Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247204 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.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#173879 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
An unmoving flat earth that is square and rests on top of pillars.
<quoted text>
Sounds like a good way to start building a house. lol
Thinking

UK

#173880 Aug 9, 2013
I'm long "past" clicking on your links.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
This well worth viewing
Evolution vs God
http://m.youtube.com/watch... #

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173881 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Holding to the dogma of empiricism is really self-refuting and circular reasoning. So let me ask you a few questions about empirical science. If only empirical evidence is the only indicator of truth, how do we measure that statement? How do we scientifically prove that statement? Is there a scientific test we can apply to that statement? No. Therefore it's only a philosophy **about** physical science that can't prove itself using the empirical method.
----------
polymath257 wrote:
For the sciences, the procedure is to find an experiment or observation that the two viewpoints predict different results from. Then, the experiment is done. While it may not determine who is correct, it can determine who is *wrong*. If no such experiment or observation is possible, then the two viewpoints are considered to be identical.
So, what procedure do you have to determine which among two viewpoints of the supernatural is wrong? In what way can a challenge be made if I disagree with your conclusions? What dispute resolution process is there for the supernatural?
So, for example, suppose we have two people. One says that there are 5 spiritual beings in my apartment and the other says there are only 3. How do we determine which one is wrong?
If there is no such process, there is no indicator of truth.
This was an interesting exchange and i think your answer is insufficient to say the least. The competition must be getting a little stiff for you, thus i note you are posting less. Perhaps you are busy but methinks you really got your behind handed to you on this one and Hiding is nowhere to be found! You assume the laws of physics and existence of all forms of life. The Earth is sufficient to support all forms given its position etc. yet do not be able to reasonable explain, the origin or source of either. You just assume it has nothing to do with God because God is not subject to the laws of physics! Can anyone see the circle? All one has to do is take a look at what is and juxtapose atheism against Theism, since atheism explains nothing and Theism explains everything, at least in a broad stroke, atheism is eliminated. It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173882 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
<quoted text> This was an interesting exchange and i think your answer is insufficient to say the least. The competition must be getting a little stiff for you, thus i note you are posting less. Perhaps you are busy but methinks you really got your behind handed to you on this one and Hiding is nowhere to be found! You assume the laws of physics and existence of all forms of life. The Earth is sufficient to support all forms given its position etc. yet do not be able to reasonable explain, the origin or source of either. You just assume it has nothing to do with God because God is not subject to the laws of physics! Can anyone see the circle? All one has to do is take a look at what is and juxtapose atheism against Theism, since atheism explains nothing and Theism explains everything, at least in a broad stroke, atheism is eliminated. It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Idiot coward with no proof of god admitting defeat. When you grow up and learn that lying about god is no way to live, contact an atheist.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173883 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How about 'because it isn't convincing'? And since it won't get any better, it won't ever get any more convincing.
How convincing is your atheism? What does atheism explain?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173884 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But modern standards *should* be applied to beliefs.
Including atheism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173885 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> How convincing is your atheism? What does atheism explain?
Face the fact that you're an idiot with no proof of god whatsoever, trying to take up space in the forum that has defeated you over and over again.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173886 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Including atheism.
Atheism is a disbelieve in any stupid unsubstantiated bullsh*t invented by theists ie human beings who refuse to think logically.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173887 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
<quoted text> This was an interesting exchange and i think your answer is insufficient to say the least. The competition must be getting a little stiff for you, thus i note you are posting less. Perhaps you are busy but methinks you really got your behind handed to you on this one and Hiding is nowhere to be found! You assume the laws of physics and existence of all forms of life. The Earth is sufficient to support all forms given its position etc. yet do not be able to reasonable explain, the origin or source of either. You just assume it has nothing to do with God because God is not subject to the laws of physics! Can anyone see the circle? All one has to do is take a look at what is and juxtapose atheism against Theism, since atheism explains nothing and Theism explains everything, at least in a broad stroke, atheism is eliminated. It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Yes, I have been busy lately. it is the end of the summer semester and I had final exams to make, and now grade.

No, I assume that life originated from natural processes because it *is* a natural process and the basic chemicals are common in the universe. We have several different lines of investigation on the issue which look promising and no obvious reason to think the laws of physics and chemistry were violated in any way.

For the beginning of the universe, there are three main physical possibilities (there are others, but these are the main ones):

1) Time started at the Big Bang. Because there is no time prior to that, there is no causality prior to that. It is literally meaningless to have a cause for the Big Bang. This is the claim for standard general relativity.

2) There was a prior contraction phase with the Big Bang actually a type of Big Bounce. This is the claim for loop quantum gravity. In this case, matter, energy, and time continue infinitely into the past.

3) There is a multiverse and multiple 'Big Bangs', one of which gives the universe we see. This is the claim for most versions of string theory. In this, each different Big Bang has different vacuum solutions and therefore different specific laws of physics.

The main problem with 1 is that it does not include quantum mechanics, which we know is fundamental to how our universe works. The problem with 2 and 3 is that we do not, at this time, have the means to test between them.

Now, why would I have to introduce a supernatural with unknown laws, with unknown characteristics, with unknown beings (angels, gods, etc) and unknown connection to what we see around us merely to explain two puzzles that known physics and chemistry seem likely to solve?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173888 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Including atheism.
Yes, of course. One needs to examine the evidence on all sides. Do you have any actual evidence for a supernatural?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173889 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> How convincing is your atheism? What does atheism explain?
Atheism (the lack of belief) is the default position. It takes evidence that something exists to produce belief.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173890 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. But my beliefs are based on what convinces me. I am entitled to the standard of evidence I use for everything else.
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.

