Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254965 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174835 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes you are and ignorant.
Extreme irony noted-- the 100% ignorant fool is whining about someone else being ignorant!

TOO FUNNY!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174836 Aug 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us.
Does Ravel's Bolero turn you on, or not?
LOL!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#174837 Aug 17, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Tampering means exactly what you think it means. Changing the words to reflect your own bias or please the bias of the leaders of the time. Historians suspect this, me, I don't really care other than a strong hint to take it with a grain of salt. With me so far? FOCUS!
The bible is the same, an ancient copy of many copies.....much like the fish that got away. It grows with each telling. That, my friend, is weak...very weak.
I'm not hyper critical, but I refuse to swallow every one's utterance and every badly written fairy tale without that grain of salt. You have your bias and the promise of eternal life hanging in the balance.
You continue to cling to empty promises and I'll strive for the truth. There we must agree to disagree.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeppers.... the claim of "it's environmental growing up" is boooogus.
When it comes to the question of marriage for gays and lesbians why does it even matter what causes it?

Do we outlaw males who carry the gene for early onset Alzheimer's disease from marriage?
The women who carry Duchenne muscular dystrophy; a form of muscular dystrophy that worsens quickly.... Because of the way the disease is inherited, boys are affected, not girls...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...

Or do we ban SSM because being gay is a Choice?

Like banning Presbyterian or Unitarian Universalist marriages because RELIGION is a CHOICE?

Atheism's main focus is rational thought. I have no problem with those who question my "irrational" belief in God. And I see no reason to challenge their belief because it is rational.

This thread is also about a rational way to view being gay or lesbian.

Whether theological or factual logic, we exist, therefore there IS A PURPOSE FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS.

perhaps none of us know that that true purpose is. But then how many of us know our own true purpose?

and I don't know a true atheist or true believer who can discredit my points.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174838 Aug 17, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
LB is not a rational thinking person. He's a committed believer of his mythology.
Indeed.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174839 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Since macro has not been observed it is still inference. Like i posted in another thread. Science derives from inference. Like dark matter. Both of these are theoretical and not empirical. Same with God which is theoretical and not an empirical construct. I am simply pointing out a logical inconsistency in atheists reasoning who seem to demand empirical when it comes to God. Actually it would depend on what standard one uses. There is beyond a reasonable doubt and there is preponderance of the evidence.
God by inference has far better explanatory power since God depicted is the source of all life and creator outside His Creation and He holds us accountable. Atheism has no good explanation. They seek to do an end around cause and effect when it comes to the big bang, for example. Now who is anti Science? Around bio genesis by stating life comes from non life. Again, now who is anti Science? Work bye.
Atheism does not attempt to explain the beginning of life. It is a default position.

