Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243253 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.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#151795 Feb 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I said “Those laws “may or may” not exists outside the domain of this universe”
I am sure you did mention tuned (or similar) which is why I answered in that way – having just checked I apologise, you wrote “turned” and I misread it, dyslexia is a bugger eh? However see later in this post regarding infinite…
Scientific projects in the process, you may of course consider it arrogance and wishful thinking to want to understand, but that’s your problem. Refer to http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/res... if you don’t want to look so foolish, they have plenty of papers for public view in the sciences related to cosmology
Which other way is there to argue, I realise you make the most of it but arguing from naivety does not really count
Nope a way of saying hypothesis, conjecture is something entirely different so don’t try and tell me what I am saying when you can’t even understand the difference.
Well if you will cherry pick then you will be left with incomplete statements. Here let me cite the complete sentence “The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.”
Well science certainly allows you to post on topix and has allowed Iran to create a nuclear industry and rockets (for whatever purpose). Your personal politics is bugger all to do with the science.
No, can you say why there is something instead of nothing? Just because the creation event is not yet understood it does not mean it’s contradictory, it just means it’s not understood.
Once again there is nothing in the universe that is contradictory. It is a completely logical and predictable environment from 10^-34th of a second after it’s creation to now and for trillions of years into the future. Prior to 10^-34th of a second is not understood but is conjectured.
It is possible that the universe is infinite but as far as we know and in probability it is not. More probably there are infinite finite universes.
Schroeder is said to have said in later life that he wished he had never met the cat.
The universe is temporally finite, but spatially infinite.
Yes it is hard to understand, basically it means inflation has caused expansion faster than light so the boundary
(if there even is one) will forever be beyond our detection.
This is a inescapably a paradox of reasoning in itself.
It is however the scenario that fits the evidence.
It's a conflict also that there are two problems that exist in our understanding of the universe.

The first one is there is a conflict in the age of the universe.
Some stars appear to be older than the universe itself temporally by some calculations.
So there is a error in one. Paradox.

The other is the speed of the stars at edges of galaxies, they move to fast, we attempt to explain it with dark matter, it may be the answer, but is not beyond scant evidence in proving it to be the cause. Or even exactly what it is causing it.

Paradox

The uncertainty principle, and Schroeder's cat the Higgs field, all enigmas and also paradoxical. There are many, and whether you accept it or not , the start of this universe is a paradox.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#151796 Feb 4, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
That sight will say anything and you believe them?
No, no, NO, Eagle.

Sight doesn't say.

Maybe it can see.

But not say.

Okay?

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#151797 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not a scientific theory.
It is a philosophical position that is appealed to as a basis for rejecting the fact of Creation.
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.
I reject science falsely so called.
Thats because you're not a scientist who plays by the rules of it's methodology.
You however are a person who has belief, that is in conflict with the reasoning power of scientific discovery, therefore ...It is you who deny the truth of all known reasoning by the methods we devised to ascertain the truth.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#151798 Feb 4, 2013
Whatever my opinion on abortion, 40% of fertilised eggs don't make it.
Your god is the biggest abortionist of all.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So I assume that if you think miscarriages are wrong, you are opposed to abortion?
Do you also thank God for that?

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#151799 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no empirical evidence for abiogenesis.
None.
All there is, is a philosophical suppression of the truth, that requires fairy tales to be accepted.
And a faith in that fairy tale.
You have self deceived faith that a "rockdidit", nothing else.
And the only reason you have that, is becuse your sinful nature seeks to deny the Creator of the universe and His claims on your person.

We understand that your belief is in conflict with reality.
In this there can be no denial.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#151800 Feb 4, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
zzzzzzzzz
Still trying to sell the lame idea that Communists killed in the name of atheism? So sad....
Yep

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#151801 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>You make no claim?

Then make a claim?

