Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#187246 Nov 25, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. estrogen therapy might be right for you ..
.. just ask your doctor ..
.. side affects may include irrational emotionalism, a smaller penis and an obsessive desire to knit ..
Oh great ..all we need is a salt water crocodile like him, run in and want to try on some dresses and play patty cakes and such. bwhahahahah

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#187247 Nov 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I checked in at T5 next to Arya Stark recently. She's so tiny. If my wife hadn't pointed her out I'd never have realised this little person with a modest suitcase was actually that huge on screen presence.
<quoted text>
After HL's hormone treatments, he is too busy looking in the mirror... trying to decide if his butt is too big.
LCNLin

United States

#187248 Nov 25, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, billions of people throughout human history have not experienced God, or at least we have no solid evidence that they did. Do you realize that there have not been billions of people throughout human history. When I was a child the total world population was in the 2 billion range, and now it is something over 7 billion, and that 2 billion would have been the most people ever alive at one time in recorded human history, and that occurred because man had found new ways of preventing early death, and it now becoming a problem, because there is not an infinite amount of matter to feed a constantly increasing population. While there were a total of several billion people that have ever existed, the numbers that might have claimed they "experienced" God would have been extremely small in number. I have lived all my life in communities of mainly believing human beings, yet I have yet to encounter anyone who will tell me with evidence that he has experienced God. Yes, people will recite stories of some coincidence that occurred in their life, and say they 'believe' that God did it, but that is not evidence of a God acting but rather a deliberate decision by that individual to put God's name as the cause of anything he doesn't understand.
Even if it were to happen that some person was to get up in front of a crowd and claim that he was going to ask God to grow a new leg on an amputee, and for some strange reason the whole crowd witnessed the leg actually regrowing on that amputee, that would certainly prove that something miraculous had occurred, but what would make it prove that the God of the Bible had caused it? Did this invisible God suddenly materialize and put that leg there? Since that has never occurred (and never will - which is one of the reasons that faith healers don't use those kinds of examples in their scam presentations), it will never happen. Yet man is a fairly long way along the road to discovering how to regrow that leg, using what man has discovered through scientific research, and is regrowing some body parts, skin for example, now.
"Actually, billions of people throughout human history have not experienced God..."

OK name 50 of these people :-)

Your long post is amusing and seem atheist-centric.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187249 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing is not always wrong, dude.
If you killed a man in self defense, how is that wrong?
<quoted text>
Which society are you referring to?
In some societies, rape and slavery is still legal and deemed moral.
<quoted text>
You made the claim.
Why can't you back it up?
Do you think abiogenesis is real?
Oh, and if you're gonna talk shit about someone being stupid, at least spell "you're" right in your shit-talking sentence...
So I guess you're saying the God to worship killed little babies in self defense? REALLY.

And in some societies, and not that long ago, cannibalism was considered moral. Morality is what the society you belong to consider's moral. I the society that both you and I belong to rape and slavery are not only considered immoral, they are illegal and punishable. Does the God to worship belong to a society where rape and slavery are moral? He is, in fact, the agent for both. Why aren't you terribly embarrassed by a God so utterly immoral by just about everyones standards? If you want to place your God in a barbaric society that considers both slavery and rape as moral, be my guest.

Abiogenesis is the most logical cause for man, logical because it doesn't rely on myths and magic rather on science, the science which has already formed the building blocks for life out of non-living material. I'll go with what science has pointed to rather than an immoral mythical being scooping up some dirt and blowing on it. Put in those terms doesn't that just sound totally insane.

I'm not going to sit here and do your homework for you, go to talkorigins.com for the information you will undoubtable reject.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187250 Nov 25, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were in the US Army right?
The US Army has killed humans and even civilians.
There have been atrocities done by members of the US Army going back before the Civil War. Those atrocities even include rape of civilians.
Does this mean that you too are a murder and rapist? You were a member of that organization.
This is how you’re painting God. In my example I haven’t shown you how the US Army help liberate Europe from a evil dictatorship. Saving perhaps millions of civilians including Jews who were being starved to death,
Doctor you don’t live by your own standard. You paint God as evil yet paint yourself as more righteous than God. Your mind is polluted with self righteousness.
If killing during a war was a crime, them millions of us would now be in prison. Society accepts killing in war as necessary to winning, and in some cases necessary in preserving the freedom and way of life of a people.

