Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243159 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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149709 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my parents having sex caused me (at least that is the primary cause).
And what caused them?

A fish?

A blob?

A rock?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149710 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
They took the idea of 'having time' and negated it? Whether this concept actually applies to the real world is another matter.
You seem to be arguing that the concept is an impossibility?

Mind you, I am finding it difficult trying to get any sense of your own worldview as you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot.

Which displays that you do not have a rational worldview to argue from and have to keep jumping around to defend something that you cannot justify...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149711 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That was exactly the point nimrod, you do not have a rational basis based on evidence in your argument. Hubble's law the cosmic background radiation, the position of galaxies in the past support
the BBT. The fact it is a paradox is not evidence it needed a uncaused causer of causes , or even that causality applies.
Yes I do have a rational basis.

That which was caused needs a cause...

Do you deny that obvious truth?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149712 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's obvious why you are a theist. God is just your substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
I can comprehend abiogenesis. That does not mean I possess the knowledge to perfectly describe it. I can also use your same flawed logic against you. You can not comprehend god, or what it is does or wants since there is no knowledge of any gods, therefore god does not exist according to you.
You can comprehend the process of abiogenesis or the idea of abiogenesis?

They are quite different things.

You need to be specific and more descriptive in your terms.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#149713 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The BBT is not paradoxical, certainly not now that the mathematics has been developed that can rationalise the infinities as the atomic universe nears zero and (from the other side) the quantum universe nears zero. In the new mathematics these infinities are neatly and equally cancelled out and the quantum flows neatly into the atomic.
This realisation has caused a surge in cosmologists now daring to ask (and imagine)“what happened before the big bang”. As far as I know there are at least 27 different theories, each with merit which of course excludes the one where a god did it. To paraphrase Professor Neil Turok “We don’t know exactly how it happened but it is certain that no god did it”
The theory I prefer is that of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton whose calculations not only explain what could have been the cause but also what caused the major anomalies that cosmology can observe in the present universe. i.e the cold spots in the CMB and the small portion of the universe that appears to be travelling in opposition to the rest.
However at the current state of human knowledge it’s all mute, there is a limit to human understanding and that limit lies at 10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist.
Sorry Christine, it is a paradox and will always remain one. It could never be recreated and while we can surmise a thousand different way it could have happened. We will never really know. Because you stated it yourself.

10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149714 Jan 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Is someone here asserting that humans have free will or that omniscience exists?
We can define omniscience in such a way that it would be compatible with free will, but they are both fictional concepts.
Whether or not the concepts are logically compatible depends on the definition of each concept. I could argue from either side as long as the concepts are well defined.
I think it would be more interesting to argue if either could exist, or do exist, and explain how.
Agreed. I don't know how it started but i saw the atheist side of the argument to be flawed from what i understand omniscience and free will to be. I believe in neither depending on how free will is defined

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149715 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be arguing that the concept is an impossibility?
No. You asked how the concept came about. I described the process. I also pointed out that whether it applies to the real world is another question.
Mind you, I am finding it difficult trying to get any sense of your own worldview as you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot.
If you think so, then you don't understand my world view.
Which displays that you do not have a rational worldview to argue from and have to keep jumping around to defend something that you cannot justify...
You haven't replied to any of my questions regarding *your* world view.

For example, you have used the concept of causality in your argument for the existence of a deity. Please define, precisely, what you mean by 'causality'. In particular, show why you think everything has a cause.

Second, we had a discussion about the 'law of non-contradiction'. I gave a precise statement of that law. Do you agree with my statement and the qualifications I made? If so, please feel free to use it to show the existence of your deity.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149716 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was a factually correct remark. All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance for they are based not upon what you know (knowledge) but rather upon what you don't know (your ignorance).
Life is too complex, there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life must have a purpose therefore there must be a god = argument from ignorance.
Life could not have created itself = argument from ignorance.
All arguments for god are arguments from ignorance. God = your ignorance, nothing more.
All arguments against God are arguments from ignorance, for they are based on what you do not know...

I hope you can begin to see the nature of arbitrary claims and there total uselessness in discussion...

But let us deal with one of your premises here:

Life comes from non-life, if you don't accept this you are ignorant.

