Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#208995 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So many ambulances, so little time.
Not quite.

Defamation.

Well-known and very wealthy celebrities.

I'll help with the redistribution of that wealth.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#208996 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I've observed God directly, not just His effect.
I think you are lying, can you prove it? The psychiatric institutes are filled with people who have observed imaginary beings, even claimed to have had conversations with them, their considered mentally ill, what makes your situation any different from their's?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#208997 Jan 29, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the cards will fall the correct way ..
Too much information.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208998 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Observing a wake can tell us much about what caused it. A Whale, because it was once a land mammal, swims with an up and down motion of it's tail much like how the spine flexes on a running land mammal, would leave a very different wake. The size of the wake would tell us about the size and approximate weight of boat, and since there was never been a natural phenomena observed that produced a wake like one caused by a boat, you'd have to discount that. Since the only wakes we have ever observed are left by boats, the most probable and accurate answer would be a wake caused by a passing boat.
Of course it could have been left by Poseidon swimming by, but much like your God, there is no evidence that Poseidon exists.
Observing a wake seems depressing. Especially if you don't know the deceased.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208999 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, there is no such things as "free will"
I say there is.

And you are not free to disagree, unless you are wrong, in which case your disagreement will prove I am right.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209000 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We do.
Rational ethics seem to elude you and many other people of faith. You ask the most elementary questions and never seem to understand the answers. I think that your window of opportunity to learn such things may have passed. The knowledge is self-evident to those who have matured seeking such understanding outside of faith. Faith in a god giving "absolute" morals seems to have made that understanding beyond your ken. Why else would you be asking the simplest questions ad infinitum?
It reminds me of myself as a child asking my father why I should take a wife and share my income with anybody. It didn't make sense to me, and neither did his answer. In the end, he just had to tell me that I would understand some day.
The difference was that I hadn't arrived at the window of opportunity to understand yet. When I did, the answers became obvious. But he could never have explained to my satisfaction before that, and neither can any of us answer your questions to your satisfaction. You will never understand, and should probably stop asking. Your questions provoke no thought except wondering what happened to you, which I'm sure is not your intent.
mtimber, lbr, RR and even Buck seem to think that we have to have some source of morals outside of ourselves, that we are incapable of understanding morals without some sort of authority.

And I think you are right, the window of opportunity for their understanding is past. They have only learned the authoritarian way, and now can not see any other viewpoint.

I blame religion.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209001 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Pissoffyoufuckingloser !!
Please. Don't descend to Buck's level.

Yes, he is an annoying twit. Let it roll off your back. He doesn't know any better.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#209002 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
blacklagoon's posts are usually scientifically accurate?!
Like this one?
""There is ONLY one way to determine if something is real or not, and thats reliable demonstrable evidence, and only science can supply us with that." -BL
DNA was not discovered in the 1950s, Ms Scientifically Accurate.
It was discovered in the 1860s.
You get almost nothing right.
You seem to disagree with my statement about science being the only reliable means in determining if something is real or not. Do you have an alternative methodology that could be used in making that determination? I'd love to hear all about it, ready.set......GO!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#209003 Jan 29, 2014
Doctor REALITY wrote:
Atheists preach that the Lord isn't REAL.....but yet they enjoy all of the blessings He has created for us. For such who refuse to repent and turn to the Lord, He will declare,'I have prepared a place for you. Depart from Me, ye cursed of the devil!, into the lake prepared for the devil and his angels!!'
Atheists preach nothing. Atheists lack a belief in deities.

ALL deities.

Prove that your particular god is real, prove that your particular god is the only god, prove that your particular god provided all these blessings you're talking aboutÂ…then we can talk.

Otherwise, you're just a bore.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209004 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Straw man argument, show me a society where child molestation is acceptable and we'll discuss it. Any group of people, large or small decide what is harmful and unacceptable behavior. The well being of the individual is usually the focal point, the right to swing my fist ends at your nose.
There is now and never has been an absolute morality, and please don't even attempt to bring your immoral holy book as an example of morality.
I have been trying to point out the same thing to mtimber, as well as others. They just don't get it. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the point to start developing a moral philosophy is "don't harm others". Despite having this pointed out many times, mtimber still asks the inane question above.

