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
144,121 - 144,140 of 224,099 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150025
Jan 25, 2013
 
Apropos nothing at all, this is probably my favourite use of the word "bollocks".

www.youtube.com/watch...
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.
I don't hate anybody.
Hence, no need of a deity to justify it.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150026
Jan 25, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
So we have met.
<quoted text>
Have we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150028
Jan 25, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
This will of course be ignored or the sheep will bleat you took it out of context. The dodgeball will continue bud. They lack the honesty to answer for their bible's atrocities.
<quoted text>
I believe that there are far less people on Topix than the number of name suggests; none of them are christian.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150029
Jan 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Mother Goose can be anything I want her to be, just like your god. That's what's great about fairytales.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150030
Jan 25, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crud. Why would you claim there is no basis for logic without a deity?
Because he is a dishonest theist trying to protect his delusions.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150031
Jan 25, 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....
Well hello Mother Goose! Come on in!
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150032
Jan 25, 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...
You have the worlds largest ego and smallest morally challenged malfunctioning brain.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150033
Jan 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Still believe a rockdidit?
You just never grew up and stopped playing make believe.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150034
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hello Mother Goose! Come on in!
Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep;
she didn't know where to find them.
She called the police, they followed the fleece.
Boy Blue was right there behind them.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150035
Jan 25, 2013
 
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>GOD S man made? That's a first LOL
No it's not.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150036
Jan 25, 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
Whether you are sorry or not there is a difference between not understanding how an event happened and a paradox.

Paradox

noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion

There is nothing contradictory, false or absurd and therefore not a paradox, The logic of mathematics used to theorise the event contradict nothing. However you would no doubt have been correct until Dr Param Singh invented the mathematics that resolved the problems of infinities. Perhaps you are out of date or perhaps you use the wrong word? I donít know, I donít do too well at reading minds.

Human knowledge increases, that is the nature of the human mind and of course the reason for science. Because there is a limit now does not mean that limit will stand next Thursday. Only in the last couple of years has the current limit been pushed back to 10^-34 of a second after the event.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150037
Jan 25, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dreams can become reality, sweetness. Or seem that way.
It can get difficult figuring just where the dreaming actually started.
There's medication for that.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150038
Jan 25, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes - a message that you are still safely tucked up in davesworld. The universe is not a fruit or nut, no current theories imagine it as a fruit or a nut, as far as I know there has been no historical consensus that the universe is a fruit or a nut.

HI dave, ca va?

Rather belatedly I hope you had a good winter break.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150039
Jan 25, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe that all these chemicals came together in an ancient primordial soup stirred by winds and tides or whatever and this was the right location in the proper amounts to create life?God you have faith in miracles! The faith of a religious zealot.
Yes, that is the basic outline, although I don't know whether it happened in a pond or at a deep sea vent. Why do you call this a miracle? I tis an application of the laws of physics and chemistry over time. Definitely *not* a miracle.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150040
Jan 25, 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?
You seem to have the meaning of logic confused with meaning of myth, a typical failing if the gobot.

There is no logic in mentioning any god. The missing element in any logical argument for a god is that of validity, proof, evidence. What you believe does not rate as logic

However if you can prove me wrong by supplying a logical (real logic, not the goddidit of your imagination) argument that a god (any of the 3700+ gods) can be logically proven to exist then please feel free to indulge yourself.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150041
Jan 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
How do you know that?
You are very good at making unsupported truth claims...
ActuallyAura was quoting me and it is supported, your ignorance of the facts does not make the facts go away

Evidence of that claim can be found in both the published documents of the perimeter institute and cern.

Who, I should think, considering that they actually research into that point in time they know considerably more than some godbot who thinks goddidt by magic 6000 years ago because a bronze age author wrote it in a book. A book that was selectively assembled by committee, copied and altered to the extinct that in the early 1600s it had to be rationalised from the 100s of different versions.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150042
Jan 25, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes - a message that you are still safely tucked up in davesworld. The universe is not a fruit or nut, no current theories imagine it as a fruit or a nut, as far as I know there has been no historical consensus that the universe is a fruit or a nut.
HI dave, ca va?
Rather belatedly I hope you had a good winter break.
:-)

Thank you, Christine. Hope you had a good one, too.

There is much empirical evidence to support my theory. Just look at the quantity of fruits and nuts posting on Topix.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150043
Jan 25, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you are sorry or not there is a difference between not understanding how an event happened and a paradox.
Paradox
noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion
There is nothing contradictory, false or absurd and therefore not a paradox, The logic of mathematics used to theorise the event contradict nothing. However you would no doubt have been correct until Dr Param Singh invented the mathematics that resolved the problems of infinities. Perhaps you are out of date or perhaps you use the wrong word? I donít know, I donít do too well at reading minds.
Human knowledge increases, that is the nature of the human mind and of course the reason for science. Because there is a limit now does not mean that limit will stand next Thursday. Only in the last couple of years has the current limit been pushed back to 10^-34 of a second after the event.
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said
"the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist" That should be worded, "The very laws that govern this universe did not exist" The problem is a infinitesimal turned infinite if you fail to see the paradox , the problem is yours.

Just as the cosmological argument has been waged for 4 thousand years, and in your arrogance and haughty reasoning will not change it from being the paradox it is. It is hardly been solved though our understanding greater yes, but the heart of this mystery will forever be shrouded in a impenetrable fog of absolutes that defy reason to explain.

Param Singh has hypothesis but like so much wonder it is but one possible explanation of many , in cosmology there are many flavors of possibility , but they only hold favor awhile till the next scheme is devised . But like all theory and hypothesis into before the beginning is nothing more than conjecture.
Else the cosmological argument would be no longer a topic and all the rage even here and now , within this very forum.

We you and I can only say the evidence leads us to think it was not a caused event, or better said caused by a uncaused causer of causers. We can go further saying it is possible that quantum fluctuations caused a potential difference in space/time/matter/energy and this was likely due to the nature of minute quantum perturbation, but it takes not away from mystery and paradox of the resulting infinite/infinitesimal.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150044
Jan 25, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory are you presenting?
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.
If something decays, it means it has a prior condition.
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.
Now you can claim that such decay is evidence of a lack of a cause, but that would seem to be very illogical...
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.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150045
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep;
she didn't know where to find them.
She called the police, they followed the fleece.
Boy Blue was right there behind them.

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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Richardfs 198
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 3 hr Buck Crick 368
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 6 hr No-Doubt 270
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 8 hr DonPanic 21,384
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr religionisillness 834
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 18 hr Patrick 16
Of Interest InTheNews 18 hr Patrick 3
•••
•••