Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#151828 Feb 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much all of your points can be boiled down to:
People can lie online so they do.
Which is fallacious. Anonymity allows people to not lie, that was the point I stated, but it's not true anonymity, which destroys several of your points as they contradict each other as well as that one simple fact.
Let's use me as an example. In the physical world I am myself, a very open and outspoken atheist, and I am asexual. When a male flirts with me, I tend to ignore it, and tell them no. Their "feelings" get hurt because they're trying to impress their "friends" so they make themselves get angry and begin calling me names, like "dyke" and other variants. I am strong and just ignore them, a few times the cops have offered to arrest guys for that but I tend to decline and just prefer they make fools of themselves anyway.
I also speak freely about being an atheist all the time, if I am traveling to somewhere with someone there's always that "shh, you shouldn't talk about such things" from them, always. People are more interested in their social "appearances" in the physical world than being honest, online you can find a racist/sexist/phobic person in a few posts and know you don't want to associate with them, and then avoid them. In the physical world you cannot avoid the toxic people.
"When a male flirts with me"

Sorry, HA HA HA !!!!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#151829 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational ideas based on mountains of evidence? Idiotic!
Man made out of dust and woman made out of a rib? Genius!
There is no evidence to suggest that all life came from one life.

Without that guess thrown in the mix, ToE has nothing.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#151830 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I don't have to make a case, the truth of Gods existance is self evident.
Why do you think you have the right to put God on trial?
Either your faith has made you intellectually incompetent, or you always were, and it merely stunted your intellectual growth.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#151831 Feb 4, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
You athesists are a pack of hypocritical anal retentive clods. You run off at the mouth with certainty about the delusional Christian until you are faced with uncertainty, that is. Lying on your death bed knowing that your life is about to vaporize into nothingness, you will cling to even a thin sliver of hope, whether delusion or not, if it keeps you alive.

I have no problem whatsoever with a person who wishes to believe in god. I do have a problem with people who deny the things that are known. You can't can't have a belief in god that distorts the known truths in the reality of the physical universe. You shoot yourself in the foot ,and your belief and becomes looking really stupid when you adhere to ancient mythology's and expect it hold truth and wisdom in the modern world of scientific reasoning.
You fantasy about our end of days is saying more about yourself than it is of anyone else.

Since: Dec 09

Cleveland, TN

#151832 Feb 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ego that allows you to pretend its a myth?
Or is it lack of intelligence?
I don't know about pretend. It's probably just the definition of the word that allows them to think it...

myth
noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151833 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you do.
To state any moral position is flawed requires you to substantiate your standard of judgement.
Not on moral principals, no.

Your moral system contradicts itself. It fails right there by YOUR OWN standards.
mtimber wrote:
I can critique your morality because I can account for absolute morality.
You don't even know what my morality is. You're very desperate to get off the topic of your moral system and its failings.

You don't play well when people actually call you out on all the holes in your beliefs. Doesn't fit your script.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151834 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you have assumed it.
It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion made based on everything we see in reality.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#151835 Feb 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ego that allows you to pretend its a myth?
Or is it lack of intelligence?
The definition of the word, "myth" allows me to call it exactly what it is.

Noun: myth
1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.
WordWeb Pro 6.0

A myth.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151836 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not have the right to discuss sin until you can account for it...
No one needs to account for sin until someone actually provides proof that it exists.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151837 Feb 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence to suggest that all life came from one life.
Without that guess thrown in the mix, ToE has nothing.
Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151838 Feb 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. That's the funny part.
Jesus wasn't human
RR, why don't you believe that my friend (who is a god) can shoot lasers out of his eyes?
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#151839 Feb 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem whatsoever with a person who wishes to believe in god. I do have a problem with people who deny the things that are known. You can't can't have a belief in god that distorts the known truths in the reality of the physical universe. You shoot yourself in the foot ,and your belief and becomes looking really stupid when you adhere to ancient mythology's and expect it hold truth and wisdom in the modern world of scientific reasoning.
You fantasy about our end of days is saying more about yourself than it is of anyone else.
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#151840 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.
shhhh...
Tom Jones

United States

#151841 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"THE CLAIM HAS BEEN made that where as acceptable evidence of microevolution exists, there is no acceptable evidence for macroevolution The microevolutionary changes conceded are changes in gene frequencies or genetically based adaptations, which can be demonstrated in short-term scientific studies. These include changes in the frequency of dark morphs in moths, and changes in the age of first reproduction in fish as the result of the selective actions of predators on fish.

Macroevolution, however, is seen as unsubstantiated by critics of evolutionary theory. It is not seen how a process of macroevolution could produce new higher categories of life such as bird, butterflies, and flowering plants, as well as any unique and well-developed structures they possess such as brains, wings, and flowers.

Macroevolution suffers, in this view, from unconvincing evidence, missing evidence, and counter-evidence. Deemed unconvincing is the evolutionary biologists' claim that the processes that led to observable short-term changes in the genetic complements of species (and the traits governed by these genes) also led over millions of years to bigger changes, greatly modified structures with new uses, and new kinds of organisms. Also deemed unconvincing is the occasional fossil intermediate-the odd whale with legs here and the reptile with feathers there.

The missing evidence, in this view, is explained away as gaps in the fossil record. The missing "proof' would have to be a chain from ancestor to very different descendent of adapted intermediates, not overlapping in time, each superior to its predecessor.

