Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

davy

Albuquerque, NM

#185000 Nov 16, 2013
You think I am Jesus?
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
More likely you were seeing your own reflection.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#185001 Nov 16, 2013
davy wrote:
You think I am Jesus?
<quoted text>
Davy Davy Jebus... king of the wold fronteer! hehehe

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185002 Nov 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
It's the truth. You Atheist are like parrots in that you just repeat the same things over and over. Just take a moment and go back a few pages and look for yourself.
I see what you mean. Right away I found these from Dave Nelson

post184737 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184740 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184741 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
post184827 http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

He seems to be objecting to evidence based thinkers repeatedly offering evidence to support their opinions. Is it that kind of repetition that you think make us unbelievers "like parrots ... repeat[ing] the same things over and over"?

Or perhaps you are referring to the two dozen or so fairly similar rebuttals from assorted skeptics to Buck Crick's equal number of posts insisting on the limiting the usage of the word "atheism" to his preferred definition of it. I know that I repeated myself so many times trying to explain how language is actually used to him that I finally refused to do so any more. Would that be another example of the kind of redundancy from skeptics that you are referring to?

Anyway, if we unbelievers will stop repeating ourselves so much, we can spend more time discussing assorted and varied topics such as your atheist father, how God is real, how you know because you just "know that God is real" even though you "can’t prove it but God is not proven. He is experienced," even if he can't be seen like an X-ray without a dosimeter, or can't be demonstrated like a dream, a demonic spirit (unless he turns the lights off and on), or evidence to 1700s miners.

This will also free up time to discuss how Bob's brain and batteries are wired, radiators are flushed, WD40 erodes springs, teflon sprays can take fingerprints, and more. Because variety is the spice of life.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185003 Nov 16, 2013
boooots wrote:
I had accumulated over 40 some years which convinced me that there is no substance to the belief in a God, because not anything has ever been confirmed to be true, and many things, that believers hold as truth, have been confirmed to be false.
Furthermore, faith in gods and in the Christian god in particular has been sterile. There has been nothing learned about this god or the world in the last 2000 years attributable to faith, prayer, prophecy, or scripture - a reliable indicator of it being as ill-founded as astrology, alchemy, and humorism, the four-humor theory of disease, and for the same reason: None of them have ever generated anything of value.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185004 Nov 17, 2013
Bongo wrote:
Wheres your manners and respect for an ancient diety who is Omni everything.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry. Respect must be earned. Eternal torture for failing to worship is a deal killer.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. for me, respect is a human entitlement and should be freely given otherwise disrespect reigns supreme ..
.. does each individual establish a standard for respect? Do we then expect people to measure up to our individual standard without telling them what it is? That sounds unfair ..
.. to avoid conflict, it is my contention that we must all respect each other ..
I think we're talking about two different things that share a word. Consider these two definitions of respect:

1. a feeling of deep admiration
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

I was using the word in the first sense (and assumed from context that Bongo was as well), you in the second. Everybody gets the second kind of respect automatically until they lose due to some low act or base quality, whereas the first must be earned by virtue of some venerable act or quality.

Would you agree?

[Sorry, theists, if we are boring you by repeatedly delving into such matters as integrity, virtue, respect, and character. My apologies in particular to Dave Nelson for quoting an authoritative source to support my claims rather that "freethinking" as he means the word]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185005 Nov 17, 2013
boooots wrote:
Nobody is "sure" that God does not exist, Buck, because that is something that is impossible. We cannot prove something does not exist.
I disagree, assuming that by "God" you mean Jehovah-Jesus. Some things can be shown to be impossible by reason. They are (analytically) false because of the way they the words used to describe them are defined. Analytically false statements are false because their predicates contradict the facts implied by the definitions of their subjects.

Analytically true statements are true because their predicates say something about their subject already implied by their definitions, such as "That bachelor is an unmarried man." These are also called tautologies.

The god of the Christian bible is defined as perfect, and then is shown making many mistakes. I can rule out the possibility of a perfect god that makes mistakes without searching the whole universe or even getting up out of my chair as easily as I can rule out the possibility of finding any married bachelors.

=========

@ Riverside Redneck:

This is another proof of the nonexistence of your god. You may recall an earlier post where I told Dave Nelson that his featureless, amorphous god could not be refuted. If it has no qualities, its description can't be self-contradictory, and its existence cannot be ruled out. But your god is said to possess or have done many mutually conflicting qualities, which is the sure sign that it doesn't exist. You might argue that all that means is that men have mischaracterized it, but if the bible was written by this perfect god, it cannot contain errors.

