Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257171 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

#150435 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't know that it wasn't a god or, more likely, gods. But I do know that if it was, it wasn't Jehovah-Jesus, which is what I assume you mean by "God."
Interesting, you don't know if it was Gods, but you do know that it wasn't God?

I think you prejudice against Christianity is clearly revealed here.

How can you make such an absurd appeal?

1. I don't know what did it.
2. It might have been gods.
3. It definitely wasn't God.

Do you think this is "logical" reasoning?

I am sorry, but that is so irrational that that argument can only be termed foolish.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150436 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Whilst standing on the absolute truths of Christianity to deny Christianity. Shouting out absolutes, whilst denying absolutes. Screaming absolute moral positions, whilst denying morality. Using logic, whilst denying the absolute cause of logic and even the existence of logic in some cases. Arbitrary, inconsistent and illogical. And yet demanding that people who do not adopt this are lacking in intelligence...
This isn't a complete thought. These clauses all lacks predicates. They're just a series of fragments that don't deserve any of the periods you gave them. http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/mkleckn...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150437 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
The implication being then, that because you believe in a god, you never lie? Really?
Imply what you like, it is irrelevant to the point I made...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150438 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
I don't suppose he made a video of it as well?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150439 Jan 27, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox News needs you!
Which God? is a good question to start.
You can easily DEFEAT all agnostics...
Provide 'verifiable' evidence you're God is the only true God in a way other cults cannot.
"May the Force be with you"
The subjective perception of God means He is not an absolute persona argument...

Three people looking at New York from different angles, means New York doesn't exist...

I hope you get the point.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150440 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I have to remain consistent with my worldview.
That's not enough. That only makes it (formally) valid, not sound. Its premises have to be correct for it to be sound.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

If your world view and the argument underlying it are based on a false premise, it is wrong, even if consistent.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#150441 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a complete thought. These clauses all lacks predicates. They're just a series of fragments that don't deserve any of the periods you gave them. http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/mkleckn...
I understand ltimber is a student at the Eagle School of Grammar.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150442 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"Speaking" was your word, not Kitten's.
Besides, if one were claiming that science literally spoke as part of an argument, it would be a reification fallacy.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skeptic...
This is a pqarticularly petty quibble on your part. Wouldyou have been happier if she has said "Scientists are correct." I trust that you are happy to hear - oops! I meant "read" - arguments of this degree of pettiness now yourself, as I certain that you would never offer an argument that you would reject yourself.
<quoted text>
Your god can be ruled out on the evidence. There is no possible way that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly loving god is involved in our lives. Epicurus understood this long before the Christian era:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
<quoted text>
What eternal? You seems to be prepresupposing that such a thing exists, an act of blind faith.
It was a classic use of the fallacy of reification which atheists use all the time.

Especially when they confuse empirical science with theoretical science...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150443 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is theoretical, but supported by evidence. That can't change the theoretical basis. We can directly observe the exact same things that happened after 150 million years to billion years after , happening over again.
Any look into the unknown by experimentation, such as the Big Bang is a branch of theoretical cosmology. If we could see back farther
we would have a physical model but are limited in that respect.
At this point we can say anything beyond a certain limit is theoretical. This image shows you the limit. though it maybe extended a bit farther in a few years. At any rate there is a gap between what is known for sure and what is under study, what is under study is of theoretical nature.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/hubble_discov...
Looks like a big eyeball to me.

So does the core of the earth.

Cheers, here's looking at you.

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150444 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"Speaking" was your word, not Kitten's.
Besides, if one were claiming that science literally spoke as part of an argument, it would be a reification fallacy.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skeptic...
This is a pqarticularly petty quibble on your part. Wouldyou have been happier if she has said "Scientists are correct." I trust that you are happy to hear - oops! I meant "read" - arguments of this degree of pettiness now yourself, as I certain that you would never offer an argument that you would reject yourself.
<quoted text>
Your god can be ruled out on the evidence. There is no possible way that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly loving god is involved in our lives. Epicurus understood this long before the Christian era:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
<quoted text>
What eternal? You seems to be prepresupposing that such a thing exists, an act of blind faith.
The Epicurus quotes contain so many false premises as to be absurd, you might want to go through them and see if you can spot the assumptive premises built into the arguments before you trumpet them as absolute logical argumentation against God.

Causality points to an eternal source, do you deny that?

Are you saying all the atheists that argue for an eternal source are acting on blind faith?

If you are, then we agree.

