Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 236,980
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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188629 Nov 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Our uniqueness as humans dictate that the constructs in our minds are necessarily unique, even for things that translate to a shared reality.
My belief about the shape of a 1969 Corvette will differ from yours even if we've both seen one recently.
<quoted text>
If it was something that did exist, and someone described it wrong, at least you could say that they were wrong. There's nothing to compare deity beliefs to except more deity beliefs. Would you draw arbitrary lines between them, none at all, or differentiate them based on whether or not they are identical?
It would still be the same '69 Corvette.

Your insipid argument boils down to a claim that nothing can be known of a deity.

That's wrong, but even if true, says nothing about a deity existence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188630 Nov 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
But then thats the whole problem, if it doesn't say what you want it too, it's translated wrong. It has only been re-translated to mean exactly what we want it to mean a thousand times. Additions and omissions don't count either.
Good point. They claim translation error, and then re-translate it just as we learn how unreliable the translations are.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#188631 Nov 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are wrong. I didn't say they were "closed-minded dolts and idiots and buffoons".
I said you were.
I also didn't say they "should be destroyed with fire". You said that.
You seem to take it upon yourself to interpret freely what others say to fit your agenda.
You aren't being very mature in your thought presentation. Perhaps it is your thoughts, though, and not you, per se.
Those programs just couldn't produce hard enough actionable data to work with just by the very nature of it. You aren't going to launch a nuke or cruise missile based exclusively on them. So they were dropped officially. There was enough data collected to make it worthy of further study. Those sort of things are still being performed around and about.
There are wiser folk than you running this world and deciding what could or couldn't be obtainable.
I guess I'm just tired, Dave. You know what I'm tired of, Dave? I'm tired of people rambling about all the occult phenomena that they emphatically swear exists but can never be demonstrated in everyday reality. People talk of telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, etc., as if it's second nature, yet when asked to produce "on demand" the desired effect, nothing...ever...happens. I find that strange, don't you? If I told you I can play the saxophone, yet every time you asked to hear me play I tell you the vibes aren't right, or there's negative energy in the room which won't allow me to perform, it wouldn't take you long to conclude that I'm full of it.
If, for example, remote viewing is possible, let me write down three words, concentrate on them, and have the psychic (haw, sorry) in the room with me write down those exact words. That's what I want, Dave, not some idiot reading Zener cards and calculating the probable hits.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#188632 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong.
The absence of evidence Z DOES NOT support the position that X is false.
It simply fails to support the position that X is true.
2 different things.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is something the scientific community calls falsifiability.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Perhaps the wording confuses you.

Is there a kitten in the box?

Lack of kitten observation is demonstration of kitten missing.

I know you just like to argue but this is getting ridiculous.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188633 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The dumb shits will call those hallucinations.
Though they bear no resemblance.
Not really as smart as you think you are. Notice the symptom called "Cognitive disturbances" One of the results is delirium, delirium is always accompanied by.........yep you guessed it dumbass....HALLUCINATIONS.

The brain requires approximately 3.3 ml of oxygen per 100 g of brain tissue per minute. Initially the body responds to lowered blood oxygen by redirecting blood to the brain and increasing cerebral blood flow. Blood flow may increase up to twice the normal flow but no more. If the increased blood flow is sufficient to supply the brain’s oxygen needs then no symptoms will result.[19]
However, if blood flow cannot be increased or if doubled blood flow does not correct the problem, symptoms of cerebral hypoxia will begin to appear. Mild symptoms include difficulties with complex learning tasks and reductions in short-term memory. If oxygen deprivation continues, cognitive disturbances and decreased motor control will result.[19] The skin may also appear bluish (cyanosis) and heart rate increases. Continued oxygen deprivation results in fainting, long term loss of consciousness, coma, seizures, cessation of brain stem reflexes, and brain death.[20]

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188634 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Buck considers such things absurd. He considers this absurd:
“Whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality, cannot be meaningfully spoken about.”- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Buck is right.

The statement is absurd on its face.

To follow it would be to never learn anything meaningful about reality.

What Ludwig is advocating is thought control.

He's a moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188635 Nov 30, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
Like how some give the impression their mama smoked crack whilst carrying them?
You're a Doctor, doesn't that have some long lasting adverse effects on the brain?
If you had a brain, you might know.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188636 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
If extreme complexity is an argument for design, what is the least likely thing to exist uncreated that you can imagine or describe? A cell? A 747? A universe? Perhaps something else?
Buck Crick wrote:
Complexity is not an argument for design.
You prefer to argue over elucidating. Would you prefer irreducible complexity or specified complexity?

