Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257121 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: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151735 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not a scientific theory.
How so?
mtimber wrote:
And once again, I do not reject "science", but true science has to be subject to the laws of logic, mathematics and uniformity that are transcendent and originate in God.
No, no, no. You don't care about methodology or what laws of logic or math science appeals to. Your complaints are based on RESULTS. You don't like the findings, so you reject the science.
christianity is EVIL

West Pubnico, Canada

#151736 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...
...So "Wet Rocks Did It".
We have a new theory for the birth of evolutionary life.
wetrocksdidit
You might want to test that theology empirically before telling others they are ignorant because they refuse to accept that by faith...
are you related to Retarded Redneck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
christianity is EVIL

West Pubnico, Canada

#151737 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sin is the virus.
The proof of that is that atheists sin...
Ever considered that?
You want to blame religion of sin, yet you sin and deny all religion.
How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?
SIN is Self Induced Nonsense,,grow up kid

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151738 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?
<quoted text>
No, no, no. You don't care about methodology or what laws of logic or math science appeals to. Your complaints are based on RESULTS. You don't like the findings, so you reject the science.
Not at all.

God is the First Cause.

All of science must therefore logically be subject to Him.

God first.

Science second.

Logical.

Now about this absolute morality you cannot account for, and seem reluctant to try to account for?
christianity is EVIL

West Pubnico, Canada

#151739 Feb 4, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
god is logicaly contradictory to be real
no omniscience needed
www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
spread the word
<quoted text>
which part of CONTRADICTORY didnt you understand,bucko
your god doesnt exist,get used to it
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please, are you serious?
That web is an extremist atheist site that is full of bias and misinformation.
That sight will say anything and you believe them?
TRUTH hurts dont it duckyboy12 ...LOL

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151740 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Certain transcendental laws are known by man and used by man.
Some examples, please.
mtimber wrote:
So the sinner, who wants to be selfish and live in sin, denies those laws when confronted with their implications.
The objection involves ethics that are completely unrelated to the person in question. Many men don't find abortion to be immoral even though an abortion is not an action they will ever commit. Their position cannot possibly be based on selfishness or their own 'sins'. Many heterosexuals do not find homosexuality to be immoral even though they will never engage in homosexuality. They are never confronted by these implications in any way.

You have still not provided us with the mechanism by which sin infects people or any mechanism by which we can detect it.

You have not been able to explain why morality is so different among cultures. Are non-Christian people simply inherently BAD? All those Hindus who go pray at their temple KNOW they are doing something evil but choose to do so anyway?

Your stance is absurd and unevidenced.

Additionally, your disingenuous "argument" can be used by ANY OTHER opposing moral system.

True morality is eating nothing but corn. If you eat anything else, you are sinning. And you know you're sinning. If you disagree that eating other things is a sin, that's just the sin talking.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151741 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you can account for your own position on morality, you have no basis to discuss the issue.
What is your position?
I don't need to give any position on morality to show that yours is flawed.

Stop trying to change the subject. Your moral system is self-contradictory. Deal with it.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151742 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided the basis for absolute morality as a Christian.
Yet you have failed to do so.
Why is that?
Why don't you have the courage to put your own worldview on trial?
You continue to refuse to address the contradiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151743 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
In the sense that the law is a description of reality, yes. The reality is not a human invention; the description is.
So the law of non-contradiction is not a human invention after all...

How do you account for its existence?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151744 Feb 4, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
are you related to Retarded Redneck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
How does that help you account for absolute laws of morality?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151745 Feb 4, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
SIN is Self Induced Nonsense,,grow up kid
There is no such thing as sin?

Really?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151746 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.
God is the First Cause.
All of science must therefore logically be subject to Him.
God first.
Science second.
Logical.
That's not logical at all. Science must practice methodological naturalism or it is useless.
mtimber wrote:
Now about this absolute morality you cannot account for, and seem reluctant to try to account for?
Where did I try to account for it?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151747 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Some examples, please.
<quoted text>
The objection involves ethics that are completely unrelated to the person in question. Many men don't find abortion to be immoral even though an abortion is not an action they will ever commit. Their position cannot possibly be based on selfishness or their own 'sins'. Many heterosexuals do not find homosexuality to be immoral even though they will never engage in homosexuality. They are never confronted by these implications in any way.
You have still not provided us with the mechanism by which sin infects people or any mechanism by which we can detect it.
You have not been able to explain why morality is so different among cultures. Are non-Christian people simply inherently BAD? All those Hindus who go pray at their temple KNOW they are doing something evil but choose to do so anyway?
Your stance is absurd and unevidenced.
Additionally, your disingenuous "argument" can be used by ANY OTHER opposing moral system.
True morality is eating nothing but corn. If you eat anything else, you are sinning. And you know you're sinning. If you disagree that eating other things is a sin, that's just the sin talking.
I am still not sure, why you would be even capable of talking about absolute moral positions like "sin".

The Bible clearly teaches that sin is inherited.

As to your point about a man condoning sin, not being a sinner, you might want to address that.

Men condoning sin are guilty of the sin they condone.

A man cheering on the murder of another man by a third party is just as guilty.

But if you had the courage of your convictions, you would first have the courage to show the basis for your absolute moral claims.

Why are you hiding that?

Obvious really.

It is just another technique to suppress the truth.

You will not discuss it, because you know where it goes.

It is this suppression of truth, that proves my point.

You cannot and will not account for your use of absolute morality.

Therefore, you have no right or basis to condemn anyone elses position.

Put up or shut up as they say...

:-)

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151748 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So the law of non-contradiction is not a human invention after all...
How do you account for its existence?
It simply, is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151749 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to give any position on morality to show that yours is flawed.
Stop trying to change the subject. Your moral system is self-contradictory. Deal with it.
Yes you do.

To state any moral position is flawed requires you to substantiate your standard of judgement.

To refuse to do so is to admit the inability to do so.

I can critique your morality because I can account for absolute morality.

You cannot, so should not critique anothers position.

Until you can justify your own position, all you are doing is behaving in an arbitrary manner.

And we both know that is illogical.

By refusing to account for your own standard of absolute morality, you prove you cannot.

Put up or shut up...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151750 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It simply, is.
I understand you have assumed it.

But you have not accounted for it.

You are simply making arbitrary appeals to "all knowledge".

Which of course is illogical...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151751 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not logical at all. Science must practice methodological naturalism or it is useless.
<quoted text>
Where did I try to account for it?
You didn't account for it, that is my point.

You keep assuming it...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151752 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sin is the virus.
The proof of that is that atheists sin...
Ever considered that?
You want to blame religion of sin, yet you sin and deny all religion.
How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?
According to every religious person who has ever lived, EVERY human sins, religious or not.

How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151753 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
As an atheist, how can you account for sanity?
After all, two chemical accidents fizzing differently are just two different chemical accidents fizzing differently.
How then does your fizz decide my fizz is not fizzing right?
Because your fizz has clearly fizzled.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#151754 Feb 4, 2013
First you just show a god exists before you can assign properties an assumptions to him. Your god encourages rape, incest, slavery, genocide, putting every infant to the sword and torturing people forever for imaginary crimes.

This is your standard of morality? Sorry but secular morality is by far superior.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God exists, all the worldviews that try to suppress that truth, are quickly reduced to logical absurdity.
Again, you refuse to account for the absolute standards of morality you appeal to...

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 45,429
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 hr Big girl 539
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 1 hr Big girl 9,503
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr NightSerf 421
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,230
News Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns (Sep '14) 6 hr ATHEOI 420
News Atheist Rev. Gretta Vosper should be terminated... 6 hr ATHEOI 5
More from around the web