Athiesm is a Faith?

[Mark 13:13]

Gosh. So little credit for all those people of many faiths who have taken science so far. Its feels like the spoilt grandchild who despises their elders but is happy to live of the sweat of their brows and they wealth thats passed on to them. There wouldn't be enough room in this forum pages for all the Theistic scientists and thinkers who built this society to what it is now. I think if Neil would agree.

It's not the religous belief that's the problem. It's proposing God as an explanation for the unknown. For starters, saying 'God did it' doesn't really explain anything.
I agree
Tyson certainly wasn't suggesting that theists can't be good scientists. He was just talking about the 'god of the gaps' mentality.
I agree
If you think we have a ridiculous position, your next thought should be that maybe you're not understanding us.
I dont agree that your position is ridiculous I just say its different from mine but mine is not rediculous either, my point was to another poster who tried to used Tysons well reasoned out point to try and apply it to all Thiests

---

Wisdom 2:1-24

Everything after verse 9 is a baseless insult, so I gues the conversation hasn't changed in thousands of years.

I agree and that was my point; and as such i can't see it changing while there still exists Theists and Athiests unless a new dynamic a third seat appear

---

1) I continue to refuse the premise that I carry the burden of proof just because i express a belief and repeating the point wont change this. If however I make the claim that I am correct and can prove it or you are wrong and I can prove it then I would accept said burden but I challenge you to show where I made any statements like the two I have just written.

Do you claim that your god exists?
I claim to believe my God exists now tell me whats false in my claim
*magic*

Burden of proof.

---

Rolf prove he doesn't and I will nananananah

That's the heart of the poverty of the theist position. You can't prove an imaginary being that has been defined as unfalsifiable doesn't exist. From that fact, you can't get to 'therefore, God exists' anymore than you can get to 'therefore, leprechauns exist'. And it is still your VERY best argument.

I was just replying in kind to another poster with the level of debate he was offering me and as you can see from the add on I agree its not the best of methods to have a discussion, so I agree with you apart from the point about it being our best arguement, but given the reluctance to accept anything left brained or subjective you do limit the less able to bring the depth of the Theist position to the discussion when at heart most of what we have is subjective but very real to us

[Whateverist]

What a disingenuous and dishonest little twat you are.

You are a condescending, presumptuous little cock aren't you?

So, Mark, which is it? Clearly you are disingenuous, dishonest, condescending and presumptuous. But, are you twat or cock? Inquiring minds need to know.

[Mark 13:13]

lol i am whatever you say i am; isn't that obvious; surely in an athiest forum you can call me what you like. of course your opinion is subjective so is of limited value.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I claim to believe my God exists now tell me whats false in my claim

please don't hide behind semantics.

We can remove "claim to" from this statement because it is a blatent attempt to hide behind a trap.

You're being disingenuous for the above statement because we both know you believe your god exists, not that you 'claim to believe'. You either do or you don't.

[Whateverist]

I have to say I don't always get the names used around here. I understand what a dick is but does cock also mean you are pushy, or something else? Also, I'll never understand how "twat" is a put down of any kind. I've never met one I didn't enjoy. What is the negative association for cunt et al? If I were you, I'd claim the mantle of twat, if you really had to choose.

Seriously, no offense intended. Mostly just having fun with the word play. Let me see, which of those descriptors have I experienced from you .. disingenuous? Yeah, a bit at times. Dishonest? Only when refusing to acknowledge a reasonable point you find distasteful. Condescending? Only by association; Christians who claim to know what's going down because they're on the A list of the big cheeze according to their special book all come off this way to a degree. You are less egregious than some. Presumptuous? Again, only by association given your claim to possessing a magic book with all the answers, etc.

So chin up. I don't know why you want to come on an atheist site to receive a predictable reception for the stuff you espouse. But you're less thick headed and daff than some we get through here. Happy new year, god's chosen. May your anticipation of the reward you look forward to in heaven compensate you for the likely let down you will never realize anyway.

[Aractus]

Dear oh dear, you can't even present coherent arguments ...

To answer a few people above who ask about the debate about words let me quote wiki "Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a god or gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[1] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief"." I am using the later " belief without proof " for Faith and would contend that both Athiests and Theists if they are honest with themselves will accept that when pushed back to the metaphorical which came first the egg or the chicken will accept that we have no proof beyond the reality we can experience.

Which came first - chicken or egg. Being that you a. believe in chicken, b. believe in egg, it makes no difference to your belief whether the chicken or the egg was "first". We don't really understand how evolution works well enough to appreciate how different forms of reproduction "get started", they just "do" - or rather we can simply observe that it happens.

We both have to accept a contradiction to logic, that being either something always existed or was created from nothing (and i mean nothing as in no fields no energy, real nothing)

That's fine to SAY "real nothing", but can you find it? No you can't, because nothingness doesn't exist, and many scientists believe that it can't exist. Thus your definition in attempting to restrict science is futile: if nothingness can't exist, then you can't start from nothing, can you?

Likewise thinking some athiests (in my opinion) would contend that the Cosmos does not need a creator to exist which again is a statement that can never be proved as each time we push back creation we find a new mystery that needs explaining but they have faith that science will finally push back the boundary to a final answer.

The universe is the way it is. There's no "pushing back" to anything. Just because you can't count the exact number of fundamental particles, doesn't mean you can't understand how the universe behaves. And it doesn't take faith, it takes science.

And while we're at it what are these "mysteries" you're rattling on about anyway??

Other athiest would argue like Einstein in a non personal God alien to the general monotheist God again with no undisputable proof.

Einstein rejected the possibility of any god, including a "non-personal god".

Try and do better next time. Also, do you realize you're on an atheist forum? Stop consistently misspelling atheist!!

[Lion IRC]

Also, do you realize you're on an atheist forum? Stop consistently misspelling atheist!!

and coherant [sic]

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Am I seeing things? Is this a dream? Did Daniel really just refute a fellow Christian? O_o

[Annik]

Am I seeing things? Is this a dream? Did Daniel really just refute a fellow Christian? O_o

I find he actually does this frequently. The dude ain't perfect, but his fingers aren't knuckle deep in his ears.

[Aractus]

Also, do you realize you're on an atheist forum? Stop consistently misspelling atheist!!

and coherant [sic]

Fixed I think I forgot to proofread the first line, lol.