The counter-evidence for macroevolution is regarded to be the overlapping in time of presumed ancestral and descendent species. Other counter-evidence is held to be the apparent sudden appearance- suggesting creation-of new forms, and of life itself.

Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political. There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God, Evolution or Creation Scientists must exclude an actively creating or otherwise involved God because, if they didn't, it would mean the death of science. To win, scientists push the dogma of metaphysical naturalism, which states that knowledge can come only through the methods of investigation of natural science."
Tom Jones

United States

#151842 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"How Incomplete Is The Fossil Record?
Darwin clearly thought the fossil record was very incomplete, and it probably is; the vast majority of species that must have lived on earth are not recorded in the fossil record. This isn’t really surprising. The chances of an organism becoming a fossil are slim, usually only hard materials are preserved, even then the dead organism has to avoid decay, scavengers, erosion by wind and rain, and must be covered in sediment and fossilised. Once a fossil has formed, over the millions of years following, the chance is very small that it will not be destroyed by; the immense pressure of the rock above it, the heat of the earth’s mantle below it, the heat and pressure as continental plates collide, or the processes of erosion which shape the earth’s surface! If a fossil does survive to the current day it has to be found and identified. Undoubtedly there are amazing fossils out there still undiscovered, certainly many new species of extinct species are described every year"
Tom Jones

United States

#151843 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"All contributors to this debate agree that the fossil record is incomplete. Disagreements concern whether, or at what level of completeness, The fossil record is indeed incomplete, preserved fossils represent a biased sample, the discovery of fossils is not random and those found reveal only partial information about the original organisms.

These facts are perfectly true, but if they are applied to living organisms a surprisingly similar situation exists

Data from the fossil record are frequently ignored because they are known to be incomplete.

Since: Nov 12

Pittsburgh, PA

#151844 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is quite simple.
The fact you and everyone else appeals to absolute morality, shows an awareness of that absolute morality.
There are transcendent laws that govern every aspect of our being.
We don't though. We all disagree on different levels. We all seem to agree on some things... but like i was pointing out with the hostage situation, some we disagree on. The funny thing is... nobody is bringing up these situations. Instead... the atheists are pointing out the immoral things in the bible and acting as if you would agree with them... and the Christians dodge that and tell the atheists that they have no way to be moral or that they are lying because their bible says so.... and I'm sorry but we are all full of it. None of us are rapists that i know of... something ELSE is going on and that is what we disagree with.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws of logic, morality and laws of uniformity.
Those laws cannot be accounted for as a product of humanity, as they are transcendent, they have to have a higher intelligent source (morality and logic demand intelligence as a source).
And those laws are in you and around you.
Please explain what "transcendent" laws of morality are and how you know this.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
As an atheist, you have no basis to account for them, yet you must appeal to them to argue your own worldview.
But what happens is the conclusion of those laws and the place they take a person, is something that our sinful nature wants to suppress.
As a skeptical human being I do not see any reason to believe in a god. This has nothing to do with accounting for morals. However, for whatever reason it may be, I find the thought of another human being unnecessarily harmed in any way to make me feel pain. I have empathy and wish for equality. I do not want to hurt anyone and i don't need the fear of god or hell to keep me from harming someone. If someone does need that fear... they need psychological help.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So on the one hand atheists operate on these laws (when sin does not obscure them) and appeal to these laws, but on the other try to deny them because of the conclusion they lead the atheist to...
The evidence is internal and external and that is why every man can and will be judged by God.
We all know...
But some suppress that truth, because they do not like the claim God makes on them.
What action could please someone enough to ignore being tortured for eternity assuming they believed they knew that was the consequence?

If anything i think if atheists really did believe in god... it would show how morals are higher than god. I would say... if Abraham chose not to kill his son... it would be a more moral action that obeying God.

How do you feel about that kind of rejection?
Would it be immoral of Abraham to reject god and not kill his son?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151845 Feb 4, 2013
Tom Jones wrote:
Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political.
Macroevolution has been directly observed in the wild as in labs.

The only reason Creationists reject it is because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious views.
Tom Jones wrote:
There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God,
All the scientists who support evolution have wildly diverse cultural backgrounds: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, nonreligious, liberal, conservative.

All the people who oppose evolution have basically the same background: fundamentalist Abrahamic religion.

But it's the SCIENTISTS whose culture is causing their position? That's funny.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151846 Feb 4, 2013
Tom Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Data from the fossil record are frequently ignored because they are known to be incomplete.
Being incomplete does not invalidate it as evidence.

If I have a photo album with a picture of Mary in North Carolina on Monday, South Carolina on Tuesday, Georgia on Wednesday, and Florida on Thursday, that's good evidence indicating Mary took a trip from NC to FL, even if we don't have a 10 hour video documenting every mile she drove.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#151847 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is self evident.
It is not a matter of assuming, it is a matter of opening ones eyes.
It is a matter of turning from the sinful nature you have, that is suppressing the truth in you.
The First Cause is not assumed.
The First Cause simply Is.
And thats why Gods name is:
I AM.
"First cause" can be a quantum fluctuation or a singularity exploding. It can also be the exhaust fumes of some space craft, or the formation of an atom belonging to some pond scum in another universe. Your assuming it's a god, and your specific god, makes you a failure at logic.

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 Regolith Based Li... 75,476
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr John 6,109
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr John 209
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Nemesis 4,070
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 13 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web