You still have not answered how you can account for absolute morality?
What IS absolute morality?
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#151802 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the source of those absolutes, I have made that abundantly clear.
?
IRRELEVANT

first you need to prove god,then talk

do you suffer from alzheimers that you keep repeating the same BS over and over?
bohart

Newport, TN

#151803 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no empirical evidence for abiogenesis.
None.
All there is, is a philosophical suppression of the truth, that requires fairy tales to be accepted.
And a faith in that fairy tale.
You have self deceived faith that a "rockdidit", nothing else.
And the only reason you have that, is becuse your sinful nature seeks to deny the Creator of the universe and His claims on your person.
You tell him, don't expect to breech the wall of his denial though.
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#151804 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But let us consider your belief system.
Man is born an animal and has no purpose, not destiny and no hope.
And you think the promise of rescue from this world and eternal life is a negative?
Wow...
atheism is NOT belief its a LACK of belief in gods

humans ARE animals yes,and we make our own purpose.

living forever and doing the same thing over and over would indeed be a totaly useless existence kinda like a mindless robot ..LOL
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#151805 Feb 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell him, don't expect to breech the wall of his denial though.
PROJECTION..look it up...

there is empirical evidence otherwise we wouldnt be here,

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

Halifax, Canada

#151806 Feb 4, 2013
Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba& #618;.&#629;&#712;d &#658;&#603;n&#616 ;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss[1 ]) or biopoiesis is the process by which life arises from inorganic matter.[2][3][4][5] The word is usually used to describe the processes by which life on Earth originated. The earliest known life existed between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.
Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151807 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a chemical fizz have destiny or purpose?
How can you account for that as an atheist.
I can account for that for you.
You were created with the opportunity to live eternally with a loving God, that adores you.
That is where your sense of hope and purpose comes from.
But your sinful desire to suppress the truth of God, keeps you from your destiny and purpose.
So you then create a false sense of destiny and purpose that has no basis in reality and is shallow in form, to make up for the true destiny and purpose you have the opportunity to grasp.
If you turn back to God and acknowledge Him, He will correct that for you, and show you the true depth and value that you really have to Him.
Thanks, sunshine, but I don't need an imaginary being to create my destiny, find my purpose, or define my self worth.

How sad for you that you do....

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151808 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
And atheists have this one thing in common.
They seek to suppress the truth of God, so that they can continue being subject to their sinful nature.
And they believe that that foolish shared suppression is somehow related to scientific endeavor and logic...
The only thing atheists have in common with one another is a lack of belief in a god.

Not your god - any god.

How egotistical of you...

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#151809 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the source of those absolutes, I have made that abundantly clear.
But how can you as an atheist make absolute claims like you have done here?
You can only do that by denying atheism.
You realise that you have done that here, right?
so you have your morality from nothing (have to remember never turn my back to a christian)

god = nothing

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#151810 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that help you account for absolute laws of morality?
there is no absolute law of morality

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#151811 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as sin?
Really?
yeah really!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151812 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no empirical evidence for abiogenesis.
None.
All there is, is a philosophical suppression of the truth, that requires fairy tales to be accepted.
And a faith in that fairy tale.
You have self deceived faith that a "rockdidit", nothing else.
And the only reason you have that, is becuse your sinful nature seeks to deny the Creator of the universe and His claims on your person.
There is no empirical evidence for any god's existence.
None.
All there is, is a philosophical suppression of the truth, that requires fairy tales to be accepted.
And a faith in that fairy tale.
You have self deceived faith that a "goddidit", nothing else.
And the only reason you have that, is because your fearful nature seeks to deny that you are the master of your own life. It seems to be a responsibility that you are too afraid to bear.
Atheist Silurist

Portadown, UK

#151813 Feb 4, 2013
I'm starting to think there may be a god,but a god that protects the paedophiles and pederasts of the catholic church.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/los-a...

The cardinal of the largest Roman Catholic archdiocese in the United States was stripped of his duties in an unprecedented move by his successor, who described the church’s actions during the growing sex abuse scandal as evil.

Cardinal Roger Mahony had retired with a tainted career after dodging criminal charges over how he handled pedophile priests.

Gomez said Mahony, 76, would no longer have administrative or public duties in the diocese. It didn’t appear that Gomez’s actions would affect Mahony’s position in Rome, where he can remain for another four years on a counsel that selects the Pope.

So he is 76 and being relived of his duties? So they are retiring him?

Why isn't the filthy bastard in jail?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#151814 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
And atheists have this one thing in common.
They seek to suppress the truth of God, so that they can continue being subject to their sinful nature.
And they believe that that foolish shared suppression is somehow related to scientific endeavor and logic...
did you learn that from your pastor?

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 min polymath257 9,301
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 44 min superwilly 26
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 50 min Chimney1 19,760
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr NoahLovesU 6,182
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... 3 hr karl44 1
News Study: Public opinion not swayed by atheist arg... 3 hr karl44 1
John 3:16 6 hr superwilly 35
More from around the web