Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221557 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but how many people think something may be true is irrelevant to whether it is actually true. Maybe as humans we are all just inherently a little irrational and tend to see monsters in the dark where there aren't any. It's entirely possible that how this universe began is beyond our ability, even collectively, to grasp. I'm not saying we should not try our damnest to figure it out, I'm saying we as humans tend to come at things with a human POV, and that alone might hinder us. I mean, isn't it rather laughable and infantile to think that the universe revolves around us as a species?
Well its hard when you combine mans hubris to the fact that we don't know of any other life forms.

But it would be a lot more arrogant if we knew and still thought that

But I think its not so much revolves around man but life in general

What else in the universe would be more important than life? Especially if a higher power took the time to make it and as far as we know, no other?

It's one of the rare times where I think its less hubris and more process of elimination. Not that by definition mankind or life on Earth must be so important (if there is life elsewhere). But if there isn't other than what created us, what else would logically be on top as far as importance

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221558 Mar 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Dummy, boots are footwear and a specifically a type of shoe.
OOOH lala!

Are we gonna get into a pedantry argument over that too?!?

Cuz I know that boots are footwear, shoes are footwear but boots aren't shoes.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221559 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychology: "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context."
And yes, that does include a study of the emotions. And no, I'm not going to ride around the semantic merry-go-round with you on this. If you have a larger point to make, then make it.
Emotions are currently beyond the realm of science.

Happy?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221560 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Definitely. Reality TV was like the Hollywood wet dream. Low overhead, no high paid actors or writers. Just mindless garbage geared towards the lowest common denominator of the human psyche.
I am by far not a movie snob. If its "On The Waterfront, Rocky, Star Wars, Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Seven, Misery, Gone Baby Gone, The Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction, etc" I don't care the genre or subject matter. I just like movies that stick with you for one reason or another and obviously that are well done.
My favorites have been a lot of HBO series.
The crap that gets churned out that creates the Justin Beibers and the realty television shows is just sad. And who knows how much amazing talent or writing the world will never know about because they didn't know the right people, didn't screw the right people, or weren't 'marketable'. It's sad and annoying to think about
Poor Justin Beiber.... I wish everyone would just leave her alone.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221561 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I completely disagree
Having a different standard of proof or methodology does not mean the two must be natural enemies
For example. The RCC changed how it looked at Genesis and decided it was metaphorical because science showed it couldn't be literal. At least that was the conclusion of some who incorporate both into their thinking. They will actually allow one to help them better understand the other. That isn't a natural enemy
Not to mention, both can co-exist easily if truth is the only pursuit. Some simply believe science limits itself by refusing to allow for the possibility answers may be found in spots they refuse to acknowledge might exist. Or some won't acknowledge it anyway. Someone searching for the truth should exhaust every possibility and leave it in the table so long as it can't be ruled out
But there is no standard of truth for faith. That is exactly it's problem.

Science does not presume anything is false. It's religion that starts with assumptions as to what is right or wrong. Science questions everything, and assumes nothing. If something has an empirical effect, then it can be empirically studied. If it does not have an empirical effect, then it's meaningless to us anyway.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221562 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I was so disappointed they ended that as early as they did. I couldn't understand it. Then I heard it was coming back, then I heard they were doing a movie...then just nothing
It's hard to rank then as loved so many in diff ways from True Detective to Rome to Sopranos to Boardwalk Empire to The Wire to Deadwood. But me and my brother absolutely loved it.
Each season was a 12, 1 hour episode of a period piece, effectively making it the equivalent of filming six movies in the space of a year. The logistics and costs, not to mention the artistic investment, are staggering for such an endeavor.

Al was probably the most loveable, malevolent character ever conceived.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221563 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is objective, by definition, as I've described previously. Religion on the other hand is not. It emphasizes faith. If it had any proof, you better believe it would drop faith like a bad habit. Religion and faith will never lead to truth. How can it? Religion pretends to have all the answers already. It's a closed system.
Like I already said, it could be it has a lot of general things right. Perhaps sine day we even find out it was leaps and bounds ahead if science as far as general knowledge if we someday discover proof of creator gods. It just may have some specifics wrong. You obviously aren't suggesting it has to be 100% right about everything to discover truth right? Even if it may need science some day to prove what it knew to be true

And if it was a closed system the RCC would not have changed how it looked at Genesis

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221565 Mar 26, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> And what is your explanation as to why your spontaneous beliefs are irrational and magical?
Atheists do not have "spontaneous beliefs".

