Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239536 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

Louisville, KY

#173334 Aug 2, 2013
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha !
BwahahahahhahahahahahahhHhhhah HahHahahahha!!!!

Gasp! Hahahahhahahahahahahahahha!

Lol lmfao hahahahahhahahahahahaha!

Oh wow you REALLY fcked up there!

Remember when KJV humiliated himself with this same exact defense when bust as being langoliers?

Priceless! Thanks for the laughs idiot!
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>I've known DNF for a very long time. We have defended and supported each other's views on the gay forums for years. He's warm hearted and can defend his own position very well.

He's not a sock puppet.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173335 Aug 2, 2013
His evidence is so nonexistent that even Judge Judy would dismiss his case before the first commercial break!

:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I do not reject "evidence" so much as ask for actual... evidence.

What you've presented so far?

Would not qualify in a Hollywood Crime Drama-- let alone something as important as actual reality itself.

I've stated this previously:

1)**If** the consequences for **not** believing are **so**dire** as "everyone" claims?

2) Then a **just** and **caring** god has the **responsibility** to make it SO PLAIN, that a BLIND MAN could "read" the message without any effort.

3) the cop-out that "nothing you don't work for has value" is bullshit--

--- do you **WORK** for each breath of air you breathe?

No! It's literally free-- so long as your lungs are functional.

But there is **nothing** more valuable than that next breath of air-- TO YOU.

Yet they are all free...

----------

So.

If your god is real? HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE HE IS REAL.

Nothing less will do---

-- IF HE ACTUALLY CARES.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173336 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.
You may have a bit of a point here, a newborn is pretty much a clean slate. As you stated yourself, a baby is a questioning and questing young human being. They strive to hold their heads erect, they learn to roll over and then begin....and on and on it goes. They instinctively know how to suckle, cry for attention to their needs and they learn a lot!

But they observe the physical world only, what they can see, touch, hear and smell. Yes, they thrive on love so I suppose their god is spelled MaMa and DaDa....they are blissfully without belief in a supernatural deity who some say has promised to offer them things they don't need and could care less about.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173337 Aug 2, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Or...The evidence for God is at the same level as evidence for werewolves.
GREAT!!! Now I can cash in those silver bullets I've been saving in case of an attack......might as well throw out that wolfbane and those old wooden stakes too, or am I being a bit rash???

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173338 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
These I have significant problems with, both philosophically and because they don't actually manage to prove their claims. In general, I am very skeptical about purely philosophical arguments. We know very well that philosophers manage to get a great many things wrong because they assume more than what they actually state.

The Cosmological argument assumes certain things about causality that are known to be false (that every event is caused). It is also internally inconsistent since every cause we know is a natural cause, but the conclusion is the existence of a supernatural cause. This is probably the strongest of your arguments. But even this one is a LONG way from proving your desired conclusion.

The teleological argument fails because we do not know what is possible *without* an intelligence working, so the conclusion that there must be one is unsubstantiated.

The Ontological argument is false because it assume that existence is a property that something can have or not have and that existence is 'better' than non-existence in some scale. You do not get to assume existence of something so it can be better when made existent.
Historical Evidence
This is by far the weakest of the ones you present. Dramatic tales from a superstitious time do not serve to prove the existence of a supernatural.
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
When a NDE is able to read something hidden from all in the room that nobody in the room knows about, it will give *some* evidence. At this point, it is a collection of anecdotes from people whose brains are failing. Not the best time to make a claim. Furthermore, the same effects can be produce by stressing the brain in other ways. SO, again, not sufficient to support the case. This one *could*, potentially, give some evidence of phenomena that have been called supernatural.
Presuppositional Arguments
At best these are arguments by mere assertion: That certain types of argument take precedence over rationality. Again, a very weak argument at best.
Intelligent Design Arguments
Essentially the same as the teleological argument.
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
I do not agree. I find it a collection of very weak arguments given by desperate people wanting something to be true that they cannot justify. If anything, they show how much people will accept *any* argument when it comes to the existence of a God.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173339 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. That would be classified as agnostic, in the strictest definition of that word:'a' as not, and 'gnostic' as in knowledge.
<quoted text>
Lie. Why do you keep foisting this PROVABLY FALSE CLAIM?
Ask an ATHEIST what it means to be an atheist!
A FAITHFUL has NO CLUE!(as you repeatedly demonstrate)
Athiesm is NO FAITH IN GODS.
It is a PASSIVE state of being-- it is WITHOUT FAITH.
A newborn baby is an atheist-- he has NO FAITH: ATHEIST.
And what child has ever discovered a god on it's own merely through it's growing and exploring???

