Author Topic: Atheism requires faith(?)  (Read 2962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #174 on: November 29, 2013, 10:20:12 AM »
You want me to say it? I'll say it. There is no god. Absolutely, positively, there is no god.

Now watch me catch some flack for that, Nam. And its all your fault.

OK, you can say that. However, it's just an OPINION. It's not a FACT that you can prove in the same way "there is no pen in my hand" can be proven by not holding a pen.

The thing is, God could be real and He just doesn't show Himself to the atheists. How would you be able to tell the difference? Since you can't tell the difference, you can't claim there is no God as a factual statement.
And you can't claim a god on the same base principles you outlined

So it seems you should be agnostic then.
if you can show me a claim where I said there can't be any god of any kind,ahhh never mind. The same principles you outlined can neither prove or disprove any god(s) it is that simple
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #175 on: November 29, 2013, 10:22:49 AM »
WLC is so dishonest that no one really takes him seriously anymore.

Also skeptic, I'm going to commit pascals wager but I want you to think seriously about it and respond in a well thought out manner detailing specific reasons and not just use baseless assertions:

What if you are wrong about Zeus? What if you die and you find out Zeus and his brethren are real and the god of the bible is a false god? What then?

Atheists just take it one god further.

I know plenty of Christians, myself included, who take Craig VERY seriously.

If I am wrong and Zeus is the real "God," then what would be my punishment? Atheists would be going down with me anyway so I doubt you guys would be laughing at me. But it all depends on what the punishment is.

You didn't do what I asked.

Yes I did. What do you want me to say? I'd be screwed just like you. But if the Bible is true, then you will be screwed. If you want to hypothetically break down the odds based on these 2 choices, I have a 50% chance of going to Heaven. You have a 0% chance.

Christianity is still the best bet. I never take my chances with 0%.
The Jewish God Yahweh does not have a heaven,can you show me heaven in the OT?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #176 on: November 29, 2013, 10:25:09 AM »

Yes I did. What do you want me to say? I'd be screwed just like you. But if the Bible is true, then you will be screwed. If you want to hypothetically break down the odds based on these 2 choices, I have a 50% chance of going to Heaven. You have a 0% chance.

Christianity is still the best bet. I never take my chances with 0%.



Pascal's Wager is bullshit, sorry. [size=78%]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager[/size]

The atheist's odds are always 0%.
Those are not very good odds at all.
So now you are God and you make the judgement? Maybe the Athiests knowledge of Jesus is enough to get him in,,,,,stop thinking you are God
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #177 on: November 29, 2013, 12:06:59 PM »
So now you are God and you make the judgement? Maybe the Athiests knowledge of Jesus is enough to get him in,,,,,stop thinking you are God

SPAG actually predicts, and in some ways requires this to be the case. Christians are in fact their own judges, and they make themselves the judges of others as well. That is basic Christian history! They've been doing for centuries - ignore, spin, or rationalize the passages that say "do not judge" so that you can judge. Their religion is A1 cognitive dissonance.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #178 on: November 29, 2013, 12:30:43 PM »
What you just described is not atheism but pure stupidity, sorry bud. And telling me you "used to be an atheist" doesn't tell me anything at all b/c "used to not-believe" is not the same as actually believing something. One is a worldview (yours) and one is not. Atheism is not a worldview or a belief. So they do not correlate. If you did stupid shit b/c you were an idiot that's on you. It has nothing to do with non-belief in a deity.

Btw, changed lives don't tell us anything about whether or not a religion is true - nor do "feelings" (otherwise every religion is true b/c they all have stories of "changing lives"). Again, you are being gullible. It's time to stop being gullible and start being rational for a change.

By what standard is what I did "stupid" if there is no God?
Do you find something morally wrong with getting drunk and having sex?
Hmm….. he said stupid not immoral. I personally think that as much fun as it is to get shit faced and laid (I am doing it to cure cancer before xmas right now with a lil help from Dionysus in the when should we pray thread) it is a pretty stupid thing to do.  You could wind up with the worst STD ever. Children.
I can’t fathom being tied to some chick I hardly know because she thinks that my genes + her genes = a beautiful baby. I guess you could also end up with HIV or the clap to. That would suck.

To be the guy who answers your question, no I see nothing morally wrong with getting drunk and laid so long as it is two consenting adults and all that. Perhaps your belief in God prevents you from getting drunk and laid or other stupid yet really fun activities and to that I say good for you. Enjoy masturbating.

Quote
Who made up the rule to have prisons?
Who made up the rules that get people sent to prisons?
Who built the prisons for people to go to when they break the rules?
Do you feel sorry when someone breaks the rules and goes to prison?
Prison is like Hell. Hell is like prison. Not pretty.