In fact?

Nobody does.... all religious beliefs are passed down by religious indoctrination.

None are spontaneous-- all the so-called "new" ones? Are simply copies of existing religious ideas.

None of it is new.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#221566 Mar 26, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you attempting to compare me to Stalin?

I did not study for the priesthood

I did not open 25000 churches

I did not re-instate the church institutions

But Stalin did.
The christinsanes love to conveniently leave out the connections between their murderous religion and killers.

It's what they do. Plus, ar ar is "touched" and whatnot.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221567 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Well its hard when you combine mans hubris to the fact that we don't know of any other life forms.
But it would be a lot more arrogant if we knew and still thought that
But I think its not so much revolves around man but life in general
Well, the Bible is certainly dismissive of non-human life forms. There is no heaven for them. Mostly they are good for enslaving, eating, and using as burnt offerings. So no, I don't see the Bible as celebrating life in general. Other religions do a much better job of honoring all life foirms, but every religion I know of is very, very human-centric.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#221568 Mar 26, 2014
Someone needs tissues again, how hard it must be to be perfect and endure so much persecution.

Cry baby chook.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221569 Mar 26, 2014
input wrote:
All atheists are full of shit and should be slapped across the face at every opportunity.
Christian love, destroying minds since 325 CE.

It is quite charming to witness Christians who are so unlike the mythical Christ. It is further proof of the immorality of the dogma and the fact that. Christianity is nothing more than worship of self.

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”

“You have heard that it had been said: You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves”

We have only nor thing in common! and it is not humanity; we both think the Bible is bullhockey. Good job!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221570 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't have any unified agenda. It's composed of individual scientists who all compete with each other, and who have an interest in proving stuff both right and wrong. If something is discovered to be either true or false, that fact is soon disseminated to all. This is why, for example, it's laughable to hear people question climate change. Yeah, there is alot about our climate that we don't understand, but it's just not credible to believe that so many scientists around the world across various fields of study are all in collusion to propagate a lie. With science, you can't keep knowledge a secret for long, including the knowledge that something we take for granted as true is in fact wrong.
I have been careful to say many or a lot or some, etc depending on what situation for what qualifiers I used. I would never claim a unified agenda.

And just gonna double up posts here. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say when you said science will accept when it is wrong. To a certain extent that us true once it is conclusive enough. But that was never my point. My point is there are some places they refuse to look or some explanations they refuse to consider. And IMO, in some cases it is because they don't want it opening the door for religion. For example, there could be ghosts without God. It could simply be the life energy of a human once separated from the body. But how many scientists would ever consider something could be ghosts? Especially if their goal is to disprove God? It's a conflict of interest sometimes that can hinder some in their search for truth

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221571 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
It's one of the rare times where I think its less hubris and more process of elimination. Not that by definition mankind or life on Earth must be so important (if there is life elsewhere). But if there isn't other than what created us, what else would logically be on top as far as importance
Even if life only exists on Earth (which seems increasingly unlikely) why would humans be the most "important" life forms? I mean, if you are judging by human standards, then of course that's the conclusion, by why judge by those? Especially if you aren't going to pre-assume that humans should be the "most important"?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221572 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Definitely. Reality TV was like the Hollywood wet dream. Low overhead, no high paid actors or writers. Just mindless garbage geared towards the lowest common denominator of the human psyche.
I am by far not a movie snob. If its "On The Waterfront, Rocky, Star Wars, Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Seven, Misery, Gone Baby Gone, The Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction, etc" I don't care the genre or subject matter. I just like movies that stick with you for one reason or another and obviously that are well done.
My favorites have been a lot of HBO series.
The crap that gets churned out that creates the Justin Beibers and the realty television shows is just sad. And who knows how much amazing talent or writing the world will never know about because they didn't know the right people, didn't screw the right people, or weren't 'marketable'. It's sad and annoying to think about
Shawshank is one of my all-time favorites. But I find I cannot watch it too often-- it's too intense.

One of the things I like about it, is that many who watch it, are confused as to who gets redemption in the story.