Isn't that an ignorant argument on your part to make?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149717 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
7 posts in a row gets you a "Cuntard of the Day" award.
Way to go cuntard!
<quoted text>
I see you are still arguing your own infallible arbitrary opinions.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149718 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence for god. You are a liar. God is still linked to the word faith and you know it so you can stop lying now.
Atheists and theists do not argue over the merits of believing in aliens on Pluto, or leprechauns. We rarely dispute what is or is not valid evidence for something outside the scope of religion (death denial). Theists prove every day that they can and do use normal reasoning. They can even serve on juries! It is ONLY in matters that conflict with the theists cherished death denial mythology that these disagreements arise. This clearly proves the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the theist, attempting to protect their cherished beliefs.
I understand your argument.

I disagree with you, therefore I am wrong.

But like I keep asking you:

Do you have a rational argument to present?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149719 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were not so insecure about your blind faith you would have no desire to project your stupid onto the atheist like this. All you can honestly say about every atheist is that they lack belief in god, that's it. Deep down you know you are living a lie and the atheist reminds you of that and you don't like it one bit.
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have a rational argument to present?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149720 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve? Give me a break! So what was the original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge or the planting of the tree there in the first place? Creating morally challenged imperfect humans only to deliberately tempt them so you can then punish the imperfect objects of your own creation is both evil, and sadistic.
Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it. Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881),
Really?

Upon what basis as an atheist, do you account for absolute moral laws like good and evil?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149721 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You can comprehend the process of abiogenesis or the idea of abiogenesis?
What, exactly, do you mean by this question? It is ambiguous.

Two possible interpretations:

1. Do you know the precise way that non-living things became living?
The answer to this is no. The evidence is not in and we have to wait for that evidence before forming a conclusion.

2. Is there anything self-contradictory about non-life producing life?
The answer to this is also no. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. NONE of the chemicals in a living thing are, themselves, alive. So non-life does, in fact, produce life.

3. Is there a reasonable path from non-life to life that can be outlined (even if the details are not known)?
The answer here is yes. And *this* is the subject of the study of abiogenesis. All that needs to happen is that the basic chemicals (which are known to have existed on the early earth) polymerize (a common process) and form a cyclic, stable, reproducing system.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149722 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
And what caused them?
A fish?
A blob?
A rock?
Their parents? Do you really need some instruction on basic biology? Or are you again attempting the 'first cause' argument?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149723 Jan 24, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>\
I'm confused here. Are you writing this down as it happens? Not sure if you're predicting or observing what's taking place a week in the future.
I don't think it matters. Being "god" is supposed to be "outside" of time... this gets sticky. I guess it is both. I'm not using my own beliefs here. I just find this argument to be problematic for atheists and think that showing the incompatibility of omniscient and omnipotent to hold more weight

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149724 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do have a rational basis.
That which was caused needs a cause...
Do you deny that obvious truth?
By definition, if something is caused, it has a cause. Now, make an argument that everything is caused. You might want to define exactly what it means to be 'caused'.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#149725 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry Christine, it is a paradox and will always remain one. It could never be recreated and while we can surmise a thousand different way it could have happened. We will never really know. Because you stated it yourself.
10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist
The seed makes the root, the root makes the stalk, the stalk makes the branch, the branch makes the bud, the bud makes the fruit, the fruit makes the seed. All following the same laws. In a garden, or in the wild.

But none of them grow unless they get nourishment. Garden varieties are tended to, wild ones have to reach out for it.

There is a message in there.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149726 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
“We don’t know exactly how it happened but it is certain that no god did it”
You have to admire the perverse adherence to illogical rationale...

Is it an incapability of most atheists to be able to spot the most basic logical fallacies?

Or is it when God is mentioned that logic is abandoned faster than a piranha infested swimming pool?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149727 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist
Really?

How do you know that?

You are very good at making unsupported truth claims...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149728 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
All arguments against God are arguments from ignorance, for they are based on what you do not know...
I hope you can begin to see the nature of arbitrary claims and there total uselessness in discussion...
But let us deal with one of your premises here:
Life comes from non-life, if you don't accept this you are ignorant.
Isn't that an ignorant argument on your part to make?
Either life has always existed, or there was a time when there was no life. Assuming that life was caused (a natural assumption because it isn't a quantum process), then the second case requires it to be caused by non-life. Next, the first case (that life has always existed) is untenable given the conditions of the early universe (very hot and dense, no atoms, etc) which did not allow the complex structures to form that are required by life.

Hence, at some point, non-life caused life.

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) 1 hr ChristineM 9,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 19,752
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 4 hr thetruth 21
John 3:16 4 hr thetruth 33
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 10 hr NoahLovesU 6,174
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 15 hr ChristineM 2,283
Atheists have morals too! Tue Amused 4
More from around the web