Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257129 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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147823 Jan 10, 2013
Cheers.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignostic

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147824 Jan 10, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignostic
Apatheist.

Any other good variants?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#147825 Jan 10, 2013
Agreed and while it is some fun mental bubble gum so to speak we do have the concept and notion of what they claim is God. They may not have his shoe size and blood type but they do have the concept and we are all honestly well aware of said concept. While it is fun to make them run in place trying to come up with clearer and more defined properties of God it becomes almost cruel after a while like making a fat boy run laps while the cheerleaders look on.( oh the days of being my basketball coach/gym teacher's student assistant during free period, guess what we're doing today gang? Nope not dodgeball! It's running laps day!)

:wicked smile:
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I sometimes argue that every believer believes in their own distinct god. That can lead to a discussion on the relevancy of definitions. Usually, the definition of the god does not actually matter to any believer. If it did, they would have to justify their own personal definition somehow. Credibility goes out the window.
It is just insanely difficult to get a theist to keep up in that kind of discussion.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#147826 Jan 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Agreed and while it is some fun mental bubble gum so to speak we do have the concept and notion of what they claim is God. They may not have his shoe size and blood type but they do have the concept and we are all honestly well aware of said concept. While it is fun to make them run in place trying to come up with clearer and more defined properties of God it becomes almost cruel after a while like making a fat boy run laps while the cheerleaders look on.( oh the days of being my basketball coach/gym teacher's student assistant during free period, guess what we're doing today gang? Nope not dodgeball! It's running laps day!)
:wicked smile:
<quoted text>
Some Christians believe in a God that created a Hell for unbelievers to suffer for eternity, while other Christians believe in a God that did not create a Hell. These are not the same god, yet each type of Christian get their beliefs from the Bible. There are so many ways of interpreting the Bible, that there is no Christian definition for God. There are only similarities between all the different definitions. The similarities often apply to gods with other names from other religions.

When I tell you to think about cars, you probably visualize cars that you've actually seen before. If you've never seen a car, and only had a description, visualizing a car relies a lot on interpretation and imagination. If I gave a description of a car to a thousand people who have never seen one, the interpretations and visualization in all those people would be different. If I contradicted myself in describing the car, used metaphor without letting you know, translated the description several times, let Ford and Chevy fight out what was truly Carlike, and made claims about the car that seemed impossible, what would you expect?

Now I never said that cars had leather seats, but I didn't say they didn't have leather seats. If you like leather jackets, you might suppose the Car has leather seats, because you like leather.

A lot of theists rely heavily on the appeal to popularity. When you separate one from the herd, they don't like that. The question of which god to believe in becomes more interesting when it's demonstrated that a different interpretation of a god in one religion is just as different from other interpretations as they are from gods of different origins. The difference between a God that didn't create a Hell and one that did is so vast that it is disingenuous to call them by the same name.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147827 Jan 10, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I was golfing one time with a buddy. We were on a pretty easy par 3. I hit first, then him. I made it down to the green to my ball. My buddy was still walking around. I noticed he kept scratching his nuts. I asked him, "What's up with your ball?"
"I think I got a hole in one."
Ouch!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147828 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Forturnaltely, both the Big bang and evolution have been tested in many different ways and have passed the tests.
Really? Which parts? The part of the Big Bang that it actually happened? Or the part of evolution that says all life originated naturally?

Which parts have been proven?

To my knowledge, nothing has evolved that we have seen & tested.
Why? Why not work to change that sad state of affairs? Why 'accept' ignorance and superstition?
Strange attitude. You accept that a scientific outlook is different between a person from Japan & a person from America. Why can't you accept that people put religion first sometimes?

You have no evidence whatsoever that a religious person is either ignorant or superstitious.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147829 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please learn the difference between astrology and astronomy. Sagan was an astronomer, not an astrologer.
Oops. I know, I typed an L instead of a N...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147830 Jan 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well aside from there being no proof that Jesus actually existed your reasoning here shows God indeed changed and learned something new.
I believe that's checkmate.
:)
<quoted text>
Check what?

I didn't say God changed or learned something new. He didn't.

WE changed. OUR rules changed. WE learned something new - something God taught us.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147831 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's why independent verification is required. In fact the more independent verification that is done, the more confidence science has in it's findings.
Yes, I know.

But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147832 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's astronomy, not astrology. I realize you don't know the difference, but people who do are laughing at you.
<quoted text>
Ah yes -- atheism is the arrogant belief the the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies were NOT all created just for humans.
You misunderstood.

Go figure....

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147833 Jan 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Agreed and while it is some fun mental bubble gum so to speak we do have the concept and notion of what they claim is God. They may not have his shoe size and blood type but they do have the concept and we are all honestly well aware of said concept. While it is fun to make them run in place trying to come up with clearer and more defined properties of God it becomes almost cruel after a while like making a fat boy run laps while the cheerleaders look on.( oh the days of being my basketball coach/gym teacher's student assistant during free period, guess what we're doing today gang? Nope not dodgeball! It's running laps day!)
:wicked smile:
<quoted text>
But it has a point.

It is far from clear that the anamorphic term “god” is even a meaningful concept, let alone something that can be said to exist.

In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.

When it comes to the question of 'God', there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible. Until the properties that must be met are agreed to, the issue simply cannot be properly addressed and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.

Now some properties that are usually associated with a deity are: omnipotence, omnipresence, a 'cause' for the universe, a 'giver of morals', etc. It is rather straight forward to show that each of these properties are paradoxical and, taken together or separately, could not exist in the natural universe as we find it. The predictable retort to this problem is that "god" exist outside of nature (supernatural) or is beyond mere human understanding. But even considering these apologetics, there must be some measurable impact of "god" or again consideration of existence is meaningless.

