Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 240054 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.

Pat

Granby, CT

#149892 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are alive.
Even debating with me, proves Gods existence.
Without Him, you have no basis for absolute laws of logic.
By debating and occasionally using reason, you prove His existence...
The old I exist therefore god exists argument proves nothing more than that you suffer from big ego small brain syndrome.

The inner defenses are unconscious. They consist of a kind of magic aura which the mind builds around cherished belief. Arguments which penetrate into the magic aura are not dealt with rationally but by a specific type of pseudo-reasoning. Absurdities and contradictions are made acceptable by specious rationalizations.
-- Arthur Koestler
Pat

Granby, CT

#149893 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are open to Gods claims of authority over you life then?
No?
Didn't think so...
So you are open to Mother Goose's claims of authority over you life then?
No?
Didn't think so....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149894 Jan 24, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I acknowledged that and ask, why then block the ratings?
If you cannot read and comprehend my simple posts, how are you to be trusted on biblical matters? master greg bahnsen failed with you!
They block the ratings for the same reason.

The bigotry and ignorance that drives the modern militant atheist, is no different to the bigotry and ignorance that drove the spanish inquisition.

You are not interested in open polite discussion, you are only interested in silencing your opponents.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#149895 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Your type often hide behind censorship.
<quoted text>
Topix has rules. Repeated abuse vented towards individuals doesn’t have to be tolerated. I have turned in fellow believers when they have crossed the line with Atheist on more than one occasion.
bohart

Newport, TN

#149896 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, good. We are making progress.
Now, I had previously shown that there was no life at some point in the past. I note that there is life now.
Take the *earliest* life. Either it was uncaused, or it had a cause. I discount the first possibility because life is not a quantum level phenomenon (although you might be able to argue this point---it would give another example of an uncaused event, though).
So this earliest life had a cause. That cause had to be previous to the earliest life. That means the cause could not be alive (if it were, we would have a contradiction to the *earliest* aspect). In other words, the earliest life had a non-life cause.
There are a couple of ways out of this dilemma for you:
1. Claim that the earliest life did not have a cause.
2. Claim that there was no earliest life, so life has always existed.
The first destroys your 'first cause' claim and the second is contradicted by the conditions of the early universe.
Hmm? I enjoyed your logic, reasoning and presentation here until the last paragraph. Primarily your assumption that the cause of life could not be alive, now all science today agrees that life has only been proven to come from existing life so this creates a paradox in terms of where the first life came from.

1. to say that non life caused life is unscientific and supported by no observations or scientific evidence.
2.Since science supports the biblical notion that life and the universe had a beginning then biological life couldn't have always existed.
3.What conclusions can be drawn?
4.That life sprang into existance? that is inseperable from a miracle.
5. That a life force existed outside the universe , and caused the universe and life to emerge?

Numbers 4 and 5 both require faith, but on which side would logic and reason land?#4 that life emerged by itself? or #5 that it was caused by a force that already possessed the power of life?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149897 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is project the closed mindedness of the theist who blindly beleives in magic with zero proof onto the rational thinking atheist.
The god question is irrelevant because we will die like all others before us, not knowing. What is relevant is that life after death is a lie for we know memory and awareness are brain functions and we know they cease upon death no different than your blood will stop flowing when your heart stops beating. A corpse is conclusive proof of this. This is why you cling to your phantom god, you can not cope with death like a mature adult, instead you play make believe like emotionally stunted little children.
Still believe a rockdidit?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149898 Jan 24, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Which god? Your god was invented about 3500 years ago.
How could the Creator of the universe be invented 3500 years ago?

The basis premise of God, is that He is without cause.

He is the first cause.

That means He was self existent before the universe was created.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#149899 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the arguments I have seen are merely arbitrary claims to knowledge with no rational basis of support...
now you're just describing the belief in a god.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149900 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are open to Mother Goose's claims of authority over you life then?
No?
Didn't think so....
Was your mother goose eternal, all powerful, all present, all knowing and all moral from before the creation of the universe?

