Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243425 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150339 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie, you are at the bottom of the pecking order. Follow the chain of command.
If only you actually knew something. Can you not address the infinite regression or are you proposing that only your god is exempt from the "everything needs a creator" assertion?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150340 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you clarify this as it appears you are claiming that nothing has a source?
Can you avoid red herrings?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150341 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a valid point. If everything requires something intelligent to create, then so does that which creates it require something intelligent to create, thereby creating an infinite regression. If one thing can exist, anything at all, without intelligent creation then so can anything exist without intelligent creation. Thus if you propose a god that created this universe that was not created by something else, then the universe itself can happen to exist without that god you proposed, making the existence of such a god meaningless and useless.
Strawman.

No one is arguing that "everything" is created by intelligence.

What is being argued that all things that are created, were created by intelligence.

God is eternal, so is not a part of the creation.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150342 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The physicists tell us that quantum events are uncaused, and there is good experimental evidence to support that claim.
Do you believe that there is free will? If you believe that any aspect of will is uncaused, then you just contradicted yourself. If you believe that every aspect of will and is determined by a cause, then you have ruled out the possibility of free will.
No they do not.

Some physicists say that, not all of them.

You have made a false appeal to authority.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150343 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
He said less than a nanosecond.
It's actually, much, much, MUCH less than a nanosecond, perhaps as little as 5.4 x 10E-44 seconds, the Planck time.
A nanosecond is 10E-9 seconds, a billionth of a second.
A billionth of a billionth of a second is called an attosecond, 10E-18 seconds.
A millionth of this value is called a yoctosecond, 10E-24 seconds. After this, we run out of prefixes, with twenty more powers of ten needed. The amount of time we are discussing is less than a billion billionths of a yoctosecond - much less, about 2%.
54 billion billion billion billion billionths of a second. That's the size of the gap that your god must squeeze into for now.
@ polymath - did I get that right?
So what happened during this (rather inconvenient for atheism) nanosecond?

You do not know?

So you accept that the origin of the universe was caused by something that you cannot explain or quantify.

But you know it was not God.

Your pre-suppositional bias is apparent and revealed in your logically fallacious contradiction.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150344 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman.
No one is arguing that "everything" is created by intelligence.
What is being argued that all things that are created, were created by intelligence.
God is eternal, so is not a part of the creation.
In which case, the universe itself can happen into existence without a "creator." Thus, your presupposition of there being a required creator for the universe is invalid. Science is correct in assuming that it is not required and therefore should progress as is, without any religious nonsense perverting it.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150345 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
He said less than a nanosecond.
It's actually, much, much, MUCH less than a nanosecond, perhaps as little as 5.4 x 10E-44 seconds, the Planck time.
A nanosecond is 10E-9 seconds, a billionth of a second.
A billionth of a billionth of a second is called an attosecond, 10E-18 seconds.
A millionth of this value is called a yoctosecond, 10E-24 seconds. After this, we run out of prefixes, with twenty more powers of ten needed. The amount of time we are discussing is less than a billion billionths of a yoctosecond - much less, about 2%.
54 billion billion billion billion billionths of a second. That's the size of the gap that your god must squeeze into for now.
@ polymath - did I get that right?
Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical.
But is tested in those giant collider's to get ideas on how particles and the forces behave.

Here is the citation from Wiki, which is the very first thing it say's.

"All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period."

Then.

Early universe

Cosmic History After cosmic inflation ends, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and less speculative.

Quark epoch Between 10–12 seconds and 10–6 seconds after the Big Bang.

(((This is where we can be really sure experiments are showing a exact reflection of took place.))))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_th...

But even at 10-6 seconds it's a microsecond , and leaves little room for magic.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150346 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you avoid red herrings?
I quoted your point, please respond to it rather than try to change the subject.

You stated that nothing was caused by everything.

I suspected you did not mean that to come out that way, but asked you to clarify it.

Rational discussion requires that you engage in a conversation.

If you want to be respected as rational, then you should respond respond rationally and qualify your point if someone else thinks it is not all that clear...

