Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#153247 Feb 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of being a typical atheist & assuming everything, why don't you do a little research as to why there seems to be discrepancies.
I am an agnostic/deist not an atheist. I have wasted way too much time already on the buybull, and know full well that book of contradictions. Its very clear without faith glasses, that it is not the work of any God. If YOU studied it properly the geneology in Matthew/Luke is a clear error. The excuses are ludicrous.

A more reasonable position for you would be to admit errors, and just stick to a watered down belief thin version of xianity. That way you could at least have some self worth and a defendable set of beliefs.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#153248 Feb 11, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Education is truly a wonderful experience. Mars is 4.6 billion years old. Your entirely welcome!!!!
Is that from the same sources that told you Mars was the same size as Earth? Mars is the size of the Earth's inner and outer core.

Now, Venus is roughly the same size. She is also doing a very slow revolution counter to ours.

But there was life on Mars, if not now. Nothing is truly "dead" in the Kingdom of God, just currently inactive.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#153249 Feb 11, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an agnostic/deist not an atheist. I have wasted way too much time already on the buybull, and know full well that book of contradictions. Its very clear without faith glasses, that it is not the work of any God. If YOU studied it properly the geneology in Matthew/Luke is a clear error. The excuses are ludicrous.
A more reasonable position for you would be to admit errors, and just stick to a watered down belief thin version of xianity. That way you could at least have some self worth and a defendable set of beliefs.
So you haven't studied it at all. Great. That's all you had to say.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#153250 Feb 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you haven't studied it at all. Great. That's all you had to say.
This is a very good article, which explains the issue fully.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_c...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#153251 Feb 11, 2013
A few key points:

They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth.

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth.

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#153252 Feb 11, 2013
The obvious conclusions.

1. The Bible is not the word of God.
2. Christianity is based on the Bible, so is not an inspired religion.
3. The evidence shows religions are man made and in the mind.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#153253 Feb 11, 2013
Adam wrote:
The obvious conclusions.
1. The Bible is not the word of God.
2. Christianity is based on the Bible, so is not an inspired religion.
3. The evidence shows religions are man made and in the mind.
Youngblood, don't feel angry that you were led down a false path. It wasn't as deliberate as your emotions in reaction to it would lead you to believe.

The very essence of "being" is an action/reaction thingy. Analogous to a flashlight being turned on in a dark room and suddenly it "sees" and tries to figure out what is and what ain't.

When you get into the nitty gritty of physics you will discover that what you see is all mirrors. It is in the nature of energy transfers. You can't see transmitted light, just what it bounces off of, or more accurately, what it stimulates to emit it's own light potential.

Look around, you are somewhere, you just don't know where.

You are in the funhouse with everyone else, lost in the maze and trying to find the way out. You will hear the voices of those who think they found the way, and maybe follow them. That is the voices of religion and science. People just as lost as you are, but they think they smell the entrance. They may have, but they aren't anywhere near the entrance, to see what is outside.

You are stuck in the funhouse until your batteries go dead and the mirrors you follow cease to be seen. Not a bit of sense in letting the hollers of others interfere with your experience and exploration and enjoyment while you can. Just remember the funhouse and the flashlight were provided for your amusement.

There may be a charge to get back out of it, though. Maybe just a simple thanks.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#153254 Feb 11, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed no reference to what Taticus wrote about Hercules.
Who?

Not Hercules, the other guy you mention here.

The writer.

Who is that?
Thinking

Cullompton, UK

#153255 Feb 11, 2013
He probably thinks the writer is a member of the plant family Cactaceae, within the order Caryophyllales. Yes, I'm sure of it.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who?
Not Hercules, the other guy you mention here.
The writer.
Who is that?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#153256 Feb 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you understand that's only an assumption. There is no Martian rocks that we have been able to examine.....
Even if there was, who's to say that's accurate? How many rocks have been studied on earth and how many of those are totally different from each other?
You have no right to say that Christians "blindly believe", that's exactly what you're doing.
You're partially welcome.
From Universe Today

How do scientists determine the age of a meteorite? Mainly by studying the minerals found within them, lead isotopes to be specific. Uranium has been found to decay into certain isotopes of lead on a predictable schedule. Uranium235 will decay into the isotope Lead207 every 7.13×108 years and is used in radiometric dating. Scientist also know that uranium238 will decay into Lead206 every 4.468×109(4.468 billion) years. The presence of the lead daughter isotopes gives scientists a clue into the age of a meteorite.

A relatively large number of meteorites have been found on Earth. Each has been tested along with various rocks that are original to our planet. Samples from the Moon were tested as well. The results all show an approximate age of 4.6 billion years. That has led scientist to state that all of the material(this includes planets) in the Solar System is 4.6 billion years old. So, by extrapolation, the answer to ”how old is Mars?” is 4.6 billion years old.

