Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
145,021 - 145,040 of 224,390 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150961
Jan 30, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding does not make a criticism. Yes, space is without a boundary. So the only boundaries to spacetime are at the beginning, and possibly at the end.
How do you know that space lacks a boundary?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150962
Jan 30, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
No one says he's an atheist, unless they don't know that he was a deist.
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
Mark Twain
I couldn't find that quote, it's likely a lie.

"In God We Trust." It is the choicest compliment that has ever been paid us, and the most gratifying to our feelings. It is simple, direct, gracefully phrased: it always sounds well In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true. And in a measure it is true half the nation trusts in Him. That half has decided it."

On page 394.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150963
Jan 30, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you challenging superstition or religion?
The latter seems more likely.
Unless of course you're out there arguing about the existence of ghosts....
Religion is superstition.
I have also argued about ghosts, psychics, mediums, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, and other things that people support irrationally.
<quoted text>
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ah. So it's non-religious dogma you're after...
Good luck!
We don't need more of any dogma. Ideas should be supported based on their soundness and the evidence that supports them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150964
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction. Induction relies on causality...
Nope.

Causality is an induction - a conclusion drawn through induction by observing a constant correlation between prior events or conditions called causes, and subsequent ones call their effects.

Causality refers to relationships in the material world: This billiard ball caused that one to move.

Inductions are abstractions derived from observing collections of events and identifying their common or recurring qualities: billiard balls can cause inelastic collisions.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150965
Jan 30, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you challenging superstition or religion?
Dude, religion is merely a form of superstition.

Supernatural is supernatural.

You worship a god, some other guy doesn't travel on a Tuesday.

Hey IANS, this reminds me of another saying. Don't cheat:

El martes, ni te cases ni te embarques.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150966
Jan 30, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God has supplied that, as can be evidenced in the fact that all mankind recognises it.
All mankind does not recognize a universal morality, so your argument fails from the start.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150967
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that atheists live a life of killing, rape, lies, etc...?
Do I understand what you are asserting?
We really do believe in god because we are moral... but we pretend we don't believe so we can sin..........
I would love if you show me what i missed here because this sounds ridiculous.
I feel like a real world example of this would be like i am in a room with a police officer... and i want to steal a woman's purse... so although i see the cop staring at me. I pretend he is not there so i can steal the purse. I am also pretending jail doesn't exist because i don't want to go there?
Pardon the strange example. I hope i misunderstood.
I myself haven't made any claims of where i get my morals. That is your debate with others on here.
Your 'presupposition' that i am a liar is what bothers me.
How does the Bible 'clearly' show that i am lying?
I hope the answer doesn't express bigotry.
Ok.

Please excuse my dumbing down the argument with some of the posters here.

The morality that you use, cannot be accounted for with your professed worldview.

Now absolute morality, which we all appeal to instinctively, has to have a source.

God is that source.

Yet atheists, whilst appealing to absolute moral positions, deny that absolute morality exists.

The tension then is a strange one.

Indicating contradictory beliefs.

The outward denial of absolute morality.

With the internal appeal to absolute morality.

This tension, which all atheists exhibit, clearly reveals an enmity between the two issues.

That friction, that enmity reveals something deeper, the internal war in the atheist on the issue of accepting Gods claims on them, especially moral claims.

It is these inconsistencies that reveal the larger battle is in fact taking place.

Now, not many atheists have the courage to actual admit that tension, let alone try to account for it.

Why?

Because they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

How do I know that?

God, who is self attesting, and also the absolute standard of morality, has revealed it in the scripture.

The evidence for this however, is plain to see, when the atheists buttons are pressed on this issue...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150968
Jan 30, 2013
 
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not defending the atheists because i see it in us too... but I hope you are not so blind as to not see Christians being guilty of this on here as well!
Its like watching a bunch of angry kids playing king of the hill... remember that game?
I agree.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150969
Jan 30, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't be arguing causality there would you?
Nope.
You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction.
Induction relies on causality...
other way around. The conclusion of causality is based on induction from observations. Not all observations support this conclusion.
But as you have denied causality as absolute, how do you now account for induction?
Induction is imperfect, but is the only way we have of coming up with hypotheses which can then be tested. It is the testability that is crucial.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150970
Jan 30, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. As long as you don't affirm or deny the possibility of a god or gods, you are agnostic. Agnostics like me do deny "God."
Who can say that no god of any description is possible unless the idea is logically impossible? I can't.
However unlikely, the idea of a god isn't logically impossible, therefore it is possible by default. It seems to me that we must all admit to a mustard seed of agnosticism.
But many named gods can be ruled out such as the one you call "God" ... Jehovah-Jesus. Doing so, however, doesn't make one no longer agnostic. It can't.
Why aren't you asking us what we believe and what we call ourselves rather than telling us? You need to understand what the terms mean to unbelievers, and how we use them, unless it is your intention to try to impose a preferred definition upon us.
If you are, I would suggest you think it through. There's only one outcome that I've ever seen come to pass whenever that happens.
Why is it, do you think, that you need to rule out the particular God?

