Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247497 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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#149174 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
siiigh.....
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Add...
I'm not lying, you are. Get a grip.
Neither of you are lying, you are simply choosing to believe different sources. Personally, I think Lincoln did use the phrase "under God" when he delivered the address because, as the Wiki article noted, three different reporters telegraphed the text of the speech on the same day from their stenographic notes. But Lincoln may have improvised the phrase on the spot or have been mulling it over in his mind without having written it down. But adding the phrase to the pledge was not necessarily inspired by the speech--does anyone know for sure?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#149175 Jan 21, 2013
digitaldan wrote:
The Atheist's Manifesto
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Carl Sagan
You are quoting Richard Lewontin, not Carl Sagan.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149176 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a specific enough question to answer.
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
<quoted text>
I wouldn't call society the arbiter of morality. It's more like a moderator. Morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions, and then subject to any people or systems (real or imaginary) that they have volunteered accountability to.
I'm not going to answer vague questions or do your work for you.
I am not asking you to do anything for me.

I am asking you to justify your own worldview and explain how you account for morality.

You said something interesting, you said morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions.

So the ultimate standard for morality is the individuals decision?

You seem to be bouncing between the idea that it is the individual or the society that defines morality.

Which is it?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#149177 Jan 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And? We are one nation under God.
Not when I was born.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#149178 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But there is a reason for this.
The bible explains it.
They want to deny God.
And because only God accounts for absolutes, they are reduced to the absurd conclusion that they have to deny absolutes, even whilst they carry on using those absolutes, which they are denying.
So to be "right" in their rejection of God, they have to abandon logic, morality, uniformity and a sense of person.
And then they tell everyone else they are lacking in intelligence if they do not do the same...
You mean "absolutes" like killing witches?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149179 Jan 21, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "absolutes" like killing witches?
I am sorry, as an atheist, do you have a basis for arguing that there is something wrong with killing witches?

After all, doesn't survival of the fittest demand that the strongest and most ruthless survive?

I am not sure, why, if you were to really live as an atheist (or secular humanist as you referred to yourself before, I believe), you would object to that?

I have asked you that numerous times and you have never been able to give an answer to it.

Now, if you were a christian and had a basis for appealing to an absolute moral standard, then your question would make sense.

But as you are an atheist, then, your question is nonsensical.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#149180 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So what if society says rape is okay?
Plenty of warlike societies have practiced rape in history.
How do you deal with that?
If society is the arbitrater of morality?
It's prevalent in the OT, so it must be part of that "absolute morality" you keep telling us about.

The thing is, modern societies have grown out of that. Just like we've grown out of slavery and female subservience and countless other religious "absolute moralities".

Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149182 Jan 21, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's prevalent in the OT, so it must be part of that "absolute morality" you keep telling us about.
The thing is, modern societies have grown out of that. Just like we've grown out of slavery and female subservience and countless other religious "absolute moralities".
Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.
Really?

Hitler was quite modern.
The USSR was quite modern.
China is quite modern.

Yet their morality (from a Christian perspective), is questionable.

But even after several days, you still cannot account how you keep appealing to absolute moral standards, whilst denying they exist?

You keep making authority claims about morality, but what is your ultimate standard of morality upon which you keep measuring moral issues with?

You certainly do not get it from atheism, which you want to present as a rational viewpoint to adopt...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149183 Jan 21, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
Thank you, but I think society is much better without your 2,000 year old religious ideas about morality.
Upon what absolute moral basis do you appeal to "better" moral values?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149184 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a specific enough question to answer.
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
<quoted text>
I wouldn't call society the arbiter of morality. It's more like a moderator. Morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions, and then subject to any people or systems (real or imaginary) that they have volunteered accountability to.
I'm not going to answer vague questions or do your work for you.
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.

You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'. If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.

Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149185 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>

After all, doesn't survival of the fittest demand that the strongest and most ruthless survive?
This survival of the fittest thing is the stupidest thing i ever learnt in school.

I hope i understood u right, about the rape thing!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149186 Jan 21, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the full review for anyone who's interested: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewont...
... and Wikipedia's article on Lewontin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
When the article is read in full, it's clear that Lewontin was criticizing uncritical acceptance of scientific claims, not science itself. But skepticism can also be irrational, i.e., rejecting results even after all reasonable doubts have been satisfied with compelling evidence. The latter is one of the signature elements of zealots and fundamentalists. The doubts cause skeptics to look deeper give zealots excuses to reject without any real thought.
Thanks for that. I attempted to find the original review, but did not find it immediately. Once again, we see how the religious folk like to lie about what is said, the context of what is said, and the meaning of what is said, preferring their superstitious and bigoted stories to the truth.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#149187 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I am not asking you to do anything for me.
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
mtimber wrote:
I am asking you to justify your own worldview and explain how you account for morality.
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.