And the TOE is not simply an educated guess. There is no "macro/micro" distinction.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174840 Aug 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the existence of you deity has neither type of evidence.
If there was as much empirical evidence of your deity as there is for dark matter, there would be no remaining debate. Dark matter explains many observed effects (velocity curves for galaxies, dynamics of galactic clusters, gravitational lensing past galaxies, etc) in ways that are detailed, testable, and predictive. Your 'evidence' for your deity comes nowhere close to this. At best, you have special pleading and flat out claims. You have no details, no prediction, and no testability.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that alone does not count as an explanation. And perhaps this is the basic difficulty theists have: they don't understand what is required to *be* an explanation.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I claim the universe was made by an invisible pink unicorn. You might ask why there are stars. The simple 'explanation' is that the IPU wanted them there for her design. You might ask why water is wet. Again, my answer would be that the IPU wanted it that way for her designs. You might ask why there is war and hunger. Again, I would say that the IPU in her wisdom wanted them so that her plan can play out correctly. Anything you ask, I can give exactly the same answer.
But guess what? It isn't an explanation. Why not? Because the exact same answer works no matter what I ask. I could ask why the sky is purple and get the same answer and woops! I just found out the sky is not purple. And then the same answer is given again.
To be an explanation, you have to have different answers depending on the details.
<quoted text>
Not at all. We rely on the science done previously, general relativity and use it to understand cosmology. It predicts, and the evidence shows, an expanding universe that was once much hotter and denser: the Big Bang. it also predicts that the very density of matter and energy early on curve spacetime enough that time cannot be extended back further than some point, which is called the singularity. Whether *that* prediction holds up, we do not know because of lack of evidence.
<quoted text>
Again, the observational evidence is that life is a complex collection of chemical processes. In your body right now, life is coming from non-life: none of the atoms in your body are alive. And yet, you are. Since, as we know, life is a chemical process, it is reasonable to investigate the beginning of life via chemical means. And this is exactly what the field of abiogenesis does. Furthermore, when we look at the basic chemical basis for life (you and me), we find that the required chemicals are common in the universe and/or easily made on the early earth. When we look inside the cells of our bodies, we find the remains of ancient mechanisms that do not involve proteins (using RNA and its catalytic activities instead), so we know that life was much simpler in the past than it is now.
So, yes,*you* are anti-science. You don't even attempt to understand what the science says or why it says it.
Excellent post.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174841 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is interesting, but it only goes so far. The observation that the brain is stimulated during cardiac arrest only examines a physical process and seems to be purposely ignoring that their could be a spiritual element to the human experience of death. Not only is this observation purposely ignoring the possibility of spiritual activity, it seems to be looking for a way to explain it away as a physiological phenomenon.
The N.D.E. of the formerly skeptical Neurologist Dr. Eben Alexander demonstrates that there is a state of post mortem consciousness independent of our physiological state. His cortex was not malfunctioning, it was OFF. Dr. Alexander's statement indicates that the mind functions independent of brain function.
Exactly! Newtonian physics also ignores the possibility of a deity when we use it to model the motion of the planets - sure, it seems as if gravity is to blame, but how do we really *know* that god isn't nudging the planets along their respective orbits?

Eben is a hack.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174842 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Hey poly. On your abiogenesis claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You IPU is not a logical argument. It is rhetoric, low level and flippant. I will get to the rest later as i am getting tired. The invisible pink unicorn is telling me it is time for bed.
This doesn't apply to god, of course.

Life is here. Life is a chemical phenomenon. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence for a deity, it is reasonable to think that abiogenesis occurred. Simple. This is ignoring the several pieces of corroborating evidence - the miller urey experiment being one.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#174843 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> God as Creator demonstrates sufficient cause and effect. Any explanation other than God demonstrates insufficient cause to do the job. Self creating is logically absurd. You need to explain why God is incoherent. If your explanation has to do with God outside time then you are assuming this time is the only time. This dimension is the only dimension. That puts you in a box.
<quoted text> We do not know everything and you are assuming no God because of an arbitrary standard which rules God out!
<quoted text> Not time as depicted in a winding down universe where things wear out.
Goodness.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#174844 Aug 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The ''empty promise'' of eternal life must be false because you say it is? Why should anyone trust you? Because you claim to seek truth? You have a funny way of showing it since you sacrifice truth for you bias every time.
Veiled accusations? Threats?? Lol, I'll bypass the drivel and focus on the one point. One can only explain things so many times to you without making a dent that one realizes the depths of your cluelessness.

I don't promise eternal life and I simply don't care if you trust me or not. Your feeling regarding my trustworthiness is not important to me.

Your religion promises eternal life and has done nothing for 2,000 years to back it up. IOW, the promise was made unfounded and remains that way to this very day.

I wouldn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge without research on the subject and I won't buy your bible's unfounded assertions, presumptions and yes, empty worthless promises.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#174845 Aug 17, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>When it comes to the question of marriage for gays and lesbians why does it even matter what causes it?
Do we outlaw males who carry the gene for early onset Alzheimer's disease from marriage?
The women who carry Duchenne muscular dystrophy; a form of muscular dystrophy that worsens quickly.... Because of the way the disease is inherited, boys are affected, not girls...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...
Or do we ban SSM because being gay is a Choice?
Like banning Presbyterian or Unitarian Universalist marriages because RELIGION is a CHOICE?
Atheism's main focus is rational thought. I have no problem with those who question my "irrational" belief in God. And I see no reason to challenge their belief because it is rational.
This thread is also about a rational way to view being gay or lesbian.
Whether theological or factual logic, we exist, therefore there IS A PURPOSE FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS.
perhaps none of us know that that true purpose is. But then how many of us know our own true purpose?
and I don't know a true atheist or true believer who can discredit my points.
Although we can't agree on religion, I am totally on board with SSM. I fear many of your fellow theists will not be.

