Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244720 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

#172755 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ.
Of course.

That is your **faith** speaking-- not any facts you may or may not have.

Objectively? You have no facts at all-- until you engage your **faith**.

Then suddenly? You seem to have all the "facts" you want.

Amazing how that works....

... no?

But objectively, you are still left with no ...**actual** facts.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172756 Jul 21, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>True.
And yet the children are crippled.
And yet the children are crippled... yes. An unfortunate and unforeseen consequence.

... meh.

Why is it always the innocent children who bear the brunt of these things?

... and **that** is one of the major flaws with the god theory.

That **children** bear the brunt of adult human thoughtlessness.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172757 Jul 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly. This doesn't even get into how much even on those first 4 centuries were changed around and edited once they did finally get penned.
If someone really thinks that the copy of the gospels people have in their bible today matches up with those ancient scrolls they are woefully mistaken. Even the scrolls vary from minor changes to entire paragraphs added or removed!
<quoted text>
Yep. And language analysis shows major inclusions and edits from one generational copy to the next..

... so much for his claim of "meticulous copy practice".

People don't change their stripes.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172758 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the sources for determining lifespans? How do we know that 30 was the average? I would agree with this for the region of Judea before the Roman conquest. But after the Roman conquest? I'm quite sure that we could expect better medical treatment, a better water delivery and sanitation system for which Rome was famous and unrivaled in engineering, and given all of these factors, shouldn't we expect that the mortality rates would drop and life expectancies to increase in proportion?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13...
http://www.odyeda.com/English/JewishTimeline....
*sigh*

30 is conservative, with pretty modern (as those things went) accouterments with regards to sanitation and so on.

In reality? The real world numbers were likely much lower-- what with the streets being synonymous with sewers, etc.

We moderns **know** the sorts of diseases people get under those conditions even today--**with** modern antibiotics.

Back then?.. meh. Anytime someone caught a cold/influenza? They **died**...

.. or if they got an infection-- like a simple bladder/kidney infection? Death was their outcome to a pretty high degree of certainty.

Even something as seemingly minor as a tooth infection? Dead by the middle 20's from the creeping infection spreading to the bones....

So yeah-- 30 is likely too generous here...

... is it any wonder they married at 11, 12 or 13? They **had** to... they'd most likely be dead by the 5th kid even then.

Of course, most of their kids died before 12... so 5 or more was kinda needed too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172759 Jul 21, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I am civil to those who are civil to me. Bob has been nothing but civil to me. Does he challenge me? Yes he does. Do I challenge him? He says I do and I have no reason to call him a liar. I'd like to ask you to lighten up on him. Most of the atheists here are reasonable even if we disagree.
:)

The very first post "atheism is evil" posted to me?

Was one so full of his seething hate, that I literally laughed out loud-- I thought he was joking... a bit of over-the-top sarcasm.

Alas, he wasn't joking...

... meh.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172760 Jul 21, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure your "god" has a special spot for you in heaven for spreading his "good" word lol
He's proof enough for anyone, that there can not possibly be a **good** god who gives a crap.

What sort of god would suffer the likes of "atheism is evil" to continue to sully it's good name?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172761 Jul 21, 2013
Astra wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats just your opinion! Atheism and free speech is not compatible. Tough luck you live in a democracy.
It's a fact that blog is full of lies from religios liars

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172762 Jul 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the children are crippled... yes. An unfortunate and unforeseen consequence.
... meh.
Why is it always the innocent children who bear the brunt of these things?
... and **that** is one of the major flaws with the god theory.
That **children** bear the brunt of adult human thoughtlessness.
Yes.

There's something fatally wrong with the underlying notions.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172763 Jul 22, 2013
My that was sad, he actually resort to stealing what I said and slightly rewording it.

Smh.

Not only has he failed to answer any questions he now can't even make up his own criticisms. How pathetic.

My this was a long post of desperately trying to change the subject... You do that because you are stumped we know.

Okay I see my previous questions even dumbed down were far too difficult for you and your hehe historian parents. Let's try an even easier one.

Was Jesus born at Mary and Joseph's home in Nazareth or hundreds of miles away in a manger in Bethlehem?

