Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 comments on the Jul 18, 2009, Webbunny tumblelog story 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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150795 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
A white light shines. White as in all colors and wavelengths of the EM spectrum.
Put a filter in front and you bias it so you see a predominate color. Alternatively, your physical construction only allows certain wavelengths to register. This varies to a degree within humans. You can only see what you can see.
The universe is light.
Topix atheists are living in the dark.
Well that was random...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150796 Jan 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
More agnostic than true atheist, My purpose in life is to survive and learn. Far less goals than when I was younger, you do not have to be religious to have goals and purpose.
If you are an agnostic, how can you then deny the possibility of God?

That is contradictory.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150797 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you have to invent a "wrongness" for you to make it sound bad. It's a chemical reaction gone right, actually, because it's one of the few self sustaining chemical reactions, which is why life is one of the most unique.
We create our purpose, you just choose to copy someone's purpose yourself because you are too lazy to make one.
Ok, let us just say you are a chemical accident.

What purpose is there in you being a chemical accident?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150798 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, the lack of belief is agnosticism. It is a passive thing. Atheism is a denial, which is not passive, but definitive.

If you get on here prosyletizing atheism, then you have a belief. Which is most definitive.
I might add this.

Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight.
Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.

Merriam - Webster

athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

"who believes". That's a positive assertion. Seeing as there is no proof of your belief It's FAITH.

Faith:
"Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion"

Ah yes Atheism is a Religion.

Have a nice day and don't forget to go to church.

Posted else where by derek4

From: The Columbus Dispatch:

February 4, 2011

Church, without God

“Stan Bradley likes Bible stories, admires Martin Luther and uses expressions such as 'heavens, no.'

The Lithopolis man is president of a local congregation and rarely misses a Sunday service. Occasionally, he goes to his wife's church instead.

For these and other reasons, Bradley considers himself religious.”

He is also an atheist.

continued:

“Like Bradley, some atheists participate in organized religion for its social and psychological benefits.”

continued:

“Churches are great places to find friends, support and youth education, so nonbelievers and believers alike join congregations to fill those needs, he said.

He has spoken to elderly and sick people who can no longer go to church and they say they most miss the feeling of community.

Recent research from Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin backs him up. It found that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, not because of belief but because of the friendships found at church.”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith...

“religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people”[I have said this all along, and my posts are still on the board to confirm it. Now you hear it straight from the atheist, lol.]

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150799 Jan 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no requirement to tell the truth in your worldview. And all you need after you lie is demand forgiveness. It's automatic, like from a vending machine. Just say a prayer, Claire. And get yourself saved, Dave. That's how you save your ass, Chas. And get into heaven, Kevin.
That is not correct.

I am bound by Gods absolute moral law.

That I can seek forgiveness, is not the same as requiring that I break Gods law, which seems to be what you are arguing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150800 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But there are many things about quantum mechanics that differ from classical mechanics and one of them is the lack of causes. Since quantum mechanics *does* agree with *all* available evidence, we should give some credence to its conclusions. Among these conclusions are that objects do not have well defined properties outside of observation and that the classical notion of causality does not apply to quantum events.
Now,*you* are, once again, the one claiming that we cannot draw conclusions based on the observations we have done. Among the conclusions is the simple fact that a muon just before a decay is *exactly* the same as a muon at any other time. So the 'cause' of the decay is not internal to the muon. But there is also nothing *outside* interacting, so there is no cause outside either.
<quoted text>
Please be more detailed here. Which elements do you think it is affected by?
<quoted text>
One the contrary, we *can* prove the earth is not flat via observation. Muons have been studies for the last 50+ years and their properties are quite well known.
<quoted text>
You may suggest it, but you are wrong. I often wish the universe were more deterministic and had more causality than it does. but the actual evidence is that classical notions of causality are simply wrong. And yes, the tests actually do test *all* possible causal theories.
I think you are equivocating a lack of an account for a cause, with a lack of a cause...

Hence your argument then permits you to deny causality.

Which of course means denying the process of logic itself.

Meaning you have argued that a lack of logic is logical.

Which is illogical.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150801 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?
"If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory."

