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.

Thinking

Farnham, UK

#142542 Dec 7, 2012
Do you believe in the bible's contents? It says there was a war in heaven.
dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
Who told you this?
did you have visions?
halucinations?or night mares?
what you can do better?
mister?seems to my analize, that something wrong on your top???

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#142543 Dec 7, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method is the exact opposite of the faith-based beliefs of religion. Science is based on skepticism.

Gee poly I thought it was based on observation , evidence or
empirical data ?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#142544 Dec 7, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method is the exact opposite of the faith-based beliefs of religion. Science is based on skepticism.
Science is also based on unprovable assumptions.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142545 Dec 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao an old Man's blindness doh! It's ok Christholes jump on the iPhone auto spelling error, that's about all you got.
<quoted text>
lol

I was gonna ask what's the difference between a Nan & an old Nan, but......

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142546 Dec 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I mean, not really. Religion is basically belief without evidence, science is an evidence based system of gaining knowledge. Modern christianity has attempted to assimilate science into it's teachings, but only because not doing so would be dishonest to the point of absurdity.
I agree that maybe science is not the cure for faith, at least not in it's general form. Psychiatry is the cure for faith (just a joke, don't throw a fit).
Well..... Kinda, sorta, a lil bit.

Religion is a pursuit or interest that someone ascribes a lot if importance to. Evidence is not a driving factor or motivator, which is why religion requires faith.

Your description of science is close enough. It seems though, that many atheists kinda have a "belief system" instilled in their minds. Like science is a perfect & flawless system to have faith in.

I won't throw a fit, maybe shit, but not a fit.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142547 Dec 7, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method is the exact opposite of the faith-based beliefs of religion. Science is based on skepticism.
I know that, but don't you know that many religious people are skeptics, too? I'm one of them. I want answers, I want truth.

Science can not provide answers to all if our questions. It's a bug part yes, but it's not the whole.

There can be no scientific method applied to any non-scientific topic.
Mr Smartypants

United States

#142549 Dec 7, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is also based on unprovable assumptions.
Wrong. Real science is empirical in nature and based on *avoiding* unprovable assumptions.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#142550 Dec 7, 2012
Mr Smartypants wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Real science is empirical in nature and based on *avoiding* unprovable assumptions.
What you described is what science seeks to do. The assumptions of science such as the laws of nature being the same throughout the universe at all times and places is an unproved assumption.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#142551 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well..... Kinda, sorta, a lil bit.
Religion is a pursuit or interest that someone ascribes a lot if importance to. Evidence is not a driving factor or motivator, which is why religion requires faith.
Your description of science is close enough. It seems though, that many atheists kinda have a "belief system" instilled in their minds. Like science is a perfect & flawless system to have faith in.
I won't throw a fit, maybe shit, but not a fit.
I'm sure that some do, but if there is one system that I couldn't fault someone for "believing in," it would be the scientific method, or more accurately/generally, rationalism. It has proven itself to be very effective at getting results. Nothing if flawless though, so it helps to always be skeptical, even of proven methods. For example, remember the faster than light neutrino thing? Most scientists who heard about it did not immediately go "well, that settles it. They used the scientific method to get these results, so they must be right." Rather, everyone was skeptical, and said that much more testing needed to be done, and as it turned out, the original experiment was flawed.
Mr Smartypants

United States

#142553 Dec 7, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What you described is what science seeks to do. The assumptions of science such as the laws of nature being the same throughout the universe at all times and places is an unproved assumption.
Hell, everything is an unproved assumption if you dig deeply enough. For practical purposes, though, inductive logic seems to work pretty well. Since my red carpet hasn't turned to lava the last 1000 times I got out of bed, it's very unlikely that it will ever happen. Likewise, the laws of nature seem to be pretty darned rigid and unchanging so, by inductive logic, it's a safe assumption that they're unchanging. If a basic law did change, like the speed of light increasing by 10%, it would pretty much rattle the scientific community to its core.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142554 Dec 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure that some do, but if there is one system that I couldn't fault someone for "believing in," it would be the scientific method, or more accurately/generally, rationalism. It has proven itself to be very effective at getting results. Nothing if flawless though, so it helps to always be skeptical, even of proven methods. For example, remember the faster than light neutrino thing? Most scientists who heard about it did not immediately go "well, that settles it. They used the scientific method to get these results, so they must be right." Rather, everyone was skeptical, and said that much more testing needed to be done, and as it turned out, the original experiment was flawed.
That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".

I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#142555 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to Koder
You are really dishonest to the core, and you take pride in that. One day you will wake up and feel bad for being such a liar and a phony, until that day, thanks for the laughs, we know your idiotic game already.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#142556 Dec 7, 2012
Mr Smartypants wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell, everything is an unproved assumption if you dig deeply enough. For practical purposes, though, inductive logic seems to work pretty well. Since my red carpet hasn't turned to lava the last 1000 times I got out of bed, it's very unlikely that it will ever happen. Likewise, the laws of nature seem to be pretty darned rigid and unchanging so, by inductive logic, it's a safe assumption that they're unchanging. If a basic law did change, like the speed of light increasing by 10%, it would pretty much rattle the scientific community to its core.
Humans wrote the laws of nature, well technically "discovered" them & named them. That doesn't mean they're flawless.

Remember reading about the "law" that said the universe is infinite? Now they're thinking its finite.

Remember the "law" that said the Milky Way is the universe?

Don't trust & follow science so blindly.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#142557 Dec 7, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is also based on unprovable assumptions.
Oh explain what science is based on such.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#142558 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".
I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.
And it's a perfect example of it's self correcting nature.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#142559 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".
I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.
And sometimes it is human error, which is why findings aren't really taken seriously until they can be replicated by other people.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#142560 Dec 7, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh explain what science is based on such.
Here are a couple more: the orderliness of the universe and our theories match what we observe.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#142561 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that, but don't you know that many religious people are skeptics, too? I'm one of them. I want answers, I want truth.
Science can not provide answers to all if our questions. It's a bug part yes, but it's not the whole.
There can be no scientific method applied to any non-scientific topic.
I don't think any religious person can claim to be a true skeptic. If they were, they wouldn't be religious. You may be interested in science, but I don't think you are a skeptic.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#142562 Dec 7, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans wrote the laws of nature, well technically "discovered" them & named them. That doesn't mean they're flawless.
Remember reading about the "law" that said the universe is infinite? Now they're thinking its finite.
Remember the "law" that said the Milky Way is the universe?
Don't trust & follow science so blindly.
Argh, the cro-magnum level of study ... it hurts my head.

No, we first thought it was finite, then we thought it was infinite .... the Hawking proposed that it was finite, which pretty much everyone agrees now ... however now we have this concept of a lot of, possibly infinite in number, universes all over the place just like ours, or perhaps ours is part of another. Do you read anything that is printed after 1930?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#142563 Dec 7, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a couple more: the orderliness of the universe and our theories match what we observe.
Theory does not match observation, it explains them.
But that doesn't explain what you wrote.

"Science is also based on unprovable assumptions."

Science is based on empirical evidence of observable phenomenon.

Only theoretical physics deals with abstract ideas , but they are ones that can be tested eventually , or are based on math models.
Nothing about the scientific method can be based on unprovable assumptions, that isn't science ..that's pseudoscience.
Learn to understand the difference.

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) 8 min Dogen 74,746
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 57 min Nemesis 4,047
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr replaytime 114
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 7 hr Subduction Zone 6,084
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 23 hr Subduction Zone 32,062
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web