Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170830 Jul 4, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
once again herre we have a creationist for all intensive purposes asserting that his nonsense is on par with with our sense and logic
LOL!

One more Topix atheist "I'm not really an intellectual, but I play one on Topix, can't you see by my avatar" appears on the scene.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#170831 Jul 4, 2013
Bro. Clownie is off to do battle in a world where sissy atheist are called girly men... Only real men can post!!!! Blood sweat & tears and no queers

Bro. Clownie

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170832 Jul 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are displaying your iggorance on an international forum.
IRONY!
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#170833 Jul 4, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you brought this up. Let's come to a clear understanding of what constitutes "proof." What kind of "proof" are you looking for, or what would you consider as convincing proof?
Before you answer that, consider some important points about the nature of evidence in determining history.
1) History is not and cannot be determined with the same critical burden of proof as in a criminal trial, which is "beyond reasonable doubt." History can be, and is determined by a lesser standard of cumulative evidence, much of which is circumstantial.
2) Circumstantial evidence is just as credible as direct evidence when taken as a whole, and when it is reasonable.
3) The historian does not have to be an eyewitness to what is written of. The historian looks for accounts of eyewitnesses and assesses their trustworthiness in a variety of methods.
4) If the historian does not have direct eyewitness accounts, then the historian must look for sources who knew the eyewitnesses and then look for more evidence that corroborates the information. Hearsay is not permissible in criminal court cases, but it is completely accepted in historical research so long as it's reasonably close to the original eyewitnesses themselves.
So now that we have discussed this, my question remains:
What kind of proof are you looking for?
Easy question - not so easy answer. ;)

That any God, conceived by humanity, at any time in recorded history, in fact - actually existed.

We have a Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal skeletons, fossils, dinosaurs. I believe this is tangible evidence Of their existence in the distant past.

"A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it.

What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into.

Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth.

It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone." ~Denis Diderot
French author, encyclopedist, & philosopher (1713 - 1784)

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170834 Jul 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
IRONY!
So sayeth the indoctrinated one.

Hey, Poly, how was space made? If the universe was a solid thingy, where did it get the space when it expanded?
Favorite Adversary

Brooklyn, NY

#170835 Jul 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy question - not so easy answer. ;)
That any God, conceived by humanity, at any time in recorded history, in fact - actually existed.
We have a Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal skeletons, fossils, dinosaurs. I believe this is tangible evidence Of their existence in the distant past.
"A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it.
What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into.
Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth.
It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone." ~Denis Diderot
French author, encyclopedist, & philosopher (1713 - 1784)
A healthy does of skepticism is a good thing for sure. But if there's such a thing as healthy skepticism, then it logically follows that there must also be an unhealthy skepticism. While we must look for the truth of any assertion, we must not be so overly critical that we miss the forest for the trees.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#170836 Jul 4, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Poor Lewis. His gearbox broke in front of us in Singapore.
Lewis was on pole there too.
<quoted text>
Not exactly the most lucky driver. I was rooting for him too…

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170837 Jul 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
One more Topix atheist "I'm not really an intellectual, but I play one on Topix, can't you see by my avatar" appears on the scene.
Worthless creationist loon with no proof of god, trying to criticize facts he doesn't even understand.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170838 Jul 4, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Bro. Clownie is off to do battle in a world where sissy atheist are called girly men... Only real men can post!!!! Blood sweat & tears and no queers
Bro. Clownie
Your opinions will matter after you've brave enough to prove the god you're lying to us about.