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173340 Aug 2, 2013
You never hear of a Muslim having an NDE about the Virgin Mary do you?:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.

As for the NDE's?

That one deserves a mention:

Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.

Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.

Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.

Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.

Do you see a trend, here?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173341 Aug 2, 2013
None at all. If they could you wouldn't need Sunday school or church. It would just come naturally for them. Instead we see believing parents have to work hard to indoctrinate their children.

It didn't take you any indoctrination to eat and enjoy your favorite cake or cookies as a kid did it? One has to use guilt, threats and indoctrination for belief in God because they cannot offer evidence to the child that God exists.
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>And what child has ever discovered a god on it's own merely through it's growing and exploring???

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173342 Aug 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Seems to me something as affirmative as a god would need little evidence to prove itself, and would be glaringly apparent.
I've yet to see anyone move a mountain, now that would certainly pique my interest!

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173343 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.
As for the NDE's?
That one deserves a mention:
Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.
Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.
Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.
Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.
Do you see a trend, here?
I do. Had an NDE and didn't meet any supernatural entities.....did see/feel some pretty imaginative imagery though...a brain deprived of oxygen will do that. Add pain and drugs and you can really have a bum trip;0) Certainly nothing that didn't represent what my body was going through and KNOWN memories that it triggered.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#173345 Aug 2, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I've yet to see anyone move a mountain, now that would certainly pique my interest!
&sn s=em
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#173346 Aug 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.
As for the NDE's?
That one deserves a mention:
Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.
Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.
Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.
Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.
Do you see a trend, here?
NDE wouldnt prove god anyways,
now if someone died decomposed and then got revived by god,that would be really something to brag about,,lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173350 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I have worked as a licensed private investigator and as a military police patrolman. In insurance claims and fraud investigations, a police accident report and medical treatment document are necessary and acceptable evidences that you were in fact in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). A sling might convince the average Joe, but I can admit to being cynical and skeptical after seeing my share of fraudulent claims.
So you are making my basic point. The amount of evidence required depends on the situation and the quality of the evidence.
I would be skeptical, but you wouldn't need to provide the emerald to satisfy me. An authenticated statement from a local reputable jeweler or local certified geologist would suffice. Especially if you were filing an insurance claim of theft of said emerald.
And how would you know they are reputable or certified? While I would also accept such statements, the reason someone is qualified is because they have been trained in some way to judge whether something is an emerald or not.
You have a point here. So what would suffice as proof? Well a working space shuttle or recently used lunar module would be a nice bit of evidence, along with NASA and local flight plan confirmation. Eye-witness accounts from neighbors who saw the lift-off (who could hide that earth shaking event?:)) would be a nice touch. Insanity or a pathological disorder manifested in lying would be my first guess. I can admit that.
Now suppose I claim that I was visited by space aliens. Wouldn't the requirements for proof be even more restricted than the claim that I went to the moon? And would not the claim to have experienced something supernatural be even less believable than that?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173354 Aug 2, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Impress me - Satisfy this argument
Jesus Curses the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14)
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
Is this logical to you?
Compare: Matthew 21:18,19
There are two things to take note of here. The first is that this incident is an example of the common Marcan theme of apocalyptic determinism. Israel is to be cursed because it “bears no fruit” by not welcoming the Messiah — but clearly the tree here isn’t being given the choice to bear fruit or not.
And your response would be?
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark...
Imhotep, I can only answer according to the way I understand it. And a bit of background information is necessary as I give that answer. Mr Liberty likes to accuse me of changing the subject and I can assure you I don't. I just lay out my case or my understanding with all the pertinent information needed. Notice he accused me of making shit up about the "Dewey Defeats Truman" fallacy. It's not an actual fallacy per se. I just created the analogy annd aimed it at him for claiming victory before I answered his challenge. He has no patience. Hopefully you'll do better. You seem reasonable.:)

Now I'm not sure why you're making a comparison to the Matthew account. I tend to dismiss atheist based links as I would rather not misinterpret your position or question. That's why I try not to post apologetic links to you folks. We all have our biases. I prefer to hear your arguments from you. This way I can't misrepresent your position.

