Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#209115 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Where? Please quote where I claimed omniscience.
You claimed there is no evidence for God, which means you would have to be omniscient to know that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#209116 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution (of any sort) does not require a destination. Evolution merely means change.

As for a standard, we are constantly changing our standard as our understanding increases.

Why does there have to be a standard that we do not make for ourselves?

You are using unstated assumptions here. Ones I do not agree with.
So if morality is subject to change then child molestation is not absolutely wrong...

Is that what you really believe?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#209117 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Again, what part of "do not harm others" do you not get?

Your concept of morality seems to be very flawed, and not at all moral IMHO.
You are appealing to absolutes again...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#209118 Jan 30, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
I think man dies in hell. I think Genesis is metaphorical. And I think the devil is more of a force than an entity. Although I would have a hard time articulating the last statement. I see evil more than some thing that can't think. I believe evil often has purpose and targets. But I don't think there is some guy with a pitchfork. So I don't know how to explain it. Maybe like an infection of the soul would be the best way. As for the second part I agree with you in theory but I think you may be oversimplifying it. For example, someone might think the best way reduce crime is to enforce a 6pm martial law curfew. It stops a lot of wrongs. But at what cost? I really can't think of a way God could prevent wrongs against others (for the most part anyway) without tampering with free will. Then you got another possible factor. I believe this life is a test. If this life was all there was and it was are only go around then I'd be more inclined to agree. But in the same way say patents being strict can piss a kid off yet when he gets older he appreciates that it built character and better prepared him for life, I think life being how it is better prepares us to become who we need to be so we can enter the next life. But I do get your logic obviously. And sometimes there is no reason to complicate things. If someone can stop bad things from happening then why not? But I just think this situation isn't as obvious
JMO
OK, thanks for that.

I don't know what the problem would be with giving people the will to do good and right if it were in your power. Why give them the ability to will harm and then tell them not to use it? If you had control over your kid's sense of lust, as with an imaginary toggle switch, wouldn't you keep it inactive until you wanted them to be able to enjoy sex? Would you give then the urge to mate and instruct them to resist it?

I am told that I am made in my maker's image, but somehow, I find that I'm nothing like his description physically or psychologically. Apart from the god having none of my physical attributes (it's immortal, immaterial, and lives outside of space and time), none of my experiences and I none if its (I get sick, lonely, cold, etc.), I am told that I cannot understand its motives or thoughts when they seem illogical or cruel. The god virtually never does what I would do. I wouldn't have tempted Adam and Eve, drowned the earth, toyed with Job, given man a will that could destroy his soul, built a hell, loosed a demon on earth and mankind, punished sin or anything else, or ask to be worshiped.

And I did note that you don't believe that most of that occurred. But I think that is because you are like me, and are trying to reconcile a god belief with your own sense of decency, which essentially forces you to reject most of that doctrine as I have.

I realize that some will consider the following blasphemous, but I'll say it anyway: I would love a shot at godhood. I think that people would like my vision much more. I would give my creatures the will that matched the behavior and experience that I wanted for them. Everybody would be good and happy for it, and nobody would need to worship me. There would be no use for pain or suffering, so my creatures would never know it or even be capable of experiencing it. There would be no shame, guilt, or regret because there would be no cause for them.

Given a choice, would you choose my universe.

That's why I reject the claims for a personal god. I just can't believe a god would make a world with suffering or the possibility of damnation. The world works like a godless one. Suffering is what prods us to stay alive and moral. People that can't feel physical pain die young with a lot of scars, and people that can't feel shame or remorse behave sociopathically. We need those things in a godless universe in which we are on our own, but not in one containing a god at least as loving as I (and probably you) would be.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#209119 Jan 30, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