There are dozens more proofs just like this one, such as the proof that an omnipotent, omniscienct, omnibenevolent god cannot possibly be loving and protecting us given how life proceeds - the theodicy problem. This link (sorry, Dave) discussed the problem and offers Christian apologetics in rebuttal: http://www.gci.org/God/theodicy

I'm guessing these proofs are bouncing off your antiprocess shields like bullets off of Superman. Why? Faith based minds are closed minds. They will not consider evidence fairly and impartially, and will not allow themselves to be convinced by a compelling argument if it contradicts their faith. They simply reject the arguments out of hand. I mentioned Morton's demon to Buck Crick recently. Did your insatiable curiosity to learn more lead you to click on the link I provided in that post? If not, here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/...

@ Dave Nelson:

Sorry about the link and the additional education, Dave. You can repeat your quote that you use to mock the use of supporting quotes if you like. I realize that this is not the kind of freethinking you admire, which assiduously avoids external input and mocks the citation of authoritative resources.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185006 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
River Tam is a violinist as I recall.
River Tam wrote:
I do fiddle around occasionally.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. yes, I know ..
I few f-hole joke come to mind now, but I doubt that you ladies would like to hear them. http://snipurl.com/286k7x7

How's that for respect - both definitions intended.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185007 Nov 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
No, and no. But I like to think-- within the limits of his brain-- he shows great affection.
In a human, his actions would be associated with love. But he's a cat, and will always be framed by his cat instincts, which are stronger than his intellect.
That's one of the principle differences between humans and other mammals-- yes, humans have instincts, but they are very, very low-key, most are subconscious urges.
And any human has the capacity to go against his or her instinctive drives, if given sufficient motivation.
What is interesting with humans, though-- is that they also possess many subconscious urges that are *not* instinctive, but are instilled by the very culture they were raised in as a child.
It is very difficult to separate the actual, DNA-created instincts, and the culturally generated ones (if the latter can even be called such).
But, no matter how much my cat may wish to, he cannot overcome his instinctive behaviors. Many similar animal studies have confirmed this, in cats and other animals.
Humans appear to be singular in this ability-- to overcome our own innate natures.
Good post. I like anything about thinking about thinking.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Faith/belief, what's the difference? I see none. Both are irrational, if based on nothing (i.e all religious faith/belief).
How about belief based on evidence? Belief in this sense is partial knowledge - what is possibly or probably true - based on what is known to be true.

I am making a distinction between belief, by which I mean evidence based partial knowledge, and belief in, by which I mean faith based belief grounded in nothing. Using that language, you can say that you believe many things, such as that there is intelligent life in the universe based on local evidence of the nature of life and celestial bodies, but that you believe in nothing, such as lizard people already hear on earth.

And I offer this for your consideration: You used the word intellect with reference to your cat. I would reserve that word for human minds. Cats, like people, have intelligence in the sense that they can learn and solve problems. But I reserve the word intellect for referring to the strictly human capacity to manipulate abstract symbols - to think and speak in language, and to calculate.

And as always, I apologize to the theists present, especially Eagle, for repeatedly referring to such matters - the philosophical examination of ideas - which you have indicated bores you to tears with your recent complaint about our endless repetition.

And out of respect for Dave Nelson and his form of freethinking, I left out any links to outside references and gave only my own thoughts here, although I confess that I did corrupt Bob's ability to freethink as you and Riverside Redneck conceive the word when I shared them with him, something you both equate with lockstep thinking just before tittering about it.

Thanks, guys, for helping me keep it real.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185008 Nov 17, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
God was the first designer, engineer, architect, builder, creator. He loves his garage projects. It keeps him busy.
I've got another argument ruling out the perfect god of Christianity for Riverside Redneck to reject: such a creature couldn't create or change anything without going from perfection to a lesser state.

Consider a perfect circle. What could you change about it apart from moving it, rotating it or changing its diameter without losing perfect circularity?(This comment should also get Buck going)

This is why ideas like drowning all of life save a handful of each kind or making new covenants is impossible for a perfect god. Either a former state of perfection is lost, or the former state wasn't perfect.

This argument not only precludes any action on the part of a perfect god, it's couldn't even think, which would constitute a change in its mental state.