Cue insults, threats of hell, sock puppets & other dishonest methods of arguing back - these are after all the theists only comeback against reason, logic & hard facts.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#170839 Jul 4, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay we'll address this point first. This is an assumption that because God can control what will happen, that He will control what will happen according to our standards. Such a God would not be worthy of worship if He catered to our every whim.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Here, I disagree. She knew the difference between right and wrong. Telling somebody what they can and cannot do, is telling them the difference between right and wrong. What Eve didn't have prior to eating the fruit was guilt. There was no need for guilt when in compliance with God's directives.
<quoted text>
God knew. But God had to allow free will. God decides when to control or influence others and when not to. Now if Adam and Eve had obeyed God, they would enjoy immortality with their creator. By choosing to go against God's directive, they were found unworthy of immortality, and this rebellious trait was passed from generation to generation. Now notice that God didn't kill them outright. He could have, but didn't. But He did remove their immortality when He banished them from His presence and the Garden of Eden.
If God can remove immortality, then He can restore it as well. This is where He makes a promise to Adam and Eve that He will restore eternal life to their descendants.
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying. But you're viewing this as cosmic entrapment. Yes we love our kids and yes we want them to behave morally without toying with them. We allow them a certain amount of freedom. We allow them to make choices within boundaries of our limitations. Why do we stop kids from rushing into the street? Because we love them and don't want them hurt or killed of course. And there is the difference. We have no power over death. God does. And if that's true, then it's worth it to trust His judgement.
Now you may not agree with my answers, but that's okay. I have told you what I believe as I understand it. I have enjoyed this discourse with you, and I look forward to more if you're willing. Good night my friend.
First point..Because we have no other frame of reference then we have to use our STANDARDS. It is a content among Theists that God interacts with his creations on a daily basis, so using OUR standards is the only way we can have a legitimate conversation.

Either God can control what happens in the future or he can't. You approach a fork in the road, the future see's you taking the fork left. Did God know this is the direction you would take? Since the future has you taking the left fork and following that particular pathway, is it possible for you to have taken the fork right? God KNEW you would choose left, how is it possible for you change what God has predetermined for you? Free will is NOT possible when the creator is an all knowing being.

I disagree, neither Adam or Eve knew the difference between right and wrong. God and evil is a reference to right and wrong. People are labeled based on their behavior and intentions. The bible never shows us the age of either person. We know they were not created as babies, so we have no reference to their ages. The concepts of right and wrong are formed during our childhood, the time a person learns from their mistakes and forms the concepts of good and evil, thereby right and wrong. So how is it that either could know the right from wrong without knowing the difference between good and evil as the forbidden tree would have provided?

Telling someone what they can and cannot do is NOT telling them the difference between right and wrong. People need to be aware of the concept. I could tell a 5 years old that hitting his school mates is a good thing, and that he should always do so. Did I just show he the difference between right and wrong? These right and wrong principals are learned, learned as we grow form children to adults.

Once again, God KNEW what action they would take. He did nothing to change the out come.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170840 Jul 4, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Worthless creationist loon with no proof of god, trying to criticize facts he doesn't even understand.
Your current avatar suits you very well. Blank. Nothing there.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170841 Jul 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your current avatar suits you very well. Blank. Nothing there.
Says the lying creationist troll with no proof of god who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that water came from wine.

Your beliefs trump anything you have to say troll. Go back to the discovery institute, 2005 called to remind you that Palin lost the election.

Go on, make a weak insult, threaten me with your imaginary hell, add a sock puppet - do anything except prove the god you're lying to us about.
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#170842 Jul 4, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
A healthy does of skepticism is a good thing for sure. But if there's such a thing as healthy skepticism, then it logically follows that there must also be an unhealthy skepticism. While we must look for the truth of any assertion, we must not be so overly critical that we miss the forest for the trees.
I assume sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.

NOTE
Feel free to DISPROVE the following...

Please refrain from using Christian apologists as their viewpoints are clearly biased in favor of their dogma.

These alleged 'saviours/prophets' exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

"In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators. Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.

In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt.

Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court.
Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.

Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.

For example, the Egyptians recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood.

Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus,
there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts."

"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)

For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.

Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.

It would spoil the story!

How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?

"Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...

Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites."
– John Romer, Testament

In spite of this evidence you can, in fact, convert me! PTL. hallelujah!

1. Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do.

2. Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs.

May the force be with you!

