Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Is Atheism a form of Faith?
I've wondered when reading posts if for some atheists their stance is a faith
PrintPage: First 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Last
 Is Atheism a form of Faith? | |
|
Samuel Locke
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 72 |
 #301
MarchHare wrote: That's a perfectly logical answer: if the cat didn't spill the milk, then someone else must have done so. Oh really? I had no idea. Do you have any idea what the "someone else" is because that sounds a whole lot like God. |
|
Samuel Locke
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 72 |
#302
mric wrote: Here are some options. A net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation. Nothing, because the universe is eternal. Nothing, because the universe is cyclical. However, since we don't know (and there are current theoretical limits to understanding within one Planck unit of time of the big bang), I would suggest that any of those options, or any others a cosmologist may suggest, are better than arbitrarily applying the attribute of 'self-causing' to a conscious being, and saying that is the answer. God is a weak answer because it appears to be an entirely arbitrary end to the regress problem. Your above answers are quite illogical I must say as is God. |
|
Samuel Locke
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 72 |
#303
atightropewalker wrote: Okay until we develop a science for pre-creation can we please try not to explain it in real world terms. Please remember science only applies to what we can observe. It has no domain over that which we cannot observe i.e pre-creation and God. And I'm not so sure that God is such a wrong ides. It seems to me to be used here as a blanket term for pre-creation i.e. whatever was before creation was God. It is a lot broader than, say, a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation and is a lot harder to disprove. Whether it is a satisfactory answer is another question but at the moment it seems that some people are saying that pre-creation is God where as others call it pre-creation (by this term I mean anything before the start of the universe) which seems a lot more correct (though more of a cop-out) than saying a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation which is almost certainly wrong. In fact believing in a net-zero quantum vacuum fluctuation, which is almost invariably wrong, seems to me a greater faith (certainly in the Kierkegaard sense, than arbitarily assigning it to a blanket God that people are too often unwilling to define. Exactly atheism is entirely faith-based. |
|
d_martin
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 21, 2009 Location: Quartzsite Arizona Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 39 |
#304
Cheshire wrote: My best guess is that you are trying to defend creationism or ID. I don't think it will be necessary in this context. I haven't challenged your belief in it; I have only stated that I can not accept it as evidence. If you want to consider creationism as evidence, then the problem does not exist for you. My argument is related only to positions that acknowledge there is no evidence for a god. I apologize if it seems that way. But your right that it is a guess (no offence intended). Only trying to understand your view of what Life actually is. By asking question to the possibility that there is more than what is in and of the earth. And just for the record; no, I do not feel the need to defend any thing ( unless of corse it be reasoning for). In all honesty how can what you might not believe be my lose, in anyway? You don’t have to believe something you don’t know is true, whether it be fact or fiction. But if you know it’s true? |
|
Cheshire
Aspect  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 12, 2009 Total Topics: 17 Total Posts: 762 |
#305
d_martin wrote: I apologize if it seems that way. But your right that it is a guess (no offence intended). Only trying to understand your view of what Life actually is. By asking question to the possibility that there is more than what is in and of the earth. And just for the record; no, I do not feel the need to defend any thing ( unless of corse it be reasoning for). In all honesty how can what you might not believe be my lose, in anyway? I'm not sure what you mean. Or not. |
|
Cheshire
Aspect Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 12, 2009 Total Topics: 17 Total Posts: 762 |
#306
Samuel Locke wrote: Oh really? I had no idea. Do you have any idea what the "someone else" is because that sounds a whole lot like God. Which is basically your argument. If the cat didn't spill the milk then god did. It is an unwillingness to acknowledge there is a lack of scientific experimentation to answer to the question. Originally, the theist argued the planet was created by God(in the late afternoon) until that was explained. Every time science explains a little more of our story you have to take a step back in time. Now, your at a fraction of a second after the expansion. How long do you think you can hold onto it? Edited by Cheshire on Oct 27, 2009 - 9:48 AM Or not. |
|
Samuel Locke
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 72 |
#307
Cheshire wrote: Which is basically your argument. If the cat didn't spill the milk then god did. It is an unwillingness to acknowledge there is a lack of scientific experimentation to answer to the question. Originally, the theist argued the planet was created by God(in the late afternoon) until that was explained. Every time science explains a little more of our story you have to take a step back in time. Now, your at a fraction of a second after the expansion. How long do you think you can hold onto it? Ah Chester Chester Chester. Your weakness lies in your blind faith of science. Science can only take you so far back. When science eats up that fraction of a second, then you can come talk to me. For now your assumptions are completely faith based. |
|
Cheshire
Aspect Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 12, 2009 Total Topics: 17 Total Posts: 762 |
#308
Samuel Locke wrote: Exactly atheism is entirely faith-based. No, it isn't. You don't need faith to -not believe in something. That is absurd. Or not. |
|
trilla
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 22, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 18 |
#309
Cheshire wrote: No, it isn't. You don't need faith to -not believe in something. That is absurd. As I said earlier in this thread, to say that you don't believe in god is not to say that you lack belief as a whole (insofar as theism is concerned), but rather that you believe in the nonexistence of god. Do you not? The statement "I don't believe in monsters." has the exact same logical value as the statement "I believe that monster don't exist." |
|
Samuel Locke
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 72 |
#310
Cheshire wrote: No, it isn't. You don't need faith to -not believe in something. That is absurd. But Chester by refuting one belief you must believe in something else. Your belief that God(s) do not exist is comepletely faith based(defined as a strong belief without proof). What is absurd is your dogmatic belief without proof or another reason. |
| |
||
Page: First 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Last
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.