Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
146,761 - 146,780 of 224,352 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152741
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So all Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc. are immoral in your mind.
You clearly haven't understood my point...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152742
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making stuff up.
"Transcendence" refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of (and removed from) the material universe.
You have yet to prove that the concept of "independent / removed / outside the universe" is even meaningful possible. Do that and then you can work on what evidence you have of any intelligence behind it.
Laws of logic.

Are they material or immaterial?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152743
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the only one trying to claim societal morals are "absolute". But you've yet to provide independently verifiable evidence for such a claim.
That is not what I have claimed, so I cannot respond to this point...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152744
Feb 10, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need god for that.
And love isn't absolute.
You realise that this is mere opinion of course?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152745
Feb 10, 2013
 
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
whoever says,‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire
Jesus was not saying that foolish reasoning is not to be identified...:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152746
Feb 10, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> Humanism. No deity required.
So humanism is the basis of morality.

So when slavery was morally acceptable, by society, it was ok?

According to your argument, it would be.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152747
Feb 10, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> Humanism. No deity required.
And to take your argument to its illogical conclusion, morality did not exist before humanism arose...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152748
Feb 10, 2013
 
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists say with their tongue that there is no God, u can't know what their heart says.
How many religious people say they love God from their mouths but they kill their neighbour? Get jealous of their neighbour? Those are the people who have denied God from their hearts. They are the fools!
I don't say I know.

I say God knows and He has told us.

Distinct difference.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152749
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly haven't understood my point...
You're arguing for an "absolute morality" which, according to you includes "love God".

First, I would argue that there is no such thing as an "absolute morality" as all morality is defined by humans.

Even ignoring that, any "absolute morality" would by definition have to be applicable to everybody, including Buddhist, or it could not be considered "absolute".

So, your argument for any "absolute morality" fails on at least 2 levels.

Oh but that's right ... you're just making stuff up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152750
Feb 10, 2013
 
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The REAL fool says that our species came to be after an imaginary being blew on a handful of dirt and a man magically appeared.
What about the man that states a gust of wind blew on a handful of dirt and man magically appeared.

How would you define him?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152751
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws of logic.
Are they material or immaterial?
Pronoun problems - define what you mean "they"?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152752
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what I have claimed, so I cannot respond to this point...
Oh, so now you're not claiming "absolute morals". Okay.

You really need to get clear on what you are arguing and then show some real independently verifiable evidence for your position.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152753
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>This person didn't claim they had NO purpose, only that they didn't rely on an imaginary being for that purpose. And they are right, how sad it is that you can only find your purpose in life through a mythical being.
And what kind of twisted concept is it that you equate our origin to having a purpose.
Here's a hypothetical question that I know you will refuse to answer........but for the sake of everyone reading this, it will show how brainwashed you are..........What if tomorrow, evidence was produced that proved BEYOND ANY DOUBT that your God does not exist. What then would your purpose be?......Now we'll all wait for the........."No one can prove that God doesn't exist".........or..... "It's a stupid question, there will always be God." Anything to avoid the question. But, lets just see how honest you are.....What would your purpose be without God?
As the truth of God is self evident, your question does not really make much sense...

But you still are missing the point.

How do you account for the idea of purpose and destiny in an atheistic universe.

You cannot.

The explanation is simple, you were created by God, with purpose, but due to the desire to suppress that knowledge of God, including His purpose for you, you have to deny His existance.

Then you are caught in the conundrum of accounting for the purpose you intrinsically know you have, without the originator of that purpose to help you define it.

So what happens then?

Nothing, you just keep claiming you have purpose but cannot account for it.

You cannot explain it, because the explanation is not something you are comfortable with...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152754
Feb 10, 2013
 
That is the creation of Adam in the bible right? Pretty damn silly indeed.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the man that states a gust of wind blew on a handful of dirt and man magically appeared.
How would you define him?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152755
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it that you know so very little? Moral standards are set by societies. A group of people decide what is acceptable behavior, it usually addresses harm to member of that society. Laws are made, moral standards are accepted. Thats it. No God necessary. That would be especially true if the core of those standards came from the infamous 10 commandments. The first four of which deal solely with your God obsession with vanity. The other commandments are part of the Golden Rule which needs no God thing. Its always disturbing to me that nowhere in the 10 commandments is there anything about RAPE, or about CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. I guess it's a good thing we have the Golden rule to cover those horrors God felt were NOT necessary.
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?

I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...

You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.

That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.

Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152756
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Modern secular humanist morality is by far superior and only getting better.
<quoted text>
If you say so, it must be true?

How can you argue that any morality is superior if you do not accept that absolute morality exists?

Illogical.

:-)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152757
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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 :)
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?
I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...
You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.
That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.
Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152758
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one avoiding, mtimber. My argument does not appeal to absolute morality in any way.
Your moral system fails by it's OWN standards.
How can you state that any moral system is a failure, if you do not have a basis for defining morality?

Which you clearly do not...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152759
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if man defines morality, then slavery, which society deemed morally acceptable was ok?
I hope you see the absurdity of the position you hold when you try to give society the credit for setting morality...
You cannot argue that anything is intrinsically wrong or right, it is just a matter of crowd politics.
That then means that morality is merely the expression of the majorities desire.
Which creates a problem, when the majorities desire is harmful to the individual...
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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152760
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say so, it must be true?
How can you argue that any morality is superior if you do not accept that absolute morality exists?
Illogical.
:-)
Morality is relative, it requires no absoluteles. Especially absolutes conjured up by people who suffer from the mental illness of faith.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr NightSerf 240
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 9 hr Patrick 385
What does "Atheism" mean? 10 hr Reason Personified 10
Introducing The Universal Religion 11 hr Reason Personified 733
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 hr DonPanic 21,400
Talking some sense into you people... 17 hr religionisillness 24
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 18 hr religionisillness 19
•••
•••