The Markan account of the fig tree is to be considered in the wider context of spiritual corruption in Israel in favor of nationalistic dogma. The chief priests and kings of Israel were concerned with political/military deliverance from Roman oppression. When Jesus left the temple and cursed the fig tree, it was a warning to Israel that the nation was corrupt from the very roots. By destroying it (cursing it) Jesus was demonstrating that Israel would come under judgement, and since the city of Jerusalem and it's temple were the "root" of Judaic culture, then the temple and Jerusalem would be "cut down." This was an analogy because this is what happened to trees that didn't produce fruit.

Trees that didn't produce fruit were diseased and worth nothing but firewood. Israel's climate allows fig trees to retain fruit from the past season. When Jesus saw leaves from a distance, he expected to see fruit from the previous season. He used the fruitless tree to teach the disciples an important lesson about the future of Israel.

Now let me ask a question. You included the reference to the same incident in the gospel according to Matthew. What's your question there?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173355 Aug 2, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have a bit of a point here, a newborn is pretty much a clean slate. As you stated yourself, a baby is a questioning and questing young human being. They strive to hold their heads erect, they learn to roll over and then begin....and on and on it goes. They instinctively know how to suckle, cry for attention to their needs and they learn a lot!
But they observe the physical world only, what they can see, touch, hear and smell. Yes, they thrive on love so I suppose their god is spelled MaMa and DaDa....they are blissfully without belief in a supernatural deity who some say has promised to offer them things they don't need and could care less about.
Thanks for your civility. It goes a long way.:)
uidiotRACEMAKEWO LRDPEACE

United States

#173356 Aug 2, 2013
And most X and Y generation , some few old folks and other s leave the xtain religion because of the most below! BAHAHAHHAHAHAH

the right wing American coalition! note not leftie or religous

Noam Chomsky
'
The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173357 Aug 2, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you spend this much tireless energy asking kids for proof of Santa Claus? If not, why not?
There is a God, you dumb ass scratching atheist.
Don't trouble yourself with Liberty. Snarky responses are his forte rather than logical thoughtful replies. I guess it's easier being snarky. I answer his ignorance for the entertainment value. Quantum Bob, Polymath, Albtraum, Aura Mytha, I can take them seriously because they actually come up with thoughtful replies. I don't agree with much they say, but their replies and personalities are much better than the average. Black Lagoon is pretty good too. I don't think atheists are evil. Just stubborn.:)
uidiotRACEMAKEWO LRDPEACE

United States

#173358 Aug 2, 2013
i love intellectualism! BWHAHHHHAAA Logic /critical reasoning rules!
uidiotRACEMAKEWO LRDPEACE

United States

#173359 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't trouble yourself with Liberty. Snarky responses are his forte rather than logical thoughtful replies. I guess it's easier being snarky. I answer his ignorance for the entertainment value. Quantum Bob, Polymath, Albtraum, Aura Mytha, I can take them seriously because they actually come up with thoughtful replies. I don't agree with much they say, but their replies and personalities are much better than the average. Black Lagoon is pretty good too. I don't think atheists are evil. Just stubborn.:)
May i ask what you disagree with, educate us all?

BWHAHAHAHAHHAaaa have hiney melon! it good! BWHAHHAHHAaa
uidiotRACEMAKEWO LRDPEACE

United States

#173360 Aug 2, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Outside of the Bible, atheist's retaliation and defiance of God's existence is the 2nd most probable proof that God exists. They [atheists] alone prove that the Spirit of God is churning within their hearts. They just refuse to admit it because they are too proud to admit they are WRONG.
That's simply because they love to sin and don't want to be accountable for it. That's it in a nutshell.
Not an Athiest and not religious!

Psst xtains sin again and ask for forgiveness and sin again and ask for another forgiveness and how is moral and etical , As most Atheist are better than you xtain fundies. BWHAHHHAAA

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) 11 min Eagle 12 7,525
News America is losing religion - and why more and m... 55 min P_Smith 1
News New Atheism Produces Another Curiously Uncuriou... 1 hr P_Smith 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 19,106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr thetruth 2,223
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 4 hr Pete-o 7,504
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 15 hr Rosa_Winkel 134
More from around the web