I notice that a few Christians have begun saying that their god is not perfect. Smart move. This is why. Look at how many of the arguments against the existence of this god are based on the claims of its perfect knowledge and perfect love. This is an area that is in sore need of your revisionism, just like the creation myth and the status of Old Testament ethics.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185009 Nov 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So far?
She's managed to evoke a deeper than I usually do response.
That ought to be worth something, right?
:)
Good job, you two.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#185010 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I few f-hole joke come to mind now, but I doubt that you ladies would like to hear them. http://snipurl.com/286k7x7
How's that for respect - both definitions intended.
Can you play that again in G spot major?

No just the G string.

I've pretty much heard it all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185011 Nov 17, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> It would be a lot more interesting than you vs skom!
Yikes! That was horrible, wasn't it? Me and Buck isn't much better.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185012 Nov 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I would follow neither group. If I am in that bad a shape and they are, too, then I will not be a further burden on them
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is why I don't take discussion with you seriously. It's a waste of time.
Dave Nelson wrote:
LOL!! You set the scenario, I answered with what I would have done.
That's why I chastised you for your answer. I didn't ask you what you would have done. I asked you "is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do or not? How can you decide which one is describing reality?"
Dave Nelson wrote:
You made a piss poor attempt at setting up a logic to fall your way and on your terms. But yourself got in the way. You assume others would be as desperate as you are to live and have no compunction about putting others at risk to save your worthless hide.
You were trying to set up having to make a choice of faiths, but your ego blew it on the intellectual level.
Like I said, this is why I don't take discussion with you seriously, and why I say that they're a waste of time.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Now, to answer that question, I would ask both groups if they saw any green in their mirages. Vegetation that tends to grow around decent water in deserts. If one did, I would suggest all heading in that direction, with or without me. Carrying me would wear them out faster, limping along would take longer. An unknown, just a best guess. They need the best odds they can get. In addition, since there was a hostile act in a hostile area, there were likely hostile actors around they would also have to deal with. Probably near the water hole. They wouldn't need any extra weight. Now, if that wasn't a patrol in the 19th or early 20th century, meaning it was in this era, that being an ordered patrol and all, they would be carrying a radio. If they radio was destroyed, those who sent them out will be dispatching at least a heavily armed helicopter to look for them after contact had been broken. Probably with water on it. And a radio to call Medevac. The Army is a system, after all.

You shouldn't be trying these intellectual exercises under the influence, IANS. You have trouble enough when sober. You go chasing mirages when you are sober, you get lost in them when you aren't.
You're an idiot twice over, once for each paragraph. You think you have a supple mind, but you don't. It's concrete notwithstanding your aimless moonbeamery. You seem to be oblivious to the point of the exercise despite it having been given in its opening statement:

IANS wrote: "You seem to be making the argument that the people who disagree with one another have a better handle on what the authentic nature of reality is than those who agree. Here's a question ... "

Then came, "Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide?"

Recall that my comment was in response to yours:

Dave Nelson wrote: "They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said. None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable. The theists on here at least show some originality of thought and uniqueness of personality. Real people versus mass media clones."

Look at how bad your answer is in the light of that, which, once again, is what makes you a waste of time. You took so long providing a good faith answer that you forgot what we were discussion.

Your vegetation comment is the only part that comes close to a responsive answer, and it not only wouldn't be useful - mirages may contain green, and genuine oases might not - it avoids the stated purpose of the exercise.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185013 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Furthermore, faith in gods and in the Christian god in particular has been sterile.... None of them have ever generated anything of value.
Statement of flat untruth - knowingly and willfully.

I am forcing myself to be polite.

This is why you lose credibility.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185014 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Bur really, IANS. RR isn't worthy of a serious conversation.
There's a lot of that here.
Catcher1 wrote:
He's an ignorant wiseass who likes to play word games, control others, and dominate in order to make up for his lack of substance.
And there's a lot of that, too.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#185015 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Statement of flat untruth - knowingly and willfully.
I am forcing myself to be polite.
This is why you lose credibility.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am forcing myself to be polite.
That's so fuckincool.

Can you force your fingers to stop typing again?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185016 Nov 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
It's good that you are balanced or at least you think you are.Cowboy, the trail ride will come to an end one day. It always does. I know you live in Mexico and there’s a lot of cowboys in Mexico. Have as much fun as you can because one day you’ll get off the saddle and not get back on.
Thanks for the advice. Same to you.