There is homosexual/bisexual activity found in mammals and birds, therefore being gay, bi or lesbian is natural...how's that for a rational approach;0) Joking, in a way, but facts are facts.

I certainly don't know my 'purpose' for being here, but I'll enjoy it as long as I can. I know of no reason that the GLBTIQ Community shouldn't be allowed to live openly and happily as they are meant to be. If you love someone and wish to marry them, you certainly have my best wishes.

Having a gay son, I do know for a fact that being gay isn't a choice. Can I prove that? No. Scientists haven't found a 'gay' gene, they haven't pinpointed the 'left handed' gene either. As you said, you are here, that's proof enough whatever the cause. BTW, he is also the youngest in a line of sons, that's supposed to be a trait that runs much higher in gay males, but as a cause they're still not sure....last I heard.

As for those who carry genetic propensities for disease and disabilities, I'll let medical science wrestle with that. As we become more knowledgeable on those problems, perhaps just perhaps we'll become more responsible. Propagation isn't a moral imperative and there are enough adoptive children to go around for everyone. JIMHO, not necessarily anyone elses;0)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174846 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I am not questioning Hawkin's advanced physics. I am questioning his conclusion.
How are you questioning his conclusion when you do not possess advanced knowledge of physics?
More likely rejecting his conclusion the universe created itself based on logic.
You have yet to explain that logic, though I've asked several times. Possibly, it's b/c you're sick of posting what you believe to be an adequate answer and then being told it's not a logical position.
Also based on the fact his conclusion directly contradicts Gen.1:1.
Who cares? The Bible is not evidence. It's mythology.

You believing it is divine is circular reasoning.
You need to remember the moderns assumed the universe was infinite until it was demonstrated through different fields it had a beginning.
And now some advanced physics is suggesting it's infinite.
That means Gen.1:1 as right so far as stating it began.
Along with every other religion claiming their creators started the universe. Why should we believe you over them?

More importantly, why would we believe in any mythology's claims?
What is telling about the position of anti theists is their accusations to reject their conclusions is to reject Science itself!
Science utterly and unreservedly rejects the Bible as objective evidence. Science treats the Bible as an ancient text that blends some aspects of Jewish history with religious myths.
Hawkins conclusions is beyond question unless one knows as much about physics as he does! Garbage!
I fail to see how you can dispute Hawking's claim if you don't know as much physics. For example, what are you basing your claim on?

You seem to be basing it on purely religious ideas. Well, sorry, those aren't evidence based and are certainly not explanatory.

Oh, that reminds me, you keep skipping me asking you to demonstrate how your "God" idea is explanatory. You made that claim and then ran from it.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174847 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Will put that down to opinion. We do not know the realm of God.
Will put that down to opinion. We do not know the realm of Vishnu.

See how silly it is when we change the pronoun?
We only know it is outside our realm also depicted as third heaven will evil is not tolerated.
Pretend knowledge. Just like Ancient Greek depictions of Olympus.
Suppose you are more open to Hawkins self created universe which is logically absurd.
Why is it logically absurd?
God is by inference and by history.
No evidence in history demonstrates any deities whatsoever.

The very best you can do is look at the contemporary conclusions we have from science and infer deities - you have no evidence which to propose deities exist.
I have pointed out Science assumes things by inference and in order to be consistent one cannot rule out God by inference and all that has been rejected or explained away, so the problem is not with the evidence.
Science doesn't assume things by inference. Science can only test and disprove hypotheses to gather evidence for or against theoretical positions or statements of relationships between variables.

