Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258469 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: May 10

Location hidden

#188792 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I was invited to eat dinner at my friends house one time. When I showed up, I knocked on the door. Nobody showed up. I knocked again. I waited a few minutes. My friend's mom finally answered the door and rushed me inside. Then she said she was sorry for not getting the door sooner. She said, "Come on in, we're having kittens!"
Your story is fascinating - you having friends.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188793 Dec 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Tada yada yada blah blah blah blahzay scoop ditto BS!
There ya go, Aura.

Stick to what you know.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188794 Dec 1, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>How are those reading comprehension lessons going?
Awesome!

I just had sex with the teacher.

And this time it wasn't homeschooled.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188795 Dec 1, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>

I need a napkin.

What?
That time of the month, huh?

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#188796 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have learned to reject ideas, for sure.
Others have learned to follow the evidence.
Or the absense of that evidence.

"Look over there where it ain't"

Did you say reject?

You had me at You.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188797 Dec 1, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
HOLY SHIT, you've got to ne kidding right? Science knew that dna existed before it was discovered, really?
Yes.

Just like we knew oxygen existed before it was discovered.

We didn't know of it.

But we knew it had to be there.

If you doubt that then the whole theory of evolution and the theory of the history of the earth goes out the window for you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188798 Dec 1, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I've read the myth of Adam and Eve.
They were told not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
However, the bible god was fooled by a talking snake who tricked Eve into eating the fruit.
What was the first thing that Adam and Eve realised after eating the fruit? They realised that they were naked and covered themselves up.
Of course this implies that nudity is evil because if it were good they'd have remained naked.
So........
If nudity is evil then the bible god made Adam and Eve that way.
Circular logic at its finest.

Oh, there was no talking snake.

You said you read that story....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188799 Dec 1, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be true if I changed the definition of truth.
Hi Buck !!!
But not true if you inadvertently changed the definition of "change".

It seems it would be less confusing to use actual meanings of terms.

Then you wouldn't dupe yourself into saying stupid shit - like humans and dogs being born atheists.

"Atheism: a + theos, denying god" (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology).

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).

"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia).

"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).

"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy).

"Atheism is disbelief in God" (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press).

"Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being" (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress).

"Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).

"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia).

"Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God" (Oxford English Dictionary)

"Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty" (The New Encyclopedia Britannia).

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

"Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion).

"Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power"(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

"Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188800 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
You nailed it again, Dave.
You hear that religious people? THERE IS NO DEVIL!
You hear that materialists? YOU WERE DESIGNED WITH POLARITY!
Nothing can exist without polarity. You cannot be a human being if you do not have the propensity for evil and for good.
You would be a zombie.
No zombies in this design.
"Judge not so that ye be not judged"
It means COMPARISON!
You know what the EGO does? IT COMPARES OTHERS TO YOURSELF AND LONGS FOR SEPARATION!
Thank you, Dave Nelson - still the second smartest person on Topix.
Salute.
Correct.

It's all about the balance.

(not the margarin)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188801 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the definition you continually provide, the one I take particular issue with, the requirement is to believe that God doesn't exist. There is no mention of gods or deities in the generic sense.
<quoted text>
That is a different definition than the one I responded to.
Even if you don't acknowledge the difference between a god, gods, and God, I do. Someone who writes definitions has no excuse. The definition you provided is one for Christians. It's useless.
<quoted text>
I'm an agnostic and an atheist. I believe there are no gods, yet I don't claim to know it. If it is possible to believe in gods while maintaining some level of uncertainty, then it is also possible to believe there are no gods with some level of uncertainty. There is no logical basis for your objection.
<quoted text>
I don't like that definition because it's not very useful.
There aren't that many people that believe there are no gods. To arrive at that conclusion rationally takes a lot of consideration. Most people who aren't theists would likely see little reason to spend the time and effort on it.
<quoted text>
What you're talking about is a belief, but not necessarily the same kind of belief. It would depend on how the belief was arrived at.
I believe there are no sentient stars. By my reckoning, sentient stars are more likely to exist than what humans would describe as deities. Fire breathing dragons are even more likely.
<quoted text>
Your encyclopedia Christiania definition is useless. Your other definition isn't the most popular one among Christians or self identifying atheists.
Christians like a definition that revolves around their own belief system. Skeptics prefer a definition that clearly separates theists and everyone else.
You know how the vast majority of self identifying atheists define atheism. Why argue? You cannot change our actual beliefs or conclusions or positions by insisting on a definition we do not subscribe to. Without a shared language, we cannot communicate effectively. And it's only fair that people using a label for themselves should get to dictate what that label means.
TRANSLATION:

"We atheists get to tell you what a True Christian is and how you're acting all un-Christ-like but you don't get to use a dictionary and tell us what atheist means. It means what we say it means. It means what we want it to mean."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188802 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And you still won't engage it. No problema. The fact remains that arguments of the Hoyle fallacy type - 747s don't form spontaneously after windstorms in junkyards - and the foundational arguments of the intelligent design movement - the type and degree of complexity in living cells suggest that they could not have formed without an intelligent designer - are perforce more potent arguments against gods existing uncreated than against cells or galaxies existing uncreated.
I don't mind if you'd rather quibble over nothingness than rebut that.
Having made my point uncontested, the only thing I would add is to note that you managed to evade what would have been an interesting discussion by redirecting it to the vapid nonsense that it became instead. The reader is left to supply his own reasons why you might prefer to do that.
In several posts of this sort, you have referred to the intelligent design hypothesis.

(Notice I did not say "theory". Not because it is illegitimate to do so, but because I did not want to see 4,000 words of pretentious reasons why I can't do that)

Without exception, in every one you demonstrated that you do not know what it is.

So why would I respond?

Unless pointing out that you don't know what it is is a response.

And by the way, Hoyle's statement is not a fallacy.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#188803 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
It's only ridiculous because you keep trying to prove something you can't.
Your observation of the box in question is evidence.
Our question is, "Is there a kitten in the box?"

If there is a kitten in the box, we know what evidence we would expect to see that would support the conclusion that a kitten is in the box.

The absence of that evidence, is the evidence that there is no kitten in the box.
Buck Crick wrote:
So it is not absence of evidence.
Yes it is.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your evidence cannot be both absent and present.
Each instance of the word "evidence" refers to different data.
Buck Crick wrote:
The scientific community, you say?
“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”
&#8213; Carl Sagan; "Cosmos"
It's only getting uglier for you.
Appeal to authority.

Carl is talking about the ignorance of evidence, or the absence of it in terms of knowledge of the evidence.

Even so, the statement should read “The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence.”

Absence of expected evidence is always evidence of absence. That's a much more useful thing to remember.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188804 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
No. I don't think you or anyone else has felt God.
Well at least you admit it's just your opinion.
I'm saying that what you call "God" is an imaginary construct that is necessarily unique to you.
Your "God" might have flooded the Earth while another Christian's "God" didn't. These are very different deities. Any deviation in belief divorces what you call "God" from any other belief, no matter how many similarities there are.
If we were talking about something observable, it would be different. We could say that you believed in something real, albeit incorrectly. You could modify your beliefs to align with new discoveries. There's no such mechanism when it comes to deities. It's all just made up bullshit... anything goes. There's no benchmark. There's no accountability. Faith works on absolutely anything.
Yes, the "it's all a fairy tale!" atheist favorite.

Ignored.
Two people who have lived together in the same house for thirty years would describe that house in almost the same way, but there would always be numerous discrepancies.
Do you think that two human beings could believe in the exact same thing in the exact same way about something neither of them has ever observed?
uh-huh...

So if I think chocolate is too sweet and you thinks it's perfectly sweet then chocolate probably doesn't even exist, because we experience it differently.

Neat.
Whenever you're making the appeal to popularity, you'd probably include Mormons, Catholics, and Jews as believers in your "God", but they no more believe in your "God" than those that believed in Zeus.
Well, der...

When I'm talking about Americans, why don't I just go ahead and include Egyptians and Russians while I'm at it?
If you call what you experience an emotion, then by virtue of having that experience, it has been proven.
Oh.

Then my experience with God is "having an experience" that is equally proven.

