Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258451 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212615 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It just means you know nothing about historical investigation. For one thing i don't know any credible historian who acknowledges Zeus or Hercules as real. Same cannot be said for Jesus. You and by extension IANS seem to think Josephus, Philo, Jesus, Paul along with a host of OT writers were all wrong and you are right. All these ancients could not distinguish fact from fiction. Then you have all the varied accounts for the flood from different cultures. A boat, one family making it through. These are common themes. Written accounts is historical evidence! When you have multiple accounts then you have historicity. Fact being the ancients believed it happened from all over and wrote about it. You reducing it all to Zeus is just excuse making. They wrote about Zeus so anything they have to say about a flood is automatically false or as credible as their belief in Zeus? Amazing how you run from the truth and manipulate and throw the ancients under the bus so you can cling to your unbelief. You don't give a rats ass about truth or history. So pathetic and cowardly.
Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone were real too. Didn't keep a lot of myths being written about them.

BTW...the parts of Josephus about Jesus have been shown to be later additions by Christian monks. The language used in those parts is all wrong for a writer in Josephus's time.

And Jesus is not known to have written anything...even assuming he actually existed (a debatable point). And using Jesus to prove Jesus is known as circular reasoning.

There are no known references to Jesus that do not lead back to the Gospels as their source. And using them to prove Jesus is just like using the Iliad to prove Zeus...as has been pointed out.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#212616 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It just means you know nothing about historical investigation. For one thing i don't know any credible historian who acknowledges Zeus or Hercules as real. Same cannot be said for Jesus. You and by extension IANS seem to think Josephus, Philo, Jesus, Paul along with a host of OT writers were all wrong and you are right. All these ancients could not distinguish fact from fiction. Then you have all the varied accounts for the flood from different cultures. A boat, one family making it through. These are common themes. Written accounts is historical evidence! When you have multiple accounts then you have historicity. Fact being the ancients believed it happened from all over and wrote about it. You reducing it all to Zeus is just excuse making. They wrote about Zeus so anything they have to say about a flood is automatically false or as credible as their belief in Zeus? Amazing how you run from the truth and manipulate and throw the ancients under the bus so you can cling to your unbelief. You don't give a rats ass about truth or history. So pathetic and cowardly.
Which one of Noah's family was Chinese?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212617 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Amazing how you run from the truth and manipulate and throw the ancients under the bus so you can cling to your unbelief. You don't give a rats ass about truth or history. So pathetic and cowardly.
What are you so angry about?

You disagree with us, and we disagree with you. But only you claim the right and feel the need to use words like "pathetic" and "cowardly" to describe those who disagree with you. I don't. Why? I don't require you to agree with me, and I don't get angry if you don't.

Incidentally, my opening question was rhetorical, and you need not answer it. I know the answer. The reason you are angry when others disagree with you is the flip side to the reason I am not.

The difference is that your beliefs are founded on nothing more substantial than faith, meaning that facts are a continual threat to you. My beliefs are founded on those facts, and change when new facts come along to indicate that they should. How could I possibly be angry about that?

Show me something new that suggests to me that Jesus actually was a god, and I'm right there with you, amazed by the news, and thrilled to have been enlightened. Show you something that suggests that he was not, and your whole worldview is threatened, and you begin calling the source cowardly and pathetic.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#212618 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Which one of Noah's family was Chinese?
Good question. I was wondering which one was Brazilian.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#212619 Feb 15, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>What are you so angry about?

You disagree with us, and we disagree with you. But only you claim the right and feel the need to use words like "pathetic" and "cowardly" to describe those who disagree with you. I don't. Why? I don't require you to agree with me, and I don't get angry if you don't.

Incidentally, my opening question was rhetorical, and you need not answer it. I know the answer. The reason you are angry when others disagree with you is the flip side to the reason I am not.

The difference is that your beliefs are founded on nothing more substantial than faith, meaning that facts are a continual threat to you. My beliefs are founded on those facts, and change when new facts come along to indicate that they should. How could I possibly be angry about that?

Show me something new that suggests to me that Jesus actually was a god, and I'm right there with you, amazed by the news, and thrilled to have been enlightened. Show you something that suggests that he was not, and your whole worldview is threatened, and you begin calling the source cowardly and pathetic.
It's the religious way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212620 Feb 15, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
or magical mushrooms?
Magic, for sure-- it's the only thing the bible has going for it, really.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212621 Feb 15, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
I was reading earlier today that theology IS a rationalist system. It starts with basic axioms and then follows the logic to where those axioms lead. The problem is that their basic axioms are unfounded, or in some cases provably not true. Such a logic system is quite capable of leading to false conclusions, even though the logic leading to those conclusions is correct. As computer scientists say, "Garbage in, garbage out".
You're right. If one's premises are false, his conclusions are unsound (false) even if his argument is formally valid.