<some text deleted to allow space for the response>

I am told that I am made in my maker's image, but somehow, I find that I'm nothing like his description physically or psychologically. Apart from the god having none of my physical attributes (it's immortal, immaterial, and lives outside of space and time), none of my experiences and I none if its (I get sick, lonely, cold, etc.), I am told that I cannot understand its motives or thoughts when they seem illogical or cruel. The god virtually never does what I would do. I wouldn't have tempted Adam and Eve, drowned the earth, toyed with Job, given man a will that could destroy his soul, built a hell, loosed a demon on earth and mankind, punished sin or anything else, or ask to be worshiped.
And I did note that you don't believe that most of that occurred. But I think that is because you are like me, and are trying to reconcile a god belief with your own sense of decency, which essentially forces you to reject most of that doctrine as I have.
I realize that some will consider the following blasphemous, but I'll say it anyway: I would love a shot at godhood. I think that people would like my vision much more. I would give my creatures the will that matched the behavior and experience that I wanted for them. Everybody would be good and happy for it, and nobody would need to worship me. There would be no use for pain or suffering, so my creatures would never know it or even be capable of experiencing it. There would be no shame, guilt, or regret because there would be no cause for them.
Given a choice, would you choose my universe.
That's why I reject the claims for a personal god. I just can't believe a god would make a world with suffering or the possibility of damnation. The world works like a godless one. Suffering is what prods us to stay alive and moral. People that can't feel physical pain die young with a lot of scars, and people that can't feel shame or remorse behave sociopathically. We need those things in a godless universe in which we are on our own, but not in one containing a god at least as loving as I (and probably you) would be.
Hello, old friend.

I agree completely. In this light, I wonder if you were able to see last nights episode of Nature on PBS--is it available in Mexico? Probably not. It centered on a species of delightful little monkeys called the crested black macaques who live in a rainforest on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia. Their population has been reduced by 90% because they are hunted for their meat, which is a very expensive delicacy. The species is protected by law, but enforcement is lax if it exists at all. The filmmaker/biologist teamed with a local biologist to make a movie to show to the local population so that they could understand what they were destroying. The hope was that the market for macaqes would drop to a level that would allow the population to recover.

The episode is called "The Funkiest Monkeys," and you can probably view it online.

When the film is shown to the native population, you can see from their faces that, while they are at first amused by the monkeys' antics, they are also deeply affected, fully able to see the monkeys as individuals with unique personalities and as fully sentient beings. I will be surprised if many of them continue to eat monkeys--I could see in their faces the dawning horror as they realized what they had been doing.

The point is that, if I am right, human nature includes a compassionate morality that makes it hard to knowingly do harm to others. It is only when allowed to remain ignorant or, worse yet, be deluded by false ideology, that they allow their actions to do harm on this level.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#209120 Jan 30, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, thanks for that.
I don't know what the problem would be with giving people the will to do good and right if it were in your power. Why give them the ability to will harm and then tell them not to use it? If you had control over your kid's sense of lust, as with an imaginary toggle switch, wouldn't you keep it inactive until you wanted them to be able to enjoy sex? Would you give then the urge to mate and instruct them to resist it?
I am told that I am made in my maker's image, but somehow, I find that I'm nothing like his description physically or psychologically. Apart from the god having none of my physical attributes (it's immortal, immaterial, and lives outside of space and time), none of my experiences and I none if its (I get sick, lonely, cold, etc.), I am told that I cannot understand its motives or thoughts when they seem illogical or cruel. The god virtually never does what I would do. I wouldn't have tempted Adam and Eve, drowned the earth, toyed with Job, given man a will that could destroy his soul, built a hell, loosed a demon on earth and mankind, punished sin or anything else, or ask to be worshiped.
And I did note that you don't believe that most of that occurred. But I think that is because you are like me, and are trying to reconcile a god belief with your own sense of decency, which essentially forces you to reject most of that doctrine as I have.
I realize that some will consider the following blasphemous, but I'll say it anyway: I would love a shot at godhood. I think that people would like my vision much more. I would give my creatures the will that matched the behavior and experience that I wanted for them. Everybody would be good and happy for it, and nobody would need to worship me. There would be no use for pain or suffering, so my creatures would never know it or even be capable of experiencing it. There would be no shame, guilt, or regret because there would be no cause for them.
Given a choice, would you choose my universe.
That's why I reject the claims for a personal god. I just can't believe a god would make a world with suffering or the possibility of damnation. The world works like a godless one. Suffering is what prods us to stay alive and moral. People that can't feel physical pain die young with a lot of scars, and people that can't feel shame or remorse behave sociopathically. We need those things in a godless universe in which we are on our own, but not in one containing a god at least as loving as I (and probably you) would be.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209121 Jan 30, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I'm sure thats the extent of your scientific knowledge, although I'm sure you must be joking as no one could possibly be that stupid.
Since you have failed to show any alternative method to science for determining that which is real, then I'll gladly accept your concession, and understand that you understand perfectly that science IS the ONLY methodology in determining the real from that which is only imagined.
Oh.