You come up with the most lame ass analogies I have ever seen. Come on now pops, God was NOT a member of an organization, he was, as YOU believe, the creator of all there is, a kind and loving being, a being with unlimited powers who apparently was acting on his own when he killed millions, including defenseless little babies.

I killed because my Government required that I do so, in many ways I had no choice in the matter, and in reality it was kill or be killed, so any killing that I did was in self-defense.

No one required God to kill, he decided that all by himself. And because I have never killed beyond what was required of me, and for reasons of self-defense, I am in fact more righteous than the God you worship. And I can say with certainly, that I have never killed a baby, or any children. Can your God say that???

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187251 Nov 25, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess you're saying the God to worship killed little babies in self defense? REALLY.
And in some societies, and not that long ago, cannibalism was considered moral. Morality is what the society you belong to consider's moral. I the society that both you and I belong to rape and slavery are not only considered immoral, they are illegal and punishable. Does the God to worship belong to a society where rape and slavery are moral? He is, in fact, the agent for both. Why aren't you terribly embarrassed by a God so utterly immoral by just about everyones standards? If you want to place your God in a barbaric society that considers both slavery and rape as moral, be my guest.
Abiogenesis is the most logical cause for man, logical because it doesn't rely on myths and magic rather on science, the science which has already formed the building blocks for life out of non-living material. I'll go with what science has pointed to rather than an immoral mythical being scooping up some dirt and blowing on it. Put in those terms doesn't that just sound totally insane.
I'm not going to sit here and do your homework for you, go to talkorigins.com for the information you will undoubtable reject.
"Morality is what the society you belong to consider's moral"

Huh...

So morality isn't set in stone, as you first implied.

Why is abiogenesis the most likely cause for man? There's no evidence for life creating itself.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#187252 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Morality is what the society you belong to consider's moral"
Huh...
So morality isn't set in stone, as you first implied.
Why is abiogenesis the most likely cause for man? There's no evidence for life creating itself.
Absolutely, that's because the biosphere did. It had to make it happen, and it did.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187253 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then according to your understanding of evidence, DNA did not exist until there was evidence for it.
Imagine that.
<quoted text>
HAHA!
Germs didn't exist until we discovered them...
That's your argument?!
As far as science was concerned, no they didn't exist.

Do you believe that a substance called "pixie dust" exists? Actually I'm asking this of a person who believes a mythical being scooped up some dirt and blew on it and out popped a fully formed human, so I'm probably asking the wrong person, LOL. But most intelligent people would say no. A substance that when sprinkled on you, allows you to not only defy the laws of gravity, but allows you to venture into the hostile environment of out space without any protection whatsoever, so most would say that "pixie dust" doesn't exist, however 50 years from now, just such a substance might then exist, and you would be saying the same thing about pixie dust and you are now saying about Germs. At the time Germs were unknown, just like pixie dust is now unknown.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you, if science doesn't know about something, then it is non-existent, until such time it is discovered.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187254 Nov 25, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>As far as science was concerned, no they didn't exist.
Do you believe that a substance called "pixie dust" exists? Actually I'm asking this of a person who believes a mythical being scooped up some dirt and blew on it and out popped a fully formed human, so I'm probably asking the wrong person, LOL. But most intelligent people would say no. A substance that when sprinkled on you, allows you to not only defy the laws of gravity, but allows you to venture into the hostile environment of out space without any protection whatsoever, so most would say that "pixie dust" doesn't exist, however 50 years from now, just such a substance might then exist, and you would be saying the same thing about pixie dust and you are now saying about Germs. At the time Germs were unknown, just like pixie dust is now unknown.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you, if science doesn't know about something, then it is non-existent, until such time it is discovered.
Nice red herring.

Well, not really.

It was so obvious and attempt to change the subject to what you call myth.

The subject was about what existed prior to human knowledge of it. You claimed DNA & germs didn't exist until we discovered them.

That's one of THE most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Germs existed prior to human knowledge of them.

DNA existed prior to human knowledge of it.

