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
147,061 - 147,080 of 224,511 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153044
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are arguing there was a cause, but you don't know what it was, or what it isn't and I should accept what you dont know as knowledge...
Don't you see the absurdity of that?
God is the First Cause, that is self evident.
That you are reduced to having faith in a first cause you cannot prove exists, cannot explain and cannot account for, because of your desperate need to deny God, is quite clear.
The argument for the First Cause is self evident.
You are just saying you don't like the idea of God being the First Cause....
No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.

That is the point.

You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.

So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.

Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.

OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153045
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Proven? In the real world absolute proof is impossible. But yes, belief without empirical evidence is irrational. In mathematics, I ask for the proof to be reducible to the axioms of mathematics (usually Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory).
So you know that you cannot absolutely know.

Yet you absolutely know that God does not exist...

But back to the point.

If you only believe that for which you have forensic empirical evidence for, than I assume you do not believe in the laws of logic?

As they are non-material and universal, but cannot be examined forensically...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153046
Feb 10, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
20th century soaked in the blood of atheist governments.
East Germany, the wall, shooting people
who wished to leave.
Stalin
Himler
Hitler
Mao
Zinoviev
Kaminev
Fidel Castro
Lenin
Trotsky
Twentieth century atheists in power
resulted in mass murder
Nope.

If you can claim that Adam Lanza's murders weren't religiously motivated (even though he was a Christian), you must extend the same reasoning to all of those you cite.
Their atheism was incidental.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153048
Feb 10, 2013
 
GenoGirl wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude your not getting the point of my comment, I meant, you all disagree with each other, and it'll keep going round in circles, no maatter what you say to them, they wont beleive you
Well, that's not strictly true.

If anyone can provide proof of a deity, I will, of course, have to believe in it.

If it's the Abrahamic one, I'm joining the Resistance.
rider

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153049
Feb 10, 2013
 
C Street Scandal, the Media, the Future of the Family: An Interview with Jeff Sharlet
By Bill Berkowitz



0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Email
Print
Share

C Street building. Photo: Olivier Douliery

Bill Berkowitz
Read all of Bill Berkowitz’s articles here and sign up for his RSS feed here.*** Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer and longtime observer of the conservative movement.

Before the Tea Party Express brought tens of thousands to protest in the nation’s capital, and before town hall meetings about health care devolved into shout downs, there was the story of the boys of C Street.

What at first seemed like a series of public sex scandals turned out to have a connective thread. The main protagonists (Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Senator John Ensign of Nevada, and former Arkansas Congressman Chip Pickering) were all one-time residents of C Street and members of the Family, otherwise known as the Fellowship. As the summer unfurled, the “three amigos” gave mainstream media outlets plenty to talk about, and this highly secretive and powerful right-wing group got a lot of exposure. And then, as is the wont of the media, the story of C Street disappeared from the headlines.

In this exclusive Religion Dispatches interview, Jeff Sharlet, author of 2008’s The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, talks about The Family and its summer of scandal, the organization’s tarnished present and future possibilities, and why the mainstream media had such a difficult time dealing with the group’s unusual political/religious beliefs.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/ath...

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153050
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Back to Mars.

Undoubtedly, Mars looked very much earth at one time. With running rivers, polar ice caps and lakes. Plenty of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Even rain, wind and a few storms.

We only see the remains of what once was this very wet planet. With lots of water one would think there would be life. Trees, grass, fish, whales, animals of every sort. Even sea shells and crustaceans along with their fossils.

No trees, no fossils, no remains of fish or whales. Nothing, nothing but soil, and rocks. Completely lifeless and no evidence there ever was life. Lot’s of evidence of water both liquid and frozen. But no evidence of life.

What does that tell us? Life is not self creating. If it was so easy then we would have seen an abundance of evidence by now. If we had a wealth of evidence that life existed on Mars. That in itself would say that life could self create. Magically build the complex DNA codes needed for life to start and replicate.

The pendulum swings against self creation on Mars. There among the desolate dunes on Mars is a lack of evidence. That life can mystically and magically appear without purposely being designed and constructed.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153051
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear...
The old "only atheists have science" routine...
Okay, Mr Science.:-)
Please account for the absolute universal laws of logic as an atheist....
...When you have done that, then you can come back and claim them as belonging to you and all the resultant scientific knowledge derived from using them, also belongs to you as an atheist.
Hmm.

Okay, tell me what these "absolute universal laws" are, and perhaps I will.

On the other hand, if they're all that, why would I? I don't have to account for them - just observe them.

If you're going to claim them as evidence of a deity, you first need to define that deity, and then show how only that deity could have been responsible.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153052
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
In all likelihood, the 'initial' causes are simply quantum events.
<quoted text>
An infinite regression is not illogical. It is a definite *logical* possibility.
<quoted text>
No, it simply destroys your whole arguments.
More specifically, every caused event (i.e, an effect) has a *physical* cause. So any initial cause is physical and not a deity.
In all likelihood...

Bit of a stretch there don't you think.

----------

The problem you have is that causality leads us to the First Cause and the First Cause cannot be contingent, if it was, it wouldn't be the First Cause.

So your argument is basically, there wasn't a first cause, it was either an infinite regress or an uncaused cause.

So the question I now have is this:

Where did your infinite regress come from or where did your uncaused cause come from.

Your answer will basically go along these lines no doubt:

Infinite regress and uncaused cause cannot be accounted for, but they have to be permitted, because the only other conclusion is God, which is not allowed.

