Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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: Jan 11

Location hidden

#61654 Oct 30, 2011
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean proving a negative (to disprove a negative, prove the positive). Actually, the logic isn't all that hard. You can confirm the antecedent by completing the statement, "If <statement>, then God does not exist" and then go about showing the statement to be true. You can deny the consequence: "If God exists, then <statement>" and then go about showing the statement to be false. You can invoke the law of non-contradiction by showing that the god in question is believed to possess qualities that are incompatible with each other.
In each of the first two methods, though, you have to show that the logical relation between the two statements is valid. "If my hair is red, then God doesn't exist" won't do. Nor will, "If God exists, then my wife is fat." The third method has been used to disprove the Bible God to the satisfaction of many people, but that logic could also prove the Bible to be fallible rather than its God to be nonexistent. But the logic does clearly show that if the Bible is accurate, then its God does not exist and that if that God does exist, then the Bible's accounts of Him are flawed. Nor does the logic eliminate the possibility of both a flawed Bible and the absence of its God.
Have you done some computer programming? I would bet a dollar that you have.

If A > 18
Then Let B = "Legal Age"
Else Let B = "Goin' to jail."

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#61655 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>I have given you the explanation you asked for.
No you have not. You have shown me theological differences between Christianity and Islam. But you have not demonstrated to me the point at which Christians and Muslims stopped believing in the God of Abraham, and started believing in seperate Gods.

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#61656 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>Only one example among a multitude of examples. The Christian God and the Muslim God bear little resemblance.

A statement like this shows me that you know little or nothing about Islam or Christianity. To prove a point, I'm going to offer you a challenge. I want you to do a little research and find differences between the "Christian God" and the "Muslim God". For every difference you find, I will find two similarities. So how about it?

Since: Oct 10

Phoenix, AZ

#61657 Oct 30, 2011
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean proving a negative (to disprove a negative, prove the positive). Actually, the logic isn't all that hard. You can confirm the antecedent by completing the statement, "If <statement>, then God does not exist" and then go about showing the statement to be true. You can deny the consequence: "If God exists, then <statement>" and then go about showing the statement to be false. You can invoke the law of non-contradiction by showing that the god in question is believed to possess qualities that are incompatible with each other.
In each of the first two methods, though, you have to show that the logical relation between the two statements is valid. "If my hair is red, then God doesn't exist" won't do. Nor will, "If God exists, then my wife is fat." The third method has been used to disprove the Bible God to the satisfaction of many people, but that logic could also prove the Bible to be fallible rather than its God to be nonexistent. But the logic does clearly show that if the Bible is accurate, then its God does not exist and that if that God does exist, then the Bible's accounts of Him are flawed. Nor does the logic eliminate the possibility of both a flawed Bible and the absence of its God.
You can not prove any statement to be true or false.

Your logic is in the following form:

Firetrucks are red,
Fred's car is red,
Therefore Fred's car is a firetruck.

Neither does your circular argument work.

Somehow, I expected better out of you.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#61658 Oct 30, 2011
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean proving a negative (to disprove a negative, prove the positive). Actually, the logic isn't all that hard. You can confirm the antecedent by completing the statement, "If <statement>, then God does not exist" and then go about showing the statement to be true. You can deny the consequence: "If God exists, then <statement>" and then go about showing the statement to be false. You can invoke the law of non-contradiction by showing that the god in question is believed to possess qualities that are incompatible with each other.
In each of the first two methods, though, you have to show that the logical relation between the two statements is valid. "If my hair is red, then God doesn't exist" won't do. Nor will, "If God exists, then my wife is fat." The third method has been used to disprove the Bible God to the satisfaction of many people, but that logic could also prove the Bible to be fallible rather than its God to be nonexistent. But the logic does clearly show that if the Bible is accurate, then its God does not exist and that if that God does exist, then the Bible's accounts of Him are flawed. Nor does the logic eliminate the possibility of both a flawed Bible and the absence of its God.
How about:

1. all human cultures have some form of religious/spiritual belief system and experiences defined through their language and use of signs and symbols.
2. many of these are mutually exclusive
3. all of them have exactly the same evidence supporting their reality, which is to say personal experience guided by the cultural construction of spiritual experience within appropriate social context
4. since the only thing these different experiential and embodied realities share in common is the human animal (brain and body)
5. we can surmise that they are, in fact, a product of the human brain and body and
6. do not exist without

Therefore, deities and religious belief is real - all of them. They exist as entities within neuronal structures and produce effects within the brains and bodies of believers. They have limited effect outside, through discourse and performance, on other people, namely through shared experiences and emotions.

