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.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#173913 Aug 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Some fairly recent findings
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
Actually I did hear that.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173914 Aug 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Some fairly recent findings
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
Interesting.

From the article:
Hammer cautions against popular concepts of "mitochondrial Eve" or "Y chromosome Adam" that suggest all of humankind descended from exactly one pair of humans that lived at a certain point in human evolution.

"There has been too much emphasis on this in the past," he said. "It is a misconception that the genealogy of a single genetic region reflects population divergence. Instead, our results suggest that there are pockets of genetically isolated communities that together preserve a great deal of human diversity."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#173915 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No free pass for atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It deals with only one relatively minor issue: the existence of deities. it says nothing about anything else. Most atheists are quite willing to have beliefs in deities if there was strong enough evidence for such.
On the other hand, the scientific method can and does lead to explanations about a great many things in the universe. It supports, but does not require, atheism by showing that supernatural explanations are unnecessary to understand the universe.
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173916 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
Nope.

Once again, you demonstrate a distressing inability to achieve minimal cognitive standards.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#173917 Aug 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
This well worth viewing
Evolution vs God
http://m.youtube.com/watch... #
No it's not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173918 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
No, the belief is that the evidence supplied by theists is insufficient to their conclusions. I advocate having good standards of evidence before making conclusions. Also, the quality of evidence required increases if totally new physics is demanded from the conclusions. Historical evidence concerning what people believed in the past is far from sufficient to show the existence of a supernatural.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173919 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the belief is that the evidence supplied by theists is insufficient to their conclusions. I advocate having good standards of evidence before making conclusions. Also, the quality of evidence required increases if totally new physics is demanded from the conclusions. Historical evidence concerning what people believed in the past is far from sufficient to show the existence of a supernatural.
Yes, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. The contradictory stories in the Bible do not even meet the standards of ordinary evidence, never mind extraordinary.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173920 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
And a belief in reason is a bad thing because?

Satan is the one true god

Since: Aug 13

Las Vegas, NV

#173921 Aug 9, 2013
"The Almighty Tzar wrote:
This well worth viewing
Evolution vs God
http://m.youtube.com/watch ...#"

what a lame analysis...the dumb a$$ wants observable proof that takes millions of years to occur....

the Smithsonian is full of missing links and observable proof...

no one observed Scott Peterson kill his wife and dump her in the Pacific... yet, he is in jail for murder.. because he left evidence behind... basic logic and common sense..

Big Bang was proved by NASA years ago, by the evidence left behind...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173922 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
No matter how you cut it, Dave, atheism is a believe.

It's the believe that deities don't exist.

There's no two ways about it. Everything we "know" or think we know is belief - everything.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173923 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the belief is that the evidence supplied by theists is insufficient to their conclusions. I advocate having good standards of evidence before making conclusions. Also, the quality of evidence required increases if totally new physics is demanded from the conclusions. Historical evidence concerning what people believed in the past is far from sufficient to show the existence of a supernatural.
If your position is "I can't decide about the existence of X before we demonstrate it through testing" then you don't have a belief about X - you're suspending that belief, pending further testing.

However, if you claim "there are no deities," as I do, you're expressing a belief. Granted, my belief in the absence of deities rests on what I consider good evidence, but it's still a belief.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173925 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. All are strongly based on empirical testing.
Not atheism. This is what i wrote.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> But you do not subject your atheism to the same standards as you do ''everything else.'' You just assume its true and judge everything else according to your base assumption. In another post of your you used Theist 1 and Theist 2, but you did not include your atheism in the mix. You put Theism under your microscope and your atheism gets a free ride even though there is no explanatory power for hardly anything. It does not sufficiently explain why 1+1=2 which is really abstract. It does not explain the origin or source on Physics or life. Wheras the Theist would say 1+1=2 makes sense and has explanatory power because it is an indication of the fingerprint of God. As i understand it things in Science are assumed by effects. Quantum physics, particle astrophysics black holes uses theoretical rather than empirical constructs.
<quoted text>
First, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It along explains very little.
Then it cannot be tested scientifically. So your above statement contradicts this one.

