Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245151 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.

Lincoln

United States

#147868 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time. Taxonomy and DNA shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.
Creationism is the practice of squeezing one’s eyes shut and wailing “Does not!"
There are different interpretations of evolution.

Intelligent Design is a Christian belief not based on science.

The US is basically a Christian nation economically and politically.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147869 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Skeptics" & "humanists" are in the practice of covering their eyes and screaming "DOES TO! I READ THAT ONE TIME, SOMEWHERE IN A SCIENCE MAGAZINE. IT HAS TO BE TRUE!!"
Have you seen even one skeptic that does that?

Because if you have, I'd argue that they weren't skeptics.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#147870 Jan 10, 2013
Oh I understand and agree it is fun making them squirm about how they all see god a bit differently than other believers. Sadly it is this that leads to so much death war and violence. The basic notion or concept of deities we all know. The so called invisible sky wizard for the majority of theists today.
Tide with Beach wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#147871 Jan 10, 2013
God didn't change? In that case why did he have to go on a suicide mission to forgive us? Why couldn't he just say I forgive you for your sins.

Sorry but the deity of the Old Testament to the New Testament are night and day different.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<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.
Lincoln

United States

#147872 Jan 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh I understand and agree it is fun making them squirm about how they all see god a bit differently than other believers. Sadly it is this that leads to so much death war and violence. The basic notion or concept of deities we all know. The so called invisible sky wizard for the majority of theists today.
<quoted text>
The 20th century soaked in blood of atheist in power.
Hitler,
Stalin,
Lenin,
Castro,
Trotsky,
Kamenev,
Zinoviev,
Mao,
Himler,
Eichmann all were atheists.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#147873 Jan 10, 2013
The theists have no intention of giving their deity more clearly defined properties sadly because this would require them to find the great sky wizard. There won't be many more pieces added to that puzzle. We just got to work with what we have right? And sadly to get said pieces you would have to get believers to come to terms on what god is and all the wars show that just isn't likely.
We have all heard their proposition for the great sky wizard again and again. Certainly it is incomplete, certainly it is contradicting, and certainly it is nonsense, but sadly it is what it is. And we have what we are probably going to have if for no other reason than they can't come to terms, it really hasn't changed all that much in thousands of years and I doubt it will in the foreseeable future.
I deal with the facts of their myth as best we have them and after examining them I have to say, meh ain't buying it.
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.
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)

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147874 Jan 10, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The 20th century soaked in blood of atheist in power.
Hitler,
Stalin,
Lenin,
Castro,
Trotsky,
Kamenev,
Zinoviev,
Mao,
Himler,
Eichmann all were atheists.
What's your point?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147875 Jan 10, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The 20th century soaked in blood of atheist in power.
Hitler,
Stalin,
Lenin,
Castro,
Trotsky,
Kamenev,
Zinoviev,
Mao,
Himler,
Eichmann all were atheists.
A lot of those guys had mustaches too. I guess you're saying people with mustaches shouldn't be in power?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147876 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not suggesting it happens a lot - or even often, but I'm sure it does happen.
Think about it.
There's a book called Merchants of Doubt, which spells out ways that scientists work together to achieve a goal for their own interests and the interests of politicians. That interest is money.
"small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".
Here is something related to your point. Al Gore high priest of Global Warming sells his little cable channel to Al Jazeera and pockets $100,000,000. Who is the major stake holder in Al Jazerra? The Oil rich royal family of Qatar. Al is a phony of the highest order.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147877 Jan 10, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is something related to your point. Al Gore high priest of Global Warming sells his little cable channel to Al Jazeera and pockets $100,000,000. Who is the major stake holder in Al Jazerra? The Oil rich royal family of Qatar. Al is a phony of the highest order.
In an awkward moment on Fox News this week, a pundit suggested that a member of the Saudi royal family who has supported the bridge-building work of the imam behind a planned Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan “funds radical madrasas all over the world.” The awkwardness came from the fact — unmentioned by anyone on the Fox set — that the same Saudi, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/s...

