Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

Eagle12

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#147503 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have supernatural eyes? Is there some way you interpret reality that should be taken more seriously than the many, often contradictory ways, that other religious believers interpret reality?
Do you really understand a reluctance to accept ideas without evidence? Do you understand rational skepticism?
<quoted text>
Atheists lack a belief in deities.
What is good about religious faith? Isn't faith just committed gullibility?
<quoted text>
You don't hate us? Was that on the table? Mentioning it at all is telling.
Have you ever considered the possibility that your god doesn't reveal himself because he doesn't exist?
<quoted text>
You believe this because it was written down by people who probably believed it too? Are you willing to accept all written claims by people who believed what they wrote?
<quoted text>
The waiting game for the "end times" is perpetual. It's a cheap trick. The Bible is full of cheap tricks.
If you had valid truth claims, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate them to rational skeptics. Anyone who can evaluate claims consistently, would not be able to accept only the Christian claims. They would have to accept all claims, including alien claims, ghost claims, Sasquatch claims, and claims that haven't been thought of yet.
Thank you for your comments. There was a time early in my life when my belief in God was pure faith. Since that time I have gone beyond faith.

I know God is real. The proof is my own personal experiences. There’s no need to share these experiences. Because nothing I can say will persuade you and others.

I’m 100% sure in God’s existence.. I searched for God as a young man and found that he is not a fairy tale. But indeed God is as real as you or I. And so we are at a impasse. I can’t persuade you and you can’t persuade me.
KJV

United States

#147504 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>More lo-cal lo-IQ.[sic]
Hey Tinkles.

So you're an IQ judge now?
KJV

United States

#147505 Jan 7, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>wrong
IF god created ALL he created your future and youre just like a preprogramed robot doing what he designed you to do

no free will
This ones got there blinders on nice and tights. Lol

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147506 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The creator "God" has not deemed us worthy of much information outside of our Universe. We can't even handle the information he has given us.
Hedonist:
What if God had created a parallel universe for each choice we make. so every scenario is played out in everyone's life. Maybe in addition to one life lived out and every possibility alternative is played out, maybe we live everyone's life that ever lived in all possible scenario with that life. Then God would have very good data to judge each soul on.
We just don't know what God has kept from us.
Lame excuse for not wanting to do the work of advancing our understanding.
KJV

United States

#147507 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -

So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."

And why is this? Because it's your rules?

FYI there is an all powerful entity.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147508 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". The word does not appear in any popular dictionary, but is a technical term used more in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred.
God's perfection is Goodness working in and through all those that are His.
How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147509 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.
Well, since you cannot provide evidence there is one, then you are delusional to assert it is fact.

However, the paradox is best explained with a single question:

Could an all powerful entity create a rock it could not lift?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147510 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.
Unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, you're simply stating your opinion, not fact.
You're mixing you cosmological arguments, but whatever.

The "first cause" argument when stated more completely is "everything that began to exist was caused to exist."

But the unspoken premise here is "everything but God began to exist".

This is a premise without foundation and creates a "begging the question" fallacy that puts "God" in the premise of the argument which is supposed to prove God. All you are actually saying is "God exist because God exist". A rather lame fallacy argument.

Try again?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147511 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.
Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147512 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov -- "
I robot
That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?

And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#147513 Jan 7, 2013
Pair of ducks

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147514 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?
And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.
Have you read the Robot City series? It's written more for young adult readers but I highly recommend anyone read it. He actually plays with some very interesting notions about "purpose" and "meaning of life" in the series. I think it's probably his most existential work.
KJV

United States

#147515 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>No, if he's all powerful and all knowing then he would know ever variation of every decision I would make before I was even created, so he could not help but create me to follow a certain path.

(Why "he" anyway? Circumcised?)
"He could help but create me to follow a certain path! " LOL

No you make your own discussions.
He gave that to all mankind. Freedom to disobey his laws.

"He" because we choose to refer to God in a known image to us. There is no he or she in heaven.
KJV

United States

#147516 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>Come closer and I'll tell you...

...closer...

<whisper> I'm not wearing any panties!
Why you're right those are boxer shorts!

Since: Sep 10

United States

#147517 Jan 7, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your comments. There was a time early in my life when my belief in God was pure faith. Since that time I have gone beyond faith.
I know God is real. The proof is my own personal experiences. There’s no need to share these experiences. Because nothing I can say will persuade you and others.
I’m 100% sure in God’s existence.. I searched for God as a young man and found that he is not a fairy tale. But indeed God is as real as you or I. And so we are at a impasse. I can’t persuade you and you can’t persuade me.
You can persuade me.

Produce your god.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#147518 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Scary and confusing? Sounds like a date to me.
If it gets too scary you can just focus your attention elsewhere. You don't have to actually watch the movie you know.
You should read the short story if you haven't. As good as John Cusack is, you just can't get the insanity of King's mind into a movie.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#147519 Jan 7, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I was thinking that after Lesbo does it, Tide and River need to make a guest appearance, that'll be cool, won't it? But I just don't know how we could get those two in, to make it really funny!!
Goodnite, guys!
XOXO!! Right back at ya, Catcher! ;-)
Right. Let's all streak. Wait, let's get the amputee. She'll get caught first.

I'll meet you all at the pub when they let me go :)
KJV

United States

#147520 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>So much wrong is such a short sentence.

First, causality depends on the notion of time and time is part of the universe. So either time is infinite into the past, allowing for an infinite string of causality, or time is finite into the past and causality is meaningless for the 'first' event. Either way, talking about a cause for the universe as a whole is problematic, to say the least.

Second, we know of uncaused events in our own universe, so the assumption that everything needs to be caused is already known to be wrong. What argument do you have that the universe was, in fact, caused?

Third, even if causality is an aspect here, there is no reason there needs to be a *single* cause for the whole universe, as opposed to multiple causes (which tends to be the case for most things in the universe). Why not say the universe was caused by a committee?

Fourth, even if there is a single cause for the universe, the identification of this cause with 'God' is problematic, to say the least. You see, simply having a cause does not imply an intelligence, consciousness, morality, or even ownership.

Fifth, unlike your avoidance of the issue, YOUR claims make the positive existence statement, so are the ones with the burden of proof. WE do not have to show them wrong; YOU have to show them correct.
1) Time is part of space they are connected, therefore they are both part of the universe. God is outside of the little box that holds his creation, our universe. That is why God can be the Alpha and the Omega.

2) I have to really doubt you here.
As in the Theory of chaos. It would be Impossible to prove one event did not in some way start another event.

3) This is easy. See there is this book called the Bible and it tells us that there is only one God.

4) again the Bible explains creation. A single cell is more complex then any and all thing made by man. Hence intelligent's

5) "When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.

By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
KJV

United States

#147521 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence is the same for everyone, what you are probably calling evidence is not the same for everyone therefore it is not evidence. Unless you have evidence you have no presented.
Wrong

The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.

"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.

Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL

Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
KJV

United States

#147522 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I just left out the details since they weren't looking for actual answers, just bumper sticker one liners.
I see.

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) 15 min Science 67,076
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 43 min Subduction Zone 28,575
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr yehoshooah adam 3,516
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 17 hr superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 17 hr superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web