Why is that difficult for you to understand?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187255 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You wrote: "When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT."
Spontaneous generation was NEVER a fact, even though it was the best explanation for the time (2,000 years).
The Earth has NEVER been the center of the universe, even though it was the best explanation science had.
What the hell is wrong with you?
I guess you MISSED "At the present time"

So again your contention is that science was wrong in claiming the earth was the center of the universe? "AT THE PRESENT TIME" That was the best explanation possible. Science has NO way of looking into the future, it deals with the information available, and will amend or change it's findings as new information is discovered, and science moves on. That is how science works, it changes its stance as new information is discovered. Its a self-correcting system, a very health way to do business.

Now lets talk about religion, it NEVER changes it's stance, it wallows in dogmatic beliefs and refuses to even begin to investigate. It is NOT a self-correcting system like science so becomes arrogant and mired in mysticism and myth. A very unhealthy way to do business.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187256 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm arguing with blacklagoon.
He wrote: "When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT."
Don't you find any objections to that?
Doesn't anybody on this thread other than me find an objection to that?
Can you think of ANYTHING that is observable and testable, and is the absolute best explanation at this present time, that is NOT a fact?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187257 Nov 25, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you MISSED "At the present time"
So again your contention is that science was wrong in claiming the earth was the center of the universe? "AT THE PRESENT TIME" That was the best explanation possible.
But it was wrong. It wasn't an accurate explanation at all.

Ptolemy was a 2nd century astronomer, he had an
Earth-centered model of the solar system that stayed "scientific fact" until Copernicus came along 1400 years later.

So for 1200 years, everyone in the world was lies to from your precious science.

Whether it's in the past or present, what is non-fact is non-fact. Your science has proven that it jumps the gun too much on what it thinks as "fact".

Like the geocentric solar system, taught as fact for 1200 years. Never a fact.

Or spontaneous generation, taught as fact for nearly 2,000 years. Never a fact.

What are we being taught as "fact" right now that you so blindly believe because science knows it's a "fact"?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187258 Nov 25, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Can you think of ANYTHING that is observable and testable, and is the absolute best explanation at this present time, that is NOT a fact?


Everyone sees a different truth, nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. This has been known for some time.

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
-Marcus Aurelius

If we lived in Aristotle's day, or for the next 1900 years after him, we'd likely believe that spontaneous generation is fact, because science said so.

Capisce?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187259 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Morality is what the society you belong to consider's moral"
Huh...
So morality isn't set in stone, as you first implied.
Why is abiogenesis the most likely cause for man? There's no evidence for life creating itself.
I am sorry if I implied that morality was set in stone, it isn't.
As I see it, at least in the discussion you and I are having, there are two options.
1.) Life arising from abiogenesis.
2) Life being created by a God being.
In the number one premiss we are dealing with things found in reality. We have a scientific working hypothesis which can demonstrate that amino acids, the building blocks for ALL life can be created from non-living matter, chemicals. Chemicals that were most likely present in an early earth. The catalyst for this process required energy, in the lab it was done with jolts of electricity, the catalyst in the early Earth was most likely the very energetic component of the sun,m its ultraviolet radiation.
The various compounds water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen are a thermodynamically stable mixture, which means molecules won't alter into anything else UNLESS there is energy present to kick them uphill. There was energy, heat from volcanos, the heat and ionizing power of lightning, and as I mentioned intense radiation from the Sun.
In number two all you have is a belief with absolutely NO scientific support, just simply "I have FAITH that God created man.
I like science, I find it extremely interesting and revealing, so to me, of the two proposals, the scientific one that support the possibility of abiogenesis seems most likely to me.
Of course we could also throw in the possibilities of panspermia, that life was seeded, either purposely or by chance, an astroid or some other space debris colliding with an early earth.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187260 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But it was wrong. It wasn't an accurate explanation at all.
Ptolemy was a 2nd century astronomer, he had an
Earth-centered model of the solar system that stayed "scientific fact" until Copernicus came along 1400 years later.
So for 1200 years, everyone in the world was lies to from your precious science.
Whether it's in the past or present, what is non-fact is non-fact. Your science has proven that it jumps the gun too much on what it thinks as "fact".
Like the geocentric solar system, taught as fact for 1200 years. Never a fact.
Or spontaneous generation, taught as fact for nearly 2,000 years. Never a fact.
What are we being taught as "fact" right now that you so blindly believe because science knows it's a "fact"?
I am sorry you do NOT understand the scientific process. Incremental advances, self-correcting, hypothesis driven, no absolutes, only, and I'll try this just one more time THE VERY BEST EXPLANATION AT THIS PRESENT TIME. If new information becomes available tomorrow, the EXPLANATION will then become the VERY BEST at this PRESENT TIME.

