Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245082 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

#150063 Jan 25, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong... but i don't think he is Derek. Derek is mean and floods the board with cut and paste BS from websites he doesn't even read. Mtimber is fun. I disagree with most if what he has to say but he keeps himself under control and i respect that.
My name is definitely not Derek.:-)

Margaret doesn't want to seem to accept that however...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#150064 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum?
Its up there in the thread title :)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150065 Jan 25, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a bit shocked and bothered by this.
Although you have been having conversations about coming to rational conclusions... using logic... and such... all of which i am happy with..... now you are supporting presuppositional apologetics?
I feel like the pastafarians have a lot of fun with the same tactics because they are pointing out the absurdities of it.
Maybe that explains why you have been equating goddidit with arockdidit. Except in presuppositional apologetics ... goddidit is where it begins so it fills the gaps like a base color on a canvas. Science doesnt begin with the answer. It finds the highest probabilities while searching for answers. So if one answer was arockdidit... it wont be the answer to all of the unanswered questions.
If we walked into a room with a box and a note on it... you read the note and it said a 18 lb blue bowling ball was in the box... you believed it and sat down... and i picked up the small light weight box and said i didnt believe the note... coming from presuppositional apologetics... can i trust my senses when i think i see a small box that feels light weight?... so i think nothing is in the box?... this is very problematic.
Strawman? I don't know... but i dont see a difference.
We all have to pre-suppose certain things before we measure the universe.

Everyone does.

Lets take the typical atheist argument that "arockdidit".

Now was anyone there to observe non-life turning into life?

No.

So there is no empirical evidence for that.

It has to be assumed, and then people try to prove that happened, from that assumption.

Any hypothesis starts from base assumptions that then have to be tested.

Presuppositional apologetics operates on the same basis, but in the philosophical realm.

I of course would welcome strong logical examinations of that principle, if you have a counter argument, that shows we hold no pre-suppositions?

Essentially, how we gain knowledge is under question here...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#150066 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What, like nothing exploded, that kind of story that requires immense faith?
Special pleading.
You dont have to believe in the Big Bang. Just to have the a healthy degree of skepticism and free thinking to absurd claims about the supernatural.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150067 Jan 25, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the worlds largest ego and smallest morally challenged malfunctioning brain.
Really?

lol

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150068 Jan 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about any of the *philosophical interpretations* of quantum theory. I am talking about the quantum theory as actually used by physicists.
<quoted text>
yes, the prior condition is that of being a muon. But here's the point: there is no difference between a muon that decays now versus a muon that decays at some later time (or that never decays). When that muon decays is random and uncaused.
<quoted text>
Why would you say that? It is illogical only if you *assume* that all events have causes. But that is exactly the point at issue, so that assumption is not one you can make without justification.
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?

Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.

Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150069 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Non sequitur.
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?

You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...

The whole of scientific endeavour is built on the assumption that absolutes exist.

No absolutes, no science.

Morality is the same, no absolutes, no subjective interpretation of those absolutes.

No morality...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150070 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Its up there in the thread title :)
It seems to be discussing the pre-suppositional nature of atheistic beliefs...

But, if you see an entry requirement expressed there, I would love to see you explain it...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150071 Jan 25, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You dont have to believe in the Big Bang. Just to have the a healthy degree of skepticism and free thinking to absurd claims about the supernatural.
You presuppose that the universe only operates on empirical laws and you define them as "natural", correct?

Why do you presuppose that only empiricism is valid?

And if that is the case, why are you then arguing the big bang is viable?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150072 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
If you mean 'interpretations', like the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation, I do not use *any* of them. I simply use quantum mechanics. The interpretations are methods of attempting to explain QM in terms of classical notions. That is a fundamental error. You explain the old theory in terms of the new one, not the other way around.
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Well, the point is that a muon just before the decay is exactly the same as a muon at any other time. It is a fundamental particle, which means there is no 'internal clock' ticking that determines when it decays. The decay is inherently probabilistic (not possible to determine when it will happen no matter what information you have previous to the decay), and so is not 'caused'.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
Like I also said, the vast majority of quantum phenomena are un-caused. They are inherently probabilistic and not determined by previous conditions. Again, that is fundamental to how quantum mechanics works (no matter what the interpretation).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150073 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
If you want to claim that the decay of a muon is caused, please define the term 'caused' and we can test to see if it applies. In particular, since the phrase 'x is caused' means the same as 'there is a y such that y causes x', please define what it means to say that 'y causes x'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150074 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory as used by different physicists are you referring to?
Where is your source for claiming muons do not have a cause, I would like to examine it.
Also, did you ever come up with something else, that does not have a cause, that can be observed?
You do realize that all the interpretations of QM give *exactly* the same observable predictions, right? They are *exactly* the same as scientific theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150075 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You presuppose that the universe only operates on empirical laws and you define them as "natural", correct?
Why do you presuppose that only empiricism is valid?
And if that is the case, why are you then arguing the big bang is viable?
Because the Big Bang theory gives testable predictions and those predictions agree with the evidence. The Big Bang theory, as used by cosmologists, says that the universe was once very hot and dense and has been expanding since that time. It uses general relativity, statistical mechanics, and quantum mechanics to describe the conditions and dynamics of the universe. At this point, it works very well from less than a nanosecond into the expansion phase until the present. In particular, the LCDM (lambda, cold dark matter) theory predicts the detailed nature of the cosmic background radiation and is the modern version of the Big bang scenario with inflation.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150076 Jan 25, 2013
Non sequitur.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?
You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...
The whole of scientific endeavour is built on the assumption that absolutes exist.
No absolutes, no science.
Morality is the same, no absolutes, no subjective interpretation of those absolutes.
No morality...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150077 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it an non sequitur?
You can only tell a line is curvy if you have a straight line to measure it against...
Wrong. We define a 'curvy line' to be a curve that fails to minimize the distance between every two points on it. See? We don't need to know what it means to be straight to define curvy.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150078 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber won't understand metrics like that.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. We define a 'curvy line' to be a curve that fails to minimize the distance between every two points on it. See? We don't need to know what it means to be straight to define curvy.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#150079 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly not. Training means you were taught. Experience is what shapes that teaching into something different if such occurs. How do you think cultural differences came about?
You are taught not to do some dangerous things, but you do them to get a thrill or knowledge. That is free will.
You can't freely choose to follow training too? Free will only occurs when you (freely) choose otherwise?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#150080 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?
You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...
Once again, I've not pre-supposed anything of the sort. How about we do this:

Evil: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evi...

So, now that we have a definition, back to the question:

"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"

I'm getting the distinct impression you are very uncomfortable with answering the question.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150081 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
mtimber won't understand metrics like that.
<quoted text>
Probably true, but it still shows that we can define 'curvy' without reference to 'straight'.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150082 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.
Do you have anything rational to present?
To say "god dun it" is to presume you know something in spite of not knowing anything about the topic. It's called a cop-out, you are avoiding admitting to not knowing. Honest people say "I don't know," dishonest people say "god dun it."

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) 4 min Thinking 20,661
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 1 hr Thinking 21
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 1 hr Thinking 19
John 3:16 2 hr Thinking 94
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 hr Knowledge- 11,006
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 10 hr ChristineW 14,668
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web