Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258479 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

#173326 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?
Pardon us, sir--**you** are not sufficient to the task.

You have freely admitted to being indoctrinated into the thing.

You are **literally** the same as an alcoholic praising the virtues of a particular brand of Vodka....

...**literally**... it is **exactly** the same thing.

Why **your** brand of religion, and not, say Druidism? Or Navajo?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173327 Aug 2, 2013
There is absolutely no reason both gospels could not have mentioned the census and why one says they lived in Nazareth before Jesus' birth and the other says they didn't move there until after they left Egypt. Sorry but none of your belching changes these glaring errors. One of your gospel writers, Luke never even met Jesus. Lol!

Show the scripture that says Mary's family lived in Nazareth while Joseph didn't. You are diving wildly into fan fiction now, sorry.

Your knowledge of Jewish tradition is more than wanting. For more on Jewish traditions and how clumsily the gospels screw them up can be seen here.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/86...

Educate yourself.

It's not dishonest to change and tailor your lol word of God to appeal to different groups of people? That is highly dishonest! What's more Luke by your own ADMISSION never even met Jesus! But he is called upon decades later to pen his version of the Jesus story?

I really don't see how you could be more dishonest... Unless like all the other messiah sons of god at the time and place, it was made up. Then your explanation would make sense.

Your imaginary friend god certainly didn't influence the writers, this we agree on. Then again until you can demonstrate proof he exists it would be illogical to claim he did anything, ever.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>But this doesn't account for the census that required Joseph to travel back to Bethlehem. You're forgetting that key element of the account. While Joseph's permanent residence was Nazareth, his home of record was Bethlehem. He traveled there in compliance with a lawful directive.
True, Luke never met Jesus.
Mary's family was from Nazareth and it's logical to conclude that Joseph met her there.
If you're aware of ancient Jewish customs it makes perfect sense.
It's not dishonest at all. Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience.
Luke on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles.
It was documented honestly. God didn't interfere.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173328 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.
No-- he got it **exactly** correct.

You **must** test the quality of the liquor, BEFORE you get roaring drunk on it.

Because after the first bottle? You are deeply into it, and no longer care...

... just so long as you get yet another bottle...

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173329 Aug 2, 2013
You and any theist are completely unable to provide a shred of observable evidence beyond your imagination and projection. Prove me wrong on this. Show us this observable proof for god that doesn't require your imagination and projection.

We'll wait but won't hold our breath.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I see your mistake. You're using the words 'evidence' and 'proof' synonymously. This is a common error. Evidence is what leads to proof. Evidence is submitted to convince (prove to) the jury of guilt or innocence, or of liability. The jury considers the total body of evidence and then deliberates. When they reach a verdict on the basis of that evidence, they do so because the evidence proved the case one way or another.

BTW- Your ad hominem fallacies indicate that it's you who are failing. If you weren't, you wouldn't feel the need to resort to them.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#173330 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
Impress me - Satisfy this argument

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14)

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Is this logical to you?

Compare: Matthew 21:18,19

There are two things to take note of here. The first is that this incident is an example of the common Marcan theme of apocalyptic determinism. Israel is to be cursed because it “bears no fruit” by not welcoming the Messiah — but clearly the tree here isn’t being given the choice to bear fruit or not.

And your response would be?

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark...

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173331 Aug 2, 2013
A list of logical fallacies... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallac...

Stop humiliating yourself by just making sht up.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>"Dewey Defeats Truman" fallacy. The Chicago Tribune newspaper assumed Thomas Dewey would win the 1948 Presidential election over Harry Truman.:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173332 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.

As for the NDE's?

That one deserves a mention:

Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.

Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.

Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.

Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.

Do you see a trend, here?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173333 Aug 2, 2013
Sadly you do not have one shred of evidence for your god. All of your lame arguments are good for a laugh as they all require logical fallacies... Since you don't know what those are...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallac...

All of them require imagination and projection. All of them could be used to lol " prove " leprechauns and sock elves.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued

Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.

No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.

However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:

The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments

Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173334 Aug 2, 2013
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha !
BwahahahahhahahahahahahhHhhhah HahHahahahha!!!!

Gasp! Hahahahhahahahahahahahahha!

Lol lmfao hahahahahhahahahahahaha!

Oh wow you REALLY fcked up there!

Remember when KJV humiliated himself with this same exact defense when bust as being langoliers?

Priceless! Thanks for the laughs idiot!
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>I've known DNF for a very long time. We have defended and supported each other's views on the gay forums for years. He's warm hearted and can defend his own position very well.

He's not a sock puppet.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173335 Aug 2, 2013
His evidence is so nonexistent that even Judge Judy would dismiss his case before the first commercial break!

:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I do not reject "evidence" so much as ask for actual... evidence.

What you've presented so far?

Would not qualify in a Hollywood Crime Drama-- let alone something as important as actual reality itself.

I've stated this previously:

1)**If** the consequences for **not** believing are **so**dire** as "everyone" claims?