Surely he can answer this one right?
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text> Please have parents permission before ordering another package of my ignorance.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172764 Jul 22, 2013
Your friend there has admitted he thinks fondly of infants being drowned in your God's name and has several times stated he wishes to see non believers decapitated and executed by Christians.

But that is civil in your eyes yes?
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I am civil to those who are civil to me. Bob has been nothing but civil to me. Does he challenge me? Yes he does. Do I challenge him? He says I do and I have no reason to call him a liar. I'd like to ask you to lighten up on him. Most of the atheists here are reasonable even if we disagree.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172765 Jul 22, 2013
Oh yes but I didn't want to get too advanced when he is unable to comprehend simpler concepts like an imperial roman would be committing suicide by writing that Jesus was the messiah.

Baby steps with that one Bob.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. And language analysis shows major inclusions and edits from one generational copy to the next..

... so much for his claim of "meticulous copy practice".

People don't change their stripes.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172766 Jul 22, 2013
Yes for people in that time period to even reach adulthood was fantastic. Making it to even 30 was doing pretty damn good.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*

30 is conservative, with pretty modern (as those things went) accouterments with regards to sanitation and so on.

In reality? The real world numbers were likely much lower-- what with the streets being synonymous with sewers, etc.

We moderns **know** the sorts of diseases people get under those conditions even today--**with** modern antibiotics.

Back then?.. meh. Anytime someone caught a cold/influenza? They **died**...

.. or if they got an infection-- like a simple bladder/kidney infection? Death was their outcome to a pretty high degree of certainty.

Even something as seemingly minor as a tooth infection? Dead by the middle 20's from the creeping infection spreading to the bones....

So yeah-- 30 is likely too generous here...

... is it any wonder they married at 11, 12 or 13? They **had** to... they'd most likely be dead by the 5th kid even then.

Of course, most of their kids died before 12... so 5 or more was kinda needed too.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172767 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Brilliant.
I hate McDonald's ethics. At least the Cayman islands know how to treat the low quality burgerers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_leg...
<quoted text>
I was in Paris, walking from the hotel for a little sight seeing at le Place de la Concorde and watched in fascination as two tractors towing trailers of manure trundled up the busy road. You can imagine the scene of two big heavy tractors rolling along side by side at around 10kph in a busy Paris street – honk, honk.

The tractors pulled up outside a newly opening McDonalds, grinding traffic to a complete standstill, crowds gathered (both pedestrian and frustrated drivers) to watch them very efficiently dumped the lot in the doorways then they drove off to cheers and applause.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172768 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
'ware the white mice...
Don't Panic

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172769 Jul 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Panic
Do you know where your towel is?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172770 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a link from two websites that show that the word faith is synonymous with trust.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/trus...
I myself don't operate in a mindless vacuum of certainty. I don't know of anyone who does. Day in and day out we all make choices based on probability. If we choose to take a different route to work, it's based on the probability that another route is too busy or is too long, or has too many turns, etc. I approach trust/faith the same way. I evaluate everything on a scale that ranges like this:
Possibility>>>Plausib ility>>>Probability >>>Certainty
I don't have to be certain of something to trust it. I happen to live less than 500 yards from a traffic light. I trust it everyday based on the probability. Was there ever a time that this traffic signal didn't work? Yes. During storms and power outages. So can I be certain it will function 100% of the time? No. Nobody operates with 100% certainty all the time. If they did, they'd never leave the toilet.
The problem comes in when you want to evaluate the a priori probability of something and then evaluate how that probability changes as we gather evidence.

What, for example, would you assign to be the a priori probability that there are gnomes in your garden? To what extent do you use the known facts that people have previously looked for gnomes and not found them? To what extent do you consider the fact that gnomes, my being magical being, would violate many of the laws of physics we have found through hard work over time?

