Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255568 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 sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173976 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you're sincere Poly, and I admire your honesty in stating your view. However, as I've pointed out before, I think your criteria and expectation for evidence is way too high. It's unreasonable. Such a God who would perform cosmic parlor tricks at our insistence to prove his existence is hardly a god to worship. Such a god that would allow himself to be manipulated according to our whims and demands would not then be all powerful.
You don't believe that a deity would leave some kind of evidence behind?

Doesn't your religion claim that your deity actively answers prayers and wants new believers? How are they supposed to join if no evidence exists?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173977 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Science cannot prove itself to be true.
Based on your words above, I'd guess you don't know the first thing about science. It doesn't seek to "prove" "itself" (whatever that means) to be true.
It's a circular and self-refuting argument.
Huh? Science is a tool. It is the only effective tool at producing new knowledge and technology. Science consists of methodologies to remove observer bias.

How can methodologies be circular and self-refuting???
That's like saying the Bible proves itself to be true.
Wow. You think science works like the Bible? The Bible claims to be divinely inspired. How do we know it's divinely inspired? Well, the Bible tells us. Why should trust it? Well, it's divinely inspired.

Now your turn! Do that with science, for my sake, please.
Anyone who says scripture interprets scripture is engaging in semantics, as is anyone who says that science proves itself by the scientific method.
Huh? How so? Could you explain the above?
Yes I argue for the historicity of Jesus. My argument is based upon the methodology of determining the truth of history. The ten objective tests of reliability that exist.
Oh no! Now you're using "methodology" - you just told us above that all such methodologies were false reasoning.

Sorry, baby, you can't claim that science is broken and then use it to back up your beliefs.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173979 Aug 9, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in pixie dust?
Lightbeamer very quickly refuses to engage with posters who demonstrate logic, Catcher.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#173982 Aug 9, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe that a deity would leave some kind of evidence behind?
Doesn't your religion claim that your deity actively answers prayers and wants new believers? How are they supposed to join if no evidence exists?
Evidence in their heart, you dick!
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#173983 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
What do you expect from a book of ancient campfire myths?
<quoted text>
I don't expect a rouge African to constantly be humiliated by Dave as you and your Johnson obsess about what you claim is non existent.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173984 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Scientific method does not validate atheism and it does not invalidate God.
The methods aren't used to validate or invalidate. It's the findings that do it.

Atheism is supported by all available evidence on humans: cross cultural, phylogenetic, psychological. You don't even have to use physics to show that human deities are human creations.
Atheism not subject to scientific method since it does not explain anything and has more to do with a philosophy of life than it does Science.
No, atheism is not a philosophy of life. It's just a claim about deities. There are no rituals or guiding principles to atheism. It's just an expression of disbelief in religious claims.
It is as you say a no God assumption which comes with terrible consequences if wrong.
Really? You believe in a deity who would be super upset by truth-seeking behavior?
That is not in dispute. It explain how the machine runs. It does not explain the origin of the machine. If i ask an employee where the machine is from. The question is not answered by describing how the machine runs.
It explains the origins of humanity very well.
BS. Science claims a beginning but has no explanation for a Cause.
The universe may not need a cause. Causes are reliant upon time.
Nor can it come up with one because the event cannot be repeated.
Evidence for the event is not contingent upon recurrences. Not sure why you guys always make that mistake, but you do.
Rule God out from the get go and then go from there.
Your deity is ruled out by the claims you make about it. If your religion had claimed "God is constrained by the laws of physics. He started with a big bang, and these are the equations he used. Subsequently, he created a universe in which life arises from non-life. Once you have replicators, you have evolution..." etc.

That would be very compelling knowledge for 2000 years ago.
If there is order and design it cannot be God. It has to have a non intelligent agent. That is your whole basis.
No, no, LB. The point at which you stop denying science and accept the observations we have you are left with an inference. Either you infer that the universe was created by a deity or something, or you infer that it was not.

