Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255948 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.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173283 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
What do you think a DICTIONARY is?
Is it some magical "authority" that sets down the definition of words?
OR?
Is it a collection of the MOST COMMON USAGES of words?
Which is it?
I know you are NOT STUPID-- you've shown us that much-- you CAN think, at least.
Now.
Since there are **more** True Believers™ than there are atheists?
The True Believers™ false use of "atheist" will also be in common usage-- and therefore in the dictionary.
But.
That doesn't mean it actually **applies** to **anyone***...!
Me, for example: I would **love** to believe that there was a benevolent god watching out for us all.
But I cannot lie to myself-- I cannot force this "faith" to manifest in my head, any more than I can grow a 3rd arm.
If you had **objective** proof of a god?
I will gladly listen.
Alas... nobody in the history of the earth has uncovered **objective** proof of a god who gives a crap...
A dictionary is the standard of word usage in any specific language and is peer reviewed by a panel of editors who are experts in that language. They spend hours a day reviewing words and the usage of the words to form a consensus.

Now if you want to use the word atheist in your own way, I obviously can't stop you. Just don't tell me that I can't use the word "trust" in place of faith (and synonymous with trust) to describe my spiritual beliefs.:)

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173284 Aug 2, 2013
That still makes no sense. You are belching tired excuses for the tremendous amounts of errors between the two. But let's play along with your fan fiction just for laughs.

Matthew would have lost nothing mentioning that they lived in Nazareth and he was born in a manger: this would actually strengthen his case as we see similar birth narratives in the OT. Luke, who knew Jesus through Paul correct? So he never even met Jesus yet his myth for some reason counts as a gospel..... Regardless... He would have lost nothing by mentioning the escape to Egypt.

So which is it, did they move to Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt or did they already have a house there before?

Your argument for these huge errors make no logical sense at all. Worse you are admitting the gospel writers dishonestly presented the birth narrative in different ways to different people! How much more proof than that fact does anyone need to see it's a myth?!!!

If it was truly inspired by the great invisible sky wizard wouldn't they demand it be documented honestly and accurately immediately?

But noooo we have to wait decades with the souls of millions on the line and then when finally they get around to documenting it they alter the facts for different groups of people? Alter the facts of the words of God? Lol!

You just shot yourself in both feet... Down you go!
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>No, I understand the writing style and focus of the narratives. You do not. Matthew's gospel narrative of the birth was to a Jewish audience and was focused on prophecy and the lineage of David. Luke's is completely different. Luke is writing to a Gentile audience and therefore his focus is different. Luke adds details to Gentiles unfamiliar with Judaic traditions and beliefs. That's why you don't understand the differences and why you're assuming what Matthew should have written. My apologetic explanation is within the context of Judaic beliefs and what we know of Matthew's writing style. Your atheistic explanation is based upon your ignorance of these historical considerations, and is fueled by your need to maintain your worldview.

So present evidence (solid evidence) as to why Matthew's gospel didn't focus on a Jewish audience. The entire basis of this debate hinges on whether or not there's a contradiction. If my argument about the focus of Matthew's writing is correct, then there is no contradiction. To prove there's a a contradiction, you'll have to dismantle my point about the focus and style of Matthew and Luke. Feel free to try.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173285 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Objective proof isn't possible and that's why you use that qualifier. No person who argues for or against the existence of God is objective. But bias alone doesn't work as an argument against the truth of any claim. Consider the following logic.
I disagree with your premise. One can be convinced one way or the other and still be objective. For example, I can argue objectively for the existence of electrons *because* there is objective evidence of electrons. That doesn't imply a bias; it merely is an awareness of the evidence.

If you acknowledge that arguing for or against the existence of God cannot be objective, then there is no objective truth to the matter. And *that* means that there is only opinion, not fact.

If the weight of the evidence supports existence, then it is not bias to claim existence. If the weight of the evidence supports non-existence, then it is not bias to claim non-existence. Furthermore, there is an inherent bias *against* existence in the absence of evidence. Furthermore, since all evidence we have so far can be explained in terms of natural phenomena, it demands a high standard of proof to claim the existence of non-natural phenomena. Among other things, there would need to be a precise operational definition of 'non-natural'. That is something I have never seen.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173286 Aug 2, 2013
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.

Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Basic logic? Seriously, what you consider 'rejection' is simply a requirement that evidence have sufficient quality to demonstrate the proposition.

[QUOTE]Note that I'm not asking your opinion of my beliefs. I know what they are. What do you call your rejection of evidence that I believe to be credible? Is it active atheism or passive atheism?"

It is passive. If it is not convincing, then it is insufficient.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173287 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we are asking about the existence of something, not simply the probability of something. This is not a question of reducing the probability of some known risk. it is the claim that there *is* a risk.
<quoted text>
Let's be clear about your claim here. You claim that your belief in God is similar to your belief that you won't get into an accident when you drive to work today. This, in spite of the fact that everyone knows that accidents happen. it is simply that the probability of one happening to you today is very low and can, to some extent, be lowered by driving well. Do you really want to equate your confidence in the existence of a deity to your confidence you won't get into an accident?
Yes, when asking whether something *exists*, I do require 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is not the same as certainty--some evidence not considered can change the weight (as it did for the luminous ether), but with the evidence we have *now*, is there enough and of such a type that existence is anything other than a very low probability?
The *standard* to conclude the existence of a particle in particle physics, for example, is a five sigma signal: in other words five standard deviations from random noise. That corresponds to a a 1 chance in 2 million that the signal is due to random chance. I would count that as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' while not being 'certain'.
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173288 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
What do you consider to be the best evidence of Christian theism?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173289 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
Because we know from experience that lower standard fail too often.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173290 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173291 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173292 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#173293 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
This was easy in the past, the supernatural were things quite visible. But I'm afraid we've conquered about all the visible phenomenon, and the supernatural is mostly about as apparent as
Russel's teapot. Mostly the supernatural to the unversed is within things already considered within the known, because we have progressed far beyond the average Joes level of comprehension.

I mean it's pretty damn hard trying to understand the scope of physics today, and some will never be able to grasp the concepts
needed to know what these things mean. But I like you, will jump at the opportunity to learn something dynamic enough for a paradigm shift.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173294 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173295 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173296 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.
And I disagree when dealing with the question of the existence of a supernatural. In that case, the signal should be clear an unambiguous. I require no less from particle physicists.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173297 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173298 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173299 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Because a 95% confidence is wrong 1 out of 20 times? And a 90% is wrong 1 out of 10 times? I trust very few things at that confidence level. I may see them as interesting and worthy of further research, but trust? No way. I have seen way too many things appear at the 95% confidence level that disappeared with further research. Anything as low as 75% is like throwing two coins and having them both come up heads.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173300 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Would you have confidence that you were not going to get into an accident if it was at the 75% confidence level? Or even the 95% confidence level? Remember that at 95% per day, you would have an accident 18 times a year on average.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#173301 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.
Seems to me something as affirmative as a god would need little evidence to prove itself, and would be glaringly apparent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173302 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.
Actually, what Liberty said was that once believers have proved the existence he would look at the evidence. That isn't backwards. Once Cavendish claimed to have proved the existence of a neutron, his evidence was published and others looked at it and weighed it to see if they agreed it was a proof.

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) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,403,681
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 11 hr Into The Night 9,988
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 hr zef 311,487
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat Trojan 32,307
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 22 Frankie Rizzo 201,877
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web