Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243433 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

#152821 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

In this age of information sharing , morality is well defined by a worldwide set of definitions.

Long ago this was not possible , so morality was regional, or even dictated locally. In the end morality is defined by the consensus within a group. What the accepted terms of morality are, depends on the group defining them. So absolute morality would be what was decided by the largest set of people. But there could never be a true absolute morality, not as long as two sets exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152822 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Stop being such a coward, there are no CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE. Now that is a FACT. Any other accounts of Jesus were written decades after his existence. That is also a FACT. Don't be a pussy, now, show me your evidence, and not your holy book, that shows that the Jesus you spastically believe in, existed.
Your claims are arbitrary, appeal to anti-theist propaganda and are false.

There are plenty of studies out there, by Christians and non-Christians that assert the existence of Jesus.

Also, your argument that the Bible is invalid has also been shown extensively to be unsound.

Denying the obvious, arbitrarily, does not make you right.

But because you are suppressing the truth, on every level you can, with a religious zeal that a suicide bomber would be impressed with, you will believe any piece of nonsense that supports your suppression of the simple fact of Jesus' existance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152823 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are intelligent beings that are able to plan. That makes our plans have purpose (our specific goals). We also get to plan aspects of our lives, which gives our lives purpose.*We* create the purpose.
No, it is not self-evident that were have been intelligently designed. If anything, it is evident that we are not.
So you purpose because you purpose.

That is a circular arbitrary claim.

WHY do you purpose?

Answer that question.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#152824 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Carnivals must love you.

Psychobabble is your forte and Mt. Timber is your fan club.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152825 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not clear what you are asking:
1) Are the moral laws determined by humanism the same as those determined by religion? The clear answer is no: humanists are more likely to support gay marriage, for example. Because they see fairness as central, the unfairness of the denial of marriage simply because of sexual preference is wrong.
2) Are moral laws produced by secularism also based on trying to control people? No, the ultimate goal is human happiness and fulfillment, not control. Religion is the side obsessed with control.
Lets test your claim:

Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.

Now what is your reaction to my statement of truth?

Have I "sinned" against humanism.:-)

Will the followers of humanism be offended at this statement and decree I deserve death?

Will they count this as a moral "sin".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152826 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
War is a harsh word. But yes, we deny that this is a 'fundamental truth'.
Of course you are at war with this truth.

It is evident in your desire to have it removed from society.

It is evident in your rage filled vitriolic attacks against those that do hold it.

The war is plain to see.

But the standards of truth, which are self evident, reveal you are on the wrong side in this matter...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152827 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My purposes in life: to love, to learn, to teach, to help, to experience, to share.
More specifically, I have devoted a fair amount of my life to understanding mathematics and physics and teaching the same. I am married and love my wife and support her life choices just like she supports mine.
Why should you "purpose to love" as an atheist?

You are merely a smear on the windscreen of the universe.

How do you account for this "purpose to love", that you adhere to.

Of course, God gave us this absolute standard of morality for you to do this, so it can be accounted for because of that, but you do not accept that, so how do you account for this self evident truth?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152828 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not making an argument.
Oh, we know.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152829 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.
No, that is not my point.

My point is that the truth is self evident.

You suppress that truth.

But have to keep acknowledging that truth.

As you keep doing this very thing, then you prove the point.

If I said that you were a tap dancer because you were wearing tap dancing shoes and tap dancing, you would not argue the point.

Your behaviour is exactly what the Bible reveals it will be.

The Bible also gives a full account for your behaviour.

So it predicates, I apply the test, you confirm the results and the truth is in.

You are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152830 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets test your claim:
Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.
See, here's your problem.

You make these statements that are completely and wildly inaccurate and then base the rest of your argument on the belief that what you start with is true - which it isn't.

This is why everyone mocks you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152831 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...so the proof of your god's existence is that I don't believe in your god?
Oh well, I guess that means Leprechauns and unicorns are real too....
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.

All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.

