Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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: 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

Location hidden

#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.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#151849 Feb 4, 2013
Tom Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
"THE CLAIM ...
Plagiarizing is unethical...you must be a Christian fundamentalist.

It is a shame that you don't understand enough about basic science to see just how lame your argument is. I am sorry, truly sorry that you live in so much hate and fear of things you clearly can't even begin to understand.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#151850 Feb 4, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
PROJECTION..look it up...
there is empirical evidence otherwise we wouldnt be here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Why don't you just put up the wikipedia definition of vampire, theres as much evidence.

try looking up empirical evidence since you don't seem to have a clue what it means

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. Abiogenesis hasn't ever been observed , or PROVEN to create life , therefore your statement about there being empirical evidence is either the result of ignorance or your lying.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#151851 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you care?
You are an atheist, slavery and rape are perfectly acceptable in your worldview, as long as society comes to a consensus on the matter.
So I am not sure, why you would want to critique something you actually do not have a problem with as an atheist.
Of course you can reject atheism if you want, and turn to God, who is calling for your very soul, and then discuss with Him the issues you believe need to be dealt with in scripture.
But if you continue in atheism, you have no basis upon which to profess moral outrage on these issues...
Wow. Shocked again.

Am i summarizing this correctly?
He said that rape and slavery is condoned in the bible.
Your response was " why would you care?".

You didn't deny it or account for it or even try to pull the out-of-context (because you know its immoral so you have to account for it) card.

You instead tried to show that he is either in fact fine with rape or that he actually does believe in god and that is why he isn't a rapist who is ok with slavery.

This is a problem for you if the bible condones slavery and rape...

Which brings us right back to his comment to you and renders your entire response meaningless unless you do at the very least try to make an excuse for the Bible
bohart

White Pine, TN

#151852 Feb 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is absolutely not lies that the evidence supports that life sprang from early Earth , and progressed in evolution to what we see today. There is absolutely no evidence of anything else, It isn't what I wanted to hear, it isn't what I cared to find , It is however exactly how it really is. There is no church of abiogenesis, there is no faith in the science, there is only evidence that shows it to be the way it is. It is not my problem accepting the truth, but it sure appears to be yours.
What evidence?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#151853 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Account for intellect in an atheistic worldview.
You cannot, we both know it, because intellect is a gift from God.
As for intellectual ideas, how about telling us more about how rocks decided to form themselves into conscious life by sprinkling some magic fairy dust called "time" on themselves...
I thought intellect came as a trick from a talking snake that made us all born sinners. That is a horrible gift.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#151854 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.
It is usually someone of little understanding that would believe such. Or refute these truths,

Avogadro's law
Archimedes' buoyancy principle
Bernoulli's principle
Faraday's law of induction
Evolution
General Relativity
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Hubble's law
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
thermodynamics
Newtons laws
Ohm's law

but they are truths grounded by reality.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#151855 Feb 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is usually someone of little understanding that would believe such. Or refute these truths,
Avogadro's law
Archimedes' buoyancy principle
Bernoulli's principle
Faraday's law of induction
Evolution
General Relativity
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Hubble's law
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
thermodynamics
Newtons laws
Ohm's law
but they are truths grounded by reality.
Add biogenesis.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Science 28,312
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Science 61,104
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Subduction Zone 2,643
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... Mar 3 Eagle 12 126
More from around the web