Of course, I like the lighter fare of Star Wars too-- even though it's basically about who is born into privilege, and who is just expendable cannon fodder. In Star Wars, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of self-made ideas. It *does* express the idea, however, that regardless of how one is born, one always has a choice in who the are.

Not unlike the movie Hell Boy-- another of my favorites. Which leads directly to Harry Potter-- again, it's a message of born into greatness, but also a message of you get to choose how you respond to how you were born.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221573 Mar 26, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotions are currently beyond the realm of science.
Happy?
Well according to you I'd have no way to tell.

Be sure to draft a memo to psychologists and psychiatrists around the world and let them know they are wasting their time, OK?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221574 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe if we had all the information we would consider it both
There could be other life forms, different planes if existence, senses we are only beginning to understand like intuition or a "sixth sense" that opens us up to perceptions we might not otherwise be aware of.
We don't even question things like dogs being able to sense fear or animals knowing when danger is around despite no signs or getting bad 'vibes' off people.
There may be so much stuff we don't know. We might be just babies in terms of life forms and knowledge. Maybe even the existence of God someday may be taken for granted as common fact because of what we learn. Maybe we will learn a lot if through science instead of science disproving it?
The rationale explanation may simply be we don't know a lot about what goes on around us and one day the supernatural will just be one more thing we learned about it?
It's possible
I think that in the case of dogs, it's their super-keen sense of smell. Functional exams of dog's brains show that their brains seem to devote as much grey matter to smell, as humans' brains devote to vision.

To me, that says a dog's world is a rich and varied as our human visual one.

In short, I think a dog's ability to sense things we find inexplicable, is simply a finely attuned sense of smell.

It's a guess-- but it's based on sound evidence and logic.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221575 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I complete agree with you. An important component of being a skeptic is to acknowledge that we don't know everything. Perhaps some day we might discover that the universe (or rather, this universe) was created by some entity, or that things we'd call deities exist somewhere out there in the universe. Who knows? But that is all the more reason to support science, because if any of those things are reality, then it will be science that will discover and prove it.

However, I think it's unlikely to the point of near certainty that if the universe was created, it was not created by the Abrahamic God, just as it's equally unlikely to be Quetzalcoatl, Brahman, Zeus, or Osiris.
Oh, I agree with you here: the human created gods are very low on the list of possibles.

I'd say it's far more likely to be completely natural explanation.

Mainly due to the fact, that in every case so far? The answer to "what is it" or to "how is that happening" has **never** turned out to be ...

... magic.

And are not **all** gods base in their ability to do ... magic?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221576 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Like I already said, it could be it has a lot of general things right. Perhaps sine day we even find out it was leaps and bounds ahead if science as far as general knowledge if we someday discover proof of creator gods. It just may have some specifics wrong. You obviously aren't suggesting it has to be 100% right about everything to discover truth right? Even if it may need science some day to prove what it knew to be true
And if it was a closed system the RCC would not have changed how it looked at Genesis
Religions are forced to change with the times or they become extinct.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221577 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what you would like to be true. I would like for there to be some kind of cosmic justice system too. But probably there isn't. Life isn't fair, however much we would prefer it to be. And life ends, however much we would rather not die. Personally, I would rather face those facts honestly than delude myself to make myself feel better. In fact, if this is the only life there is for us, then how immoral is it to waste it with an ideology that is false? An ideology that tells us that this life is unimportant, and promises to essentially pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today.
How do you get that? That an ideology that teaches you will forever be accountable for your actions on Earth is immoral? If anything you could face justice twice; man and then God. Whereas if someone felt all they had to do is stay out of reach of the law and they would never answer for their crimes could make someone all the more likely to behave immorally.

Personally I think whether people think they will continue to live on it not, morality and deterrent still have similar effects. But I don't see the logic in how the one that makes you accountable no matter what is more immoral then the belief that there is nothing after death so the price to pay won't be more than they were gonna deal with anyway

You are teaching here to demonized a belief in an afterlife or a justice system that extends past death. Whether it exists or not, it would only be a good thing

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Troll Alert 1,619,739
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 19 min Freedomofexpression 318,333
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Trojan 34,441
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 11 hr Wisdom of Ages 11,652
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 30 Frankie Rizzo 201,871
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 29 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web