Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone actually said that. But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is misquoting what Mohammed said. He didn't say that science would explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed. Rather, he said that science can explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%. Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon yet, I have no reason to believe that we won't. Now is this "faith"? I supposed. However, I would submit that this is an observation. Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.

Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually. That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

 

[BreezeWood]

.

REALIZING the CORRECT answer would require either an interview with God face to face or else extinction at death.

... directed faith particularly does not exclude the possibility for all others and is only a stepping stone, holding pattern to accomplish the task of realizing the correct answer.

why would a mortal be asking for metaphysical answers from the Almighty when it is their answers that will be judged. for Admission.

faith there is an answer is not the solution, Purity is when accomplished before the physiology expires. purity of good. extinction is failure, lack of (enough) faith.

Bullshit. If we were born with faith we would all worship the same thing.

well there is faith and not everyone worships the same, what we are not born with are the answers. answers needed for Admission to the Everlasting.

.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Each of these names is of the same Person.

He has lived since prehistory and He still lives today.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

So you deny that humans have discarded hundreds of gods in the past and you tell me I'm making shit up

 

[yiostheoy]

Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

So you deny that humans have discarded hundreds of gods in the past and you tell me I'm making shit up

I am pointing out that your conclusion that all religions are invented by humans is a fallacy conclusion. Technically it is a hasty generalization without any substantiation.

See the fallacy list again (you really need to memorize this list and stop purporting these fallacies if you want to stop being a redneck):

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

So you deny that humans have discarded hundreds of gods in the past and you tell me I'm making shit up

I am pointing out that your conclusion that all religions are invented by humans is a fallacy conclusion. Technically it is a hasty generalization without any substantiation.

See the fallacy list again (you really need to memorize this list and stop purporting these fallacies if you want to stop being a redneck):

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Religion is a human invention. Religion did not exist before humans existed now did it?
If you want to say gods existed before humans you can since we cannot ever prove that.

Religion however is a human construct

 

[yiostheoy]

You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system. Nothing better or worse. Nothing different.

I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us

If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself. Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

So you deny that humans have discarded hundreds of gods in the past and you tell me I'm making shit up

I am pointing out that your conclusion that all religions are invented by humans is a fallacy conclusion. Technically it is a hasty generalization without any substantiation.

See the fallacy list again (you really need to memorize this list and stop purporting these fallacies if you want to stop being a redneck):

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Religion is a human invention. Religion did not exist before humans existed now did it?
If you want to say gods existed before humans you can since we cannot ever prove that.

Religion however is a human construct

verbosity.
Q.E.D.

 

[jillian]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

*snip dumbass' link*

no one cares what you take on faith. jihadi's believe as much in their religion as you do in yours. there is nothing "intellectual" about religion. it is visceral.

but thanks for playing

 

[jillian]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

What are you really saying? That you are more fanatical ?!

Me? I would say less so, as atheists behave so much like religious fundamentalists.

Actually it was NoNukes that made the claim.

You on the other hand are asking questions, whether true questions or rhetorical ones. So I don't have any data on you yet however.

The two most famous atheists I know were Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, FYI.

Einstein (a scientist) did not worry much about Religion at all. He was too busy boinking his cousin on the side behind his wife's back. He lacked any ethics at all. This is perceived as the major shortcoming of atheists generally.

Russell (a mathematician and philosopher) became jaded against the notion of a God due to his own bad experiences during WW1. He too was known as a womanizer after his marriage failed, but this was not an ethical issue -- he was faithful to his wife while married to her. They just lost interest in each other after a few years. Russell was extremely ethical, so much so that he hated propaganda of any kind. So Russell demonstrates that you can have great ethics and still be nonreligious.

einstein's purported indiscretions are what you think are memorable about him?

that explains so much.

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it that atheists never start these threads?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me what makes more sense

Some supreme being spoke through a couple guys over 2000 years ago to give all of humanity its plan for us by setting forth a series of rules punishments and rewards

or

Religion was created by the ruling classes to control the masses

Occam's razor | philosophy

 

[yiostheoy]

einstein's purported indiscretions are what you think are memorable about him?

that explains so much.

He was a really wacko duck.

 

[yiostheoy]

Tell me what makes more sense

Some supreme being spoke through a couple guys over 2000 years ago to give all of humanity its plan for us by setting forth a series of rules punishments and rewards

or

Religion was created by the ruling classes to control the masses

Occam's razor | philosophy

I like Occam's razor. It is valid science.

But you are using it to set up straw men.

Besides the two hypotheses that you lay out above, there are plenty more.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me what makes more sense

Some supreme being spoke through a couple guys over 2000 years ago to give all of humanity its plan for us by setting forth a series of rules punishments and rewards

or

Religion was created by the ruling classes to control the masses

Occam's razor | philosophy

I like Occam's razor. It is valid science.

But you are using it to set up straw men.

Besides the two hypotheses that you lay out above, there are plenty more.

according to you religion is a product of some supreme being for whose existence there is absolutely no empirical evidence
According to me religion is a man made institution created to control the masses

Mine is the more rational explanation

 

[Czernobog]

Why is it that atheists never start these threads?

I started a couple of threads demonstrating the differences between atheism, and theism, and was attacked for "hating Christians".

 

[hobelim]

You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.

Very true.

what a billion religions would suggest is that there are at least a billion ways to sucker the gullible.

What more would any superior being possibly want or expect of humans other for them to aspire to become rational and compassionate people who say and do things that reflect the image and likeness of a holy and benevolent God?

Or it could care about as much about us as we do about gnats. I have no idea and don't make up answers to feel good.

I suspect that if a superior intelligence gave humans the key to becoming a higher form of life and they disregarded it and became degenerate perversions of their highest potential, they wouldn't give a shit if that deliberately chosen and preferred way to approach life whatever it may be was full of suffering and torment.