Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257121 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: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147449 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is MORE probable that there is no deity based on what "is" known about deities.
Unless you'd care to define the properties of deity to enough level of detail that some sort of evidence can be observed / measured to support such a claim?
Without a clearly defined set of properties any consideration of deities is meaningless and absurd.
I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147450 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Which requires a sample size greater than 1 and a set of outcomes to calculate any probabilities. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.
I'll stick with observable and measurable evidence that is independently verifiable and will consider outcomes in direct proportion to the amount of this evidence.
Thus far, there is gathering evidence for the expansion of the universe and no evidence of any magic from an invisible supernatural sky deity.
And what is responsible for the origin of the universe that is expanding? Or the multiverse and so on? Until there is an answer to that question its all just opinion no matter how we justify them.In the end the best answer is we don't know.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147451 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> It always gets back to the origin of life and at that point everyones on equal footings.
I'm not sure why you would think this. Those that have studied life and the chemical reactions that are required for it are in a better position to discuss the origins of life than the average person. Even better are those who are trained in both microbiology and organic chemistry, who know the conditions required for the molecules that make up life to form. In particular, there are scientists that have studied biochemistry as well as the chemistry of the early earth and that have performed experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life are easily formed in the environment of the early earth (as well as in space) and that are investigating how those molecules can combine in the ways that lead to life.

The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and the question of how such a collection of reactions gets started is one for chemistry, in particular organic chemistry. We have a lot to learn yet, that is true, but we are farther towards understanding than we were 50 years ago and progress is being made continually.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147452 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Invisible sky daddy's done it isn't even a footing.
It's a brain disorder.
We are all welcome to our own opinions but you overstep reality when you over state and present your opinion as fact. It is unproveable.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147453 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?
Actually, no you have not.

Nothing is known about a deity, that's your problem.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147454 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is responsible for the origin of the universe that is expanding?
We do not know. We do not even know if the question makes any sense (time being required for causality and time also possibly beginning at the Big Bang).
Or the multiverse and so on?
At this point, it looks like the multi-verse, if it exists, is eternal: it exists whenever there is time.
Until there is an answer to that question its all just opinion no matter how we justify them.In the end the best answer is we don't know.
But the way to find out is not to simply throw up our hands and give up. Instead, we need to obtain deeper understanding of how the universe works, what the laws governing the universe (or multi-verse) are and what that means for the question of origins. At the very least, we will need a testable theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, we don't have such.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#147455 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all welcome to our own opinions but you overstep reality when you over state and present your opinion as fact. It is unproveable.
I overstep reality when I say it isn't really possible a human looking god existed billions of years before humans?
What would you base the idea that a being that looked just like us existed billions of years before humans did?
Yes and now explain why it would wait billions of years to create us.
while creating a system of life that would take half a billion years to evolve into us. Wait the right amount of time for us to evolve naturally, and then create us. You see it doesn't make sense does it?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147456 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you would think this. Those that have studied life and the chemical reactions that are required for it are in a better position to discuss the origins of life than the average person. Even better are those who are trained in both microbiology and organic chemistry, who know the conditions required for the molecules that make up life to form. In particular, there are scientists that have studied biochemistry as well as the chemistry of the early earth and that have performed experiments showing that the basic building blocks of life are easily formed in the environment of the early earth (as well as in space) and that are investigating how those molecules can combine in the ways that lead to life.
The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and the question of how such a collection of reactions gets started is one for chemistry, in particular organic chemistry. We have a lot to learn yet, that is true, but we are farther towards understanding than we were 50 years ago and progress is being made continually.
Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147457 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> ...Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate?...
We know that, dying stars.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147458 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> Needless to say I am not biologist nor a chemist. However that being said because we know more about life now than we did before still doesn't explain the initial origin.Where did the molecules that combine to make life originate? It seems as if theres alot of backtracking to be done before that question can be answered. If indeed it ever can be answered. The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
The chemicals that were on the early earth were formed in the gas and dust clouds that collapsed to form the sun and solar system. The elements in those clouds (except for hydrogen and helium) were formed in supernova explosions via nuclear reactions. That should be enough for any biologist. Yes, you can ask about what happened even earlier, but you are then about 9 billion years before life started and are talking cosmology and not biology.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147459 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text> I provided evidence against the teapot in orbit. What is known about a diety that makes it less probable than the teapot?
Absolutely nothing that all people can agree on.

For the most part there's general consensus on omnipotent, but upon closer examination, this property is itself meaningless and absurd. An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination.

And quite a few go with omniscience (all-knowing), but the implications of this would be a loss of any free will and humans become puppets performing predetermined rolls. Again, absurd.

And let's not even consider omnibenevolent (all-loving) as the very idea of hell makes this property absurd, even if possible.