2) Then a **just** and **caring** god has the **responsibility** to make it SO PLAIN, that a BLIND MAN could "read" the message without any effort.

3) the cop-out that "nothing you don't work for has value" is bullshit--

--- do you **WORK** for each breath of air you breathe?

No! It's literally free-- so long as your lungs are functional.

But there is **nothing** more valuable than that next breath of air-- TO YOU.

Yet they are all free...

----------

So.

If your god is real? HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE HE IS REAL.

Nothing less will do---

-- IF HE ACTUALLY CARES.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173336 Aug 2, 2013
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.
You may have a bit of a point here, a newborn is pretty much a clean slate. As you stated yourself, a baby is a questioning and questing young human being. They strive to hold their heads erect, they learn to roll over and then begin....and on and on it goes. They instinctively know how to suckle, cry for attention to their needs and they learn a lot!

But they observe the physical world only, what they can see, touch, hear and smell. Yes, they thrive on love so I suppose their god is spelled MaMa and DaDa....they are blissfully without belief in a supernatural deity who some say has promised to offer them things they don't need and could care less about.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173337 Aug 2, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Or...The evidence for God is at the same level as evidence for werewolves.
GREAT!!! Now I can cash in those silver bullets I've been saving in case of an attack......might as well throw out that wolfbane and those old wooden stakes too, or am I being a bit rash???

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173338 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
These I have significant problems with, both philosophically and because they don't actually manage to prove their claims. In general, I am very skeptical about purely philosophical arguments. We know very well that philosophers manage to get a great many things wrong because they assume more than what they actually state.

The Cosmological argument assumes certain things about causality that are known to be false (that every event is caused). It is also internally inconsistent since every cause we know is a natural cause, but the conclusion is the existence of a supernatural cause. This is probably the strongest of your arguments. But even this one is a LONG way from proving your desired conclusion.

The teleological argument fails because we do not know what is possible *without* an intelligence working, so the conclusion that there must be one is unsubstantiated.

The Ontological argument is false because it assume that existence is a property that something can have or not have and that existence is 'better' than non-existence in some scale. You do not get to assume existence of something so it can be better when made existent.
Historical Evidence
This is by far the weakest of the ones you present. Dramatic tales from a superstitious time do not serve to prove the existence of a supernatural.
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
When a NDE is able to read something hidden from all in the room that nobody in the room knows about, it will give *some* evidence. At this point, it is a collection of anecdotes from people whose brains are failing. Not the best time to make a claim. Furthermore, the same effects can be produce by stressing the brain in other ways. SO, again, not sufficient to support the case. This one *could*, potentially, give some evidence of phenomena that have been called supernatural.
Presuppositional Arguments
At best these are arguments by mere assertion: That certain types of argument take precedence over rationality. Again, a very weak argument at best.
Intelligent Design Arguments
Essentially the same as the teleological argument.
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
I do not agree. I find it a collection of very weak arguments given by desperate people wanting something to be true that they cannot justify. If anything, they show how much people will accept *any* argument when it comes to the existence of a God.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173339 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. That would be classified as agnostic, in the strictest definition of that word:'a' as not, and 'gnostic' as in knowledge.
<quoted text>
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.
And what child has ever discovered a god on it's own merely through it's growing and exploring???

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173340 Aug 2, 2013
You never hear of a Muslim having an NDE about the Virgin Mary do you?:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.

As for the NDE's?

That one deserves a mention:

Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.

Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.

Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.

Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.

Do you see a trend, here?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173341 Aug 2, 2013
None at all. If they could you wouldn't need Sunday school or church. It would just come naturally for them. Instead we see believing parents have to work hard to indoctrinate their children.

It didn't take you any indoctrination to eat and enjoy your favorite cake or cookies as a kid did it? One has to use guilt, threats and indoctrination for belief in God because they cannot offer evidence to the child that God exists.
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>And what child has ever discovered a god on it's own merely through it's growing and exploring???

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173342 Aug 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Seems to me something as affirmative as a god would need little evidence to prove itself, and would be glaringly apparent.
I've yet to see anyone move a mountain, now that would certainly pique my interest!

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173343 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.
As for the NDE's?
That one deserves a mention:
Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.
Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.
Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.
Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.
Do you see a trend, here?
I do. Had an NDE and didn't meet any supernatural entities.....did see/feel some pretty imaginative imagery though...a brain deprived of oxygen will do that. Add pain and drugs and you can really have a bum trip;0) Certainly nothing that didn't represent what my body was going through and KNOWN memories that it triggered.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#173345 Aug 2, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I've yet to see anyone move a mountain, now that would certainly pique my interest!
&sn s=em
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#173346 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.
As for the NDE's?
That one deserves a mention:
Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.
Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.
Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.
Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.
Do you see a trend, here?
NDE wouldnt prove god anyways,
now if someone died decomposed and then got revived by god,that would be really something to brag about,,lol

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) 13 min Cheech the Conser... 1,496,784
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr LookPhartce 32,747
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot 10,943
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr American Independent 313,362
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 16 hr MostPhartss 93
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Feb 15 Jhuerta 287
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web