Do you see how this could be used to show that religion is manmade? If hell is basically a permanent spiritual prison and prison is a human concept. Punishment for a crime is a human concept. Crime itself is a human concept. Do you think it’s possible we humans attach human concepts to deities?

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #179 on: November 29, 2013, 02:02:22 PM »
Is it fair to say that every atheist has enough of some kind of evidence to dismiss faith in disbelief? If they didn’t they would share the faith of the theist?

So yeah… slowly climbing out of the rabbit hole…. I don’t want to go back down there, its dark and spooky.

I typed out something longer, more thoughtful, and less simple but I think this thread needs to die.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12025
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #180 on: November 29, 2013, 02:11:30 PM »
Is it fair to say that every atheist has enough of some kind of evidence to dismiss faith in disbelief? If they didn’t they would share the faith of the theist?

So yeah… slowly climbing out of the rabbit hole…. I don’t want to go back down there, its dark and spooky.

I typed out something longer, more thoughtful, and less simple but I think this thread needs to die.


Why?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #181 on: November 29, 2013, 02:14:15 PM »
Why what?

Why is the rabbit hole dark and spooky?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12025
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #182 on: November 29, 2013, 03:34:37 PM »
Why what?

Why is the rabbit hole dark and spooky?


Why do you think this topic should die?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #183 on: November 29, 2013, 03:58:33 PM »
I thought it ran its course and everyone was done with it. I still have what I typed though if anyone is still involved in this thread.

Disbelief does not require faith. I believe in the natural world which I view and perceive with my own eyes. I witness the natural world exist without god, gods, or goddesses.
Perhaps I place faith in the scientists who understand and explain the big bang in ways I don’t. I have faith that if they are wrong they will correct themselves and find the actual explanation, whatever that may be. As they have done in the past. So do I really need to have faith in them and their methods if they have proven themselves in the past?

I acknowledge that theists claim to have evidence for their deity. This they label as a personal relationship with their deity or a personal moment shared with that deity. This is not physical evidence and bares no actual weight in the real world. I can dismiss this claim as I have never experienced a deity speaking back to me. No faith needed.  Sometimes artifacts or “Christian science” claims to have evidence. I have never heard of this evidence coming to light as anything more than just a hope that it leads to a deity.
In all my years on this earth I have never experienced a sign that any deity exists. If that isn’t enough evidence to make faith unnecessary I don’t know what is.   

I found this thought experiment useful
Quote
Take out a sheet of paper and draw a vertical line down the middle, dividing it into two columns. At the top of the left side, write "Evidence for the creation story," and on the top of the right side, write "Evidence for natural origins." Anyone who has earned a high school diploma should be able to fill the right column with brief summaries of evidence supporting natural origins of the what exists today. Those with college-level science education will need more paper. And the left side? It remains blank.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/01/atheism-does-not-require-faith.html

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #184 on: November 29, 2013, 04:54:03 PM »
I thought it ran its course and everyone was done with it. I still have what I typed though if anyone is still involved in this thread.

Disbelief does not require faith. I believe in the natural world which I view and perceive with my own eyes. I witness the natural world exist without god, gods, or goddesses.
Perhaps I place faith in the scientists who understand and explain the big bang in ways I don’t. I have faith that if they are wrong they will correct themselves and find the actual explanation, whatever that may be. As they have done in the past. So do I really need to have faith in them and their methods if they have proven themselves in the past?

No, you don't place any "faith" in scientists. The acceptance of scientific principles (which are based in demonstrable evidence and sound reasoning) are tentative positions that can easily be changed with the evidence. Practicing faith is backwards of this - starting with a conclusion and pushing out, or skewing, any contrary evidence or good reasoning to the opposite. That is not science. In fact, science does not tell us about "absolute truth" like faith tries to. It is dynamic not static.

Bottom line: Tentatively holding a position is NOTHING like having "faith" b/c faith is not tentative. It is fixed and held onto very tightly from the moment of belief.

DIAGRAM OF DIFFERENCE:

SCIENCE: Observation>Hypothesis>Gathering Evidence>Testing>Conclusion>Theory

FAITH: Observation>Conclusion>Selective Evidence Gathering>Defense
« Last Edit: November 29, 2013, 05:00:55 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #185 on: November 29, 2013, 05:04:26 PM »
Bottom line: Tentatively holding a position is NOTHING like having "faith" b/c faith is not tentative. It is fixed and held onto very tightly from the moment of belief.

