Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152797 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that as if it is something wrong...
Are moral laws produced by secularism the same thing?
Obviously they are, so you would then be arguing against those as well...
So you admit that "sin" is a man made concept and not something handed down by an imaginary god.

Bravo! You're making progress!

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152798 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A virtual particle is a math construct to make numbers crunch, which means the numbers and formulas in the beginning are in error.
No it is a measurable physical disturbance that has been detected.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152799 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your argument.
But it is however absurd.
You cannot define anything unless you have a standard to define it against.
So what "standard" do you define "subjective morality" with?
Really try to think about this question, so far it seems you have not understood it.
You have to appeal to an ultimate standard, to prove any standard.
With morality, what is your ultimate standard?
Societies opinion?
The happiness and fulfillment of people with fairness.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152801 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you who is missing the point - and tragically so.
You keep repeating (ad nauseum, I might add) that people who don't believe in a god can't account for morality or reason or purpose or destiny and on and on and on.
You keep repeating this as if it were a fact, when clearly it is not.
However, you have to keep repeating it because, in your mind, it is inconceivable that people can have or be these things without the benefit of believing in your god.
You chose to believe something and once you did that, you closed your mind to all other possibilities.
If you weren't exposed to the concepts via the existing religion it is unlikely you would develop such on your own.

You have to have something to think about before you can think about it.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152802 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is a measurable physical disturbance that has been detected.
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.

It is a subjective interpretation of effects, nowhere near a direct observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152803 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A virtual particle is a math construct to make numbers crunch, which means the numbers and formulas in the beginning are in error.
Actually, no. The theory describes particle interactions in terms of successive approximations. The first approximation does not have virtual particles, but successive approximations do. But we use successive approximations because it is easier to compute what the theory says in that way than to do it directly in one fell swoop. Virtual particles come up naturally in the theory in terms of their effects on the probabilities of the overall reaction.

We know you don't like math and are scared of being precise, but modern theories of physics are mathematical because the math gives very precise predictions that can be tested against reality. And *that* is the point. The theory without virtual particles isn't even internally consistent, but with them it predicts the results of actual experiments.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152804 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.
No, they are NOT shifting of arbitrary values assigned to objects. Thew values are not arbitrary.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152805 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws of logic (usually quoted as 3 - sometimes 4), do a quick google search, standard philosophical terminology.
The laws of classical logic:

"The Law of Identity: Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

The Law of the Excluded Middle: Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"

The Law of Noncontradiction: Metaphysically, this law asserts:: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false." "

From the editthis article:

"These axioms are axioms for classical logic. Not all thought or even all logic.

It is also important to avoid conflating or confusing the so called laws of thought with set of nomological (Physical) laws for the universe. Logic is not cosmology. It is not descriptive of how the universe works'. It is prescriptive: it sets forth a method of examining arguments.

The universe is not 'logical'(or illogical), it merely is. When a star radiates within a certain spectrum of light, appearing to us as "red" this is simply due to this physical cause and not due to its 'adherence' to logic.

It is also important not to confuse classical logic with psychology. The so called laws of thought are not rules for human behavior, they don't even cover all human thought: in our dreams, we are able to imagine contradictions, like being both the victim and the attacker, or being both young and old at the same time - human thought contains rational, irrational and non rational thought - both logic and emotions, impulses and instincts.

Finally, there is no reason to hold that these axioms are "immaterial", or transcendental. Such claims are matters of theology or dualistic philosophy, and are merely incidental issues in logic qua logic. These claims are usually based on arguments from ignorance. An incomplete physical account for abstractions is not a positive argument for an immaterial account for abstractions. Second,'immateriality' is a negative concept, and a negative definition devoid of a universe of discourse, is meaningless. Unless someone can show how something immaterial can exist, how something immaterial can act without violating the principle of conservation of energy and how something immaterial can interact with physical brains, then the claim that these logical laws that people create are transcendent or immaterial remains incoherent."

http://editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classi...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152806 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
That is the creation of Adam in the bible right? Pretty damn silly indeed.
<quoted text>
So, the design and formation of man by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being is something you regard as nonsensical.

But the design and formation of man by a rock is something you regard as sensible.

Would you explain why accounting for the designed with a designer is less attractive than accounting for the designed by a rock, intellectually?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152807 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. The theory describes particle interactions in terms of successive approximations. The first approximation does not have virtual particles, but successive approximations do. But we use successive approximations because it is easier to compute what the theory says in that way than to do it directly in one fell swoop. Virtual particles come up naturally in the theory in terms of their effects on the probabilities of the overall reaction.
We know you don't like math and are scared of being precise, but modern theories of physics are mathematical because the math gives very precise predictions that can be tested against reality. And *that* is the point. The theory without virtual particles isn't even internally consistent, but with them it predicts the results of actual experiments.
You will not see the contradictions in your logic no matter how hard someone tries to bring it to your attention. Try reading it several times.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152808 Feb 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
But your god in the old and New Testament advocates for slavery, are you saying he was immoral for that?
I got a hundred bucks that says he dodges and avoids questions :)
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, is that humanity is enslaved in sin.