For those unfamiliar, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ comes this:

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid."

Note that if Elizabeth actually owns a Mazda, as you say, because the premise is garbage, i.e., false, despite a valid argument, the its output is also garbage.

If one treats the existence of a god as a self-evident truth - an axiom - it had better be right, or one will be generating a lot of garbage output.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212622 Feb 15, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I was reading these earlier and have read a few articles on Citizens just up and leaving the christian nation of America.
Do you think there's some validity to this?
I have a few mates from the States who have left and live in a place filled with international tourists and new arrivals alike but like to get different opinions from those still in the US.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/2014-too-...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-09/amer...
In reality, the numbers indicated by your 2nd article are miniscule. Compared to the total number of US citizens, less than a 10th of a percent wish to leave?

If you'd asked me outright, I'd have estimated the numbers to be much larger, than a mere 2000+ individuals.

As for your first link-- I've not heard of it (the law), nor has it actually passed. I don't see how it could be enforceable anyhow-- living outside the US pretty much removes a person from US jurisdiction, including the IRS.

They have no jurisdiction in foreign countries.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212623 Feb 15, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I must confess to a personal fondness for 3.1415926...
Herhehe.
Hey! That's kind of an irrational thing to say...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212624 Feb 15, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Little girls, like butterflies, need no exuse." - RAH.
And yes, I'd take a bullet.
Me too.

Little kids should be protected, regardless.

A pox on the bible's monster-god, anyway-- who delights at the dashing of baby's brains on the rocks (according to his main advertisement brochure)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212625 Feb 15, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Actually, there are very early Israelite writings that put Yahweh as the son of El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. They even mention Asherah, the wife of Yahweh. There are even a few places in the Bible where Asherah is mentioned. The P authors didn't do a complete editing of the early Bible. They left some of the stuff they were trying to write out.
You might be referring to the use of the word "we" and other plural forms when the god is voiced.

The faithful like to point out man's failings a lot. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the cobbling of that bible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212626 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I dyed my pubic hair blonde but before I did that I wrote front and back on my panties just to be sure.
When I tried to put them on this morning the words were upside down and I couldn't read them. Oh well.
I miss RR :(
LOL!

And what do you mean you miss RR? Has something untoward happened? Did his hateful ways finally catch up to him?

If so -- that's too bad. I do not wish ill on anyone, not even one as hateful (to me) as RR was.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212627 Feb 15, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wasn't that what she said?
I seem to recall that she denied her patients pain meds - but accepted them herself.
Teresa wrote that the suffering of people (including children--so long as they were poor, of course) was delightful to her god.

She was a horrid monster, had less compassion than your average rock.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212628 Feb 15, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Religion and science are on a curve, they curve away from each other.
Good for science and scientific progress.

Bad for religion-- sooner than later, any religion that continues to deny reality, will fade away.

Who here knows anyone who worships Set or Horus?(for example)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212629 Feb 15, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Absence of expected evidence of RR is evidence for the absence of RR.
And there's a lot of it.
Funny, I don't miss Dave at all.
Wait.... Dave's gone too?

WTF?

Do you think there's a connection? Perhaps RR and Dave have finally consummated their deeply held attraction for each other?

Hmmmm....

.... it's kinda funny, but until today, I had not realized either one was absent.

I've been skipping over all the godbot's posts, you see...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212630 Feb 15, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the meaning of life and everything.
Yes, yes-- that's the generalized meaning of '42', sure.

Everybody knows that.

But what is the *real* question that '42' is the answer for?

I'm told that Big Thoughts is still working on it... or was it the white mice? I forget...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212631 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Dave leave? I'll let my scroll wheel know.
Yes... it does save ever so much skipping-down.

Does it not?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212632 Feb 15, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
3.14159265... doesn't hold a candle to 2.718281828...
Oh, I don't think there's a plank's distance between the two.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212633 Feb 15, 2014
scaritual wrote:
LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#212634 Feb 15, 2014

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 Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... 1 hr wondering 10
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 67,566
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Eagle 12 3,559
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? Apr 25 superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Apr 25 superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
More from around the web