What is the atheist explanation for evil?
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173891 Aug 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a disbelieve in any stupid unsubstantiated bullsh*t invented by theists ie human beings who refuse to think logically.
And that is why it is infantile. It wants to evaluate everything else but give itself a free pass. Like a baby who makes a lot of noise at one end and no responsibility at the other. And that is why it is to be rejected. If there is any truth then it is not to be found in atheism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173892 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
All one has to do is take a look at what is and juxtapose atheism against Theism, since atheism explains nothing and Theism explains everything, at least in a broad stroke, atheism is eliminated. It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It alone explains very little because it is a stand on one relatively trivial issue. But the scientific method and the theories we have from using it *do* explain what we see around us.

One problem with theism is it can explain 'anything'. If the world is one way, theism simply says that God wanted it that way. If the world is another way, the exact same explanation holds. No matter what happens, exactly the same explanation holds. This means that theism has no explanatory power: by allowing anything, it explains nothing.

In order to actually have an explanation of something, you have to be able to show why it is not something else and that means being able to make specific predictions as to what will and what will not happen. And guess what? That is exactly the scientific method: make a hypothesis, test it, modify if needed. But always require testability.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173895 Aug 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually it does doesn't it?
M-Eve and Y-Adam but they were not the first , just the first of all living, and they lived some years in time apart from each other.
But it does in saying this, falsify the creation myth, and does in other ways also.
Evolution never works on a single individual-- always on a species.

So even if there were a genetic "bottleneck", it'd have to be of a smallish group-- a couple of thousand individuals? Something like that.

Modern observation of animal species near extinction has given an unfortunate "laboratory" in determining how small a population is still viable.

And just two individuals wouldn't work.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173896 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
An unmoving flat earth that is square and rests on top of pillars.
<quoted text>
Indeed. Under a transparent dome with holes-in, for rain to fall through....

... because the bible also states the sky is blue, due to water overhead....

....!!

'Tis a silly book.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173897 Aug 9, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we scared LB away. Can't handle a normal discussion. Gets angry and says extremely strange things like "evolution didn't do anything for Einstein's theory of relativity!"
hahaha, I will never forget that.
I missed that one-- I typically only skim over the godbottery, looking for nice gems to highlight and make fun of.

And to also point out the illogical consequences of.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173898 Aug 9, 2013
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.
Wrong. All are strongly based on empirical testing.
What is the atheist explanation for evil?
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?
First, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It along explains very little.

The explanation of evil is many-fold: most people are self-centered to some extent. Some are to a much greater extent and don't worry about how their actions affect others. That can be from neurological problems, upbringing, or simple idiosyncrasies. Others are motivated by tribal impulses and are willing to destroy anyone outside their chosen tribe. In either case, the evil is not caring about how ones actions affect others, especially to the point that there is enjoyment of hurting others.

The 'mathematical nature of the universe' is mostly due to the fact that we use mathematics as a language. Since the universe is regular in its properties, and since the language of mathematics is designed by us to describe regularities, it isn't surprising that we see the universe as mathematical. In many ways, this is wrong, though. It is like saying the universe is English because its regularities can be explained in English.

Information is not a conserved quantity. There are many ways to simply increase or decrease information. In general, a system has information about something else if there is a causal connection such that the existence of the first system makes the existence of the second more or less likely.

As an example, a penny lying on the ground has information: it shows that someone in the past went by and lost a penny. Because there are few other ways to produce pennies on the ground (given the laws of physics), that penny has information about people.

Now, suppose I agree with my wife that if I put a penny on our porch I want her to pick me up from work. In that case, that penny has more information. It is relatively unlikely that a penny will fall out of my pocket and land on the porch on the day I say such a thing. So, when she comes home and sees that penny, it has information. That information is that I want her to pick me up from work.

On the other hand, coming home to find air inside my house carries very little information. Why? Because it is a something that happens naturally under a great many situations. Of course, it *does* carry information: it shows that there was a previous generation of stars that formed the oxygen and nitrogen in their cores. But it carries very little information about human activities.

The conclusion? Information happens in something when the causes leading to that thing are restricted in some way. These restrictions give information about those causes. This is a natural process following from the laws of physics.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173899 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Here, you display your near-total ignorance of the significance of mathematics.

Within any given system of math? There is no uncertainty with regards to what it says-- the proofs and all that.

But math **only** proves math.

And in **some** systems of math? 1+1=3 is not only possible, but the only correct solution.

1+1=2 is only a convenient model, that we non-mathematicians have borrowed for the simple task of counting.

But it's just a **model**. It doesn't **prove** anything.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173900 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> How convincing is your atheism? What does atheism explain?
Nothing at all.

Athiesm is simply NO FAITH IN SUPERNATURAL.

That is ALL that it is.

So it cannot explain **anything**.

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) 38 min Knowledge- 12,390
Proof of God for the Atheist 2 hr Uncle Sam 91
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 2 hr -Stray Dog 47,746
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus 9 hr Amused 25
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 9 hr Amused 15
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr thetruth 2,352
News Muslim World and Secularism Tue P_Smith 1
More from around the web