Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
165,841 - 165,860 of 225,650 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172773
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172776
Jul 22, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Panic
Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172777
Jul 22, 2013
 
Or six by nine.

&li st=PL1Ff4SgStx9YpHw0c3ZO3yBJgf loOhQzM&t=1980
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172778
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
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.
People claimed to have seen Elvis after he died. More relevantly, they also claimed to have seen David Koresh.
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.
When I look at the 'big picture', I see the case for Christianity fall apart in many ways.

I see the growth of a legend and its interaction with a larger society that was superstitious and prone to mystery cults. I see the mass production of stories that were back-attributed to the apostles and carried the biases of later believers. I see a dynamic between the Jewish and the Roman cultures that began long before Jesus supposedly existed and continued long after. I see the adoption of the cult a few centuries later by an emperor looking for a base of power. I see the books of the Bible chosen to support the power of the emperor. I see a battle early on between those who believed in a divine Christ who became human and those who did not think he was actually human. I see a previous battle between those who were Jewish and saw Jesus' message as directed to them, and Paul who wanted to spread the message to the Romans.

In all of this, power and superstition were dominant considerations. Hardly the way to preserve truth.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172779
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know where your towel is?
There's a frood who really knows where his towel is

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172780
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith [religious] is not evidence--- it is always going to cloud the perceptions of anyone who has it.
But most religions attempt to get around the 100% lack of **objective** facts in support of their claims of god(s), by saying "faith-- you must have faith".
They are correct, of course--without faith, they have zip.
But **with** faith? The human mind is clouded by said faith, and will **create** whatever it needs to "justify" the faith.
In a lovely bit of boot-strapping.
The classic dodge is: "the bible is true because the bible says it is true".
Circular [non]reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Faith is the ultimate in circular reasoning.
That is what I mean by "dodge of faith".
I never said that faith is evidence. Evidence is what supports faith. Evidence is what supports the decisions that a jury makes in a court case. The jury doesn't deliberate until all the available and reasonable evidence is in and the attorneys submit their closing arguments. The jury can't say "We find the defendant guilty/not guilty" and then go looking for reasons to justify it. That wouldn't be justice. That would be foolish. Likewise, it's supposed to work the same way with Christianity. We're supposed to ask questions and weigh the merits of the total argument, not just small pieces and sound bytes.

The stereotype is that Christians say "Yup we believe" and then go looking for reasons to believe. That is just stupid. And it's equally stupid (no offense intended) to apply that stereotype to all Christians. Some of us really do think and consider the evidence.

That brings me to the next point. What is and isn't evidence?
That is undoubtedly a major point of contention. What is the standard of evidence? Is it the preponderance of the evidence which is 51% or higher, or is it beyond reasonable doubt? With all due respect to the uninitiated in legal and historical matters, the higher standard is only applied in criminal cases. Not civil cases or historical research. Certainty isn't the goal in presenting evidence for the spiritual seeker. Certainty would have us all in Vegas or never leaving the bathroom.

The Christian church is undergoing a radical change in which discussion about doubt and church history is being encouraged instead of discouraged. People want real answers before placing trust in Jesus, and I think it's right that they do. Trust shouldn't be blind as has been the attitude. Neither should people be told "Well just believe first and then we'll give you the reasons why later." No. That's dishonest. That's why you're seeing a sharp decline in mainline church populations. But that doesn't mean Christianity is declining. It means that the traditional view of church and the Christian faith is changing. House churches are on the rise. With a house church, most if not all of the funds collected go directly towards charitable causes right in the local community, because there are no administrative costs associated with the church.

Sorry to be so long on this post, but the old stereotypes are being challenged. Perceptions are being challenged in both believers and skeptics.

My faith didn't come first. The evidence built my trust from the ground up because I was willing to follow the evidence wherever it took me. And where it took me was to the probability that Jesus is who he claimed, and that all my old perceptions of an old angry petty cosmic tyrant were false because I hadn't allowed for the cultural/historical differences, and because I was too proud to admit being wrong. It took me 20 years to come to this conclusion. It couldn't happen overnight, and that's why I don't try to convince you in one argument. I give you small snippets to mentally chew on. Only you can decide if your mind is open enough to consider putting your stereotypes aside. I can't decide for you or tell you what to do. I can only tell you what worked for me.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172781
Jul 22, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Warning: multiplying nine by seven does NOT yield forty-two...
I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe

I blame the Golgafrinchans
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172782
Jul 22, 2013
 
Especially as there are very few telephone kiosks left to sanitise these days.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe
I blame the Golgafrinchans

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172783
Jul 22, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Especially as there are very few telephone kiosks left to sanitise these days.
<quoted text>
You have it, the problem with the universe is the lack of telephone boxes

Who is this god person anyway?
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172784
Jul 22, 2013
 
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it, the problem with the universe is the lack of telephone boxes
Who is this god person anyway?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Jessup 1,096,078
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 min Pearl Jam 305,390
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Bruin For Life 26,971
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Aug 19 RICK SERVICE 28
loan needed (Dec '13) Aug 12 Simon 5
loan offer (Jun '13) Aug 10 Tram 81
Na Aug 9 rrg cgr 1

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••