As an example, a penny lying on the ground has information:

Satan is the one true god

Since: Aug 13

Las Vegas, NV

#173926 Aug 9, 2013
black holes have been observed...i.e. their effect on light and gravitational pulls have been observed..

many aspects of quantum physics have been observed and proved...

we are still waiting for just a single supernatural proof... JUST ONE

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173927 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Not atheism. This is what i wrote.
you wrote that quantum mechanics, particle physics and the study of black holes does not rely on empirical testing. You were wrong.
Then it cannot be tested scientifically. So your above statement contradicts this one.
As an example, a penny lying on the ground has information:
No, it does not. Atheism, even in the stronger form of actual disbelief in deities, can be tested by the simple expedient of providing clear evidence of a deity. If there are no deities, there will never be sufficient evidence to show their existence. If there are, there will be.

The penny on the ground has information *because* of the laws of physics that limit the ways it can be there.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173928 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
Correct Dave. Anytime we place 'ism' at the end of a word it becomes an ideology. That's what 'ism' means. Advocating that a concept or worldview be adopted by others. It's no different than Catholicism or Protestantism at that point. An 'ism' is simply a way of saying "This is my view and everyone should adhere to it."

An atheist may lack belief in God. That doesn't mean the atheist advocates that his or her view should be the cultural norm.

Atheism however, advocates rejection of evidence that may show God exists, and by extension, advocates rejection of belief in God as a cultural norm. If this wasn't true, then why do they waste their time here arguing against the evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173929 Aug 9, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If your position is "I can't decide about the existence of X before we demonstrate it through testing" then you don't have a belief about X - you're suspending that belief, pending further testing.
However, if you claim "there are no deities," as I do, you're expressing a belief. Granted, my belief in the absence of deities rests on what I consider good evidence, but it's still a belief.
Part of my hesitancy is the variety of definitions people use for the words 'God and 'deity'.

For example, some identify God with the universe or, more specifically, the laws of nature. this was Einstein's viewpoint. I cannot then argue for the non-existence of that specific notion of God. I even believe that 'God' exists. But I also believe that is a bad usage of the term 'God' since the word 'God' is typically limited to intelligently acting beings.

On the other end of the spectrum is the God of the old testament which I do think can be conclusively shown not to exist.

In the middle somewhere is the Platonic view of God, which I also reject for philosophical reasons (I think Platonism is deeply flawed in terms of its view of ideas, for example).

In this sense, I am ignostic: I don't think the notion of a God has been well enough defined to even have the question of existence be meaningful.

This is extended by the notion of a supernatural, which I think is also deeply flawed. It ignores the very way we go about defining the concept of 'natural' and what it means to exist. So any supernatural deity is, almost by definition, impossible to exist since a supernatural is.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173930 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Atheism however, advocates rejection of evidence that may show God exists, and by extension, advocates rejection of belief in God as a cultural norm. If this wasn't true, then why do they waste their time here arguing against the evidence?
Atheism does not advocate the rejection of *any* evidence for a deity. It simply points out that the available evidence is far from being sufficient to prove the existence of any deities. Many go further and say that no evidence sufficient to prove the existence of a deity is likely and that this supports not just lack of belief, but actual disbelief. They also believe that the acceptance of the type faulty evidence provided by the theists has negative cultural effects, such as the decline of rationality and the general decline of education in science.

There is certainly evidence that I *would* accept as evidence of a creator if such were to show up.

The demonstration that it is possible to create universes with desired properties and that such created universes differ in significant ways from non-created ones and that ours has the characteristics of the created ones. That would also be enough to show the existence of a creator.

As a particular example of the last situation, contact with intelligent beings in the multiverse that show knowledge of techniques for inducing the quantum fluctuations that lead to phenomena like the Big Bang and a history that they actually did this producing our universe would be a very nice thing.

As an alternative, the detection of a collection of pulsars extended across our galaxy that turn out to be in sync from the point of view of earth and spell out YHWH in the sky would probably be sufficient also.