It is your denial of the self evident truth of the First Cause, that leads you to the absurd conclusion that one of the following has to be true:

1. nothing caused everything (stick quantum in there).
2. everything was not caused, it just is (stick infinite regress in there).

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153053
Feb 10, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
Back to Mars.
Nope, not for me.

Mars is inhospitable.

I'm heading to San Jose del Cabo.

Lots of fish and crustaceans, and it's the whale migration season through March.

Great weather, too.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153054
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't remember claiming to be God...
So I am not sure what your point is.
You certainly seem to confuse disagreement with (or dislike of) you and disagreement with your deity.
Which is silly - we do have some small amount of evidence that you exist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153055
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Thinking wrote:
There is evidence of avoidable suffering.
Therefore no all powerful compassionate god can exist.
<quoted text>
In a universe were free will is permitted, suffering is also a consequence of the rejection of God...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153056
Feb 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
You are aware that, on a quantum level, there are uncaused effects?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153057
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It certainly goes a very long way to proving something to be true. But I'll take reliable documentation, pictures, abundant corroborating and contemporary first hand accounts, scientifically proven and tested be true, and of course any physical evidence. None of which you have for either Jesus or your God thing. Not surprising since Christian doctrine says they are one of the same, all apart of this holy trinity BS. I do so love this religious mumbo jumbo. Christian Voodoo.LOL
Laws of logic are immaterial and universal and cannot be verified by empiricism, yet they are true, so on that basis, do you reject them?

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153058
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
so i have to believe in a god to quote the bable ?
No you don’t have to believe in God to babble.

Babbling is what occurs when the incoherent try to communicate. Also known as blatant jibber gibberish. A language that means nothing and says nothing remotely intelligible.

So you are welcome to quote the “bable” if you like through your babbling jobber gibberish nonsensical language.[Tipping Hat]

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153059
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
The First Cause must account for:

1. Laws of logic.
2. Laws of morality.
3. Laws of nature.
4. Existance of intelligence.
5. Purpose and meaning to life.

Now, if each of these are logically taken back to the First Cause, God is self evident.

But, if you want to deny God, then you have to avoid taking these back to the First Cause.

And this is your problem.

Because you are inherently predisposed to reject God, you have to reject any line of reasoning that leads back to God.

And as God is the foundation of all reasoning, you have to reject reason itself.

You do that by abandoning the laws of logic which will lead an open mind back to God.

The truth is self evident.

Error is just as self evident, as it rests on absurdity and arbitrary inconsistency.

Which you would of course expect when someone is denying the truth.

As has been displayed over and over again when your worldview has been examined and discussed.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153060
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
Okay, tell me what these "absolute universal laws" are, and perhaps I will.
On the other hand, if they're all that, why would I? I don't have to account for them - just observe them.
If you're going to claim them as evidence of a deity, you first need to define that deity, and then show how only that deity could have been responsible.
Let me give you one that is easy to understand.

The law of non-contradiction.

A law of logic that is transcendent and universal.

Now you say you don't have to account for that law, you just have to accept it.

But that is the whole point, as an atheist you cannot account for it, but you still use it.

But that law is an expression of Gods character.

So if you were in the business of denying the God that has revealed Himself to you, then yes, you would take that line.

Like the kid who steals sweets from the shop and denies it even though there is sugar all over their cheeks...

The question is:

Where did you get that law from, did you steal it from the Christian Worldview?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153061
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No I am saying you cannot demonstrate a single line of physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
First cause is and has been argued for thousands of years.
Still no possibility of solving it, though the easy way is to add your wild card, though there is nothing to say this wild card is possible or even feasible. You opt the non thinking way out, without even considering you are wrong. In fact your opt out of explaining it is an omission of non understanding and defeat.
That is the point.
You cannot explain the unexplained with a wild card.
The cause of the universe is an unsolvable mystery, to add sheer conjecture does nothing towards the explanation of what caused it.
It only says in your explanation it requires an exception to the rule clause, and you have nothing to support this contention.
So you see we will always be right back at point a , with only your belief and my unbelief. The answer is unanswerable is the conclusion after thousands of years of study.
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
OR... you can invite god to dinner, he is most welcome to explain this stuff himself.
"Therefore the universe caused itself and always was."

LOL!!!

Sounds like a wild card to me.

Instead of goddidit you say shit happens.

Your scientific approach is remarkable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153062
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know that you cannot absolutely know.
Yet you absolutely know that God does not exist...
I never said that. At this point, the evidence doesn't support the existence of a deity.
But back to the point.
If you only believe that for which you have forensic empirical evidence for, than I assume you do not believe in the laws of logic?
As they are non-material and universal, but cannot be examined forensically...
Logic, like mathematics, is an abstract system. I believe logical statements when they follow from the axioms of logic via the rules of deduction.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153063
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
In the beginning God...
no you do not

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153064
Feb 10, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don’t have to believe in God to babble.
Babbling is what occurs when the incoherent try to communicate. Also known as blatant jibber gibberish. A language that means nothing and says nothing remotely intelligible.
So you are welcome to quote the “bable” if you like through your babbling jobber gibberish nonsensical language.[Tipping Hat]
stop babbling nonsense!

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.

12 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 4 min NightSerf 246
What does "Atheism" mean? 4 hr Patrick 34
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 4 hr Patrick 395
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 6 hr religionisillness 19
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 6 hr Growupchildren 21,401
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... Mon Liam R 21
Talking some sense into you people... Mon Cujo 27
•••
•••