Which leaves the vague concept of "creator of the universe", but then you have the "turtles all the way down" paradox and that one falls apart. Or you argue the Kalaam Cosmological position (or some such variant) and end of with the fallacy of begging the question.

So, there is no set of properties that anyone can describe for any entity which could possibly exist and could rightly be labeled a deity.

Care to take a stab at it?

(ref: theological noncognitivism)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147460 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
The idea of something eternal seperate and apart from what we consider nature seems perfectly feasible to me.
Good enough. Now how do we test that idea? What predictions can be based on that idea that we can test in experiment? How do the predictions based on this idea differ from those based on the usual ones? And, what exactly does it mean for something to exist 'separate and apart from what we consider nature'? Either it exists and has detectable effects (at some point), or it does not exist.

Eagle12

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#147461 Jan 7, 2013
Atheist live in the here and now. Because they live in the natural world. It’s beyond their comprehension the idea of a spiritual world. A world not seen by the natural eye. In some ways I understand their reluctance.

They’re so emphatic about their assurance there is no God. They won’t even remotely experiment in testing the waters sort of speak. I’m afraid it’s a lost cause for the majority of atheist when it comes to faith.

I do not hate them for their unwillingness to even try to reach out to God. We can not and we will not be able to reach everyone. Some will be lost at their own choosing. I have often wondered why God doesn’t reveal himself in the natural.

But he did once and many believed. Through his miracles he was able to draw in great crowds by the thousands. At some point in the distant future he will reveal himself again the natural world. How far away that time is? I have no idea. I don’t believe it will be in my lifetime.

First the Anti-Christ (World Leader) will take the scene. To the atheist this is all make believe and a fairy tale. We must understand that those of us that believe will not change them,(Atheist).
Rich

Sebastian, FL

#147462 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no you have not.
Nothing is known about a deity, that's your problem.
Teapots as we know them were created in China. Thats a fact.
The first rocket into space was the German V2. Thats a fact
In the time since 1944 there is no evidence of a teapot being launched into space,that is evidence against a teapot orbiting .

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147463 Jan 7, 2013
Rich wrote:
<quoted text>
Teapots as we know them were created in China. Thats a fact.
The first rocket into space was the German V2. Thats a fact
In the time since 1944 there is no evidence of a teapot being launched into space,that is evidence against a teapot orbiting .
First, "we know them" is a qualifier that states that there are different types of teapots, which is true, thus it could just be an older one, or an alien one.

"no evidence of a teapot being launched into space" ... just as there is no evidence of any god as of yet. Which was the entire point of the assertion anyway. So you just helped demonstrate that your god is unlikely to exist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147464 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know. We do not even know if the question makes any sense (time being required for causality and time also possibly beginning at the Big Bang).
<quoted text>
At this point, it looks like the multi-verse, if it exists, is eternal: it exists whenever there is time.
<quoted text>
But the way to find out is not to simply throw up our hands and give up. Instead, we need to obtain deeper understanding of how the universe works, what the laws governing the universe (or multi-verse) are and what that means for the question of origins. At the very least, we will need a testable theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, we don't have such.
I'm with you.Makes sense and its reasonable.I believe "something" has to be eternal for any of it to make sense. Unfortunately neither of us is likely to be around for the answers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147465 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, "we know them" is a qualifier that states that there are different types of teapots, which is true, thus it could just be an older one, or an alien one.
"no evidence of a teapot being launched into space" ... just as there is no evidence of any god as of yet. Which was the entire point of the assertion anyway. So you just helped demonstrate that your god is unlikely to exist.
Well given what we know about teapots and space launches I think it was safe to say there is good evidence against any being discarded in space. However no such evidence exists "against" the existence of a diety.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147466 Jan 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I overstep reality when I say it isn't really possible a human looking god existed billions of years before humans?
What would you base the idea that a being that looked just like us existed billions of years before humans did?
Yes and now explain why it would wait billions of years to create us.
while creating a system of life that would take half a billion years to evolve into us. Wait the right amount of time for us to evolve naturally, and then create us. You see it doesn't make sense does it?
I am arguing diety.You have translated that to be a specific being.There is a difference. However to answer part of that question, an eternal being would be unaffected by the constraints of time. So billions of years or trillions,its of no consequence when time is eternal.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#147467 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
I believe "something" has to be eternal for any of it to make sense.
And that "something" could be the "Universe" or the "Multiverse".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147468 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that, dying stars.
So now that raises the question what is the origin of the dying star...and so on.

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) 16 min Chazofsaints 45,437
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 27 min Brian_G 20,234
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Thinking 10,331
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 5 hr Thinking 422
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 7 hr Big girl 539
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 8 hr Big girl 9,503
News Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns (Sep '14) 13 hr ATHEOI 420
More from around the web