>> ^shagen454:

The part about "looking" and nature deciding at that instant about the state of something is total bullshit. So, basically the entire theory falls apart for me right there.


Not sure whether the whole theory is bullshit to you because you can't understand it, or you won't understand it because you've declared it bullshit. They could both be true, sort of like a "superposition" of posibilities.

Unlike religion, however, a leap of faith is not needed. You don't have to believe in magic. On quantum levels, this IS the nature of reality, and can be (and has been over and over) demonstrated through observation, experimentation and measurement. As xxovercastxx implied, that doesn't mean we understand it yet, nor do we have to. But we can make predictions with the theory and test them, and the predictions prove out every time.

Then again, I hear neutrinos can travel faster than light nowadays. NOT predicted!

Utilitarianism provides a rational non-absolutist basis for a moral code that is based upon scientific methods. It is deeply flawed but 100 times more rational than religious deontology and requires no leap of faith. Pain and pleasure in their most basic incarnations are universal ergo absolute. QED.

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
- this restores one's faith in politicians

2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

3.A system of religious belief
- the Christian faith

4.A strongly held belief or theory
- the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

Yes, you actually do have faith in those things, and a whole lot more. Your idea of what is factual doesn't provide absolute knowledge, and often times what you consider factual is the interpertation of an authority whom you have placed faith in as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Many of the things that people consider factual they have never personally investigated but simply blindly trust in them because it seems reasonable to do so. Either because everyone agrees on them, or experts agree on them, etc. A lot of these decisions we make about the nature of reality are merely value judgements based on probabilities. It is inherent to take many leaps of faith every day in our understanding just to be able to operate in the world on a basic level.

>> ^peggedbea:
the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:

In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

(I accidentally posted this on your profile, too. Sorry)

Lots of atheists are spiritual; they simply do not believe in God, or the common concept of a singular, all powerful, all knowing super being.

"Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim."

No. A person only has to say "show me your god" and if you can't do that, then they can rationally deduce that your god does not exist.

Don't hang the Holocaust on the atheists. That's a real cheap shot. Atheists had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who believed in God, and believed that He justified their actions for the "greater good."

Your claim of an "absolute morality" is itself a relative concept in the sense that it is your definition of an absolute morality versus somebody else's.

The Golden Rule is a form of morality that has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Doing the right thing should always take into account "the greater good" for all mankind and our world; that does not require a belief in God.



In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

There isn't a good theory for relative morality. It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed. IE, the holocaust. So, if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, I think it is time to throw it away. I've found most people have no idea why they believe what they do about right and wrong, and fail to see the philosophical implications inherent in trying to determine a relative morality. An absolute morality is the only kind of morality which provides a coherent moral framework to determine how human beings should act. By definition, morality must be unchanging for right and wrong to have any real meaning.
>> ^rougy:
Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.
What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

There isn't a good theory for relative morality. It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed. IE, the holocaust. So, if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, I think it is time to throw it away. I've found most people have no idea why they believe what they do about right and wrong, and fail to see the philosophical implications inherent in trying to determine a relative morality. An absolute morality is the only kind of morality which provides a coherent moral framework to determine how human beings should act. By definition, morality must be unchanging for right and wrong to have any real meaning.
>> ^rougy:
Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.
What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.

What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

This was a complete dodge and just an extended diatribe against religion. It's quite a poor reflection on the sift that this is the number one video. Shows the total lack of intellectual honesty here..apparently the upvoters just eat up anything that trashes religion and turn off their brains.

The point of the question was, as I am sure you have perceived, that if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong? How are they even meaningful distinctions? Thus the questioners point about it being a leap of faith in the secular view to say that anything is truly right or wrong. This is a deep philosophical issue that atheism faces and Dawkins really lowers the bar of discourse here.

>> ^lampishthing:
Might I remind everyone that the question he asked was (paraphrasing) "Is there a leap of faith in an atheist deciding what is right or wrong?" I didn't hear that questioned answered. All I heard was "Religions' version of right and wrong is not today's socially accepted version."

Also, Dawkins expressed his problem with the word choice. Your paraphrase was slightly inaccurate because he was asking "Isn't it a leap of faith that atheists decide "absolute" morality". Well, "absolute morality" is describing a known morality that is simply acknowledged and accepted by everyone. (This is at least how I understand the term, anyway.) I don't recall any atheists stating that they know a morality that is absolute in that regard. So the answer is yes, it *is* a leap of faith. But again, the question is ridiculously flawed, and Dawkins does well breaking down why.

Might I remind everyone that the question he asked was (paraphrasing) "Is there a leap of faith in an atheist deciding what is right or wrong?" I didn't hear that questioned answered. All I heard was "Religions' version of right and wrong is not today's socially accepted version."

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



If you had cancer and all your doctor needs to do is prescribe some medication to you and you'll be fine, what happens to the entire oncology industry? From oncologists to companies that make expensive chemotherapy treatments, entire industries would cease to exist practically overnight.

Since corporations in the USA are required by law to maximise profits, isn't it fair to be a bit cynical and consider that those businesses that could be affected would want to protect their highly profitable corner of the market?

Embedding Disabled by request: *dead so I'm going take a leap-of-faith and say *isdupe