It is not the doctrine of science that no deities exist - that's a conclusion some individuals take from the evidence we have because of scientific methodologies.
If critics insist on empirical then they just have to wait.
You've had thousands of years to produce evidence, knowledge or new technology, but have never been able to do so.

The methodologies of science, on the other hand, are continuously producing new knowledge and technology - science is efficacious in ways religion isn't capable.

And do you know why? Scientific methodologies attempt to remove observer bias. And they're rigorous, repeated, and repeated by critics.

You never have that in religion. And so you will only ever be left searching for the gaps in our knowledge - ever getting smaller - and screaming see! see you don't know that! there, in our ignorance, is god!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174848 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
God as Creator demonstrates sufficient cause and effect.
How?
Any explanation other than God demonstrates insufficient cause to do the job.
Please show this.
Self creating is logically absurd.
Why?
You need to explain why God is incoherent.
Because it's not efficacious and it's not explanatory. The God idea isn't even a hypothesis; it's not testable. It cannot produce hypotheses. It cannot produce new technology or new knowledge.

It's a worthless explanatory position. The only thing it does for you is make you feel better about your religious beliefs - a kind of self-congratulatory device.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174849 Aug 18, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism does not attempt to explain the beginning of life. It is a default position.
And the TOE is not simply an educated guess. There is no "macro/micro" distinction.
To be honest, some theorists use the distinction to refer to larger trends over great periods of time. However you are correct - no one would claim that macroevolution is a different process than microevolution. Rather, it's simply a large amount of time and therefore a large amount of microevolution.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean:

http://blogimages.bloggen.be/tsjokfoto/attach...

The author is talking about very small changes in protein and how the continuing process of natural selection on proteins adds up to large scale changes over time.

In my opinion as an evolutionary theorist, the trends can only ever be in hindsight. There's no goal in evolution. Any trends we witness - say, across multiple species phylogenies - are (probably) going to be indicative of global environmental changes.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174850 Aug 18, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
You know blacklagoon, having been on this earth (probably) a bit longer than you, I've noticed just a few things along the way.
You are totally on the right track here, the theists just refuse to see it. But a short 30,40 or 50 years ago "God, souls, heaven, hell, whatever"....WAS the definitive and satisfactory closing of an argument. After invoking the divine, people literally put their hands over their hearts and amens were heard on all sides. No one dared offer any more resistance.
I do believe I offended someone here by saying "GAWD" but I swear that's how it was pronounced by the righteous....back in the day;0) I can't seem to help myself when people get all holier than thou in my face but by responding in kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jMpNJVryq4IXX
Puh-raise the pow-wah of gawd!
Loony has said he is 66.

I was an atheist before the Beatles arrived. Guess we three are all geezers.

My atheism was derived quite independently. No coaches or books to read. Based upon many of the same arguments you read on here all of the time, but without the snarkiness. Was just my personal take on the thing and belief. Lots of people back then knew the Bible wasn't literal, and didn't have much liking of preachers and their hypocrisy, but were ethnic Christians and what you described was just part of the culture. One thing accomplished by such was a humbleness acknowledged to a higher moral authority. Contrast that to a group of men that feel and think they are the highest moral authority because of some position of power and authority they possessed.

Preachers didn't run the government, they were a check and balance on it. Moral restraints on power that could get carried away.

Oh, men could misuse the authority of the church, but for the larger view, the church kept the men running your life more honest.

My atheism was mitigated from observation of how men are, my current belief in a higher intelligent force that resulted in our creation is based upon observation, understanding, and use of technology. Quite independently derived. Which is why you don't see me constantly referring to something others refer to as the definitive word written by someone.

Now, tell me about Hitchens, Dawkins, and a few other atheist heroes of the latter decades, and freethinking.

