Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258040 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: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173286 Aug 2, 2013
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.

Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Basic logic? Seriously, what you consider 'rejection' is simply a requirement that evidence have sufficient quality to demonstrate the proposition.

[QUOTE]Note that I'm not asking your opinion of my beliefs. I know what they are. What do you call your rejection of evidence that I believe to be credible? Is it active atheism or passive atheism?"

It is passive. If it is not convincing, then it is insufficient.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173287 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we are asking about the existence of something, not simply the probability of something. This is not a question of reducing the probability of some known risk. it is the claim that there *is* a risk.
<quoted text>
Let's be clear about your claim here. You claim that your belief in God is similar to your belief that you won't get into an accident when you drive to work today. This, in spite of the fact that everyone knows that accidents happen. it is simply that the probability of one happening to you today is very low and can, to some extent, be lowered by driving well. Do you really want to equate your confidence in the existence of a deity to your confidence you won't get into an accident?
Yes, when asking whether something *exists*, I do require 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is not the same as certainty--some evidence not considered can change the weight (as it did for the luminous ether), but with the evidence we have *now*, is there enough and of such a type that existence is anything other than a very low probability?
The *standard* to conclude the existence of a particle in particle physics, for example, is a five sigma signal: in other words five standard deviations from random noise. That corresponds to a a 1 chance in 2 million that the signal is due to random chance. I would count that as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' while not being 'certain'.
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173288 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
What do you consider to be the best evidence of Christian theism?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173289 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
Because we know from experience that lower standard fail too often.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173290 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173291 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173292 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#173293 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
This was easy in the past, the supernatural were things quite visible. But I'm afraid we've conquered about all the visible phenomenon, and the supernatural is mostly about as apparent as
Russel's teapot. Mostly the supernatural to the unversed is within things already considered within the known, because we have progressed far beyond the average Joes level of comprehension.

I mean it's pretty damn hard trying to understand the scope of physics today, and some will never be able to grasp the concepts
needed to know what these things mean. But I like you, will jump at the opportunity to learn something dynamic enough for a paradigm shift.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173294 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, do you really consider the belief in a deity to be at the same level as the belief that you won't get into an accident as you drive to work?
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173295 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173296 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. My purpose was to state that such a high standard of proof may not be necessary since we operate daily with less certainty in other aspects of life that carry risk.
And I disagree when dealing with the question of the existence of a supernatural. In that case, the signal should be clear an unambiguous. I require no less from particle physicists.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173297 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my biggest criticisms of much medical research is that they allow confidence levels that are much too low. For example, a confidence level of 99% is wrong one time out of 100. When dealing with a million people, that means 10,000 errors. That seems quite excessive to my mind.
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173298 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Just like the *default* in the legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty', the default when considering the existence of something is 'non-existence'. In the first case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. In the second, it is on the one making the existence claims to show existence. And yes, this holds even for 'cumulative evidence'.
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173299 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Because a 95% confidence is wrong 1 out of 20 times? And a 90% is wrong 1 out of 10 times? I trust very few things at that confidence level. I may see them as interesting and worthy of further research, but trust? No way. I have seen way too many things appear at the 95% confidence level that disappeared with further research. Anything as low as 75% is like throwing two coins and having them both come up heads.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173300 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Would you have confidence that you were not going to get into an accident if it was at the 75% confidence level? Or even the 95% confidence level? Remember that at 95% per day, you would have an accident 18 times a year on average.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#173301 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.
Seems to me something as affirmative as a god would need little evidence to prove itself, and would be glaringly apparent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173302 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.
Actually, what Liberty said was that once believers have proved the existence he would look at the evidence. That isn't backwards. Once Cavendish claimed to have proved the existence of a neutron, his evidence was published and others looked at it and weighed it to see if they agreed it was a proof.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#173303 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
Atheism rejects fantasy and superstition.
from your holy guidebook... Which is full of disgusting things

Imagine a 100-page book of photos. 50 of them are hard core pornography. The other 50 pages are exquisite photos of sunsets.

Would you keep that book on your coffee table? Let your children read it?

What isn't boring in that book is sadistically cruel, rabidly misogynic and just plain primitively stupid.

But even more important, the Bible is supposedly the guide to morality, inspired by a deity.

Why is any of that awful stuff included in such a supposedly wonderful guidebook?

Why does anyone have to make excuses for the filth in it?

The "context" argument does not hold.

There is no moral context into which murdering babies, for example, may be inserted.

Televangelists wave it dramatically, declaring it to be the "world's best-selling book for a reason,"

It may be the world's best seller, but not one Christian in a thousand knows what's really in it.

Atheists do !
we read the whole thing.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173304 Aug 2, 2013
Well we would expect in the past people would think that, for example the wind blowing fiercely must be some angry supernatural being because they didn't know better at the time. They were ignorant to the knowledge and advances we have.

We no longer think you have to sacrifice animals to have a good harvest as people of the bible times did.

We have outgrown such thoughts.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>This was easy in the past, the supernatural were things quite visible. But I'm afraid we've conquered about all the visible phenomenon, and the supernatural is mostly about as apparent as
Russel's teapot. Mostly the supernatural to the unversed is within things already considered within the known, because we have progressed far beyond the average Joes level of comprehension.

I mean it's pretty damn hard trying to understand the scope of physics today, and some will never be able to grasp the concepts
needed to know what these things mean. But I like you, will jump at the opportunity to learn something dynamic enough for a paradigm shift.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173305 Aug 2, 2013
No it's not backwards it's completely logical. Notice god doesn't come down to earth to wrestle all night with men anymore right?

How about instead of belching excuses why you have failed to provide any proof for your god you could instead provide a single shred of proof that your god is anything more than a work of someone's imagination.... I'll wait.

Btw in court if any lawyer refused to show evidence of their claims would be laughed out of court.

You are failing miserably.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?

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) 21 min One way or another 48,577
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 52 min Thinking 21,872
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 30
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr Richardfs 5,694
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr karl44 23,504
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Dec 2 Scaritual 14
More from around the web