Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
142,041 - 142,060 of 224,135 Comments Last updated 18 min ago

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147872
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147874
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147875
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147889
Jan 11, 2013
 
But Jesus sharting out the universe is totally fact for you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Showing us life started from bacteria and advanced ever since"
As I said, suppositions.....
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147890
Jan 11, 2013
 
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point?
Maybe Lincoln's point is that God or gods allowed wars and atrocities to happen in the 20th century, and therefore if deities exist they are evil and not worthy of our worship or admiration.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147891
Jan 11, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam wasn't a gun owner.
That did not stop him having access when he wanted it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Buck Crick 205
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Buck Crick 21,387
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 5 hr DonPanic 1,286
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 8 hr religionisillness 271
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 8 hr religionisillness 370
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 22 hr religionisillness 834
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... Thu Patrick 16
•••
•••