Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150272 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever your argument, level it at the god;
The chance arrangement of some assumed substance operating under some assumed laws into a god will not happen unless it was pointed in the right direction.
If your argument were valid, then this would perforce be more valid, since your argument assumes the existence of an infinitely more complex entity to explain a simpler one that it says is too complex to exist undesigned.
A god like yours is the least likely thing imaginable to exist uncreated. Literally. If you disagree, name something that would possibly be less likely to exist uncreated than an infinite, immortal, sentient, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral being.
And if one existed, why aren't there many? What else is sui generis? Not even the universe itself in a many-worlds or multiverse scenario.
IANS, you and a bacteria in a Petri dish have the same lack of abstract thinking ability.

Don't worry about how what brought you into existence came into existence. Especially if it can dump you down the sink. Establish a rapport with it, then it may tell you what it knows.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150273 Jan 26, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Of all the alleged virtues, faith is the most overrated.
“Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.”- Mike Huben

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150274 Jan 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There are no means of analyzing God in the same sense. Your eyes do not see Him. Your ears do not hear Him. Your senses seem to betray you. All known forms of detection fail. So does that mean God doesn't exist or you simply lacks the means to detect Him?
“The [undetectable] and the non-existent look very much alike”-Delos B. McKown

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150275 Jan 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, my friend.
It is when the absence is evident.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150276 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that sees invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti, and old men sitting on thrones as deities. Separate and distinct entities from yourself.
You could just be a facet of this entity, therefore you can't "see" it.
However, if you are a boil or pimple on its butt, you may wind up feeling its presence.
Pfft

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150277 Jan 26, 2013
http://inexplicata.blogspot.com/2013/01/anted...

Interesting about the megaliths being power sources. I figured that out 30 years ago. It's true.

Simple physics. Phenomenon that even ancient man could have noticed and harnessed. But never quite truly understood.

Used mainly for spurring growth in crops. Bringing static ground to life. EM emissions that kicked things into gear.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150278 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what clothing has done to us!
It's evil!
What ever will we do?
U got a point actually!

U could use a bra, thongs and other stuff as weapons! a tie is a weapon for sure!!

I never knew there was a sharp metal thingy inside of a wire bra. It came outta my bra as i was wearing it and it stabbed me in the blumin' chest, i was in so much pain, i had to tell the teacher i wasn't feelin' well just so that i could go home and quickly take if off. Also wearing bra's give u back and chest problems, i'm sure they do, they need to do a survey thingy on this subject.

But u guys have it easy, u don't have to wear body tight clothes, but us girls have to wear tight everything! You just eat a little bit more than usual, then u got to hold your stomach in all day long.

i think we should all take our clothes off and burn them!! That's the only way!!! I think u should start it off, Tide!

Go Tide, go Tide, burn your clothes, feel freedom!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150279 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“The [undetectable] and the non-existent look very much alike”-Delos B. McKown
McKown would've been a terrible DNA theoretician 150 years ago.....

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150280 Jan 26, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
U got a point actually!
U could use a bra, thongs and other stuff as weapons! a tie is a weapon for sure!!
I never knew there was a sharp metal thingy inside of a wire bra. It came outta my bra as i was wearing it and it stabbed me in the blumin' chest, i was in so much pain, i had to tell the teacher i wasn't feelin' well just so that i could go home and quickly take if off. Also wearing bra's give u back and chest problems, i'm sure they do, they need to do a survey thingy on this subject.
But u guys have it easy, u don't have to wear body tight clothes, but us girls have to wear tight everything! You just eat a little bit more than usual, then u got to hold your stomach in all day long.
i think we should all take our clothes off and burn them!! That's the only way!!! I think u should start it off, Tide!
Go Tide, go Tide, burn your clothes, feel freedom!!
I'll never wear a bra again.

You have my word.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150281 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Lets hope that Ar Ar doesn't try to follow your example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150282 Jan 26, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
As an example there is a law of biogenesis, that life only comes from existing life. The absence of evidence that this law is violated after many and repeated attempts is in fact evidence of absence. Given the number of ways we have looked, and the strictness of the law,( hence the high degree of testability),the prolonged absence of evidence of violations is very,very good evidence for the law.
Thats a great arguement.
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.

The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.

So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.

We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#150283 Jan 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum.
At least it is on my phone and pc.
Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#150284 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150285 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll never wear a bra again.
You have my word.
Good! I'm in a fighting mood today, so don't get on the wrong side of me!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150286 Jan 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Most posters see it in the Top Stories forum. Get over it.
That's where i see it too!

Some people think the world revolves around them! Yh, i'm talkin' about u, liberty guy!:-p

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150287 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we are very early in our investigations of abiogenesis. it is only recently that we have learned the chemical foundations for life (even the simple fact that DNA is the genetic material was only learned 55 years ago). We are also only beginning to really understand the conditions on the early earth. In addition, when we have investigated this question, the obstacles that originally appeared have, over time, been found to be *less* of a problem than expected. It was originally thought that organic compounds could only arise in living systems. That was shown wrong. Then it was thought that amino acids couldn't form under conditions expected on the early earth. That was found wrong. Then it was thought that polymerization to form more complicated chemicals would be unlikely and that was found wrong. And it was thought that membrane systems wouldn't be able to form and *that* was found to be wrong.
The problems are that we do not understand the chemistry for life nearly well enough to solve this problem yet. But each obstacle that was thought to be there has been shown to dissipate under study.
So the question of abiogenesis is closer to attempting to bridge a gap than anything else. Life *is* a chemical process. The main question is how the original chemicals came together in the correct amounts and in the right places.
We can also turn this around and note that *every* time we have found a cause for *anything*, it has always been a physical cause. That is absolute and nothing has ever even hinted at anything different. So, again, it is reasonable to suspect a physical cause for the beginning of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis

Something zapped them in just the right way.

It wasn't Charlie Darwin. He just noted some of the eventual effects.

Those chemicals had to be forced to merge in the right circuitry. 14 or less billion years is not enough time for the process to start. Plus the processes had to survive a varying environment. One cosmic ray could ruin a bacterium's day. Plus all the other environmental thingies that could strip it apart.

Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150288 Jan 26, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Good! I'm in a fighting mood today, so don't get on the wrong side of me!!
I'll help you.

I know some moves.
Jox

United States

#150289 Jan 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>

I gave up waiting for proof of your god a long time ago.
No you haven't. You know you are lying to yourself.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#150291 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>...Give it up, Einstein. You were produced by something beyond your comprehension. And a lot smarter than you.
Which, by you way of reasoning, must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... which must have been produced by something beyond its comprehension and a lot smarter that it ... etc ... etc ... etc.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#150292 Jan 26, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So a creating man from a lump of clay with a magical **poof** by some invisible sky deity must require a ton of proof.

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) 18 min Thinking 18,895
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 29 min Pahu 2,100
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 32 min ChristineM 6,713
News .com | What hope is there without God? 34 min Thinking 3
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 13 hr spellmeout 14,657
News Confessions of a black atheist 17 hr thetruth 478
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Tue Pete-o 7,409
More from around the web