Have you ever wondered why atheists display so much tension around the Christian God?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150971
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
To whom? To the universe? None.
To me and those that love me? What does it say about you that you don't know what purpose we serve, or even whether we experience a sense of purpose? I love many chemical accidents, and they love me.
Why do you want to demean humanity with such descriptions? Sure, it is technically correct, but it is horribly incomplete. Why do you distill the worst definition you can from the whole. We are so much more than that.
This chemical accident also has a sense of dignity, purpose, and self-worth. This chemical accident also has hopes and dreams for the future of mankind and the world.
Your worldview not only has impeded progress in the human condition, it cheapens the human experience. You should be proud of what you are, not all of which is an accident - just your biology. You are the abstract thinking ape, the one that uses language and numbers to contemplate, compute, communicate, measure and record. With a little practice, you can play a piano or guitar.
Do you still not understand where purpose, meaning and value come from? Not the belief in a god, nor in the belief that you were built to serve one. If anything, such a belief demeans you and perverts your sense of purpose.
You still have failed to account for purpose.

Please understand the point and respond to the point itself...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150972
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I didn't say that you were required to break any law, only that you were free to.
I also said that with such cheap forgiveness on demand available to you, you are free to lie all you want, especially when proselytizing. Lying for Jesus is OK, right? Christians overrate their religious experience to others every weeks in church, telling them about the victory, and the overwhelming joy in their hearts. Nobody asks for forgiveness for doing that.
And you are bound by nothing. Faith is a choice. You submit to Christianity by choice.
I am not free to break Gods Law. Lying is not permitted by the way...

That is the whole point of the gospel...

And laying down your life for someone you love, you consider "cheap"?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150973
Jan 30, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Professing that we are just glorified circuitry being put to use by a higher form of life is based upon a 2000 year old National Enquirer?
Yeah, I can see a Topix atheist believing such. They all know we just got poofed here. They are "real" thingies that arose from maybe a fog. Or maybe a particle. Maybe even a different dimension. Maybe a bunch of numbers had a party and created us. Maybe even we emerged out of total nothingness. But those atheist, they be real. And in the know.
Lots of maybes to draw an absolute from...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150974
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your god an absolute?
If so, I'm guessing that you're giving it a pass on any demand that it have a cause. I'm guessing that you're going from strict and rigorous regarding the universe, to anything goes for the god. Am I close?
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.

He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150975
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God, who is self attesting, and also the absolute standard of morality, has revealed it in the scripture.
Then why do so many people find the Bible to be morally appalling?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150976
Jan 30, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If all that you have as evidence is many people agreeing, that is evidence for many people agreeing, not a god. There is also evidence of many people "sinning." Is that then an absolute moral standard and evidence for a god as well? It isn't, is it?
<quoted text>
That's a bare claim, not evidence.
It is not about evidence, it is about authority.

People do not reject God because of lack of evidence, they reject Him because they do not want to submit to His authority.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150977
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever wondered why atheists display so much tension around the Christian God?
This has been explained numerous times. Skeptics primarily combat the superstition relevant to their social environment.

In the United States, that superstition is Christianity. If Hindus begin to gain power in the US and want laws catered to their religion, we skeptics will point out the lack of evidence for their beliefs as well.

Christianity isn't special; it's just prominent.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150978
Jan 30, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is incorrect. Read it again. We are not discussing universals. We are discussing parts and wholes.
Can you not think of things are true about humanity, but not true about individual human beings? Can a single human being reproduce, or survive for millennia?
How about things that are true about a deck of playing cards, but not true about one card? Can you shuffle or cut one card?
And if you care to rebut a comment, do so. A simple claim to the contrary is merely an opinion, not an argument.
All self attesting facts point to the self attesting God.

That conclusion cannot be escaped...

That you have to deny those facts, in order to deny God, proves the point...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150980
Jan 30, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< crickets >
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you going to be dead weight in this discussion? I don't intend to drag you through it. Where did I claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
<quoted text>
OK. I wouldn't.
But why tell me here and now? Did you think that your comment somehow related to mine?
Skepticism is illogical without deductive and inductive logic upon which to base it, I am not sure why you would deny that?

You will be denying your own existence next...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150981
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
"In that case, how do you account for absolute morality?
God has supplied that.."
Proof of gods absolute morality - a bind retarded little girl with deformed limbs.
So was Mr. Morality unwilling or unable to prevent such terrible and unjust suffering? How do you account for being so stupid? Me thinks Mr. Morality loves stupid.
Confucius say you have very small noodle and no like to use it!
Stop sidestepping the question.

If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.

If you can, then account for it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••