So love is only imagined.

K

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209122 Jan 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can define the age of Adam you can define the age of Earth, but only by flawed biblical reasoning. Note flawed, you will insist to be such, and we will define you as such flawed biblical reasoning..
The bible does not date the age of the earth.

It doesn't claim to.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209123 Jan 30, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Easy, the Qur'an sites the age of marriage for a young girl to be the age of puberty, and proclaims that age to be 15. However it is argued in the Qur'an that the age of puberty cannot be fixed at 15 since many young girls reach the age of puberty before 15.
The Prophet Muhammed took a girl, and I mean TOOK, of 9 years old for his wife, he also married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. Most little girls of 9 years of age are still playing with dolls not having sex with a man 7 or more times older than she. Religion does poison everything!!!
Everything?!

Religion prisons my coffee???

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209124 Jan 30, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I'm willing to bet you are incapable of an honest answer to this question..........We are sitting in a boat and suddenly turn around and see a wake, we didn't hear anything, but there it is, a wake. Now I wager $10,000 dollars it was caused by a boat, would you wager $10,000 that it wasn't?
No stupid, we're sitting in the boat...

I never said anything about a boat being there, just a wake.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209125 Jan 30, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect to Riverside Redneck:
A dog know what to do with evidence like a scent or a sound. Why don't you?
What would we say about somebody that came to this place without religious indoctrination? If faith does this to a mind, does it not deserve to be considered a mental disease the way schizophrenia is? This degree of separation from native reasoning is simply neither normal nor healthy.
That's always a humdinger, "with all due respect"....

Sort of like "no offense,but" right before you say something offensive.

You're a dickhead the way you categorize religion with mental illnesses.

You asked in what way are your words hurtful to Christians, that's how.

You're a POS Christophobe.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209126 Jan 30, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are reading too much into how I view science
I simply haven't kept abreast of the study of bumblebees! I am fine with it if science has figured it out
Sorry. It's just that so many of the theists here are anti-science.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209127 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is harming others a bad thing in atheism?
Are you saying "not harming others" is a bad thing?

I would think harming others is a bad thing in almost anyone's book.
mtimber wrote:
You have claimed a position but not supported it.
"Don't harm others" is an axiom. Axioms are agreed upon. They are not supported.

So I guess you don't agree with "don't harm others"?
mtimber wrote:
Why is it wrong for one strong entity to rule over a weaker entity, it seems you have abandoned evolution as a driver of morality as evolution cannot supply the position you appeal to.
The strong ruling over the weak has a name. It is "bullying". Apparently you are all in favor of bullying. I am glad you don't live in my town.
mtimber wrote:
If evolution were true, harming others could well be a good thing if it causes your progeny to survive.
Oops. Naturalistic fallacy on your part. Evolution is not the basis of a moral philosophy.

Just because evolution is true does not mean "bloody in tooth and claw" is a good basis of behavior.

Besides, we are a social species. Acting bad toward the whole could well get your genes deleted from the gene pool.