I really like that and I warn you I may steal it  :P

I didn’t mean I place faith in scientist to deliver the absolute truth. Perhaps trust would be a better word choice than faith. I trust scientist who understand and explain the big bang in ways I am unable. And if they are wrong I trust that they will admit it and inform me of what is now true or truer.. lol tentatively true.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2529
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #186 on: November 29, 2013, 10:37:23 PM »
Bottom line: Tentatively holding a position is NOTHING like having "faith" b/c faith is not tentative. It is fixed and held onto very tightly from the moment of belief.

I really like that and I warn you I may steal it  :P

I didn’t mean I place faith in scientist to deliver the absolute truth. Perhaps trust would be a better word choice than faith. I trust scientist who understand and explain the big bang in ways I am unable. And if they are wrong I trust that they will admit it and inform me of what is now true or truer.. lol tentatively true.

That's the thing! What if it's all lies and they are just making it up? How would anybody know?
You most certainly do have to use faith in what the scientists say.

We should especially be cautious when it contradicts the Biblical account. Millions of people in the world believe science is run by the Illuminati in order to discredit the Bible because the Illuminati hates Christianity with a passion.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12025
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #187 on: November 29, 2013, 10:59:48 PM »
We don't use "faith" in what they say, we base our analysis on the overall information on the subject (good/bad positive/negative for/against) and come to an overall conclusion. Religious people, especially those born into it, don't do that. They have faith it is true without weighing anything. Faith is the lack of evidence.

People who believe in science based on faith don't actually believe in science because "faith" is without evidence.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #188 on: November 30, 2013, 12:40:39 AM »
Disbelief does not require faith.

Disbelief is a lack of trust. This lack of trust can be based on many many things.

Quote
Perhaps I place faith in the scientists who understand and explain the big bang in ways I don’t. I have faith that if they are wrong they will correct themselves and find the actual explanation, whatever that may be. As they have done in the past. So do I really need to have faith in them and their methods if they have proven themselves in the past?

No...at this point...you have trust. Maybe not so much in the individual scientists themselves but you trust the scientific process as a whole.

Quote
I acknowledge that theists claim to have evidence for their deity. This they label as a personal relationship with their deity or a personal moment shared with that deity. This is not physical evidence and bares no actual weight in the real world.

Why not? A personal relationship with a deity is the same as a personal relationship with a person. Either they fulfill their promises or they don't. The concept of a deity is nebulous. My concept of a deity may be rooted in other peoples faith in a particular deity. My personal experience with that concept of deity is my own. Your experience with me is vastly different compared to other people's experience with me. Your experience with other people's faith in a deity is your own. Your faith in me cannot compare with my daughters faith in me...nor my current and past employer's experience with me. Your faith (or lack thereof) in the existence of a deity cannot compare to anyone else's experience.

Faith does not require physical evidence. Trust does...but not faith. I have always been taught not to trust people who try too hard to convince me to trust them. The question you need to ask yourself is this...do you put your trust God? Jesus? Yourself? Other people?

Quote
In all my years on this earth I have never experienced a sign that any deity exists. If that isn’t enough evidence to make faith unnecessary I don’t know what is.

Butt...you gotta have faith!

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #189 on: November 30, 2013, 12:59:29 AM »
Quote
Atheism requires as much faith as the belief that the sun exists.
By me.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #190 on: November 30, 2013, 01:03:50 AM »
What if it's all lies and they are just making it up? How would anybody know?

That's why good science should be carefully performed and documented with equal care.  If you repeat a scientist's experiment yourself, you should get similar results.  Mix two chemicals in specified quantities, get a certain amount of a compound.  Drop a rock from the same height, have it fall at the same rate.  Sloppy science eventually gets cleaned up and thrown in the trash.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #191 on: November 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM »
That's the thing! What if it's all lies and they are just making it up? How would anybody know?
Easy.  If they're lying, other people - scientists or not - who do the same experiments would get different results.  More importantly, they would get consistently different results.  In short, it would not be difficult to find out whether they were lying or not.

Quote from: skeptic54768
You most certainly do have to use faith in what the scientists say.
I wouldn't call it faith.  Faith means that it's impossible to know for sure, but science can rule out false stuff fairly easily.

Quote from: skeptic54768
We should especially be cautious when it contradicts the Biblical account. Millions of people in the world believe science is run by the Illuminati in order to discredit the Bible because the Illuminati hates Christianity with a passion.
Irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether millions of people believe something or not.  What matters is whether they have anything to back up their belief.  And I would wager everything I own on them not having anything that resembles real proof.  What they have is happenstance that oh-so-neatly supports what they want to believe, but it's when you get the results you expect that you have to be most wary - because there's a good chance you messed up somewhere.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1794
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #192 on: November 30, 2013, 01:49:28 AM »


That's the thing! What if it's all lies and they are just making it up? How would anybody know?
You most certainly do have to use faith in what the scientists say.

