Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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.

“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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221578 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
It's far more likely that they are all wrong.
I agree.

To date,**all** religious' claims that have been tested, have been proven wrong.

It is unlikely they got anything right.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221579 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>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
Methodological naturalism can't test for the supernatural. Anything supernatural, therefore, would just be made up.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221580 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems highly unlikely to me that if this universe has a creator (or creators) that it/they would be in any way concerned with humans specifically, much less care about what humans do or who they sleep with.
I would have to agree-- the scale of the Universe is so large, and we humans are so tiny in comparison.

Any creator of the universe is more likely to be completely unaware of us.

And have no more concern for our collective fates, than the average surgeon is worried about all the bacteria he is killing every time he scrubs up for surgery...

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221581 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
If there was evidence for creator gods, then science would know about it. If a religion made a claim that was supported by objective evidence, then science could study and verify it. That is how we learn the truth. Not by faith. The fact that religion has to sometimes acknowledge what is true, such as the RCC embracing evolution, demonstrated the effectiveness of science, not religion, which never discovers anything.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221582 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we are both on a pursuit of truth then!:)
But to me, there is no such thing as "supernatural", because everything real is natural.
Indeed-- it has never turned out to be "magic", anytime an answer is discovered.

Has it?

<laffin>
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221583 Mar 26, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Funny, but your beloved Wikipedia begs to differ.

"A boot is a type of footwear and a specific type of shoe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot

Right in the first line, too. You'll either have to acquiesce, Riverdance, or disavow Wikipedia as a source. My money is on your organ grinder monkey dance.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221584 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Religion can be summed up as the basic human desire to become Cosmically Significant.

Or to put it another way, religion is simply feeding into the ego.

There are no exceptions to this observation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221585 Mar 26, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
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"?
Thats why I mentioned both humans and life on Earth

Personally I think there is a good argument to be made that of all life, man comes up the shortest. God made his covenant with"every living creature" and man was the only creation that screwed up so bad it needed to be saved from itself. For all I know the afterlife for other life may be a given. And perhaps part of the message of the Arc and 2 of every creature was that all life was worth saving and important. It sways in the Bible that even when a sparrow falls, God is there

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221586 Mar 26, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Religions are forced to change with the times or they become extinct.
Indeed-- and all religion that did not change with the times? Is no more.

Who here knows anyone practicing Druidism?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221587 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>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
Alleged divine punishment by a set of arbitrary rules written down by men is never a good thing. Your religion has never been demonstrated to have a deterrent effect, and, in fact, has been demonstrated to actually cause harm and reduce the quality of life of its adherents.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221588 Mar 26, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed-- it has never turned out to be "magic", anytime an answer is discovered.
Has it?
<laffin>
James Randi has a million dollars waiting for anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural. That money is safe.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221589 Mar 26, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There are a lot of levels and parallels in good movies. The symbolism can go unnoticed. I think sometimes its the artist's way of both including his message and dealing with the reality that it needs to be good for general consumption. There may be times I look too deep but I agree with you, there is often a tin of messages beneath the surface. That's what makes the great movies great a lot of times IMO
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221590 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Just as its a lot more likely they are right in more general terms.
A vast, vast majority of people from all walks of life since the dawn of time have believed in some type of creator god. To this day some of the most intelligent minds on the planet, some who are even scientists, believe this to be true.
So it is far more likely the problem is not the concept but rather the ownership.
But here is where I think science hinders itself. It desperately looks to avoid labeling anything as 'supernatural', even if it has absolutely nothing to do with gods or religions or faith. And why? Because to allow the supernatural exists in any firm weakens the search to disprove it in other areas
There should be no agenda from either side other than discovering the truth. But if either side has their mind made up that "whatever the answer is it isn't that...even though it could be" then how effective really is their search for answers?
Just as the church had an agenda against science to keep followers and the money flowing into the coffers when the answer to everything was "God", there are many in science whose goal is to discover something that disproves any supernatural explanation. It isn't objective.
There is no reason for man to be drawing lines in the sand. We should be seeking out as many answers together. Who cares what each individual thinks the answer may be when nobody knows? If truth is really the goal, we should be working together. But often times politics and social reasons and even personal selfish reasons take precedence. How many people are TRULY searching for the truth wherever it may lead? I bet not many
An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, especially in regards to dogmatic teachings forced upon innocents.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221591 Mar 26, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mean as far as day to day living so much as the person as a whole. If I have to spend my afterlife with an unrepentant child rapist that paid no price for his crimes then I'm not gonna be too thrilled about the afterlife. I think right and wrong are concepts that should transcend this existence and justice says there should be a cost that comes with doing harm to others. I don't know what that price should be but there should be something.
What afterlife?

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) 5 min Grey Ghost 1,507,968
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 313,635
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 18 hr Sport phartz 32,812
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
NCAA Basketball Tournament Feb 27 needhelp01 1
More from around the web