Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245168 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149731 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Well, God believers certainly abandon logic at every opportunity to demonstrate their beliefs.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149732 Jan 24, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it my free will to be born?
Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?
Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?
Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?
Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?
All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.
I like this.

I am in a meetup atheist group in Pittsburgh. I've only been to one meetup though. I live a little less than 2 hours north of Pittsburgh

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149733 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
If you think so, then you don't understand my world view.
<quoted text>
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.
1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.

It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.

2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.

Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?

I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149734 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two possible interpretations:
Sorry, three--I rewrote parts of this and didn't fix the beginning.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149735 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149736 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.

The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149737 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Their parents? Do you really need some instruction on basic biology? Or are you again attempting the 'first cause' argument?
Of course I am arguing the first cause argument.

In the beginning God...

I have never deviated from that.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149738 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have a rational argument to present?
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have a rational argument to present?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149739 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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'.
You agree with it, then ask me to justify what you agree with?
Pat

Granby, CT

#149740 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Upon what basis as an atheist, do you account for absolute moral laws like good and evil?
There are no absolute moral laws. If you were a cow, eating beef would be a sin and the killing of humans irrelevant to you, comprende? You have big ego/small brain syndrome.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149741 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Assuming that life was caused... then the second case requires it to be caused by non-life.
Now it does not get any more circular than that.

1. If life was caused, it must have been by non-life.
2. Life was caused.
3. Therefore non-life caused it.

You don't see a problem with this argument?

And you want me to accept this as a logical argument?
Pat

Granby, CT

#149742 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.
It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.
2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.
Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?
I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.
Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149743 Jan 24, 2013
^^Your first premise was wrong by the way...

And to correct myself.

This was a valid argument, but its premise was flawed, therefore it was unsound...
Pat

Granby, CT

#149744 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.
One more irrational argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather your lack of it. God is your dunce cap, nothing more.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149745 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.
The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.
You are still doing it, arguing from your own authority and from arbitrary prejudiced claims.

There are very few theists that will say there is no proof for God.

I think you need to reign your assertions in a little...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149746 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So in this instance you cannot comprehend something as a fact, but only as a transcendent possibility.
You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.
2. Logical fallacy of equivocation.
Please be more specific.
3. No, there is no reasonable path for abiogenesis, if there was then it would have been reproduced.
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149747 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You disagree not with me but with the world for even most theists will admit that a belief in god requires faith because there is no evidence for any god.
The existence of god is not a matter of fact, its a matter of faith and you stomping your feet in denial does not change that fact.
But yes, I do understand you believe you represent the world, and it is in full agreement with you.

I just don't accept you are the ultimate standard of truth.
Pat

Granby, CT

#149748 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between your fear of death and any theist. You just rationalize it differently.
You have a stoical approach now, but when the time comes and a reality sets in, it will be shaken.
Theists have a focus to ease that transition. You will have nowhere to go,
It's a large universe. Imagine yourself waking up in in an out of the way spot in it, say like an asteroid, not knowing where to go, or what lies out there.
Your consciousness will not cease to be. Your memories and way you think now will, but your "being" won't.
Look at a mirror. You see yourself existing. What lies beyond the mirror?
One can not experience anyting if they have no working senses to gather the information or a working brain to process that information. You too will experience eternal death and dishonestly clinging to death denying fairytales can not save you. A corpse is not very confusing. Do you also believe if you smash a bottle against a wall it still exists intact, off somewhere else? That's how silly your life after death nonsense is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149749 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no absolute moral laws. If you were a cow, eating beef would be a sin and the killing of humans irrelevant to you, comprende? You have big ego/small brain syndrome.
There are no absolute moral laws?

So why are you appealing to emotionally laden appeals to your own standard of moral supremacy, which judges another as having a big ego and small brain?

If there are no absolute moral laws, why are you arguing that I am "morally wrong" about anything?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149750 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything has a cause? That is an argument from ignorance based upon your blind assumptions because you are determined to beleive in a creator so you can then believe you won't really die when you die. You theists really are simple creatures to read.
Was your post spontaneous or did you cause it to be posted on the internet?

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) 3 min ChristineW 20,674
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 10 min Eagle 12 11,029
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr EdmondWA 14,669
John 3:16 1 hr Thinking 98
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 8 hr Anonymous1386 22
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 11 hr Thinking 19
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web