Thanks for your help in clearing that up.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#188805 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
We've covered a lot of ground in the last few weeks. I've been keeping a running list of topics explored and terms defined on this thread in November, which is doubtless incomplete. If you or anybody else missed a few of these and would like to see them, I can find the links for them. It's one long list, but I've broken it up for readability:
Rational skepticism, freethinking, atheism versus agnosticism, organized religion versus personal religion, belief versus belief in, evil versus malice, science versus pseudoscience, hypothesis versus scientific theory,
the scientific method and the larger scientific vetting process, skepticism for science and medicine with an emphasis on the history of the idea of spontaneous generation, the definition of biological evolution, adaptive versus convergent evolution, chemical synthesis, the Higgs boson as confirmed scientific prophecy, what is a planet,
the functional (operational) definition of a Christian, prescriptive versus descriptive lexicography, the equivocation fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, the law of noncontradiction, two meaning of respect, two meanings of faith, open- and closed mindedness, submission versus autonomy, infantilism versus self-actualization, mature versus infantile love, spirituality versus spiritualism,
the supernatural, the self and ego, intelligence versus intellect and wisdom, dialectic versus sophistry, arrogance, special pleading, analysis, logical positivism, analytic philosophy, the philosophy of language, verificationism, framing and the use of language like pro-life and pro-choice, premise versus pseudopremise, conclusion verses pseudoconclusion, reverse argument, valid argument versus sound argument, analytic truth and tautology,
mutually exclusive complements, accuracy versus precision, meta-time and thinking out of time, the Gish gallop, psychological doubt versus intellectual / philosophical doubt, solipsism, the zero-energy universe, the Turing test, the evolutionary basis of the religious instinct (the god need ) and its relationship to childhood / tribal instincts,
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, evidence for abiogenesis, geologic time and the conditions on early earth, universal common ancestor, capitalism versus greed, subtypes of political conservatives, functional versus anatomical brain scanning, metacognition, Forer effect, Dunning Kruger effect, subjective validation, confirmation bias, antiprocess, bounded rationality, identifying where democracy is present and when it is gone,
discerning how can we distinguish when a group is reporting experience objectively or with skewed perceptions, whether science can rule out an actively intervening or logically impossible god, the problems with American medicine, controlled medical trials,
and assorted word lists such as comical words (quibberdick, mome, breedbate, snool, and snoutband), paraphilias, medical terms for common bodily functions, adjectives describing family relationships and the cardinal directions, assorted words about criticism (calumny, impugn, etc.), religious “apo” words, and roofing terms.
I don't think that there are too many more interesting and more useful discussions going on on the Internet.
Wow.

Most of the internet is whining about Obama.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188806 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Bad, dysfunctional - choose your own word. Whatever you call it, if the Christian god exists, it's responsible for it.
SO God created good and bad. So what? You can't have one without the other. There'd be no way to justify or define good without a counterpart.

He also created light and darkness. So? What happens when you stare at the sun? You go blind. In turn, what happens when you're in an absolute dark room? You also go blind. Both light and darkness are needed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188807 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
This is something the scientific community calls falsifiability.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Perhaps the wording confuses you.
Is there a kitten in the box?
Lack of kitten observation is demonstration of kitten missing.
I know you just like to argue but this is getting ridiculous.
Tide with Beach wrote:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
hmm..

So before there was evidence of DNA, that was evidence that it didn't exist?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#188808 Dec 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I was watching a fight once when a hockey game broke out.
http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche/ci_246310...

An article in this morning's paper about hockey enforcers and concussions.

The public's lust for blood and the profits derived drives this stuff. Actually a segment of the public.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#188809 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Just like we knew oxygen existed before it was discovered.
We didn't know of it.
But we knew it had to be there.
If you doubt that then the whole theory of evolution and the theory of the history of the earth goes out the window for you.
So we should trust the Bible in matters of Science? Please notice the last "bird" listed from your NIV in both lists.

Leviticus 11:13-19 (NIV)

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
14 the red kite, any kind of black kite,
15 any kind of raven,
16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,
18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Deuteronomy 14:11-18 (NIV)

11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188810 Dec 1, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Aw, cute.
Thanks, I just shaved it.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#188811 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular logic at its finest.
pot/kettle

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) 19 min Realtime 1,535,207
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr duded5 33,093
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr Truth is might 314,346
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 16 Patriot 11,170
Penn State University & State College May 12 Truechange 1
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr '17 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr '17 DelucaKoehn 11
More from around the web