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150347 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you actually knew something. Can you not address the infinite regression or are you proposing that only your god is exempt from the "everything needs a creator" assertion?
He exempts himself from the laws of science , do you expect his god to obey them?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150348 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman.
No one is arguing that "everything" is created by intelligence.
What is being argued that all things that are created, were created by intelligence.
God is eternal, so is not a part of the creation.
zzzzzz

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#150349 Jan 27, 2013
I kind of figured hehe no harm done. And indeed I enjoy your posts.

All the best :)
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry...
Previous response was for another poster.:(
I do appreciate the background on the poster you were referring to.
The Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured goat herders.
Given the information readily available it is odd so many individuals find this book so compelling, yet have never read it!
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150350 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
In which case, the universe itself can happen into existence without a "creator." Thus, your presupposition of there being a required creator for the universe is invalid. Science is correct in assuming that it is not required and therefore should progress as is, without any religious nonsense perverting it.
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150351 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted your point, please respond to it rather than try to change the subject.
You stated that nothing was caused by everything.
I suspected you did not mean that to come out that way, but asked you to clarify it.
Rational discussion requires that you engage in a conversation.
If you want to be respected as rational, then you should respond respond rationally and qualify your point if someone else thinks it is not all that clear...
Your response of "god dun it" is irrational, yet you accuse others of not responding rationally. Irony meter, you broke another.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150352 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He exempts himself from the laws of science , do you expect his god to obey them?
You are arguing that I deny the first cause argument?

Are you sure you want to take that position?

That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?

It seems to me that you will hold any position temporarily, if you think it will bolster your appeal to yourself being your absolute standand of authority...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150353 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
zzzzzz
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.
Are you asking for a reasoned argument or empirical evidence?

If you are arguing for empirical evidence, because that is the only method by which you measure the universe around you, then I would ask you to empirically show that a "rockdidit" (non life to life).

If you reject God based on a prejudiced appeal to empiricism, then you also have to reject:

arockdidit
nothingdidit

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150354 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you actually knew something. Can you not address the infinite regression or are you proposing that only your god is exempt from the "everything needs a creator" assertion?
Lovey Dove, from my postings on here you should understand I tend to get into regression and causation rather deeply. Not this topical psuedo-intellectual BS you and your crowd gets into.

For that reason I am quite aware that as the truly insignificant pieces of stellar shit that you and your fellow in the know and full of clues intellekshuals is the absolute truth of the matter, that not only is it impossible to get the grand overview from this lowly station in the larger scheme of things, but definitely on the presumptuous side for such iggorant and developing random collections of matter. It's called getting ahead of yourself.

You can imagine a lot of things, but be careful what you commit yourself to believing.

You follow the path back to your origination, which is what science does, and learn what you can along the way before you jump to conclusions to feed your own little ego. We got a long ways to go before you start asking what created the creator of the creation,

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150355 Jan 27, 2013
Every worldview has to presuppose an absolute standard of truth.

That absolute standard, if correct, will account for human experience.

The problem is, is that most atheists cannot even accept they presuppose certain things to be true, without being able to test them empirically.

Like:

"nothingdidit"
"nothingexploded"
"arockdidit"
"rocksthink"
"rockscare"

So we end up trying to explain the myth of neutrality, that atheists try to present as their great standard, whilst they appeal to their biased unsustainable presuppositions.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150356 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you asking for a reasoned argument or empirical evidence?
If you are arguing for empirical evidence, because that is the only method by which you measure the universe around you, then I would ask you to empirically show that a "rockdidit" (non life to life).
If you reject God based on a prejudiced appeal to empiricism, then you also have to reject:
arockdidit
nothingdidit
<mtimber> "robble, robble, robble, glarrrgh"

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150357 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
You really are an idiot. Us atheists do not say no god exists, we deny your claims of a specific god the way you deny all other religions. So by your own fallacious argument here, you are saying that the other gods do not exist but that yours does, and that in private you actually believe in those other gods as well as your own.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150358 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
You are a numbskull that believes what you want, you make that perfectly clear. Especially with 2 and 3.

You propose to know what different people think , and rewrite what it means to have no knowledge.

You may as well have said, I don't know what you think and I don't care what you think. Because I'll make it up for you.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 20 min woodtick57 9,406
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 6 hr thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... 22 hr Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) Fri millertr1 5
More from around the web