I quite clearly infer that the universe was not, and I base that on my interpretations of science. But I can't prove that. And I can't test it - not without defining how a deity would create a universe, and what kinds of rules it would use. Since that's unknowable, it cannot be tested.

You quite clearly infer that the universe was created. If you understood everything about science - like evolution - I believe your position would be stronger. For then you could say "God is unknowable, but this universe, and these observations we have of it, are His Creation." Again, not a testable, disprovable statement.

At the end of the day, we can only make an inference. There will never be a test for, or for the absence of, deities.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173985 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
you wrote that quantum mechanics, particle physics and the study of black holes does not rely on empirical testing. You were wrong.
This is what i wrote.
But you do not subject your atheism to the same standards as you do ''everything else.'' You just assume its true and judge everything else according to your base assumption. In another post of your you used Theist 1 and Theist 2, but you did not include your atheism in the mix. You put Theism under your microscope and your atheism gets a free ride even though there is no explanatory power for hardly anything. It does not sufficiently explain why 1+1=2 which is really abstract. It does not explain the origin or source on Physics or life. Wheras the Theist would say 1+1=2 makes sense and has explanatory power because it is an indication of the fingerprint of God. As i understand it things in Science are assumed by effects. Quantum physics, particle astrophysics black holes uses theoretical rather than empirical constructs.
I think what yo did her is distort the last line of my post and ignored everything else. Namely your no God assumption lacks explanatory power for anything. Your no God assumption comes with consequences. Just like if you assume no gravity and walk off a cliff.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173986 Aug 9, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Evidence in their heart, you dick!
There you are Bongo! Now you're returning to how you were before.

Baby, evidence from the "heart" is subjective evidence. It's not objectively true for all humans.

Why'd you call me a dick?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173987 Aug 9, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists show no evidence of love. All we see is your hatred, and your hatred may be the only Satan that some people will ever know.
I love and miss my parents, my brothers. I deeply love my SO.

I can't imagine why I would hate you. I hope you have a great day.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#173988 Aug 9, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does, and He does answer prayers.
Your fractured life of atheism has smeared your mind with too much filth to understand that.
That brings up an interesting point. The type of mind that requires the pursuit of filth and forbidden fruit in order to believe it is experiencing something worthwhile. To believe it is "having fun".

Curious.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173989 Aug 9, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does, and He does answer prayers.
Your fractured life of atheism has smeared your mind with too much filth to understand that.
What prayers of yours have been answered?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173990 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Namely your no God assumption lacks explanatory power for anything. Your no God assumption comes with consequences. Just like if you assume no gravity and walk off a cliff.
LB, none of our sciences include any deities or untestable magical beings in them. Science only works with the material, the testable, the disprovable.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173992 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of my hesitancy is the variety of definitions people use for the words 'God and 'deity'.
For example, some identify God with the universe or, more specifically, the laws of nature. this was Einstein's viewpoint. I cannot then argue for the non-existence of that specific notion of God. I even believe that 'God' exists. But I also believe that is a bad usage of the term 'God' since the word 'God' is typically limited to intelligently acting beings.
On the other end of the spectrum is the God of the old testament which I do think can be conclusively shown not to exist.
In the middle somewhere is the Platonic view of God, which I also reject for philosophical reasons (I think Platonism is deeply flawed in terms of its view of ideas, for example).
In this sense, I am ignostic: I don't think the notion of a God has been well enough defined to even have the question of existence be meaningful.
This is extended by the notion of a supernatural, which I think is also deeply flawed. It ignores the very way we go about defining the concept of 'natural' and what it means to exist. So any supernatural deity is, almost by definition, impossible to exist since a supernatural is.
Nice! Well said, Poly.

I just wrote something like that above, too :)

Of course these concepts are deeply flawed! They aren't designed to explain reality and produce new knowledge and technology. They are designed to let believers, who may not be sophisticated language users, communicate through shared, believed metaphors.