I would hate to see that crew run free at the helms of power.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174851 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Loony has said he is 66.
I was an atheist before the Beatles arrived. Guess we three are all geezers.
My atheism was derived quite independently. No coaches or books to read. Based upon many of the same arguments you read on here all of the time, but without the snarkiness. Was just my personal take on the thing and belief. Lots of people back then knew the Bible wasn't literal, and didn't have much liking of preachers and their hypocrisy, but were ethnic Christians and what you described was just part of the culture. One thing accomplished by such was a humbleness acknowledged to a higher moral authority. Contrast that to a group of men that feel and think they are the highest moral authority because of some position of power and authority they possessed.
Preachers didn't run the government, they were a check and balance on it. Moral restraints on power that could get carried away.
Oh, men could misuse the authority of the church, but for the larger view, the church kept the men running your life more honest.
My atheism was mitigated from observation of how men are, my current belief in a higher intelligent force that resulted in our creation is based upon observation, understanding, and use of technology. Quite independently derived. Which is why you don't see me constantly referring to something others refer to as the definitive word written by someone.
Now, tell me about Hitchens, Dawkins, and a few other atheist heroes of the latter decades, and freethinking.
I would hate to see that crew run free at the helms of power.
You're a mentally ill creationist liar. You will say anything to convert.

Lying is not past you and you are not to be trusted. Its that simple.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#174852 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
More accurately, any gain or loss of energy (including mass) of a volume happens across the boundary of that volume.
This, by the way, has to be modified when using general relativity because the amount of energy of a system depends on the observer. The fact of curved spacetime makes it impossible for any observer to even calculate the total amount of energy of the universe, unless the universe is finite in volume. But in that case, the total energy of the universe is *zero*: the energy associated with gravitation exactly cancels the other forms of energy. So, in this scheme, energy conservation *allows* the production of the universe 'from nothing'.
<quoted text>
Actually, entropy measures the number of available quantum states of a system, not the 'randomness'. There are many situations where an increase of entropy drives the production of *less* randomness (although it does produce, generally, less usable energy).
That said,it does not show what you seem to think it shows (and yes, I know you copied and pasted this because I recognize it--Craig, right?). In particular, during a 'Big Bounce' of the type specified in Loop Quantum Gravity, there number of available quantum states would be smallest at the Bounce, not in the infinite past. In this sense, the entropy arrow of time reverses at the Bounce, resolving your paradox. Similar things happen to the entropy in a multiverse model. The point is that the second law is a *statistical law* and is not absolute in the fundamental sense. It can be violated and has been observed to be violated in small systems where statistical fluctuations are common.
No Poly it wasn't copied and pasted from William Craig. The three premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument are well known in both secular and apologetic communities. Normally, I stay within my area of expertise,(Investigative reasoning and history) but occasionally I do like to stray outside and see what lessons I can learn from the responses I get. Not the linear acceptance of such responses, but to learn how to refute them. Yes, my heels are dug in every bit as much in opposition to atheism as yours are against the divine.

Now in reply, what good is a law if it's only statistical as you say?
This seems to be just a little too convenient. It again appears to be an intellectual escape hatch of poor design. If by your own understanding, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistical, why is it considered a Law and not a hypothesis?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174853 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If by your own understanding, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistical, why is it considered a Law and not a hypothesis?
Older terminology when the relationship was developed.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#174854 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that light is a physical effect: it is electromagnetic waves. Love is an emotion: it is produced in the brain. With these observations, your post is rather meaningless.
Light is a physical effect yes. In relation to God, it is only a descriptor pertaining to the origin of light. Love on the other hand, is not strictly an emotion. If you're talking about the early stages of a romantic relationship in which emotions are manifested in the phenomenon known as infatuation, then yes, it is a result of chemical changes in the brain. The love I refer to is that which Jesus showed with his death on the cross. Sacrificial agape. Purposely placing concern for others above and beyond one's concern for self, with no prior personal attachment or conditions. This type of love cannot be measured by scientific method since it is not driven by the need to biologically reproduce or sustain one's own specific genetic continuity. Nor is it the product of adrenaline that occurs in extreme circumstances.

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) 31 min scientia potentia... 11,676
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr Patrick 4,259
Religion Down Suicide Up 1 hr Patrick 92
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr READMORE 29,547
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Thinking 9,611
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Knowledge- 19,809
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 3 hr ChristineM 50,966
More from around the web