As they are, you are correct.

As you are an atheist, then yes you are acting on blind faith.

Actually not blind faith, but rather willful ignorance.

Which is the worst type of stupidity

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150445 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Open to all atheists: Atheists say they lack a belief in God. God says that isn't true, that they do know of Him, but suppress that truth so they can continue sinning. Now God, by His nature cannot lie. But the atheist, appealing to subjective morality, is free to lie at will. Therefore why would anyone believe an atheist who claims that they lack a belief in God?
Really? You need help with this one? OK.

Because somebody lied to you that such a god exists and said such a thing.

You're getting a nice lesson in logic today. I wonder if you can benefit from it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150446 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The first cause argument is not applicable to the universe as an entity. The idea of causality is derived from experience with objects much smaller than universes that are contained in them. You cannot extend the inductions (generalizations) derived from studying the whole and apply them to the parts. That one is called a fallacy of composition. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compo... :
"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."
We don't have enough information about universes to generalize about them, and there is an excellent argument against anything existing before time. Causes imply a before state and an after state. The word "before" has no meaning until T = 0+.
There is no "before time" just as there is nothing on earth south of the South Pole. The phrase is meaningless, as is the claim of a first cause preceding time.
"You haven't seen everything, so you can't know if causality is constant."

Nice attempt at a rescuing device.

Interesting how you personally however can claim the opposite:

"I haven't seen everything but I do know that causality is not constant."

Interesting that, don't you think?

I can't.

But you can.

An appeal to your own omniscience perhaps?

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#150447 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you make your own purpose?
You are just a chemical accident that is a smudge on the universes windscreen.
How much purpose do you think you can have as an atheist?
Obviously, as a Christian, I can explain why you have value and why there is a purpose to your life.
But as an atheist you cannot account for it.
You sense your life should have purpose, contrary to your professed atheistic position, because God has revealed that to you. You cannot admit that, because it would mean repenting and turning to the God who gave you purpose.
This is sheer hogwash, a person has what ever purpose they choose to pursue. Even if it is a chosen life of debauchery or world conquest. Indeed it could be one while doing the other, as Caligula proved possible.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150448 Jan 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ah so the forum punching bag has switched from stealing Eric Hovind's lame fail word for word and has loved on up to stealing William Lane Craig's Bullsht word for word! Hey! Maybe shock of god is next?
<quoted text>
Your erudite refutations tend to be a little bit arbitrary.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150449 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as I see you present something that goes beyond mere assertion, I'll engage you, as it is, all I've seen you do do far is dodge questions and the only response I see you give to a question is a question of your own, as if yours must be answered first.
I understand why most in the forum don't do much more with you than play.
In other words, you cannot deal with the arguments so hide behind a pretended wisdom...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150450 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
I don't have sex, at all, I abhor it actually.
I don't lie, it's too complicated to keep lies straight so I just don't do it.
I don't steal, never needed or wanted to.
I don't want anything that I cannot achieve myself, my agnostic father was a firm believer that if you cannot get it yourself, you don't deserve it anyway.
I don't drink, being drunk is horrible to me, losing control of one's mind is something that frightens me.
Never done any drugs other than tobacco.
I did half of that last night.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#150451 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like a big eyeball to me.
So does the core of the earth.
Cheers, here's looking at you.
:-)
When I look through a telescope and see an eyeball looking back, I'm checking into the top floor of the nearest hospital for some much needed rest. Cat's eye excluded.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150452 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe, but so what? They are still not all equal. One is empirically superior to all of the rest.
At last.

A glimmer of light, all hope is not lost!

So lets examine your claim.

You recognise that all worldviews rest on pre-suppositions, that then have to be tested.

You then set a standard that the correct worldview has to be empirically tested.

Upon that basis, why would you say that "arockdidit", or "nothingexplodedetc" gives you an empirically based advantage?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150453 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not enough. That only makes it (formally) valid, not sound. Its premises have to be correct for it to be sound.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
If your world view and the argument underlying it are based on a false premise, it is wrong, even if consistent.
Indeed, but which of my premises is false?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150454 Jan 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand ltimber is a student at the Eagle School of Grammar.
I am sure he will be glad to hear that.

Mind you, I haven't seen this ltimber post?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 min Aura Mytha 20,341
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr FedUp 21,429
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Demon Finder 10,380
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr Eagle 12 455
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 45,566
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 3 hr Thinking 407
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 4 hr Thinking 558
More from around the web