Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239370 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150417 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
So what happened during this (rather inconvenient for atheism) nanosecond?
Didn't you read or understand what I wrote at all? It was much, much, MUCH less than a nanosecond
mtimber wrote:
You do not know?
The universe expanded and the laws of physics as we understand them came into being. What isn't known is what physical laws preceded them.
mtimber wrote:
So you accept that the origin of the universe was caused by something that you cannot explain or quantify.
Nope. I don't assume that the universe was caused. But just what happened is still unknown. There are many competing hypotheses for origins. Gods are only one of them.
mtimber wrote:
But you know it was not God.
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."

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150418 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Very simple.
I point to God as a basis for my absolute standard of morality.
And as He is eternal and all powerful, that makes perfect sense.
You however, claim you do not believe in absolute moral standards, so there is nothing to stop you from lying.
The implication being then, that because you believe in a god, you never lie? Really?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150419 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."

The cosmic microwave background radiation was produced before the universe was a half million years old. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave... :

"As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to lose energy until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons, forming hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation."

And Big Bang nucleosynthesis was complete by about T = 1000 seconds. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleos... ;

"Big Bang nucleosynthesis ... began at temperatures of around 10 MeV and ended at temperatures below 100 keV. The corresponding time interval was from a few tenths of a second to up to 103 seconds."

Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
Imhotep

Wesley Chapel, FL

#150420 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument against a God that is transcendent above all known knowledge, is that because you cannot understand everything about Him, He does not exist...
Interesting...
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"

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150421 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."
The cosmic microwave background radiation was produced before the universe was a half million years old. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave... :
"As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to lose energy until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons, forming hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation."
And Big Bang nucleosynthesis was complete by about T = 1000 seconds. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleos... ;
"Big Bang nucleosynthesis ... began at temperatures of around 10 MeV and ended at temperatures below 100 keV. The corresponding time interval was from a few tenths of a second to up to 103 seconds."
Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
You have run around that donut so many times you carved a rut higher than your head.

You ain't seeing things real good.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150422 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Science is correct in assuming that it is not required and therefore should progress as is, without any religious nonsense perverting it.

[QUOTE who="mtimber"]1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
"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.
mtimber wrote:
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
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?”
mtimber wrote:
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.
What eternal? You seems to be prepresupposing that such a thing exists, an act of blind faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150423 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?
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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150424 Jan 27, 2013
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?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is quite logical.
Everything created has a cause.
The first cause has to be by nature eternal.
To be eternal, the first cause has to operate outside of time.
The first cause has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving and eternal.
On the point of God being eternal.
He reveals the future consistently and accurately, therefore affirming He is outside of time and therefore the First Cause.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150425 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.
IANS, life is a series of adventures. Some good, some bad.

You get some variation, some chance to express yourself.

Your concept of a God is something that never let's the rain fall, never let's you feel pain, and never let's you be individual.

Perhaps a loving God is the one that lets you taste of life, and the various seasonings of it. It is all temporary, anyhow.

Your ideal seems to be one where you eat tortillas everyday. With no seasonings.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150426 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an actual argument or logical response to present?
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.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150427 Jan 27, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT BABIES? Where r u taking this?
I'm telling Catcher about u! Just coz i said some things to him, it don't mean i broke the link, watch out, liberty guy!
Tide, take him down!
All is forgiven, Clementine.

We'll take care of that liberty guy.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150428 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."
The cosmic microwave background radiation was produced before the universe was a half million years old. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave... :
"As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to lose energy until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons, forming hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation."
And Big Bang nucleosynthesis was complete by about T = 1000 seconds. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleos... ;
"Big Bang nucleosynthesis ... began at temperatures of around 10 MeV and ended at temperatures below 100 keV. The corresponding time interval was from a few tenths of a second to up to 103 seconds."
Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?

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...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150429 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Every worldview has to presuppose an absolute standard of truth.
Maybe, but so what? They are still not all equal. One is empirically superior to all of the rest.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150430 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
IANS, life is a series of adventures. Some good, some bad.
You get some variation, some chance to express yourself.
Your concept of a God is something that never let's the rain fall, never let's you feel pain, and never let's you be individual.
Perhaps a loving God is the one that lets you taste of life, and the various seasonings of it. It is all temporary, anyhow.
Your ideal seems to be one where you eat tortillas everyday. With no seasonings.
Lets, not let's.

It's just that you did it three times in just one sentence.

Let's be a little more mindful of grammar.

Your god will appreciate it, I'm certain.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150431 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, because no one has yet to demonstrate that I lied. If you believe your christians don't lie, then you are more deluded than I once thought. You lie about having evidence all the time. As for absolute, even your morality is not absolute, you just pick and choose which parts of your spoonfed morals you want to follow, and ignore all the rest, it is you we cannot trust, because you profess an absolute when there is none, that is how people make excuses for bad behavior.
I have demonstrated it.

The Bible clearly shows that you are lying on this matter.

And as the Bible has shown it can be trusted, then I see no reason to take your word over the truths it clearly reveals.

You do know of God, but you suppress that truth so that you can continue in sin.

You say you don't lie, as if there is an absolute moral value you wish to ascribe to yourself.

Why would you, as an atheist be concerned about that?

You see, you claim to live by atheistic principles of morality, but then you appeal to Christian principles of morality as the defining standard of your character.

Which reveals, that yes, you do know God, but you deny Him as it suits your purpose to...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150432 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You make your own purpose. Mine is to seek evidence. Since you present no evidence all your claims about your religion are dismissed as mythology.
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.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150433 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."

Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
Steven Weinberg (born May 3, 1933) is an American theoretical physicist .

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150434 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What are you appealing to with that rebuttal?
Sorry, but the physics community has the final word on physics, not the Christian community, and the overwhelming majority say that quantum indeterminacy is a fact. Even if they are wrong, you are no position to contradict them and insist that all physical events are determinate (caused).
<quoted text>
< crickets chirping >
Good answer.
You keep making a claim that the majority of physicists vocally support you.

Can you point me to the evidence for that please?

Sounds to me, that you are making a claim that you cannot support.

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...

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' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 37 min Exodus771 7,501
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Thinking 2,203
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr thetruth 19,066
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 4 hr thetruth 124
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr thetruth 7,470
John 3:16 6 hr Son of man 1
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... 16 hr geezerjock 1
More from around the web