We should especially be cautious when it contradicts the Biblical account. Millions of people in the world believe science is run by the Illuminati in order to discredit the Bible because the Illuminati hates Christianity with a passion.

The truly paranoid will never discard their delusions and go on believing Obama's citizenship is unproven, that the lunar landings were faked, that the US government is spraying its own populace with toxins via jet contrails and that the Mafia, CIA and Chicago Cubs actually killed JFK. But for scientists in an age of near-instantaneous communication to conceal / obscure discoveries is ludicrous.

The scientific / technical community is a very large place. One of the benefits of the largest, best-educated population in human history is that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of people in virtually every field of scientific inquiry. That is a lot of people to keep quiet about anomalous data / experimental results / observations, even in a single field.

Further, such specialists are scattered across the globe, working for competing nations and organizations, most of them hoping against hope for prestige, tenure, the sheer joy of discovering something unexpected. Is it really credible that such a welter of individuals would agree to present a completely united front to trick everyone outside their field?
 
Edit: If the Illuminati exist, they're doing a pretty poor job. Last time I checked, there are a number of people who still believe in the Bible.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 01:53:23 AM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #193 on: November 30, 2013, 01:57:51 AM »
That's the thing! What if it's all lies and they are just making it up?

What if the moon is really made of cheese?!!! Holy SHIT what a mind blowing concept because there is absolutely no way for me to either prove or disprove that particular claim by myself! I just have FAITH in what other people tell me!


What if the God in the Bible is actually real?!!! Holy SHIT what a mind blowing concept because there is absolutely no way for me to either prove or disprove that particular claim by myself! I just have FAITH in what other people tell me!

At least I can look up into the sky and see the moon.




« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 02:02:44 AM by Mr. Blackwell »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #194 on: November 30, 2013, 02:07:09 AM »
you know when science is wrong because then stuff wont work.
I am always disgusted at people who try to discredit science while typing on their laptop, changing their TV channel via remote, and taking Rx pills for their ailments.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2529
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #195 on: November 30, 2013, 03:24:19 AM »


That's the thing! What if it's all lies and they are just making it up? How would anybody know?
You most certainly do have to use faith in what the scientists say.

We should especially be cautious when it contradicts the Biblical account. Millions of people in the world believe science is run by the Illuminati in order to discredit the Bible because the Illuminati hates Christianity with a passion.

The truly paranoid will never discard their delusions and go on believing Obama's citizenship is unproven, that the lunar landings were faked, that the US government is spraying its own populace with toxins via jet contrails and that the Mafia, CIA and Chicago Cubs actually killed JFK. But for scientists in an age of near-instantaneous communication to conceal / obscure discoveries is ludicrous.

The scientific / technical community is a very large place. One of the benefits of the largest, best-educated population in human history is that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of people in virtually every field of scientific inquiry. That is a lot of people to keep quiet about anomalous data / experimental results / observations, even in a single field.

Further, such specialists are scattered across the globe, working for competing nations and organizations, most of them hoping against hope for prestige, tenure, the sheer joy of discovering something unexpected. Is it really credible that such a welter of individuals would agree to present a completely united front to trick everyone outside their field?
 
Edit: If the Illuminati exist, they're doing a pretty poor job. Last time I checked, there are a number of people who still believe in the Bible.

I am curious who you consider to be paranoid?

Where is the line drawn for you between "paranoia" vs "maybe they have a point?"

Is it based on the fact that conspiracy theorists are the minority?
Might I remind atheists they are the minority?

Is it fair to say, "Atheism is a cult because only a select few buy into it?"
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2529
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #196 on: November 30, 2013, 03:28:14 AM »
you know when science is wrong because then stuff wont work.
I am always disgusted at people who try to discredit science while typing on their laptop, changing their TV channel via remote, and taking Rx pills for their ailments.

I would hope you know the difference between direct science and indirect science.

The examples you gave are direct science.

Indirect science is stuff like claiming what existed billions of years ago or knowing the universe is billions of years old. No experiments or tests can be run to determine what happened billions of years ago. No experiments or tests can be run to determine if life formed from non-life.

Direct science is the awesome stuff we theists love.

Indirect science is what we laugh at. It can't be science if you can't run an experiment or test.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #197 on: November 30, 2013, 03:42:06 AM »
Indirect science is stuff like claiming what existed billions of years ago or knowing the universe is billions of years old. No experiments or tests can be run to determine what happened billions of years ago.