I'm going to have to start charging you the education I'm providing for you, since it appears your too lazy to learn o your own. I'll be nice this time....no charge!!!

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14852/how-old-is...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153257 Feb 11, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Believers try to chastise me for quoting the OT, but they, like you, do mind quoting it, when it suits you.
This is your god's way of curing leprosy.
Leviticus 14:49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
An ignorance of prophetic symbology is the issue you have here.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153258 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First define what *you* mean when you say something is caused.
yes, the empirical evidence shows that causality, as typically defined (a cause necessarily implies the effect) is false. Look at Bell's inequality and the experiments supporting it.
Are you pointing to Bells theorem of inequality as empirical evidence?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153259 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong yet again.
My point is that every caused event has a *physical* cause. This is supported by all the evidence. So any initial cause is a physical, uncaused event. I separately, and independently of this argument, claim that quantum events are examples of physical, uncaused events.
You are arguing for an infinite regress.

Yes/no?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#153260 Feb 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you understand that's only an assumption. There is no Martian rocks that we have been able to examine.....
Even if there was, who's to say that's accurate? How many rocks have been studied on earth and how many of those are totally different from each other?
You have no right to say that Christians "blindly believe", that's exactly what you're doing.
You're partially welcome.
You really don't see the difference do you!! The difference between accepting what hard working scientist have discovered, and Theists who's best evidence is personal delusional experiences. I've asked you this before, but don't think you answered. Do you "blindly trust" medical science when you have a serious Illness? I believe you are the one who also mistrusts doctors. So your choices would be, seek medical help or stay home and pray, which one would you chose?

As a side note.....science and scientist ALWAYS deal with the real world, the discover, test, evaluate, categorize, subject there finding for peer review. I'm smart enough to trust what mainstream science tells me is true, at least its true in this moment in time. It may not be true tomorrow as new discoveries are found, but I accept the fact that this is how science works, this is how we advance in our understanding of the world around us.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153261 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, the laws of logic are not physical events, so causality doesn't apply to them at all.
So you are arguing that the laws of logic are in no way related to causality?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153262 Feb 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
You haven't shown there *is* a first cause: to do that, you have to first show there isn't an infinite regress of causes and *then* show that any two events have a common cause. Neither has been shown and both are unlikely.
I have to disprove a negative so that you can accept a positive?

What is interesting, is that here you are denying causality needs a first cause, at the same time as you deny Creation needs a God.

Do you think there might be a link there?

But then, you are so busy suppressing the obvious, I doubt you will even accept that this is the letter A:

A
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#153263 Feb 11, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your personal delusions gained from being propelled through time and space faster than you can see does?
That I'm on a planet speeding around our star is somehow a delusion? Explain. What is it about that fact that is NOT part of reality. Is this fact NOT generally accepted?

delusion |di&#712;lo&#333; zh &#601;n|
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder :

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#153264 Feb 11, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You really don't see the difference do you!! The difference between accepting what hard working scientist have discovered, and Theists who's best evidence is personal delusional experiences. I've asked you this before, but don't think you answered. Do you "blindly trust" medical science when you have a serious Illness? I believe you are the one who also mistrusts doctors. So your choices would be, seek medical help or stay home and pray, which one would you chose?
As a side note.....science and scientist ALWAYS deal with the real world, the discover, test, evaluate, categorize, subject there finding for peer review. I'm smart enough to trust what mainstream science tells me is true, at least its true in this moment in time. It may not be true tomorrow as new discoveries are found, but I accept the fact that this is how science works, this is how we advance in our understanding of the world around us.
On your next trip to the head doctor. Take a tube. One of the wonders of modern science.

http://www.loctiteproducts.com/threadlocking-...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153265 Feb 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore the universe caused itself and always was.
I don't like repeating myself but it's ok.
How can that which is caused, cause itself?

It doesn't get anymore viciously circular and therefore illogical, than that...

And do you have any empirical evidence of this, or is this just your mere opinion?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153266 Feb 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> WHY would a simple answer need to explain everything to you? No th4re doesn't even and doesn't even..... have to be an answer to "your" questions for it to have all taken place.
Let alone there having to be an answer you would understand.
So your argument is:

I cannot account for any of it, I don't know what it was that caused it.

But I know it was not God.

Now if you took the time to be intellectually honest with yourself, you would see a problem with this...

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min Aura Mytha 27,311
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min one way or another 58,250
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr Pence of Tides 54
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Dogen 1,945
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 5 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 167
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 6 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,947
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 hr IB DaMann 5,963
More from around the web