Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244893 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: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173263 Aug 2, 2013
Exactly as is proven by the fact all believers have to be taught about God. Were he self evident a child would know about him without being taught.

Belief in god is a learned behavior.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>A new born is born with no concept of go, no belief in any god.

When a human has no belief in god they are atheists, i.e. the default position is atheism

What is learned later, whether it is by exploration or teaching is not the default position.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173264 Aug 2, 2013
It doesn't state what exactly? I merely stated exactly what was written in Matthew 2 from your own link.

Once again Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were traveling for the census remember? They tried to get a room at an Inn in Bethlehem remember? None were available remember? So they had to use a manger yes? Like in the nativity scene remember? Are we in agreement? No errors there right? So in Luke they were traveling from their home in Nazareth tired and Mary ready to give birth. Since they had nowhere to stay she gave birth in a manger yes?

Matthew states they lived in Bethlehem and more so lived there for two years after his birth before fleeing to Egypt. Once it was safe they moved to Nazareth.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't state that in either Matthew 1 or 2. Here, read for yourself.
LT

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173265 Aug 2, 2013
How long are you suggesting they stayed in the Manger? Verse 11 they entered the house. THE HOUSE not the manger. House. So they clearly had a house. No mention of traveling from Nazareth for the census or any reason right? In fact it clearly says as I stated before that they didn't go to Nazareth until after Egypt. Verse 23.

Do try to catch up :))
Roman Apologist wrote:
Matthew 2

New Living Translation (NLT)
Visitors from the East

2 Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men[a] from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2 “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose,[b] and we have come to worship him.”

3 King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem. 4 He called a meeting of the leading priests and teachers of religious law and asked,“Where is the Messiah supposed to be born?”

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they said,“for this is what the prophet wrote:

6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
are not least among the ruling cities[c] of Judah,
for a ruler will come from you
who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’[d]”

7 Then Herod called for a private meeting with the wise men, and he learned from them the time when the star first appeared. 8 Then he told them,“Go to Bethlehem and search carefully for the child. And when you find him, come back and tell me so that I can go and worship him, too!”

9 After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11 They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

12 When it was time to leave, they returned to their own country by another route, for God had warned them in a dream not to return to Herod.
The Escape to Egypt

13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.“Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said.“Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, 15 and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:“I called my Son out of Egypt.”[e]

16 Herod was furious when he realized that the wise men had outwitted him. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, based on the wise men’s report of the star’s first appearance. 17 Herod’s brutal action fulfilled what God had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 “A cry was heard in Ramah—
weeping and great mourning.
Rachel weeps for her children,
refusing to be comforted,
for they are dead.”[f]
The Return to Nazareth

19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. 20 “Get up!” the angel said.“Take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel, because those who were trying to kill the child are dead.”

21 So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. 22 But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. 23 So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said:“He will be called a Nazarene.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Feel free to show me where in the bible it says they lived in Bethlehem for two years. I provided both chapters of Matthew that describe the conception and birth of Jesus.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173266 Aug 2, 2013
Ignorance seems to go pretty well with your belief system actually.
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.

The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173267 Aug 2, 2013
Yes very well said!
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173268 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It doesn't state what exactly? I merely stated exactly what was written in Matthew 2 from your own link.
Once again Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were traveling for the census remember? They tried to get a room at an Inn in Bethlehem remember? None were available remember? So they had to use a manger yes? Like in the nativity scene remember? Are we in agreement? No errors there right? So in Luke they were traveling from their home in Nazareth tired and Mary ready to give birth. Since they had nowhere to stay she gave birth in a manger yes?
Matthew states they lived in Bethlehem and more so lived there for two years after his birth before fleeing to Egypt. Once it was safe they moved to Nazareth.
<quoted text>
No, Matthew 2 does not state that at all. Look at it again.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173269 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
How long are you suggesting they stayed in the Manger? Verse 11 they entered the house. THE HOUSE not the manger. House. So they clearly had a house. No mention of traveling from Nazareth for the census or any reason right? In fact it clearly says as I stated before that they didn't go to Nazareth until after Egypt. Verse 23.
Do try to catch up :))
<quoted text>
Yes it says the magi entered the house. But it does NOT say Jesus was born in the house. I see your mistake. You're projecting this onto the nativity scene that is popular during Christmas celebrations. Matthew assumes that they were able to find a room or house between the time of the birth and the time of the visit from the Magi. Just because an artist's rendering has the Magi present in the Nativity scene doesn't mean it was that quick. From Bethlehem, they went to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth after leaving Egypt. Now that I know where and how you were confused this pretty much clears it up.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173270 Aug 2, 2013
How can you say what Matthew assumes? Do you have a time machine and the ability to read minds? Nope you are merely projecting your apologetic feelings.

Luke says they travel from Nazareth and Jesus is born in a manger. Matthew we see no traveling from Nazareth, no manger and worse it doesn't say after Egypt they RETURNED to Nazareth it just says they went to this town Nazareth clearly showing that they had not lived there before. Had the writer if the Matthew myth thought they lived in Nazareth before he clearly would said returned.

