Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258475 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.

ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221869 Mar 27, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I thought it went without saying that it was based on the assumption of ownership being right in the case of a specific religion's claim
Which I actually pretty much did say on top of it
"Well with all the religions out there and almost all claiming sole ownership of the creator, everyone but one would have to be wrong anyway."
I really needed to add "if one is right"?
I thought you guys were the smarter group
And you are kidding yourself if you think the goal of some scientists isn't to disprove God. I never claimed all scientists share the same brain or motives
And again, look a little deeper in the context for the point. It was their only personal belief that the supernatural can't exist could hinder someone from truly exploring all possibilities. And without proof the supernatural doesn't exist, which is basically impossible to prove a negative so I'd be talking more as it relates to a specific scenario as a possible explanation, it shouldn't be taken off the table. Particularly when it doesn't even contradict science but some people are so terrified of even opening the door to the possibility in any area
For example, science believes energy can't be destroyed. So why should the idea of 'Ghosts' be ruled out as irrational when it could be the energy that was behind the life that once existed in a body? But the bias brought to the table will cause some scientists to consider every possibility other than "ghost". Why? Why would that be such an irrational belief? Energy has to go somewhere right?
What energy?
You live bc you eat,,,if ghost spirits existed what would they live on?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#221870 Mar 27, 2014
kanye west try and snatch a grammy out my white prince brothers hand and and i will knock a patch of nap out his black head!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#221871 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
One more time, for posterity:

"Having sex with, kissing or touching a man (other than their fathers) before marriage is strictly prohibited."

Christians are creepy!
Lol. Yes they are. Actually, that quote is pretty tame.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221872 Mar 27, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>All you did is change the word "prove" to "determine" and restated the exact same idea. Which had nothing to do with the original claim that faith can't lead to truth. Of course it can. But I never said it could prove it or determine it to be true on its own. Then again, I never espoused it as an epistemology either. I simply disputed the claim that faith can't lead to truth because it can
If faith can't determine or prove something to be true, then how can it lead to truth? If you have faith in something that turns out to be true, that would be a mere coincidence. Faith did not lead you there.

And yet religion, and Christianity specifically, claims that faith is the ultimate virtue and will lead one to truth. Obviously that is not the case. Faith is fine as far as it goes; it's not inherently bad or anything. But it's far inferior to reason and knowledge in pursuing truth.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221873 Mar 27, 2014
Consider a different scenario on whether faith can lead to truth as far as one thing leading to another
Consider a criminal case where clues are discovered at the scene. Those clues by themselves can't prove anything. But they can certainly create an opinion. Now say the clues are taken to a forensic lab and through that process a fingerprint is found that leads directly to the guilty party who subsequently confesses

Would anybody claim those clues didn't lead to truth? Would anybody claim that because a forensic lab and technicians were needed that clues can't lead to a suspect?

Faith can lead to truth. It may also
not lead to truth. Or it may never be proven. Someone may believe a spouse is cheating on them with no evidence to think so. But they hire a private eye and turns out the spouse is cheating.

Did that belief lead to truth?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#221874 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it was just like when the 'Baggers claimed Bush's "War on Terrierism" stopped further attacks. Not only was it not true, but it was the Elmer Fudd defense. What do you need an elephant gun. Their ain't no elephants around here. See how good it works!
I used to hve a .460 Weatherby double rifle. Expensive as heck to feed, and it thumped some.

But it was a work of art. I miss it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221875 Mar 27, 2014
ChristINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
What energy?
You live bc you eat,,,if ghost spirits existed what would they live on?
I can't even tell if you are joking.

You wouldn't consider life to be a form of energy?

Sure calories are converted into fuel I guess for lack of a better word to maintain a human body. But that body would no longer need to be maintained if life was reduced to its pure energy existence.

I'm not sure how to answer really really because nobody has ever argued that life isn't a form of energy in here. I have seen some say they believe it is dispersed back into the universe when a body dies.

I guess I'd just say if life is a form of energy it would be self-sustaining in its pure form since energy can't be destroyed

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221876 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How does faith lead to truth? How does faith lead anywhere if you can have faith in any idea or its opposite?
It could happen by accident.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#221877 Mar 27, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not an expert on Jesus, I just know what he is quoted as saying in the Bible, and I see that you don't seem to follow much of it. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who has noticed because I have seen others, even other Christians, point that out to you.
But if are satisfied in being a Christian In Name Only, then you are doing a great job.
YES - only in the Name of Jesus, and thank you for your concern!

a long as we're sharing constructive criticism; you sure could study-up more on gaytheist doctrine, cuz you seldom provide any facts and figures of your faith, but only seem to challenge Christians over theirs;-)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#221878 Mar 27, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Touched by Butt Crack?
Lol. Maybe. Although I shudder at the thought of butt crack being the alleged god.

Truly though, you give butt crack too much credit imo, rretard holds his own when it comes to dishonest stupidity.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221879 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The instant science accepts that "there might be a supernatural explanation" is the instant the search for the truth ends.
If I knew you were just going to completely contradict what you said earlier I wouldn't have spent the time clarifying

But then you. This is exactly what I meant and how a preconceived bias has hinder a scientist from exploring all possibilities

And the funny thing is they may be ruling things out as irrational that would be considered extremely rationale if more facts were known. Back in the day people used to attribute many things to the supernatural because they didn't know what it was. Yet the same mistake is being made in reverse as people rule things out because they think it falls in the supernatural classification. Until someone can state with a certainty what all "supernatural" includes, how can you apply a definition that would justify the refusal to consider all possibilities, even without any evidence to the contrary?

