered thought pattern manifested as EM? Not likely, if you think you are moving to your own desires. Come on, IANS, you believe in this independent operator thing. Show us how such can originate just from the matter within us. This ability is also required for your DNA to process chemicals."
Your assessment is not even remotely accurate.

If I want to kill myself, I will jump from your ego and land on your IQ.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#186839 Nov 23, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
Then prove emotions exist.
Outside of your mind.
Go.
Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit on you.

You can't make him cry like you do to your wife, when you say that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186840 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

Was this a rebuttal?

Depends. What definition of "rebuttal" are we using today?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#186842 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends. What definition of "rebuttal" are we using today?
Don't be afraid of me, Buck.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#186843 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I lived in Cleveland, I would also walk in front of a bus.
Told you I don't live in Cleveland, I live in a suburb close to the Cleveland city line. For someone with roots in Bama, or Tennessee, or Kaintuck, you really don't have much to crow about. Criticism from an ex-con hilljack doesn't throw much weight, try to remember that.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#186844 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is truly stupid, BakedLasagna.
If there is no example of "nothing", something cannot come from it, and my conclusion is proven.
If there were an example of it, it would not be nothing.
You are relying on discarding of logic.
It would appear that the "Nothing" Theists use is different from the "Nothing" cosmologists use. Do you not think the Lawrence Krauss idea of nothing is viable?

Hey, religious people discard logic on a regular basis, I will agree with you that logically, something from nothing, seem illogical.

There is no information about what existed before the singularity, so in order to say that we have no example of nothing is true, so therefore we cannot absolutely say that something cannot come from nothing. Why discard Lawrence Krauss's idea that most of the matter and energy of the universe resides in empty space, now recognized as dark matter. Formulating a model in which a universe could potentially come from nothing is outlines in his book A Universe From Nothing."

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#186845 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, "precede" is not the proper term.
It could as well be "atemporal", without time.
Sorry, we don't get to name such requirements, and the infinite regression case is defunct.
I find the notion of "atemporality" nonsensical.

I guess it's a faith-based concept.

Certainly not one based on any evidentiary basis, or even logic.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#186846 Nov 23, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
Then prove emotions exist.
Outside of your mind.
Go.
Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit on you.
I guess I'd have to have you go somewhere and be taught the meaning of "manifests itself in reality"

It's really very simple, can you tell when someone is mad at you? How do you know your wife, or children or whomever, loves you? Can you tell when someone is in anguish, or beaming with happiness? Emotions are simply a human response to something, we have given labels to these responses, love, hate, joy, sadness. Emotions are OBSERVABLE and because we have assigned names to these emotions, we know they exist.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#186847 Nov 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The risk of a dam breaking is real - the likelihood that the god that you lie about being real is 0.
Religious liars have to resort to threats of death to get people all the time.
In mordern society this is illegal, but faith gets a free pass to threaten with death, anyone that its followers chooses...
We are all guaranteed death. Just ask our good medical Doctor. Death is as much a part of life as life itself. All living things die and that includes Atheist.

If you donít believe a dam can fail or a bridge collapse then you are kidding yourself. Mechanical systems fail all the time. Now please understand that unbelief is unbelief. Throughout modern times we have seen catastrophic failures because of unbelief.

Remember the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that occurred on January 28, 1986? This accident occurred because of unbelief on NASAís part. But there was at least one Engineer with Morton Thiokol who raised concerns and tried to get the flight aborted.

His name was Roger Mark Boisjoly. After the accident he was shunned by the contractor because of his predictions came true. Why am I discussing these unbelief issues. Because unbelief is unbelief. You Sir, donít believe thereís a God. NASA didnít believe a cold weather launch would result in a catastrophic failure.

When unbelief meets belief often it is too late to do something. When you get all the proof you need. It just might be too late for you. As it was for the Challenger Astronauts, the people of Johnstown Pennsylvania.

The Titanic is another example of gross unbelief. It only carried enough life boats for half of the crew and passengers. Realistically the White Star Line didnít believe the Titanic would ever sink. Unbelief tragically meets belief but it was too late for 1500 that died on 15 April 1912. That is 68% of those on board.

My good friend, your unbelief will meet belief but it will most likely be too late for you.[tipping hat]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186848 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
There is O (zero) evidence for abiogenesis.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The evidence for abiogenesis is life. If it wasn't designed, it evolved spontaneously from nonlife, whether on earth or elsewhere and came to earth on an asteroid or come. The supernatural explanation has no support for it at all except the existence of life and no proof of abiogenesis yet. By virtue of being the only one of two hypotheses with any experimental support, abiogenesis is the leading hypothesis
Buck Crick wrote:
This is an example of The Fallacy of Circularity. Stated formally, your thesis is: "Life arose by abiogenesis. The evidence is - there is life." Then your qualifier is: "There is more evidence for this hypothesis than any other". Fair paraphrase?
Why paraphrase it? The argument is brief:

The evidence for abiogenesis is life. If it wasn't designed, it evolved spontaneously from nonlife, whether on earth or elsewhere and came to earth on an asteroid or come. The supernatural explanation has no support for it at all except the existence of life and no proof of abiogenesis yet. By virtue of being the only one of two hypotheses with any experimental support, abiogenesis is the leading hypothesis
Buck Crick wrote:
The circularity is: A is true because of B; and B is true because of A. In the qualifier, you rely on the circularity. "There is more evidence for A". What is the evidence? None, except the previous circularity.
It's a double.
For my argument to have taken the form "A is true because of B; and B is true because of A," it would have had to have been that there is evidence for life because life exists, and life exists because there is evidence for abiogenesis, where A and B are

A: Life arose through a natural process (abiogenesis)
B: Life exists.

I'd say that at my argument is closer to: either A or B is true because C is true, where A, B and C are

A: Life arose through a natural process (abiogenesis)
B: Life arose through a supernatural process (designer/creator)
C: Life exists.

Unless you can prove B true or A false, C serves as evidence for each.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#186849 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assessment is not even remotely accurate.
If I want to kill myself, I will jump from your ego and land on your IQ.
If you wanted to kill yourself, you would find a better instrument than "topix". Best you can do here is humiliate yourself, but maybe that's what you are really trying to do? lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186850 Nov 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Told you I don't live in Cleveland, I live in a suburb close to the Cleveland city line. For someone with roots in Bama, or Tennessee, or Kaintuck, you really don't have much to crow about. Criticism from an ex-con hilljack doesn't throw much weight, try to remember that.
That is so hurtful, A Nome.

I am certainly not one to be critical, or try to influence an opinion.

Can we still be friends?




Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#186851 Nov 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, hey, I needed a quarter once, and god whispered in my ear to lift the sofa cushion. To my surprise, not only was there a quarter, but a bonus nickel and three pennies. Thank you, Jesus. You are listening. The only bad part of the story is, in my excitement to spend god's gift, I got careless and walked in front of a bus.
You should go on tour. You could be making hundreds as a stand up comedian. Quit your job sacking groceries and get out there on stage. You could set the Guinness World Record for the quietist audience in history during a performance.

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 Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 min Tigrizon 442,591
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 583,170
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 min Freebird USA 176,430
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min nanoanomaly 826,440
is it wrong i like to wear womens underwear (Nov '12) 13 min Panty master 226
Poll Grade all of Humanity to date. How have We done... 18 min Fresh poop 2
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 21 min Jay 312
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr rbphoenix80 98,917
More from around the web