There are not only cowboys here - vaquero, they're called - I once saw a herd of steer walking down my street, horns and all, with parked cars on either side. LOL. Wouldn't that be nice if one scratched or gored a car.

I also saw a runaway horse galloping down my street collide into a car at the intersection. The horse glanced of the car and turned right onto the cross street - no blood. The car had a big dent.

Horses are still transportation for some people in Mexico. I pet the muzzle of one yesterday.

I love this life, which is nothing like what I left. It's the first non-American culture I've lived in. It's 6AM, and I hear church bells rung by hand from a tower in the background announcing the first mass of the day.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185017 Nov 17, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is "sure" that God does not exist, Buck, because that is something that is impossible. We cannot prove something does not exist. Dawkins has explained that many times, and I am sure that he, like I, would be the first to become a believer, if someone could come up with some good solid proof, but both he and I (but he is more astute since he is a well educated scientist and speaker) know that there is no evidence to support any beliefs in a God which makes it a very strong possibility that a God does not, in fact, exist. The knowledge that the source from which believers draw their information about God is greatly flawed by proven lies, tends to throw a lot of suspicion on all of that information, for which there is still no information that has been proved to be true.
Kind of like a fishing hole where humans have thrown in their fishing lines for 4000 years, and to today not one of them has had a single nibble to suggest there might be fish there. They haven't proved there are no fish, but the total absence of any fish being caught or even nibbling on the bait, in all that time, does make it highly unlikely that any fish will be caught in the next 4000 years. That does not prove it though; just offers a very strong suggestion. Man has believed in the Abrahamic God for 4000 years give or take a thousand or two, and up to today not one has ever proved this existence. Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and keep getting the same results.
Perhaps it is time for the fishermen to stop fishing at that spot, and time for humans to stop looking for a God that has never been known to exist.
I wonder what this world would be like to day, if humans based all of their actions and interactions of known facts, rather than on believed myths.
Can you imagine the impact it might have made to society today if all people in the past 4000 years, had worked with strictly what they knew, or if they didn't know, they discovered, and spent no time at all following things that were only mythical in nature.
Since it didn't happen that way, and we do know some of the horrors that the negative parts of these beliefs have brought to many, we can only imagine what might have happened.
My point to Dogpile stands - Dawkins does not define "atheism" as simply a lack of belief. The cited conversation is proof positive. Also, the idea of being "sure" was Dawkins' choice of words, not mine. Perhaps your comments should be addressed to him, which, by the way, cuts against your admiration for his astuteness.

Further, belief in deity, as it relates to the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" is not limited to the Abrahamic god.

On your assertion of "no evidence", you are either ignorant or lying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185018 Nov 17, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
The only arguments you have are based on a 2,000 year old copy of thousands of copies. Have you considered using any new material?
Pot meet kettle;0)
Your figures are off, Albert.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#185019 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's why I chastised you for your answer. I didn't ask you what you would have done. I asked you "is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do or not? How can you decide which one is describing reality?"
<quoted text>
Like I said, this is why I don't take discussion with you seriously, and why I say that they're a waste of time.
<quoted text>
You're an idiot twice over, once for each paragraph. You think you have a supple mind, but you don't. It's concrete notwithstanding your aimless moonbeamery. You seem to be oblivious to the point of the exercise despite it having been given in its opening statement:
IANS wrote: "You seem to be making the argument that the people who disagree with one another have a better handle on what the authentic nature of reality is than those who agree. Here's a question ... "
Then came, "Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide?"
Recall that my comment was in response to yours:
Dave Nelson wrote: "They would be a lot more believable if they didn't quote others, or use the same terms and formulations in their arguments. It's like they agree with what their teacher said. None of them are the slightest bit original in their argumentation. They are almost interchangeable. The theists on here at least show some originality of thought and uniqueness of personality. Real people versus mass media clones."
Look at how bad your answer is in the light of that, which, once again, is what makes you a waste of time. You took so long providing a good faith answer that you forgot what we were discussion.
Your vegetation comment is the only part that comes close to a responsive answer, and it not only wouldn't be useful - mirages may contain green, and genuine oases might not - it avoids the stated purpose of the exercise.
You "chastised" me.

For not dancing to your tune.

I feel so mortified.

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) 16 min replaytime 66,924
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 28,533
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr replaytime 3,466
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 14 hr Superwilly 19
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 18 hr superwilly 457
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web