Just as in the ghost example. I wonder how many scientists refuse to consider it because they consider "ghost" to be supernatural even though it simply be energy passed from a body? Or it may even be possible for it to maintain a degree if sentience like the mind it once ran. Sure that's a bigger stretch but to rule it out as even possible with nothing to support ruling it out? Is that what science is supposed to do?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221880 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion has fought the truths of science for centuries. How long did it take the Catholic Church to "forgive" Galileo for being right? How long did it take for Christianity to accept evolution to accept evolution? Hint: they are STILL fighting it tooth and nail.
And just look at the levels of proof required just to get religion to accept that the earth goes around the sun?
No. Science and faith are not compatible. Not by a long shot. And it's not science that has the immutable agenda. It is religion. And when religion is finally forced to accept scientific facts that refute their religious, it rushes to try to justify it's previously held beliefs in whatever convoluted way it can. That's called apologetics, an apt word, IMO.
1) I didn't say compatible. I said they were not natural enemies

2) I already said the church used to hinder religion

3) I already gave an example of how they can be comparable, such as the church re-thinking how it viewed Genesis based on scientific findings

Just because you want faith to be the boogeyman doesn't mean it must be. And just because the two have not worked in concert in the past doesn't mean they can't in the future. That is dictated by men on both sides. They could work together. At bare minimum they don't need to be obstacles to one another. They can simply be two different schools of thought. One that follows an empirical based system of proof to arrive at conclusions and another that forms beliefs of the unknown based on less tangible proofs.

There are scientists who believe in God. Are you really discrediting all the work of every one because of that? Some have clearly found a way to allow the two to co-exist without one being a detriment to the other

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221881 Mar 27, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
YES - only in the Name of Jesus, and thank you for your concern!
a long as we're sharing constructive criticism; you sure could study-up more on gaytheist doctrine, cuz you seldom provide any facts and figures of your faith, but only seem to challenge Christians over theirs;-)
Since you are the one who invented "gaytheist" doctrine it would actually be up to you to provide that information, not me. But I see what you are saying; it's a responsibility to back up claims with evidence, especially when you presume to proselytize for them, isn't it?

It's a pity Christianity is so down on being challenged. It could really benefit from learning more from science, which actually benefits from being challenged.
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#221882 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I found a pic of you....
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Not as good as this one of you:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/5677...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221883 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean that man needs to be saved from a god that can't stomach him as he was created.
It's not clear why we alone were given standards that we couldn't meet. I'm sure glad that dogs weren't told that if they disobeyed that they would be tortured forever. I like dogs, and am sure that they are doing the best they can just like you and me.
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, when man fell, only the serpent was there-
Well I personally don't believe he'll is eternal or that Genesis is literal

But maybe the reason man failed to live up to expectations is because the fault lies with man. He certainty had the knowledge, means, and ability to live a moral life. Especially if man chose his neighbor over power and greed.

The animal kingdom has 'family' units that hunt, protect, and care for one another and they do it much more consistently and efficiently than man. And they do it with less intelligence, means, and ability.

So perhaps it isn't a design flaw but simply a result of allowing autonomy and free will. Man isn't incapable of going the right thing. He shouldn't even necessarily be predisposed not to. Yet he often does. So where should the blame of choice lie? If a kid chooses to do wrong, despite being taught better, do you blame the kid or the parents that created him?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221884 Mar 27, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
WJTDIA?(would Jesus think deadwood is awesome?)
2 can play the self-righteous hypocritical game;-)
??

LOL

Man if you are gonna drag around a resentment this long you should at least wait for a time you can get more bang for your buck

You sure showed me!

Just for giggles, what is the original issue I addresses you about that you have no joined the game on with this brilliant post? I have a feeling the comparison will make this even funnier

:)

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221885 Mar 27, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
But maybe the reason man failed to live up to expectations is because the fault lies with man. He certainty had the knowledge, means, and ability to live a moral life. Especially if man chose his neighbor over power and greed.
I have a hard time understanding how God can be perfect and omniscient, yet created something imperfect and the blame for that imperfection lies with the creation not the creator, and how God could not have seen that coming in the first place.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221886 Mar 27, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text> Man isn't incapable of going the right thing.
Christian ideology says otherwise. Otherwise Jesus would not be the only path to salvation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221887 Mar 27, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds nice, but I'm afraid it not Biblically supported. Not all living things were created in God's image according to the Bible, were they? No. Only the one which messed up the worst.
Actually, that's pretty funny when you think about it.
I believe we have talked about this habit before. Making fun if things you pretend that I said is a little strange

I didn't say God created all life in His image

And the Bible says man should not cover his face because it was made in the image of God. So are you positive you even know what it means when it says God created man in His image?

Personally I think it could have to do with several things. Neither of those is morality. If you find any verse that suggests God created man's nature in the image of God let me know.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221888 Mar 27, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a hard time understanding how God can be perfect and omniscient, yet created something imperfect and the blame for that imperfection lies with the creation not the creator, and how God could not have seen that coming in the first place.
I have a hard time understanding how critics of the faith can accuse believers of creating God in their image and then go in to do the very same thing

Show me where it says an omnipotent being must be able to know the future?

But please limit it to that. I can't have the free will vs knowing the future debate. Just simply explain why God would have to know the future of brings not yet in existence to be God?

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) 27 min 15th Dalai Lama 76,872
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 41 min yehoshooah adam 4,304
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr John 712
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr John 32,165
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 22 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Jul 17 Eagle 12 - 6,123
More from around the web