Do you consider it is be *possible* that there are gnomes in your garden? Why or why not?
As for your question, I trust that God has announced Himself in a major way. I believe the evidence is more probable than not, that He did this through the person of Jesus Christ. Now here is where I'm sure we'll disagree. I trust the evidence that is available to us. it's not 100% certain. I allow for the difference in culture, the chronological span, the language barrier, etc. I can't afford to assume that my lack of understanding negates the truthfulness or fallacy of any historical claim. If this is of infinite and eternal importance, then I am the last person I should trust.
Several problems here. First of all, trust is based on previous evidence of at least some consistency. Having trust that there *is* evidence is getting things backwards. You should start with the position of skepticism and then demand evidence of a caliber to support the claims made.

In this case, even the concept of a supernatural is problematic. The evidence is, at best, tentative, which means it is far from being able to support the claim. And that assumes that the interpretation of the evidence is correct (which it almost never is for the first theory). This is precisely where there should *not* be faith: when evaluating the evidence.
Let me ask you a question. If God was to suddenly appear, leaving no question in the minds of humankind about his identity, what do you think the fear factor would be like?
Depends. Which deity are you saying appears? Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Athena, Ahura Mazda? Or perhaps we say that God has already appeared because, along with Spinoza, we interpret the universe itself to be God.

Once again, you are assuming properties not in evidence. You are assuming both the existence and uniqueness of a deity and in addition assume that deity is described in the Bible. Again, this is precisely where one should be skeptical: the beginning of an intellectual endeavor is thew time when the most mistakes are made because of bias.

How do you compare the evidence for the divinity of Jesus to that for the teaching of the Buddha? Or of Mohammad? How, specifically, do you determine which is *wrong*?
Thinking

York, UK

#172771 Jul 22, 2013
How very French... however McDonalds are still expanding in France, whilst they are shutting outlets in the UK.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in Paris, walking from the hotel for a little sight seeing at le Place de la Concorde and watched in fascination as two tractors towing trailers of manure trundled up the busy road. You can imagine the scene of two big heavy tractors rolling along side by side at around 10kph in a busy Paris street – honk, honk.
The tractors pulled up outside a newly opening McDonalds, grinding traffic to a complete standstill, crowds gathered (both pedestrian and frustrated drivers) to watch them very efficiently dumped the lot in the doorways then they drove off to cheers and applause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172772 Jul 22, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
Knowledge is gained after having faith. Since you have no faith, you are left with no knowledge and you are very angry.
And this is the start of your problem. Knowledge is produced from *skepticism* and testing. Faith is almost the antithesis of knowledge.

perhaps this explains your perpetual hateful attitude: you know your beliefs are built on quicksand.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172773 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware of the use of the word.
But make no mistake-- we are speaking of **religious** faith here.
In that meaning of the word, no atheist has any of that-- by definition.
So your attempt to deflect my points is not going to work.
I suppose I could have been more specific:
All **religious** faith is based on nothing.
If they had **facts** they would not need to depend on faith.
Would they?
I'm not trying to deflect Bob. Allow me to explain.

I think the word faith has been given multiple definitions over the years based upon mistaken perceptions. My blunt opinion is that faith=trust. For some reason, people like to think they're separate, and I don't think they should be separate. Religious beliefs shouldn't be the criteria by which we define the word, even though in history, that's exactly what happened. I blame the Catholic church for it's dogmatic and at times forceful methodology in discouraging inquiry. Because of this rigid dogma, converts were discouraged from asking questions and just told to accept whatever the Vatican decreed. This was still the attitude at the Catholic school I attended as a young boy. This was a huge disservice to converts, and was one of the major factors behind the Protestant Reformation.

I firmly believe that the early church fathers (the Apostles and their disciples) used the word faith in the way I do. Trust. They trusted because they honestly believed they had seen the risen Christ.

When I look at the total body of evidence, the big picture, I see how it all comes together, and how I can trust (have faith) in the probability. I think that the Christian church of the 21st century is starting to realize this mistake, and is replacing the word faith with trust. For many of us, they are one and same.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172775 Jul 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know where your towel is?
Wait, I got red-flagged by the effing robocensor for my last post???

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

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) 15 min John Galt 1,262,072
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr tom wingo 29,848
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr John-K 310,312
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 14 hr RiccardoFire 201,851
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Jul 25 xxxrayted 1,714
News 3 Arkansas players arrested on forgery complaint Jul 23 Fart news 2
More from around the web