If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
mtimber wrote:
You said something interesting, you said morality is first subject to the mind that is making moral distinctions.
So the ultimate standard for morality is the individuals decision?
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
mtimber wrote:
You seem to be bouncing between the idea that it is the individual or the society that defines morality.
Which is it?
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149188 Jan 21, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
This survival of the fittest thing is the stupidest thing i ever learnt in school.
I hope i understood u right, about the rape thing!
Indeed it is stupid.

It gives those who have the greatest power the moral ascendancy.

Hitler was a prime example of the evil of that type of doctrine.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149189 Jan 21, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'. If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.
Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.
Exactly.

Remove that absolute standard and rape is not wrong, it is just someones personal choice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149190 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
<quoted text>
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.
If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
<quoted text>
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
<quoted text>
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.
Some answers.:-)

But illogical answers unfortunately.

1. We all know that morality exists, what I am saying is that you cannot account for it in your worldview.

In mine it is easy, as it is a reflection of Gods character, but you have no basis for it as an atheist.

2. If an ultimate standard of morality is based on the consensus of all moral minded individuals, then who decides that they are moral minded?

Upon what standard do you judge them moral minded?

Again, you fail to see the vicious circular argument you wrap yourself up in...

3. So you are arguing it is consensual and individual? So who gets the final say, the consensus or individual?

They cannot both be equal...

That would be a contradiction, a logical contradiction.

So you see, you have no basis to explain the absolute morality you deny, but keep appealing to...

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#149191 Jan 21, 2013
Clementia wrote:
He means that in some religions/cultures rape was allowed and IS allowed. When Muslims invaded Indian, The Muslim king (babur), allowed men to rape the women in Indian, they were not punished, they were given awards. So many women were raped, but even at that time there were some Muslims who said it's wrong to rape women.
You think rape is wrong either coz of the society u live in or coz u believe in 'God'.
Not necessarily.
Clementia wrote:
If your government said it is OK to rape a woman. Lots of men in your country and all over the world, would openly start raping women and not fear the law. If a man still does not rape a woman then he is listening to the God within.
Not necessarily.
Clementia wrote:
Society can change what is right and what is wrong, but God's law has been the same since Hinduism started to this day. It never changes!! Rape was wrong then and rape is wrong now and it'll always be wrong.
I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.

From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#149192 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I am going to ask you again to be more articulate, if you want me to respond to whatever you think you're asking.
<quoted text>
I don't seek to justify my worldview to others. Morality exists, it gives social creatures like us a survival advantage.
If that doesn't answer your question, be more specific.
<quoted text>
No, the ultimate standard, if there is one, would be based on consensus of all moral minded individuals.
<quoted text>
It's both. Society is a collection of individuals. The individual influences the greater society, and the greater society influences the individual.

Well said, and it is exactly why it has changed over time.
For instance it was once morally acceptable to own slaves.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149193 Jan 21, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
<quoted text>
I agree with you that rape is wrong. We agree because we have empathy and don't want people to experience pain.
From this agreement comes laws and systems of morality and ethics.
But what happens when in a society more people agree that rape is acceptable?

Which has and does indeed happen.

If that is your standard, then you will of course be duty bound morally, based on your own professed standard, to honour that position of that society.

And as to you having empathy.

You are a rock that turned into a man, why does empathy matter?

Empathy for an atheist is little more than a convenience that can be dropped at any time.

In fact, it seems that much of mankind has evolved very little empathy if the news is anything to go by.

So how do you account for this seeming lack of empathy in your fellow man?

You cannot of course.

And this is why your atheistic worldview is totally bankrupt.

It cannot answer the most basic "why" questions that humanity asks...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149194 Jan 21, 2013
And this is the fundamental issue.

The majority of atheists likes to often claim they can explain everything through empirical means.

But they cannot account for the great "why" questions of life.

The best they can do is say:

There is no "why", you are just a rock, go out and indulge those signals that tell you you are your own moral standard...

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) 7 min Thinking 12,788
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 1 hr thetruth 24
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr thetruth 47,823
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr thetruth 12
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... 12 hr QUITTNER Sep 1 2015 12
Proof of God for the Atheist 16 hr Thinking 128
Hitler was Catholic 19 hr Pagatheist 2
More from around the web