I'll answer the question for you: it's a creator god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188637 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're much more likeable when you're being funny. In those moments, you are part of something bigger - something communal.
Buck Crick wrote:
Communal? If Topix Atheism Forum were a commune I was in, I would have no choice but try to kill every member as quickly as I could. That's the only way I could prevent members from ganging - up and killing me, raping me,...or worse.
And yet another example. You'd rather argue that communicate.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188638 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No synthetic DNA was created. The claim is exaggeration for a specific purpose. The purpose is philosophical, not scientific. All three of my assertions are based on the scientific facts and evidence.
And yet again.

Yes, the DNA was synthesized.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188639 Nov 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Evil is self and ego.
This isn't a healthy position. It sounds pretty Christian in origin.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#188640 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And that is the central message of the logical positivists: the meaning of a statement inheres in what it says about discernible reality. Another way of saying that is that a fact is a linguistic string that maps a portion of reality, and the meaning of that string is identical to the experiences that it denotes which can be had. Words that are detached from empiricism (experience) are empty and meaningless.
Buck considers such things absurd. He considers this absurd:
“Whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality, cannot be meaningfully spoken about.”- Ludwig Wittgenstein
It's always amusing to catch a believer off guard with something as simple as asking, "Exactly what does that mean?"

Most of the time, they're just filling space with flowery nonsense hoping nobody presses them for a commitment.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188641 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It's not a straw man. You have a moral justification for abortion, and I got you to admit your justification - the distinction between unborn and born - is "quibbling". I'd say getting you to destroy your own moral justification in a few posts is pretty good.
Dream on.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188642 Nov 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
That is supposed to be an intelligent or witty post? Your abilities in those areas are about the same as your avatar.
I wouldn't go there again until you change that picture you're using.

“I want three words:”

Since: Dec 12

"Woman. Atheist. Anarchist."

#188643 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>If you had a brain, you might know.
That's the closest thing to funny you've posted so far! Thanks, I enjoy comedy.

“I want three words:”

Since: Dec 12

"Woman. Atheist. Anarchist."

#188644 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>And yet again.

Yes, the DNA was synthesized.
Your patience never ceases to amaze.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#188645 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Were you present for the discussion on how we know whether groups of people are experiencing our common reality or something else? What you say here capsulizes my position nicely: when independent reports correlate well, they are probably reporting something real in the world.
I think I read most of the posts about it.

This thread is healthier than I anticipated it would be. I skipped a lot and it still took several hours to catch up.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188646 Nov 30, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I'm just tired, Dave. You know what I'm tired of, Dave? I'm tired of people rambling about all the occult phenomena that they emphatically swear exists but can never be demonstrated in everyday reality. People talk of telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, etc., as if it's second nature, yet when asked to produce "on demand" the desired effect, nothing...ever...happens. I find that strange, don't you? If I told you I can play the saxophone, yet every time you asked to hear me play I tell you the vibes aren't right, or there's negative energy in the room which won't allow me to perform, it wouldn't take you long to conclude that I'm full of it.
If, for example, remote viewing is possible, let me write down three words, concentrate on them, and have the psychic (haw, sorry) in the room with me write down those exact words. That's what I want, Dave, not some idiot reading Zener cards and calculating the probable hits.
It's called the occult and paranormal because it isn't an everyday on demand sort of thing.

However, you have to remember this stuff has been around a lot, lot longer than the internet or mass media. A lot of it has been turned into showbiz and profit making enterprises. Just like neo-atheism.

I'm not impressed with the occult. Those are head trips. But there are other paranormal events that are quite real. You have probably shrugged off one or two in your time.

Your clean materialistic world is not as clean and materialistic as you would like to believe. It just seems so because that is all you can see "clearly".

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188647 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't go there again until you change that picture you're using.
That was my high school grad picture. Look at that sensitive and intelligent face, and those eyes. I have even more hair now than then. Just a LOT more weathered looking. And not nearly so innocent and naive.

I'm real, IANS. You and your buddies are all artificial. Artificial names, avatars, and intellect.

Poseurs.

'

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#188648 Nov 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is a certainly "reality" to existence as you pop your little heads into it. That is that anything is possible.
You are new to the block.
You have to train yourself to believe something "can't be", and that can only be from your reference point. Like sitting inside a box.
Topix atheists live in the garbage can and live on the scraps others toss in. Yum yum, good!
It is all they know.
Dumb shits.
And you fantasize about all the great things you'll get to do after you die.

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 Catcher1 610,058
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Catcher1 818,755
Rajkot gay Topix 12 min call_boy001 15
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min WelbyMD 270,224
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min Gods r Delusions ... 579,640
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 17 min Freebird USA 9,262
_3RD TEMPLE READY w/ PM Netanyahu 26 min IsraelNews 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 31 min Good-Evil 2,077
More from around the web