False.  Read this article on radiometric dating.  If you have a good understanding of college-level chemistry, also check out the journal references at the bottom of the article.  We aren't talking Carbon-14 here; we're talking about measuring multiple isotopes that decay at different rates, and getting approximately the same age from the samples.

Quote
No experiments or tests can be run to determine if life formed from non-life.

Yet.  We only have to successfully do it once, and if it's repeatable we will have a new theory.  I predict that this will happen before the year 2050.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2529
  • Darwins +45/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #198 on: November 30, 2013, 03:54:06 AM »
Indirect science is stuff like claiming what existed billions of years ago or knowing the universe is billions of years old. No experiments or tests can be run to determine what happened billions of years ago.

False.  Read this article on radiometric dating.  If you have a good understanding of college-level chemistry, also check out the journal references at the bottom of the article.  We aren't talking Carbon-14 here; we're talking about measuring multiple isotopes that decay at different rates, and getting approximately the same age from the samples.

Quote
No experiments or tests can be run to determine if life formed from non-life.

Yet.  We only have to successfully do it once, and if it's repeatable we will have a new theory.  I predict that this will happen before the year 2050.

That webpage doesn't explain how they know how many isotopes are there to begin with or how they know they take billions of years to decay.

Science was made up by humans so they are just guessing how old these things are by assuming the methods are true.

It's circular. You can't validate the scientific method by using the scientific method.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #199 on: November 30, 2013, 04:10:19 AM »
That webpage doesn't explain how they know how many isotopes are there to begin with or how they know they take billions of years to decay.

The information is available in multiple chemistry books.  I could give you an abbreviated version, but it's late.  Maybe tomorrow night.

In the meantime, I leave you with one of My favourite xkcd cartoons:

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1794
  • Darwins +76/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #200 on: November 30, 2013, 04:15:47 AM »
I am curious who you consider to be paranoid?

Where is the line drawn for you between "paranoia" vs "maybe they have a point?"

Is it based on the fact that conspiracy theorists are the minority?

No. I draw that line on how well accusations about conspiracy stack up against actual evidence. Are you making a specific charge of conspiracy about scientists in one or more fields?



Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12025
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #201 on: November 30, 2013, 05:25:56 AM »

Is it fair to say, "Atheism is a cult because only a select few buy into it?"

I read in the Washington Post, I think, where over 900 million people (+/-) are "atheistic". So, how is about 1 billion people a minority? Also I read elsewhere (don't remember where) that a general estimate of about 15%-20% who identify as a believer in some sort of god, mainly in the main four religions actually don't. So, let's say there are 6 billion god-believers then, to be conservative, 15% of 6 billion is 900 million. So add that with the other and that's about 2 billion people. Now, these aren't exact figures, and no one could really know the exact figures but let's say it's about 2 billion: that's not a huge minority.

BUT let's go a step further: I've heard all my life from Christians that, "If you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, and praise the one True God™, then, you are going to hell." Which means minus the alleged 1.8 billion Christians in the world, 5.2 billion are "atheists".

A step further than that! Catholics are the only true Christian religion with their 1.5 billion...or protestants are the only one true Christians™ with their almost 500 million...or non-denominational (you skeptic) with their 10 million...or...

You get it skeptic? We're not in the minority by your logic--you are.

-Nam
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 05:29:26 AM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1722
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Atheism requires faith(?)
« Reply #202 on: November 30, 2013, 10:15:21 AM »
Dictionaries don't define God as a mythical being.

It's a false analogy. otherwise, dictionaries would say God is a mythical being.
Oh look, skep is still making sh!t up because he can't be bothered to verify his bs before he spouts off about it. Being quite familiar with his spectacular facility for avoiding anything that might undermine his nonsense, I just went ahead and did it for him:

From http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/God
the spirit, being, or force that many people believe created and controls the universe, especially the god of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions

Or here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/God?q=God
noun
•   1 [without article] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
•   2 (god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon god an incarnation of the god Vishnu
•   an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
•   used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once
•   3 (god) an adored, admired, or influential person:he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god
•   a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god:don’t make money your god
•   4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.

Or here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god?show=0&t=1385823004
God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

Or here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/god_1?q=God
:a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or a representation of this being: the god of war
:A god can also be someone who is admired a lot or too much: Dr. Tay is a god to me.
****************
So there you have it WWGHA members. None of the dictionary definitions say that God is not real, but neither do they indicate that it is. In fact, all four of them are quite careful to avoid committing to any position on the existence of such a being.

Notice how several of them also include an option to refer to a man as a god?

Why skep continues to waste his energy is beyond me.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.