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170843 Jul 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>First point..Because we have no other frame of reference then we have to use our STANDARDS. It is a content among Theists that God interacts with his creations on a daily basis, so using OUR standards is the only way we can have a legitimate conversation.
Either God can control what happens in the future or he can't. You approach a fork in the road, the future see's you taking the fork left. Did God know this is the direction you would take? Since the future has you taking the left fork and following that particular pathway, is it possible for you to have taken the fork right? God KNEW you would choose left, how is it possible for you change what God has predetermined for you? Free will is NOT possible when the creator is an all knowing being.
I disagree, neither Adam or Eve knew the difference between right and wrong. God and evil is a reference to right and wrong. People are labeled based on their behavior and intentions. The bible never shows us the age of either person. We know they were not created as babies, so we have no reference to their ages. The concepts of right and wrong are formed during our childhood, the time a person learns from their mistakes and forms the concepts of good and evil, thereby right and wrong. So how is it that either could know the right from wrong without knowing the difference between good and evil as the forbidden tree would have provided?
Telling someone what they can and cannot do is NOT telling them the difference between right and wrong. People need to be aware of the concept. I could tell a 5 years old that hitting his school mates is a good thing, and that he should always do so. Did I just show he the difference between right and wrong? These right and wrong principals are learned, learned as we grow form children to adults.
Once again, God KNEW what action they would take. He did nothing to change the out come.
The knowledge of good and evil is the passing judgments on what is. The deciding what is appropriate, particularly on the moral level. It is a sort of elevation of one's self to god like status. A second guessing of that which created your ability to exist.

There is no such thing in straight evolution based upon exclusively physical processes. You just do what suits you in your maintaining of your existence, including eating your own babies if nothing else is handy. You can always make more. There is no soul there, right? Just meat that can get you through a harsh winter.
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#170844 Jul 4, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Worthless creationist loon with no proof of god, trying to criticize facts he doesn't even understand.
Facts remain the Achilles' heel of all religions

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170845 Jul 4, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the lying creationist troll with no proof of god who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that water came from wine.
Your beliefs trump anything you have to say troll. Go back to the discovery institute, 2005 called to remind you that Palin lost the election.
Go on, make a weak insult, threaten me with your imaginary hell, add a sock puppet - do anything except prove the god you're lying to us about.
Rationality is not your strongest suit. Paranoia seems to fit you better.
xianity is EVIL

Toronto, Canada

#170846 Jul 4, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you brought this up. Let's come to a clear understanding of what constitutes "proof." What kind of "proof" are you looking for, or what would you consider as convincing proof?
Before you answer that, consider some important points about the nature of evidence in determining history.
1) History is not and cannot be determined with the same critical burden of proof as in a criminal trial, which is "beyond reasonable doubt." History can be, and is determined by a lesser standard of cumulative evidence, much of which is circumstantial.
2) Circumstantial evidence is just as credible as direct evidence when taken as a whole, and when it is reasonable.
3) The historian does not have to be an eyewitness to what is written of. The historian looks for accounts of eyewitnesses and assesses their trustworthiness in a variety of methods.
4) If the historian does not have direct eyewitness accounts, then the historian must look for sources who knew the eyewitnesses and then look for more evidence that corroborates the information. Hearsay is not permissible in criminal court cases, but it is completely accepted in historical research so long as it's reasonably close to the original eyewitnesses themselves.
So now that we have discussed this, my question remains:
What kind of proof are you looking for?
bible says

WHATEVER one asks in prayer shall be given to them

pray that god sends you next weeks lottery numbers

let us know when that happens,,I will take that as proof of gods existence
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#170847 Jul 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, loony, you would be missing your chance if you don't compose something. Make it your requiem played at your funeral. Give it a neat name, like "How I Told God to Fu*k Off, I Didn't Need Or Want Him". You would be an inspiration to millions of atheists. They would buy millions of copies. You could capture the youth market and use that song to point them the right way, yours.
You could be a real hero to the cause. Come on, that will be your last chance to jab a finger into the eye of a mythical evil entity, right?
You can't pass that up. You are the best there is.
No, but thanks. If I wrote a piece based on God it would be an ugly piece, full of evil and debauchery, I prefer to write about beauty and majesty, or focus on human emotions, there are none of these when talking about your demon God.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#170848 Jul 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your current avatar suits you very well. Blank. Nothing there.
And your current avatar suites you very well

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#170849 Jul 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And your current avatar suites you very well
Thank you, I try to look the part.

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) 3 min USAsince1680 1,223,588
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 26 min tom wingo 29,713
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 309,741
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... Apr 29 Sauck freedom 6
News Freshman Jonah Bolden declared ineligible for U... (Sep '14) Apr 29 tom wingo 4
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 27 TerryE 5,306
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) Apr 25 Yogurt Nads 82
More from around the web