Oh hang on, wouldn't that make her God?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#149901 Jan 24, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it, do you?
Just by you being here & arguing about God (the same God you say doesn't exist - or that there's no proof of), you're "door bell" is ringing....
and yet...no god

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149902 Jan 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? I enjoyed your logic, reasoning and presentation here until the last paragraph. Primarily your assumption that the cause of life could not be alive, now all science today agrees that life has only been proven to come from existing life so this creates a paradox in terms of where the first life came from.
1. to say that non life caused life is unscientific and supported by no observations or scientific evidence.
2.Since science supports the biblical notion that life and the universe had a beginning then biological life couldn't have always existed.
3.What conclusions can be drawn?
4.That life sprang into existance? that is inseperable from a miracle.
5. That a life force existed outside the universe , and caused the universe and life to emerge?
Numbers 4 and 5 both require faith, but on which side would logic and reason land?#4 that life emerged by itself? or #5 that it was caused by a force that already possessed the power of life?
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.

You have come to the same conclusion though and make a good point about nonlife producing life being a miracle claim...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#149903 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How could the Creator of the universe be invented 3500 years ago?
The basis premise of God, is that He is without cause.
He is the first cause.
That means He was self existent before the universe was created.
Prove it.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#149904 Jan 24, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The term for taking women from a former defeated enemy is called “War Brides.”
Yes, and the modern term for marrying and having sexual relations with a 'bride' you've taken by force is RAPE.
Eagle12 wrote:
If a man is attracted to her and wants to have a loving relationship. Then he must treat her exceptionally well.
Who says he wants to have a loving relationship? The impetus for the marriage in this scenario is physical attraction. The soldier wants to have sex with the woman. If she does not please him, she is ditched.
Eagle12 wrote:
Nothing has changed since then.
BS. World War II "war brides" were not captives forced to marry. They were women who soldiers met during the war or afterwards.

I can't believe you'd compare these two things.
Eagle12 wrote:
Because “War Brides,” occurred in the scripture the Atheist opposition think it was just an awful atrocity. These women wanted a chance to survive and not die in the rubble left behind.
The 'rubble left behind' solely because of other atrocious laws demanding extermination of enemy males, including the elderly and children.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 IS atrocious. And so is your defense of it.
bohart

Newport, TN

#149905 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Still believe a rockdidit?
I always thought it was a puddle of goo on top of the rock? Ha,Ha

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149908 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you pre-suppose that life was caused by non-life, you have no choice but to arrive at your conclusion...
1. No, once again, if there is a cause of the earliest life, it came before that earliest life (causes come before effects). Are you with me so far?

2. Now, since it is the *earliest* life, there was no life before it. This is the definition of 'earliest'. Still with me?

3. So anything before the earliest life was not alive (that's what it means to be the earliest). This is a re-statement of 2. OK?

4. But since the cause of the earliest life was before that earliest life, by 1, it cannot be alive by 3. Easy deduction...still here?

5. So the earliest life was caused by non-life.

Now, you can get around this in the following ways:

1. Refute the idea that causes come before effects.

2. Declare that there was no earliest life, so life has been eternal.

OR

3. Declare that the earliest life was un-caused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149909 Jan 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? I enjoyed your logic, reasoning and presentation here until the last paragraph. Primarily your assumption that the cause of life could not be alive, now all science today agrees that life has only been proven to come from existing life so this creates a paradox in terms of where the first life came from.
Clearly you did not understand my argument. If there was an earliest life, then anything before it was non-life. That is the definition of 'earliest'. But causes come before the effects (part of the nature of causality). So any cause for the *earliest* life had to be non-living.
1. to say that non life caused life is unscientific and supported by no observations or scientific evidence.
This is wrong. Science shows that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions and nothing else. There is every reason to believe the organization required comes about via the laws of nature and that, therefore, life came from non-life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149910 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.
You have come to the same conclusion though and make a good point about nonlife producing life being a miracle claim...
I disagree. It takes no miracle to organize the basic chemicals of life in a way that they sustain their reactions. And that is what life is: a self-sustaining collection of chemical reactions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149911 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are alive.
Even debating with me, proves Gods existence.
Without Him, you have no basis for absolute laws of logic.
By debating and occasionally using reason, you prove His existence...
What a load of crud. Why would you claim there is no basis for logic without a deity?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149912 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Poly, the prevailing theory is that something expanded and blew a big bubble, condensing something into matter that became those particles and their derivatives, including us. The interactions of these particles keeps blowing the bubble bigger.
Wow. Not even close. Where do you get this stuff?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#149913 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument, but his first premise was unsound.
Which one? That causes come before effects? or that there was a first living thing?

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr ChristineM 2,238
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Thinking 7,667
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr NoahLovesU 19,150
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 11 hr The_Box 139
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 15 hr Reason Personified 166
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 15 hr Reason Personified 14,660
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Mon NoahLovesU 7,514
More from around the web