If you distrust science so much and have such distain for it, I would definitely avoid hospitals and medical science like the plague........Oh yeah, we don't have to worry about plagues wiping out huge portions of society thanks to science, at least AT THIS PRESENT TIME.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187261 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone sees a different truth, nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. This has been known for some time.
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
-Marcus Aurelius
If we lived in Aristotle's day, or for the next 1900 years after him, we'd likely believe that spontaneous generation is fact, because science said so.
Capisce?
If you irrational and logic and reason elude you then I suppose you will see a different truth. There is however only ONE truth, that which can be proven. Logic 101.......either A is or A isn't it can't be both. It is not possible to see A as isn't if evidence supports A as is. Unless of course you reject the evidence, only then can you have a different truth.

"Everything we hear is an opinion." Of course this would be false, when talking about factual things. "If you jump off the bridge you will fall." is NOT an opinion, it is a FACT. "The Earth revolves around the sun and spins on its axis." is NOT an opinion, it is a FACT. Of course we have false opinions as in "Evolution is only a Theory not a fact" Of course this would be an opinion, it would be false, but still an opinion. So things that are factual are NOT opinions, they are truth's.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187262 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone sees a different truth, nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. This has been known for some time....
Wrong. When did you study quantum mechanics ? You said on WSJLM you didn't even graduate high school. Sounds like another lie of yours.

This is just another "thing you heard" but have no comprehension of. Just like your alleged religious beliefs.

How do you know when RR is full of shit ?
He posts on Topix.

ROFLMAO

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#187263 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm arguing with blacklagoon.
He wrote: "When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT."
Don't you find any objections to that?
Doesn't anybody on this thread other than me find an objection to that?
Ya know RR - if I may - I do find an objection to some of the statement as you posted it.

Why?

Well, the supernatural world of ghosts and spirits has been observed and has been tested by many people using many scientific devices, yet many still think it is a false dimension, thus discern it to be not fact.

So yes - either the statement above that blacklagoon wrote is not accurate, or he doesn't agree with the statement he made in regards when it is applied to the spiritual dimension.

To each his own.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187265 Nov 25, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know RR - if I may - I do find an objection to some of the statement as you posted it.
Why?
Well, the supernatural world of ghosts and spirits has been observed and has been tested by many people using many scientific devices, yet many still think it is a false dimension, thus discern it to be not fact.
So yes - either the statement above that blacklagoon wrote is not accurate, or he doesn't agree with the statement he made in regards when it is applied to the spiritual dimension.
To each his own.
No such dimension's have ever been verified by science. The James Randy foundation has set aside one million dollars the anyone that can prove this supernatural world of ghosts and sprits. No one has claimed this prize since it was offered some 10-15 years ago, I wonder why!!

Can you name and describe the "scientific" devices used in this research? Can you "site" any reputable scientific journal that supports these findings?

There is NO evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, it doesn't exist. Personal testimony, anecdotal accounts, and someones delusional experience doesn't count as evidence.

The statement I wrote is accurate, if anything is observable (the scientific definition not a personal account) and testable then it is a fact.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187266 Nov 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Well said.
Thanks.
Buck Crick wrote:
In my clearer moments I regard atheism as a superior position to that of any organized religion, particularly Christianity. When there are no atheists around, I fight with Christians. I need to fight. And I don't know why.
I don't like fighting any more, but I have been willing to do it here on Topix in the past. That seems to have changed over the last two years. I can't say why, but I think our life changes may be part of the answer. I was unhappy with the nation and with what medicine had become. Fighting was in the air. Retirement and the change of venue four years ago might have been a factor.

Maybe you'll grow tired of the fight as well sometime soon. Good luck.

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 min Truth is might 320,271
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Nov 2017 1,643,526
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Not who you think 34,846
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Poor performance 11,802
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 9 Randy-From-Wooster 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web