God is that ultimate standard.

The proof is in your denial of absolutes, whilst appealing to them, showing that you will not allow logical arguments to take you to logical conclusions.

You suppress logic and truth to maintain your opposition to the truth.

You cannot help it, your sinful nature will not allow you to do otherwise.

You are a lost cause.

If it were not for Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging you to reason logically and correctly, bringing you to repentance and to your true purpose in life.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152832 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
In this age of information sharing , morality is well defined by a worldwide set of definitions.
Long ago this was not possible , so morality was regional, or even dictated locally. In the end morality is defined by the consensus within a group. What the accepted terms of morality are, depends on the group defining them. So absolute morality would be what was decided by the largest set of people. But there could never be a true absolute morality, not as long as two sets exist.
And the present worldwide morality is defined by Christian ideals. A universal brotherhood of mankind and individual rights because it is "the right thing to do".

The Romans weren't too good at that until they got religion. You won't find such advanced much in any other religion, including those Eastern ones.

Jesus 1
Atheists 0

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152833 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not my point.
My point is that the truth is self evident.
You suppress that truth.
But have to keep acknowledging that truth.
As you keep doing this very thing, then you prove the point.
If I said that you were a tap dancer because you were wearing tap dancing shoes and tap dancing, you would not argue the point.
Your behaviour is exactly what the Bible reveals it will be.
The Bible also gives a full account for your behaviour.
So it predicates, I apply the test, you confirm the results and the truth is in.
You are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Yawn. If the truth (at least the version of the truth of which you are speaking) were, in fact, self evident, there would be no atheists.

However, not only is that truth NOT self evident, it does not exist. Your religion itself says as much as it is completely based on faith. Not facts, faith.

There is not now, nor has there ever been any proof of any god's existence.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152834 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The happiness and fulfillment of people with fairness.
Define:

"happiness"
"fairness"

As you claim there is only subjective morality, please explain why you make appeals to absolutely moral standards like:

"happiness"
"fairness"

You see, you have been caught in the cookie jar here.

You are denying absolute moral truth, whilst appealing to it, to make your case.

Revealing that your anti-theist position is in fact illogical and contradictory.

You prove yourself wrong...

All I have to do is point that out to you, in the hope you will start to think logically and turn to God, so He can help you think straight.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152835 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you purpose because you purpose.
That is a circular arbitrary claim.
WHY do you purpose?
Answer that question.
Because I can plan. I can plan because I am intelligent.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152836 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
If god's existence is self evident then why do you need faith?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152837 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
Wrong. It is far from being self-evident. In fact, it is most likely false.
All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.
Which is observation of the universe.
God is that ultimate standard.
Your claim. No proof.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#152838 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.
All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.
God is that ultimate standard.
The proof is in your denial of absolutes, whilst appealing to them, showing that you will not allow logical arguments to take you to logical conclusions.
You suppress logic and truth to maintain your opposition to the truth.
You cannot help it, your sinful nature will not allow you to do otherwise.
You are a lost cause.
If it were not for Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging you to reason logically and correctly, bringing you to repentance and to your true purpose in life.
Spoken like a truly hopelessly brainwashed fundie.......

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152839 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
An appeal to an arbitrary biased authority...

That proves it.:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#152840 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you "purpose to love" as an atheist?
Because that is my choice.
You are merely a smear on the windscreen of the universe.
Irrelevant to purpose.
How do you account for this "purpose to love", that you adhere to.
I am an emotional being and love is a pleasant emotion that promotes understanding and sharing between people.
Of course, God gave us this absolute standard of morality for you to do this, so it can be accounted for because of that, but you do not accept that, so how do you account for this self evident truth?
I don't agree that it is a self-evident truth. In fact, I deny it is a truth. Morality is based on how humans interact with other humans, not with how humans attempt to do what they imagine an invisible sky-daddy wants.

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) 2 hr ChristineM 9,407
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 10 hr thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Sat Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) Fri millertr1 5
More from around the web