I would also like to point out that it *is* possible to prove a negative. I can reliably and with complete justification determine that there is not an elephant in my room. The *reason* I can do this is that the properties of elephants are such that any elephant in my room would be detectable. The fact that none is detected *is* good enough to prove no elephants exist in my room.

The difficulty with the God concept is that it is not well enough defined so that it is possible to say when, exactly, and in what manner, an existent deity would be guaranteed to be observable. So, once again, the lack of definition is part of the problem. But it is not a problem for the atheists. It is a problem for the theists. They are the ones with the responsibility to define their concept well enough to be testable.

Finally, does it make sense to say that something exists where there no possible way of testing its existence? To this question, I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's position -- "Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight? If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!' All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

The upshot is that the God concept is, at best, meaningless, and at worse demonstrably false. Certainly the 'old man in the sky' version is simply false. Certainly the 'creator of the earth 6000 years ago' is also false.

In short, without a clear definition of what is meant by the term "god" any consideration of existence is meaningless and absurd.

(ref: theological noncognitivism or ignosticism)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147834 Jan 10, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>1. You shouldn't worship the pope, especially Darth Sidius.
2. There is nothing wrong with Sagan other than his hair cut.
1. I don't worship a pope. Don't even know his name.

2. That is your opinion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147835 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Which parts? The part of the Big Bang that it actually happened?
That the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state.
Or the part of evolution that says all life originated naturally?
No, that is not part of the theory of evolution.
Which parts have been proven?
That biological species change over geological time.
To my knowledge, nothing has evolved that we have seen & tested.
This is false. We have watched new species of mosquito evolve in the London train tunnels. We have produced reproductively isolate populations of fruit flies (counting as new species by the standard definition of species).
Strange attitude. You accept that a scientific outlook is different between a person from Japan & a person from America. Why can't you accept that people put religion first sometimes?
Oh, I *know* that some people put religion first. Such people tend not to be scientists because they can't handle the evidence-based and skeptical aspects of science.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a religious person is either ignorant or superstitious.
Well, I consider *any* belief in a supernatural to be superstitious. Belief in the absence of evidence (or, better, when there is contrary evidence) is ignorant.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147836 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Again,*independent* verification.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147837 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Not for long. Science is worldwide, not just an American thing. All science is constantly being tested and retested by scientists with every possible religious, social, political, etc. background. That's what makes it truly independent.

Like I said, the more independent testing and verification, the more confidence. But confidence never, ever reaches 100% because there is always some variant of every scientific question that has not been tested yet and science recognizes that it can never test for every variation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147838 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But it has a point.
It is far from clear that the anamorphic term “god” is even a meaningful concept, let alone something that can be said to exist.
In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.
When it comes to the question of 'God', there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible. Until the properties that must be met are agreed to, the issue simply cannot be properly addressed and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.
Now some properties that are usually associated with a deity are: omnipotence, omnipresence, a 'cause' for the universe, a 'giver of morals', etc. It is rather straight forward to show that each of these properties are paradoxical and, taken together or separately, could not exist in the natural universe as we find it. The predictable retort to this problem is that "god" exist outside of nature (supernatural) or is beyond mere human understanding. But even considering these apologetics, there must be some measurable impact of "god" or again consideration of existence is meaningless.
I would also like to point out that it *is* possible to prove a negative. I can reliably and with complete justification determine that there is not an elephant in my room. The *reason* I can do this is that the properties of elephants are such that any elephant in my room would be detectable. The fact that none is detected *is* good enough to prove no elephants exist in my room.
The difficulty with the God concept is that it is not well enough defined so that it is possible to say when, exactly, and in what manner, an existent deity would be guaranteed to be observable. So, once again, the lack of definition is part of the problem. But it is not a problem for the atheists. It is a problem for the theists. They are the ones with the responsibility to define their concept well enough to be testable.
Finally, does it make sense to say that something exists where there no possible way of testing its existence? To this question, I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's position -- "Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight? If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!' All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
The upshot is that the God concept is, at best, meaningless, and at worse demonstrably false. Certainly the 'old man in the sky' version is simply false. Certainly the 'creator of the earth 6000 years ago' is also false.
In short, without a clear definition of what is meant by the term "god" any consideration of existence is meaningless and absurd.
(ref: theological noncognitivism or ignosticism)
Very nicely put!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147839 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know.
But don't you suppose that sometimes the "verification" is wrong? Maybe it's bought. Maybe it's forced through intimidation.
Perhaps one or two are. But, eventually, reality wins out via the scientific method: things stop working if you based your work on false ideas.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147840 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very nicely put!
That actually is based off of a rant you did a number of years ago, which I used for a while with your permission. I have expanded it somewhat since then, but the elephant example and a few other pieces are still classic Polymath!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147841 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstood.
Go figure....
Possible. It does happen. However, In my defense I would posit that Poe's law was in play so it is exceeding difficult to know when you're kidding and when you're not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147842 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That actually is based off of a rant you did a number of years ago, which I used for a while with your permission. I have expanded it somewhat since then, but the elephant example and a few other pieces are still classic Polymath!
maybe that's why I agreed with so much of it!:)

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) 11 min Into The Night 45,538
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 13 min ChristineM 10,337
News How to Fight Extremism with Atheism 30 min Eagle 12 3
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 40 min ChristineM 21,394
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 3 hr ChristineM 546
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Eagle 12 20,246
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 7 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 306
More from around the web