Other than motivating and causing emotion in people, they have no effect on reality.

Deities do not exist independent of people. They did not exist prior to people; they are embodied, experiential cultural constructions within the human animal.

Since: Oct 10

Phoenix, AZ

#61659 Oct 30, 2011
Correction: You can not prove either statement to be true or false.

Since: Oct 10

Phoenix, AZ

#61660 Oct 30, 2011
There are two possibilities:

1. God exists

2. God does not exist

Pick the one you want to believe in.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#61661 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>No proof has been presented by anyone on the existence or non existence of God. The atheist premise is "I can prove that God does not exist". Proceed from there with your logic.
That is neither a premise nor a universal atheist statement. That's why I call myself a nonbeliever most of the time rather than an atheist. The meaning is harder to misconstrue. I have no intention of proving that God does not exist, but I have helped to point the way for those who want to try. But for those who do make the attempt, would you be so kind as to describe the nature of God. Omniscient? Omnipotent? All merciful? Omnipresent? Eternal? Otherwise, there's no place to begin a logical sequence. It would be like asking a man whose hands are tied behind his back to do a few pushups. His inability to do so would say more about the legitimacy of your request than his ability to comply. Untie his hands (i.e. describe your God) or withdraw your challenge. Doing neither discredits your intellectual honesty.
Captain Pedantic

Louisville, KY

#61662 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>If there is something in that link that you think is important, cut and paste it here for all of us to see. I'm not going to do your research for you.
I have provided you with the source and definition of religion too and pasted the words on here. My dictionary was Merriam Webster Collegiate Collegiate Dictionary, also a well respected source. Show me the same courtesy.
Atheist are believers. Agnostics are doubters. You can try to spin it any way you want, but the meanings remain the same.
I Did cut and paste it last time I posted it for you, but you just ignored it, as you do anything that doesn't agree with you.

Here it is again, along with a few more:

Oxford Dictionaries Online:
Atheist
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definit...

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:
a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ath...

Urban Dictionary
Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...

Since: Oct 10

Phoenix, AZ

#61663 Oct 30, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>
A statement like this shows me that you know little or nothing about Islam or Christianity. To prove a point, I'm going to offer you a challenge. I want you to do a little research and find differences between the Christianity and Islam. For every difference you find, I will find two similarities. So how about it?
Simply read the New Testament and compare it to the Koran. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to immediately see the differences. You are the one that is ignorant here.

I'm too busy using my time to discredit the atheists on here. I am now replying to 28 different atheist posters on three different topic sites. They are hopelessly outnumbered and say some of the stupidest things. They only have entertainment value and are rapidly even losing that value. They are becoming quite boring, present company included. I don't know how long I can put up with their BS before I am bored to death. I have defeated them all numerous times. They are worse than athlete's foot. They keep coming back and have no shame.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight. See you tomorrow.

Since: Oct 10

Phoenix, AZ

#61664 Oct 30, 2011
Captain Pedantic wrote:
<quoted text>
I Did cut and paste it last time I posted it for you, but you just ignored it, as you do anything that doesn't agree with you.
Here it is again, along with a few more:
Oxford Dictionaries Online:
Atheist
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definit...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:
a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ath...
Urban Dictionary
Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
I see that you agree with me.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#61665 Oct 30, 2011
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>But...but..but....Bong o is offering you an imaginary god who has an imaginary paradise where you can live out eternity having to do nothing but sing his god's praises. Why do you not just believe so that you can spend eternity with him being bored out of your gourd singing eternally the praises of a tyrant? I just don't understand.
*snark*
It's those worthless streets of gold. It wouldn't take long to get sick of metal streets, and walkng would be the only way to get around. So no, I don't want any

Religion boiled down to basic's. "Reward for those in power and promised reward for those in servitude." ~ L. J. Lilly

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#61666 Oct 30, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest this may describe the Abrahamic religions(and others), but Christianity in specific, better than, "Monotheism", Henotheism" et`al. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism
I could be wrong, but I think that Judaism had moved from monolatrism to monotheism by the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. But I agree that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" suggests that those gods were believed to exist in competition with YWHW or El or whatever the Hebrew god was called at the time, even if YWHW was believed to be universal in scope and power while the others were limited to such specialized functions as fertility or war. Frankly, though, I'm no longer very interested in such details or distinctions. It just bothers me to see arrant nonsense bandied about as though it were established fact.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#61667 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>Only one example among a multitude of examples. The Christian God and the Muslim God bear little resemblance.