They are meant to be vague - in this way, they can express emotion, be used in reference to disparate people's experiences, and be an effective tool of communication.

They absolutely not useful at describing reality because that's not what they're about.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#173993 Aug 9, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
There you are Bongo! Now you're returning to how you were before.
Baby, evidence from the "heart" is subjective evidence. It's not objectively true for all humans.
Why'd you call me a dick?
Thought you would get a laugh. You are highly esteemed xo

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173997 Aug 9, 2013
1: 95% of my questions you have outright avoided or tried to change the subject. And you know it.

2: Prove that I have not checked into them. Your own links verified my claim thanks. Except when you humiliated yourself bringing up a dude from the year 750 or whatever lol! That was funny :))

3: Your personal opinions would not hold water in a courtroom and really that is all you have, your personal opinions with zero facts.

4: Actually what I correctly said was that there is no secular evidence for Jesus and I have backed that up.

This was great for laughs thanks!

As I said it is fine that you must rely on blind faith and superstition to live your life. You may not like it but just accept it that there are those of us who simply do not and prefer to love our lives based on observable facts.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>The evidence supports the trust I have. Trust isn't blind. Nor should it be. If you want to look at facts, by all means. Let's look at facts.

1) You consistently assume I won't answer you, and I do. That's blind faith in your own assumptions.

2) You used a list of authors from a skeptics website and never checked the facts of each listed author to see when they lived, what they wrote about, or where they lived.
You accepted that list on blind faith. See where it got you?

3) You say I have NO evidence when in fact I have evidence that would be sufficient in many court rooms if this was a trial. The fact that you attack it so vehemently is the best possible indicator that it's correct, and I love that you attack it so much. Defense attorneys do this all the time. They attack what they believe is the prosecution's strongest evidence.

Further, you accept what OTHERS have said about Jesus being a myth. You haven't presented a single argument that I haven't seen or heard hundreds of times before. So you also are placing faith in the arguments of those people. And you claim you live on reason? Please fool- get real.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#173998 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel that way. I actually like most atheists. What I don't like are the snarky egomaniacs on both sides. I also don't have much patience with intellectual dishonesty or laziness. You, Poly, Hiding, Quantum Bob, and Albtraum are all pretty cool. I mean that.
"Proven divinity" ended way more than 2,000 years ago. Why do you think?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173999 Aug 9, 2013
You look at guys while they are wiping their christhole?

Ewwwww TMI Dave TMI! We really didn't need to know that. Or are you posting from a nursing home now?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>"Man meat". "Johnson".

LOL!!!

You such a a stud.

Must have been quite a sight when the guys in the locker room saw you lift your ass up in the air to wipe front to back. My "package" kind of gets in the way sitting down. Maybe yours didn't.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#174000 Aug 9, 2013
I know you wish to silence atheists. Sorry it's not going to happen.
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>Your reasoning is failing miserably or else you could walk freely away from this thread and never talk about God again.....but your faith in atheism is just too weak. You know Christians are much happier and at peace than you are.

We have your miserable posts of slander, persecution, bickering, verbal assaults, and mockery to prove that you know full well that you are a liar first to yourself and then to others.

*I can just tell you are steaming mad at me for exposing the truth about what a deceptive liar you are*

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#174001 Aug 9, 2013
Good thing I have never been humiliated by Dave. I do enjoy factually destroying him for laughs. Especially when he rages against people reading books! Hahaha!
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>I don't expect a rouge African to constantly be humiliated by Dave as you and your Johnson obsess about what you claim is non existent.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#174002 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Good thing I have never been humiliated by Dave. I do enjoy factually destroying him for laughs. Especially when he rages against people reading books! Hahaha!
<quoted text>
You embarrass yourself every time you post, you're just too dim to realize it.

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) 2 min USAsince1680 1,396,558
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 21 min Talkin To DaHypoc... 9,891
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Trojan 32,292
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr ThomasA 311,364
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 27 Barbi A 201,865
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web