“My Brother Lives”

Since: Jan 13

Nazareth

#150802 Jan 29, 2013
My Brother came into the world to save the world.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150803 Jan 29, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> No, actually that is what your mythic deity/creation story is premised upon. The two ultimate creations in that story were flawed, an accident. They were intended to be perfect. The mythic deity failed in its intent and "design".
<quoted text> I'm here, now, living and an asset to this world, that's purpose enough. I don't need, nor do I desire to think a deity for which there is no unbiased evidence created the universe and all in it.
<quoted text> Again, that's the basis of your mythic deity story, in which the original two humans created were flawed, accidents, a planned perfection created by your deity, a failure. Imperfect.
<quoted text> Certainly.
How does discussing the bible and its perceived, on your part, errors, give you a reason to argue you have purpose?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150804 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.
<quoted text>
Only in the very first approximation. It is actually a description of the available quantum states. That is its *statistical mechanics* definition.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150805 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are not even close to being the same. The term 'created' pee-supposes an intelligence working. To be caused does not make that assumption.
<quoted text>
That you are slipping relevant assumptions into your argument without justifying the new assumptions.
<quoted text>
Whao there! Exactly which 'transcendental laws' do you think govern intelligence that are any different than the laws of physics?
<quoted text>
All three sentences here are unjustified claims. Why do absolutes need an absolute cause?(and what does it mean to be an absolute cause?) And why does an absolute cause have all the properties associated with deities?
You are making many assertions without any justification. You haven't even defined what it means to be 'caused' yet, let alone what it means to be 'absolute'. For that matter, you haven't defined the term 'God' either.
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150806 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I am interested in truth and that lying makes it much more difficult to determine truth. Your justification of God as a standard of morality is also circular, since give no reason to think there is such a thing and you justify its existence via the existence of God.
Come on, I know you are better than that. You can think a bit more about your assumptions and where they might be wrong. it's a healthy exercise.
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.

That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...

Of course you will deny both these facts, but that does not stop them being true...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150807 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
The Big Bang theory is a region of what we call space, or a small particle, got very hot and agitated and went flying to pieces. It was assumedly a monolithic substance or collection of energy. After going to pieces and expanding the energy, which they refer to as heat, got dissipated and condensed into droplets, which became matter.
No, this is not *at all* what the Big Bang theory says. Every sentence in your 'explanation' is factually incorrect.
That simple. All wrapped up in a mustard seed.
And wrong.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150808 Jan 29, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>FYI
Mark Twain was an ATHEIST ...LOLOLOL
Yup that's why he was embarrassed by his fellow atheist and told them to shut the h..... Up and get you facts straight before flapping your jowls.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150809 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
All empirical observations are founded on the presupposition of the reliability of the laws of cause and effect.
This is false.
I am not sure where you are going with this one.
Is this another attempt to deny the obvious?
I am attempting to show that things you think are obvious are, in fact, false.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is false.
<quoted text>
I am attempting to show that things you think are obvious are, in fact, false.
Why is it false?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150810 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, please supply empirical evidence that your God exists and that the Bible is accurate.
Why would you insist on empirical evidence as the only basis for the proof of God?

Do you use that standard in testing all knowledge?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150811 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>In my view, theists are deluded.

That's what I think, using my reasoning power.

It's not a belief.
Sense there is no proof to your "view" it's a believe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150812 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a
A rather bad misunderstanding of both the first and second laws as applied to curved spacetime.
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory."
Which proponent of the Big bang theory denies that the early universe was a low entropy state?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150813 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, I specifically deny this.
Here is one version of the law of causality: anything that is caused is caused by something physical. That is supported by *all* the evidence. Your 'first cause' argument fails with this version of the law.
So your argument is that all there is is infinite egress?

You deny that cause and effect point to a first cause?

You deny basic scientific and logical observations, based on what reasoning?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150814 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
And to the extent that such standards exist, they are explained by the simple fact that we are a social species.
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
Of course you will deny both these facts, but that does not stop them being true...
And you will continue to promote these ideas in spite of their being false.

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 The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr thertruth 1,313
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr thertruth 18,673
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 9 hr Richardfs 9,319
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 9 hr Liam R will return 31
News Confessions of a black atheist 10 hr Peaks 399
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sat thetruth 2,059
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) Sat thetruth 165
More from around the web