I concede you are a lunatic , and I one to argue with you.
Of course that proves nothing, but the above statement is totally in error. Everyone except perhaps you is aware that all three
Christianity, Judaism and Islam came from the same god of Abraham.
That much is a across the board known fact none of the three religions dispute. Well until you that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religi...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#61668 Oct 30, 2011
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong, but I think that Judaism had moved from monolatrism to monotheism by the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. But I agree that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" suggests that those gods were believed to exist in competition with YWHW or El or whatever the Hebrew god was called at the time, even if YWHW was believed to be universal in scope and power while the others were limited to such specialized functions as fertility or war. Frankly, though, I'm no longer very interested in such details or distinctions. It just bothers me to see arrant nonsense bandied about as though it were established fact.
Yeah, I'll agree with those last two comments especially. All of it is based on the most insubstantial premise.

A faith in a belief with only a desire for it to be reality.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#61669 Oct 30, 2011
Jumper wrote:
Atheists.
Ha!
They are the example of morality on the computer.
But you meet one face to face they curl up in a ball and beg for mercy when all you do is ask them for their point of view.
I say "Hey little fellow get up I won't harm you."
The whole affair makes me sad every time it happens.
And that would be never!

Again you prove yourself a vapid hole. Go make your god an offering of golden hemorrhoids.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#61670 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
There are two possibilities:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
Pick the one you want to believe in.
WHY?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#61671 Oct 30, 2011
RESP0NSE wrote:
<quoted text>Only a fool would not know that there is a marked difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. You are now quoting Jesus as an authority. Being a little bit of a hypocrite there, aren't you? You are very wrong. Allah is indeed the name of the Muslim god. Ask any Muslim. I am not a believer in any of those gods. You know full well my beliefs. I am, however a theist. I only dispute your ability to prove that any of them don't exist. I base my thoughts on my beliefs. What do you base yours on?
Of course I quote the reported words of Jesus when describing Christian theology--they are its basis. Within Christian theology, it is the relationship between God and His people that changed with the coming of Christ and the new Covenant, not God Himself, Who is Changeless (also one of the Islamic Names of God).

Likewise, the Qur'an shares many figures with the Bible: the angel Gabriel, for one, along with Adam, Abraham, Noah, David, Moses, Jesus as Messengers of God on the same level with Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets. It recaps their stories as told in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The reverence that Muslims have for Mary, whom they call Maryam or Miriam, is on a par with that of the Catholics or Gnostics. Islam has 99 names for God, not just Allah. The "god" in the Shahada, "There is no god but Allah (la &#702;ilaha &#702;illallah,)" is the another form of the same word, and fully translated, it reads, "There is no god but God."

While you base your thoughts on your beliefs, I've tried over the last couple of decades to replace as much belief as I can with solid knowledge and to be comfortable with uncertainty in the face of the unknowable. My curiosity drives me hither and yon, and I never know what treasures it will unearth. To my way of thinking, basing one's thoughts on one's beliefs is placing the proverbial cart before the horse.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#61672 Oct 30, 2011
Oops--I thought those characters were supported in Topix. That should read "la 'ilaha 'illallah."

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#61673 Oct 30, 2011
pmessages wrote:
And when We intend to destroy a city.We command its affluent but they defiantly disobey therein; so the word i.e., decree comes into effect upon it and We destroy it with complete destruction.
- Messenger of Allah
So Allah destroys the poor and helpless for the disobedience of the affluent? Wherefore, then, is He called the All-Merciful?

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) 19 min Dogen 75,475
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 hr Subduction Zone 206
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Nemesis 4,070
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 hr Subduction Zone 6,108
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 10 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web