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147878 Jan 10, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is something related to your point. Al Gore high priest of Global Warming sells his little cable channel to Al Jazeera and pockets $100,000,000. Who is the major stake holder in Al Jazerra? The Oil rich royal family of Qatar. Al is a phony of the highest order.
You do realize that Al Jazeera is based in Qattar, don't you? The country where the U.S. has it's biggest military base in the middles east.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147879 Jan 10, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of those guys had mustaches too. I guess you're saying people with mustaches shouldn't be in power?
He is saying despite the claims of Dawkins and others who state the atheism of those particular despots was not a motivating factor in their actions,for at least some it was clearly part of their agenda.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147880 Jan 10, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
In an awkward moment on Fox News this week, a pundit suggested that a member of the Saudi royal family who has supported the bridge-building work of the imam behind a planned Muslim community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan “funds radical madrasas all over the world.” The awkwardness came from the fact — unmentioned by anyone on the Fox set — that the same Saudi, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/s...
Anti fracking zealot Matt Damons film Promised Land was bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#147881 Jan 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
And exactly what would 150 years of cover ups and hush money falsified evidence etc. to advance the ToE hope to attain from such a conspiracy??
Oddly enough, considering the RR is citing the book to support his usually conservative point of view, Merchants of Doubt was written to expose the role of conservative contrarian scientists is slowing popular and political recognition of climate change as an issue long after a consensus had been reached on it among scientists in the fields that study it. The Wikipedia article on the book sums it up thus:

Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[4] The book states that these scientists have challenged the scientific consensus about the dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[4] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[4] Oreskes and Conway reach the conclusion that:

There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.[4][5]

All three are physicists: Singer was a rocket scientist, whereas Nierenberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb.[6] Oreskes and Conway state: "small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".[7]

So the pressure from moneyed interests comes from scientists who work in relatively unrelated fields, but use their credentials to assail the work of scientists whose expertise exceeds their own. Kinda like the pattern we see in the opposition to the ToE and Big Bang theory.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147882 Jan 10, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
He is saying despite the claims of Dawkins and others who state the atheism of those particular despots was not a motivating factor in their actions,for at least some it was clearly part of their agenda.
No it wasn't. Power and control was THE motivating factor. Eliminating all threats.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#147883 Jan 10, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti fracking zealot Matt Damons film Promised Land was bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates.
So what? Are you saying that Fox news gets of free while Current are muslim loving money grubbers? I'll take Qattar over KSA any day.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#147885 Jan 10, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Oddly enough, considering the RR is citing the book to support his usually conservative point of view, Merchants of Doubt was written to expose the role of conservative contrarian scientists is slowing popular and political recognition of climate change as an issue long after a consensus had been reached on it among scientists in the fields that study it. The Wikipedia article on the book sums it up thus:
Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[4] The book states that these scientists have challenged the scientific consensus about the dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[4] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[4] Oreskes and Conway reach the conclusion that:
There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.[4][5]
All three are physicists: Singer was a rocket scientist, whereas Nierenberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb.[6] Oreskes and Conway state: "small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".[7]
So the pressure from moneyed interests comes from scientists who work in relatively unrelated fields, but use their credentials to assail the work of scientists whose expertise exceeds their own. Kinda like the pattern we see in the opposition to the ToE and Big Bang theory.
Well this is sort of like what he said in reverse. But the problem with global warming is it would only hurt American companies , the Chinese and Russians wouldn't follow, because it isn't economically viable. But we are seeing it happen and it will get worse 2012 being the hottest year on record.
Will this continue on a warming trend?

If it does we could see polar melt way sooner than all predictions.
But I have seen where they went there and they are dissipating so fast , because of subterranean rivers boring huge caverns and small state sized chunks breaking away.
I hate to think what it could lead too.
Lincoln

United States

#147886 Jan 10, 2013
In the story,
Tiny Tim is known for the statement,

"God bless us,
every one!"

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147887 Jan 10, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
He is saying despite the claims of Dawkins and others who state the atheism of those particular despots was not a motivating factor in their actions,for at least some it was clearly part of their agenda.
Hitler's motivation was to "punish the Jews," the others it was power. All you have shown is that absolute power corrupts. Anyhow, if you want to base it on numbers, christians and Muslims have killed in the name of their religion more than anyone.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147888 Jan 11, 2013
BS. They weren't all Atheists.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The 20th century soaked in blood of atheist in power.
Hitler,
Stalin,
Lenin,
Castro,
Trotsky,
Kamenev,
Zinoviev,
Mao,
Himler,
Eichmann all were atheists.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 19 min thetruth 11,026
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Thinking 20,673
John 3:16 27 min Thinking 98
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 6 hr Anonymous1386 22
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 9 hr Thinking 19
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 19 hr ChristineW 14,668
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web