I am coming to the conclusion that they really can not grasp the idea.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209005 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Observing a wake can tell us much about what caused it. A Whale, because it was once a land mammal, swims with an up and down motion of it's tail much like how the spine flexes on a running land mammal, would leave a very different wake. The size of the wake would tell us about the size and approximate weight of boat, and since there was never been a natural phenomena observed that produced a wake like one caused by a boat, you'd have to discount that. Since the only wakes we have ever observed are left by boats, the most probable and accurate answer would be a wake caused by a passing boat.
Of course it could have been left by Poseidon swimming by, but much like your God, there is no evidence that Poseidon exists.
Yeah....

The invisible, unknown boat supposedly made the wake.

You're an idiot.

A wake is evidence of a wake and nothing more.

Extrapolating assumptions from mid-air is not evidence.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#209006 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Not quite skippy, science didn't KNOW Bumblebees existed before they found one. Now pay the f--k attention.AS FAR AS SCIENCE WAS CONCERNED BUMBLEBEES DID NOT EXIST, until they were discovered.
If scientists did not know what a bumblebee was, how did they conclude it did not exist?

Second question:

Have you thought of changing your name to "BumbleFuck"?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209007 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok..... Let's see....
Finding a fingerprint at a crime scene is not evidence that the person holding that fingerprint commuted the crime.
It is only evidence that the person's fingerprint was at the crime scene.
But we have the person to directly correlate with the fingerprint, to prove that's his fingerprint.
Relate that to black holes. There's a fingerprint, there's effects, but that's it. There's no black hole to match the fingerprint to.
It's like when they find a fingerprint at a crime scene, run it through the database and find nothing.
Who are they gonna blame?
I'm just following your logic...or lack thereof. It is not my position.

It is your position, as I understand it, that direct observation is required and that secondary effects are meaningless. Ergo, finding a fingerprint at a crime scene doesn't mean anything in this view. By your statements, it is not an indication that a person was there. Only that a fingerprint exists. This follows directly from your wake/boat example.

So it is not me, but you, that is making this claim. Unless you want to rethink your position concerning observations.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209008 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok..... Let's see....
Finding a fingerprint at a crime scene is not evidence that the person holding that fingerprint commuted the crime.
It is only evidence that the person's fingerprint was at the crime scene.
But we have the person to directly correlate with the fingerprint, to prove that's his fingerprint.
Relate that to black holes. There's a fingerprint, there's effects, but that's it. There's no black hole to match the fingerprint to.
It's like when they find a fingerprint at a crime scene, run it through the database and find nothing.
Who are they gonna blame?
If you are incapable of following the logical implications of your own statements, we might as well end this conversation right here. All you are doing right now is chasing your own tail.

If you are stuck in an endless loop, I'm hitting the ESC key.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#209009 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I've observed God directly, not just His effect.
No you haven't.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209010 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the combo - attacking the argument, and throwing in personal insults against the person. What's fun is if the two can be combined in a way where they seem indistinguishable. Sorta' like a right hook combined with a knee to the groin.
As in, "Barf Balloon, evidence suggests dinosaurs had DNA".
Or faulting the argument of a muslim guy, then calling him "Hazel Goldstein".
Possibilities abound.
No, Buck

Insults thrown in as an extra are not an ad hominem. They are just insults. You know...like the ones you are constantly throwing.

BTW...if what you said above were true...wouldn't that invalidate everything you say?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209011 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I find that responding to mtimber is still productive. His cognitive deficits and their relationship to his faith become the subject of discussion
What you say to mtimber will have no effect on him. He is impervious.

But they will show others the intellectual vacuity of his position.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#209012 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I did not say you can't measure a snowflake. I said snowflakes. As in, you can't measure how many snowflakes there were yesterday.

An average mass and a "very close" isn't a precise measurement.
"Precise" is a relative term.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209013 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Appear to whom?
Is "maximizing the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number" an absolute standard?
Who says so? Why?
What's wrong with maximizing the greatest satisfaction for only a few?
What's wrong with maximizing it just for myself?
Just another example showing Buck is not here to reach an understanding...as if that needed any more examples.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#209014 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>We don't know that black holes exist. We see evidence of effects and figure something is causing it. Just like you did assuming the wake is caused by an invisible boat, scientists assume the black holes.

There is no direct evidence of dark matter, either. It's a fill-in-the-blanks for what is unknown.

I never claimed that God is natural or part of the natural world.
We know that black holes exist.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Dogen 95,395
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 6 hr Elganned 180
Why creation? 7 hr Elganned 60
Atheism saved me Wed Amused 27
man Mon blacklagoon 3 1
The atheists mind Jun 15 Elganned 63
News Atheism and Wonder Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 50