Due to their rebellion, they continue in that condition.

So the consequence of God having to deal with slavery is not an unexpected situation.

But before you get off on crying out against a moral standard you do not agree with, you first have to explain how you arrived at an absolute moral standard to make a basis for judgement from...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152809 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one absurdity here. It comes from the person claiming that god exists without a single shred of proof.
Until you've proven the god you are lying aboutm non of your "arguments' hold any weight here.
If you apply your brain a little bit you'll realise that none of your opinions matter at all, because you'll never be able to prove the god that you lie about.
I am not trying to "prove" God.

God's existence is self evident.

The fact you can even argue about concepts of "truth" prove the case.

Try to actually deal with this:

Does "truth" exist?

Where does "truth" originate if it does exist?

Now, is you are following the sinful natures desire to suppress the truth, you will have to deny truth exists if you begin to realise that truth has to be accounted for by something outside of time and space...

Lets see.

What will it be?

Does truth exist?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152810 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality is relative, it requires no absoluteles. Especially absolutes conjured up by people who suffer from the mental illness of faith.
You realise you have refuted your own argument here, don't you?

You have made a moral judgement that those of faith absolutely cannot define morality due to their mental condition.

So you make an absolute moral statement to prove absolute morality does not exist.

And you want to convince me that yours is the "sane" position?

Why would I assume that, when you contradict yourself?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152811 Feb 10, 2013
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152812 Feb 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
YOur moral system fails because you choose to invent a god and make that your moral absolute.
The problem is that god isn't real and you're lying about it.
You've had since the beginning of time to put your morality where your mouth is, but time and time again, you guys continue to talk about a deity that simply does not exist.
That's why you're in a cult I suppose, you have problems with facing reality, probably afraid of the impermanence of life I think.
To claim another moral system is a failure, you first have to account for the absolute morality with which you condemn it with.

Please account for the absolute morality you keep appealing to.

You cannot of course, because that implies the First Cause.

So the only thing you can do is make arbitrary claims and assert arbitrary opinions, which reveal that in fact you want to be the definer of absolute morality.

That way, you get to set the laws and do what you want.

But of course that road leads to anarchy, which any intelligent person will appreciate.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152813 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about religion and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting religious dogma is nigh on impossible it seems...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152814 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are NOT shifting of arbitrary values assigned to objects. Thew values are not arbitrary.
Take a sheet of paper. Label it "X" at the top.

This is your universe and transfers of energy and mass within it.

Draw a circle near the bottom left hand corner. 1.37774996006006 inches perpendicular to the edges if you wish. Put a "1" in it. Fill the rest of the sheet with shapes and assign numbers according to the ratio of the volumes to your original circle. You can use relative energies if you wish.

This will be 1/X interacting with all of those other values. Each and all other shapes have a direct line effect on the volume of that first circle, the total effect between any two determined by the distance away. Statically you have this attractive force we will call gravity exerting a pull on the volume of that 1/X. The cumulative effect locks 1/X in place, and has a fixed effect on any energy transfers within it. Now go to the top right and move one of those shapes. Now recalculate the cumulative effect. Which will get real hard because they all start moving.

That is where your virtual particles and weakness in physical perception come into being.

It gets harder to keep track of when you get energetic streams you call EM emissions.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#152815 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.
It is a subjective interpretation of effects, nowhere near a direct observation.
http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-real-...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152816 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Humanists see humans and human ethics and ideals as an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Humanists don't have values which are edicted on society, we see the best of society and give voice to what is. Humanists see that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Humanist see ethical values as being derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We see that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness and therefore life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
So morality is merely a tool for biological advancement?

And is therefore just a matter or expediency and not a statement of absolute good or bad.

So again, with that in mind, what did Hitler do wrong?

What does the society that rapes and pillages another society do wrong?

They are not doing anything wrong, according to your expressed worldview, they are just acting expediently.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152817 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume "purpose and destiny" without ever showing evidence for these concepts as anything more than your wishful thinking.
Are you arguing that purpose and destiny are not something inherent in humanity?

It seems you are, that these concepts are just wishful thinking.

That being the case, why are you arguing with me, when your life has no purpose?

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) 41 min dirtclod 18,846
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 8 hr Amused 25
News Confessions of a black atheist 8 hr thetruth 465
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 16 hr thetruth 6,124
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 16 hr thetruth 2,094
News The Consequences of Atheism 19 hr Koala_Gums 1,340
News Gary Gutting and Alvin Plantinga "Is Atheism Ir... Sat geezerjock 1
More from around the web