Yes, I am serious. This is the type of evidence that would be required.
SamBee

Summerfield, FL

#173931 Aug 9, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. The contradictory stories in the Bible do not even meet the standards of ordinary evidence, never mind extraordinary.
Shalum,

So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173932 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism does not advocate the rejection of *any* evidence for a deity. It simply points out that the available evidence is far from being sufficient to prove the existence of any deities. Many go further and say that no evidence sufficient to prove the existence of a deity is likely and that this supports not just lack of belief, but actual disbelief. They also believe that the acceptance of the type faulty evidence provided by the theists has negative cultural effects, such as the decline of rationality and the general decline of education in science.
There is certainly evidence that I *would* accept as evidence of a creator if such were to show up.
The demonstration that it is possible to create universes with desired properties and that such created universes differ in significant ways from non-created ones and that ours has the characteristics of the created ones. That would also be enough to show the existence of a creator.
As a particular example of the last situation, contact with intelligent beings in the multiverse that show knowledge of techniques for inducing the quantum fluctuations that lead to phenomena like the Big Bang and a history that they actually did this producing our universe would be a very nice thing.
As an alternative, the detection of a collection of pulsars extended across our galaxy that turn out to be in sync from the point of view of earth and spell out YHWH in the sky would probably be sufficient also.
Yes, I am serious. This is the type of evidence that would be required.
I believe you're sincere Poly, and I admire your honesty in stating your view. However, as I've pointed out before, I think your criteria and expectation for evidence is way too high. It's unreasonable. Such a God who would perform cosmic parlor tricks at our insistence to prove his existence is hardly a god to worship. Such a god that would allow himself to be manipulated according to our whims and demands would not then be all powerful.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173933 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct Dave. Anytime we place 'ism' at the end of a word it becomes an ideology. That's what 'ism' means. Advocating that a concept or worldview be adopted by others. It's no different than Catholicism or Protestantism at that point. An 'ism' is simply a way of saying "This is my view and everyone should adhere to it."
An atheist may lack belief in God. That doesn't mean the atheist advocates that his or her view should be the cultural norm.
Atheism however, advocates rejection of evidence that may show God exists, and by extension, advocates rejection of belief in God as a cultural norm. If this wasn't true, then why do they waste their time here arguing against the evidence?
First off you have NO evidence for the existence of God, none at all. Anecdotal testimony, personal experiences, and the writing in an ancient book do NOT constitute evidence. I've gone through this before, maybe with you. There are ONLY two possibilities, either A exists or A doesn't exist. There is only one methodology to determine if A is or isn't and thats science. We don't have to witness A IF the evidence is strong enough. At this point you'll resort to your rant about the historicity of Jesus, even though it is a FACT that there are no contemporary accounts for Jesus outside of the bible. We know the orbital period of Pluto is 235 days even though we have NEVER witnessed one complete orbit. Now, can you name another methodology other than science in determining if A is or A isn't?

We hopefully do not waste out time arguing against the evidence as there is NO evidence. We, or at least me, simply point out that the evidence you think you have is either extremely weak or is non-existent. To me unsupported beliefs are dangerous, as our beliefs inform our actions. Believing for no good reason seems utterly foolish to me. I totally agree with the late Christopher Hitchens when he said "Religion poisons everything." Here is one of my favorite quotes, its from Bertram Russell and rings so true:

"When considering any matter of philosophy, ask yourself ONLY what are the facts and what is the TRUTH that these fascist bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you WISH to believe or by what you think would have been socially acceptable to believe, but look ONLY and SOLELY at what are the FACTS."

And another that pertains to TRUTH:

"Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that a belief can be preserved." This applies to all those who reject the fact of evolution. I'm not referring to you as I imagine you do accept evolution as factual.

This is just a silly quote but certainly has a ring of truth and logic to it:

"Your God created the entire universe in 6 days ON HIS OWN, but produced hi autobiography over centuries using Ghost Writers."

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) 6 min Science 32,580
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min Science 79,850
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 51
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sep 15 Me _ Myself _ I 8
More from around the web