See? Your apologetic biblical fan fiction requiring the use of time machines and mind reading fails when you use critical thinking skills. Thank you for illustrating your apologetic ignorance.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it says the magi entered the house. But it does NOT say Jesus was born in the house. I see your mistake. You're projecting this onto the nativity scene that is popular during Christmas celebrations. Matthew assumes that they were able to find a room or house between the time of the birth and the time of the visit from the Magi. Just because an artist's rendering has the Magi present in the Nativity scene doesn't mean it was that quick. From Bethlehem, they went to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth after leaving Egypt. Now that I know where and how you were confused this pretty much clears it up.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173271 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
How can you say what Matthew assumes? Do you have a time machine and the ability to read minds? Nope you are merely projecting your apologetic feelings.
Luke says they travel from Nazareth and Jesus is born in a manger. Matthew we see no traveling from Nazareth, no manger and worse it doesn't say after Egypt they RETURNED to Nazareth it just says they went to this town Nazareth clearly showing that they had not lived there before. Had the writer if the Matthew myth thought they lived in Nazareth before he clearly would said returned.
See? Your apologetic biblical fan fiction requiring the use of time machines and mind reading fails when you use critical thinking skills. Thank you for illustrating your apologetic ignorance.
<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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173272 Aug 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
A new born is born with no concept of go, no belief in any god.

When a human has no belief in god they are atheists, i.e. the default position is atheism

What is learned later, whether it is by exploration or teaching is not the default position.
Well stated: concise, to the point and without superfluous fluff*.

Nice.

_________

* as **I** am apt to do... heh.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173273 Aug 2, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So this Jesus was not related to David in any way.
Glad we cleared THAT up.
Well... DAUUMN, Jim!

That means Jesus cannot **possibly** be any Jewish Messiah!

How about that? He was just another fake pretender...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173274 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject.
Wrong. That would be classified as agnostic, in the strictest definition of that word:'a' as not, and 'gnostic' as in knowledge.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God.
Lie. Why do you keep foisting this PROVABLY FALSE CLAIM?

Ask an ATHEIST what it means to be an atheist!

A FAITHFUL has NO CLUE!(as you repeatedly demonstrate)

Athiesm is NO FAITH IN GODS.

It is a PASSIVE state of being-- it is WITHOUT FAITH.

A newborn baby is an atheist-- he has NO FAITH: ATHEIST.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173275 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?
Nope. It's just that you lack the faith TO believe.

A passive state of mind.

Not active.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173276 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't try to define it based upon my own terms. I showed the dictionary definitions along with the links.
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...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173277 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself.
Once you DEFINE what a god can and cannot do?

For example: take the bible's god: that god is quite limited in scope, and what it is able to do and not do.

It cannot be in the presence of "sin" for some odd reason-- a severe weakness. "sin" must be bible-god's Kriptonite or something.

Yet? This god **created** the very sin it cannot be near!

Ludicrous? You betcha!

But it's worse-- IF SOMETHING IS MURDERED? Then, through some blood-magic, bible-god CAN suffer to be next to sin!

wait .... WTF?

... meh.

Once you DEFINE a god? It then becomes possible to prove said god isn't real.

Bible-god?

Not real.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173278 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well... DAUUMN, Jim!
That means Jesus cannot **possibly** be any Jewish Messiah!
How about that? He was just another fake pretender...
Well, it's not MY fairy tale

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173279 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. It's just that you lack the faith TO believe.
A passive state of mind.
Not active.
Okay, by your own definition atheism is a passive state of mind. I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion let's grant your definition as being true.

What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?

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?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173280 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...
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.

If there are two propositions that we identify as "X" and "-X" respectively, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents we identify as "Y" and "Z" and "Y" has a bias in favor of "X" and "Z" has a bias in favor of "-X" then one of them is still correct regardless of bias. This is how the objectivity qualifier fails as an argument against the existence of God or in favor of atheism as a default position or philosophy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173281 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself. What are the criteria for evidence? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. certainty? Or, is it "preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." I know you have stated that your standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which equates to certainty or so near certainty as to be indistinguishable from certainty. My question though, is "why?" Why beyond reasonable doubt?
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.
My contention is that we all do things every day that do not require certainty. We get in our cars and go to work without even thinking of the probability of an accident. We step into the shower without considering the probability of a slip and fall accident. We cook without considering whether or not we will burn down our house. In all of these activities we can significantly reduce risks, but not to the extent that we can enjoy 100% certainty of success. So if we can do all of these activities with less than 100% certainty, then why require such a high standard for the evidence that points to the existence of God?
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'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173282 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, by your own definition atheism is a passive state of mind. I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion let's grant your definition as being true.
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
Basic logic? Seriously, what you consider 'rejection' is simply a requirement that evidence have sufficient quality to demonstrate the proposition.
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.

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) 10 min Quirky 1,263,856
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr Brian_G 310,343
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 9 hr IBdaMann 6,472
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) 11 hr bernarlyn 33
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr tom wingo 29,852
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 29 RiccardoFire 201,846
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
More from around the web