I suggest you read up on Robert Heinlein's idea of "enlightened self-interest".
mtimber wrote:
You are contradicting your own stated worldview by insisting that harm is absolutely morally wrong.
No I am not, as shown above.

You are merely constructing a straw man (oops, another fallacy) and beating up on it. You views are far too simplistic.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209128 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed there is no evidence for God, which means you would have to be omniscient to know that.
Fail.

Claiming there is no evidence of God is not a claim to omniscience. Not even close. For one, there IS no evidence of God...not any that has been found yet. I will admit that maybe someday someone will discover evidence of God, but that is a different matter. "There is no evidence of God" is based off what we know today.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209129 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if morality is subject to change then child molestation is not absolutely wrong...
Is that what you really believe?
***I*** believe it is wrong. Society believes it is wrong. Heck, even YOU believe it is wrong. But that does not make it an absolute.

Unlike you, I don't know everything.

And you still don't seem to get "don't harm others". Why is this such a difficult concept for you to get? Religion?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209130 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are appealing to absolutes again...
You think that because you see everything in terms of absolutes. All you have is binary thinking...black or white.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#209131 Jan 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Changing a name is not "discovering".
You said Crick and Watson "discovered" it.
Here's some homework for you, Sis. Look up two definitions, preferably in English:
"rename", and "discover"
I think this will help you out of this particular state of confusion you are in.
Then you can get back to your previous state of confusion on Darwinism and the Pope being Atheist.
Ahh buck have you decide to copy my tactics?

There is hope for your yet.

But I see toy have not yet given up lying. must be too deeply engraved in your psyche

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#209132 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

"Don't harm others" is an axiom. Axioms are agreed upon. They are not supported.
So I guess you don't agree with "don't harm others"?
I never agreed to it. Who agreed to it? Why?

The lion who eats the antelope didn't agree to it. Is he immoral? Why or why not?

Why should the lion get a pass and I don't?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#209133 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what you've been saying, that's what you've changed your story into.
You said that DNA was discovered about 75 years ago. Then you specifically named Watson and Crick for their discovery of DNA, you called it an "amazing discovery".
Now you back pedal and change your story.
Pathetic.
OK lets look at it from a completely different angle that may be more to your understanding

Assume you could not read or write, assume you did not know what a book was.

You find something that you can look at and see that there are squiggles on the various leaves of funny leafy stuff between the two hard bits that enclose it

You call this strange thing an ugg

Many years later some people who have the benefit of maybe 100 years advances in educational and scientific understanding come across this ugg, they look at it, they examine it they study it and they eventually derive some semblance of meaning for this ugg. And they call it a bible.

Now although the ugg/babble was discovered by the illiterate moron we are calling you the significance/understanding of the ugg/babble was not discovered until some cleverer people took a closer look with more relevant technology that allowed them to see in more detail.

There does that make it easier to understand?

Also note that there was no back-pedalling but please feel free to clone buck tactics, he seems to have cloned mine.

I wonder if Francis Crick was in any way related to buck, that would be a fine piece of irony would it not?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209134 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if morality is subject to change then child molestation is not absolutely wrong...
Is that what you really believe?
Let me clarify...

***I*** think that child molestation is wrong. And yes, I think it is wrong in every case.

But that does not make it an absolute truth. The most anyone can say is "I think it is wrong". But there is no absolute rule they can point to and say, "See!"

And that seems to be something you can't grasp

Perhaps in some bizarro world some society might consider it acceptable behavior. I would disagree, but there is no absolute rule. At the end of the day, all we can do is decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral.

In my case, I start from the position "don't harm others".

Since you consider harming others to be acceptable, why are you against child molestation?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 11 min Truth is might 317,577
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 46 min Reality Check 1,602,222
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr Fugsworth 11,572
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr LMFAO phart 34,230
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 14 Hellepsoaio 12
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep 12 Love 292
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 11 Rose of Tralee 201,880
More from around the web