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
143,861 - 143,880 of 224,019 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149754
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Rather you need to apply your own flawed argument to your god belief. You can not possibly comprehend a god capable of creating a universe billions of light years across therefore by your own argument god does not exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149755
Jan 24, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Please be more specific.
<quoted text>
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.
There are two types of logical reasoning.

Deductive and inductive.

One supplies absolutes.

The other supplies possibilities.

If you are arguing that you know that abiogenesis occurred by arockdidit, then you are claiming deductive truth claims which you can verify.

If you are arguing inductive, then you are arguing for the possibility.

I was originally responding to a claim someone made, that they cannot know anything unless they can comprehend it fully.

They were making an appeal to empiricism, which of course is a flawed appeal.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149756
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

We see that you have not the ability to have rational thought based on evidence. Not much else, beyond your circular reasoning.
The evidence shows life started from simple chemical reactions, early in the formation of Earth. We don't see evidence of it having a causer. We do see evidence it started simple and evolved.
We do not see evidence of intervention into this process.
We do see evidence it was a natural process unaided by causes invented by superstition and ignorance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149757
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Everything we observe in the universe has a cause, therefore everything has a cause.
This is false. We know of many things that are not caused. Most nuclear decays, for example.
It really is not that hard, basic empirical observation and science itself rests on this most basic of processes.
Again, this is false. Science rests on the ability of hypotheses to make testable predictions.
2. I am admittedly quite confused by your argument and not at all clear on where you stand.
1. Not all things, even in this universe, have a cause.
2. Those things that have a cause, have a cause in this universe.
Do you think the law of non-contradiction applies universally?
I am talking of the 1st law of logic here.
When correctly applied, it applies universally. But it is frequently applied incorrectly. The *reason* it applies universally is that it is one of the processes we use to classify things.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149758
Jan 24, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How do you know your senses are reliable?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149759
Jan 24, 2013
 
I've helped several believers through bereavements.
They don't cope any better than the rest of us.
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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149760
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Was your post spontaneous or did you cause it to be posted on the internet?
Irrelevant. Some things are certainly caused. But not everything is caused.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149761
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what caused your god? He clearly must need a cause then too, no?
Nope, the First Cause, by its very nature, must be uncaused...

Simple logic...
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149762
Jan 24, 2013
 
Why?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have a rational argument to present?
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149763
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?
I don't argue against god so yuor point is pointless. I make no claims about the existence of any gods because there is no knowledge to base any claims on. I simply say that YOUR claim of a giod is without merit and unproven, not that it has been proven false.

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

Is that all you dishonest godbots have to offer are lies about atheists? I hold no opinion as to how life on earth began since there is no evidence to support any conclusion. The only one with a closed mind who has come to a premature conclusion based on a lack of information (ignorance) is the theist. Stop projecting your dishonesyt and ignorance onto the honest atheists who have the ability to admit not knowing what they don't know.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149764
Jan 24, 2013
 
I like it... so he kept shouting "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" when he forgot the safe word.

That god's a picky bastard.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Q: Why did Jesus die on the cross?
A: He forgot his safe word.
Q: What's white and shoots across the sky?
A: The second coming of Jesus.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149765
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I am arguing the first cause argument.
In the beginning God...
I have never deviated from that.
Please, one fact, just one mesley fact as to how your god differs from an imaginary god.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149766
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
No, that was NOT my argument.

My argument had two branches: either life has always existed or there was a time when it did not.

I then argued that life did not always exist. I did this by showing that the conditions for life did not exist at some point in the past. So there was a time when life did not exist.

We know that life exists now. So, since there was a time when life did not exist, the cause of the earliest life, being prior to that life, had to be non-life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149767
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the First Cause, by its very nature, must be uncaused...
Simple logic...
So the claim that *everything* is caused is wrong. But then, that destroys the basis of your whole argument. If there are uncaused things, there need not be a first cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149768
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know your senses are reliable?
We don't. In fact, we know quite the opposite. This is why every idea about the real world needs to be testable and tested.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149769
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the First Cause, by its very nature, must be uncaused...
Simple logic...
Simple minded theist hypocrisy is more like it.

If your god needs no cause then logic follows that anything less complex than this god would therefore not need a cause. All you prove is that hypocrisy is an integral part of the theist package.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149770
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There are two types of logical reasoning.
Deductive and inductive.
One supplies absolutes.
The other supplies possibilities.
If you are arguing that you know that abiogenesis occurred by arockdidit, then you are claiming deductive truth claims which you can verify.
If you are arguing inductive, then you are arguing for the possibility.
I was originally responding to a claim someone made, that they cannot know anything unless they can comprehend it fully.
They were making an appeal to empiricism, which of course is a flawed appeal.
Empiricism is the basis of all knowledge about the real world.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149771
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know your senses are reliable?
How do you go through life having such a blurred line between fantasy and reality? That must totally suck, like being in a drunken stupor 24/7.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149772
Jan 24, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
http://xkcd.com/659/

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149773
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Mr. or Ms. Stoic, you are in for a surprise.

Once upon a time my consciousness signed out of this place. It was gone. Finis. Over. Done. Didn't even look back. Just a change in consciousness and having to deal with a new reality. Not one single concern that my existence as a being was going to end. Not one. I had just been hit rather hard by a truck in this one. Surprise, surprise. No preconceived notions.

It will happen to you. You can try to book reservations now, or you can take potluck.

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
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 1 hr Patrick 357
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 4 hr Liam R 12
Of Interest InTheNews 5 hr Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Patrick 181
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 8 hr Patrick 21,376
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr Thinking 831
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 14 hr Patrick 1,285
•••
•••