Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187291 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No rational Atheist could argue otherwise.
If someone brings me some peer reviewed evidence of some form of god, I'll gladly look at it.
<quoted text>
Maybe god's peers will review it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187292 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Yet you can never disprove it.
<quoted text>
It is disproven. It is impossible.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187293 Nov 26, 2013
You make no sense.
Other people can get less emotional too.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And because you don't, no one else can.
Sounds like a personal issue.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187294 Nov 26, 2013
You don't know how hilarious that appears to an English English speaker.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you provide us evidence you have performed magic by poofing something material into existence? Can you provide evidence of any human endeavor that has done that?
What has human experience taught us on that score?
You have that empirical evidence versus your wish that you are something "miraculous".
You are product made by a process beyond your present comprehension.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#187295 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It's good to question lots of things.
Including why should existence be deemed proof of a creator.
<quoted text>
.. at times, it seems the creative force has been staring us in the face, laughing at humanity, since the dawn of time ..

.. proof? Perhaps it is all around us, everywhere, but because of false theologies we cannot see it. In order to move forward, perhaps one must look back ??..

.. was nature worship the very foundation for modern religion? Do you pause in awe when you view a waterfall for the first time or catch the colors of a rainbow ??..

.. can you apply what you know about the known to the unknown? If so, by this process, can you arrive at a cause in keeping with the effect, the direct opposite of religion ??..

Longfellow, in Evangeline:
"Then in the infinite meadows of heaven,
Blossomed the lovely stars,
The forget-me-nots of the angels."

.. what do you think Longfellow was trying to express ??..
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187296 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your opinion that man invented God.
You cannot supply evidence for that opinion.
How can you say they hardly knew anything about anything?
They could make their own clothes.
They could grow their own food.
They could grow their own crops.
They dealt with a headache without medication.
They dealt with poor eyesight without glasses.
They bought children without medication.
They weren't as technologically advanced as we are today, for sure. But I guarantee you they did know a lot more about life than you or I.
Opinions don't require evidence only a positive claim, as in" God created the universe."

They knew virtually nothing, a 5th grader knows more than they did. They knew nothing of germ theory, were thunder and lightning came from, that the moon revolved around the Earth, they didn't even know the world they lived on, different oceans and continents, didn't understand natural events like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, and the eclipse of either the moon or sun threw them into a panic.

They died very young and their children, if they survives birth, also stood little chance of reaching adulthood. A mer infection would kill them.

They knew nothing of life only death, disease, poverty, hunger, and survival.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187297 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Not everything is proven by science. I believe not everything can be proven by science. You?
I believe that if something exists outside of our heads and has a discernible effect on us, then we can find evidence for it if we know how and where to look for it. If we were talking about a god such as that that the deists describe - one that created the universe and then left it running on automatic pilot, we wouldn't necessarily expect to discover that god directly, or to be able to rule its existence in or out scientifically.

But a god like the Christian god that allegedly wants to be known and loved and has allegedly made visits to earth and left his Word, and who does miracles and answers prayer should be easily discerned not just with organized science, but by the (near) universal consensus of ordinary people as we have with the existence of emotion and sunlight. That's science in the loosest sense - reproducible data that can be experienced by any healthy observer the meaning of which is generally agreed upon.

If our universe was run by such a god, we would expect abundant, irrefutable or highly suggestive evidence of such a god which might include such things as bona fide miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer - perhaps glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or atheists and only atheists regularly struck by lightning, or only patients when prayed for being healed when studied scientifically, meaning in a reproducible, placebo-controlled, prospective, double blinded studies. Science is capable of ruling such a god in or out.

Regarding revelation, if we if we had divine prophecy, we would expect it to be specific, detailed and unambiguous, optimally with the time and place are specified, of unexpected, unlikely or unique things that were not self-fulfilling, could not have been contrived, came before the event predicted, fulfilled completely and unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

If we were given scientific knowledge, it would have to be facts unavailable at the time, in detail, and about something counterintuitive like relativity or quantum mechanics, and not merely alluding to them in the broadest strokes of atoms, heliocentrism or evolution, but knowledge like,“My disciples, I say unto thee that energy is mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself.”

The message would need to be flawless and consistent, one that no man or number of men could have produced, one which contains the perfection of philosophy, which accords with every fact in nature and with be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject, one with purest morality, with just, wise, and perfect laws and regulations for the control of conduct, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

The message should reject cruelty and revengeful, be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty, opposed to strife, war, to slavery, ignorance, and superstition, develop and satisfy the brain and civilize the heart of the best and wisest, and lead to a single religion without internal disputes of factions, one which yields followers that abhor atrocities.

But what do we see instead? The absence of so much expected evidence, and the existence of evidence to the contrary combine to rule out the Christian god if one adheres to the principles of reason and evidence.

Faith, of course, can dismiss all of that.
Keyser Soze

Istanbul, Turkey

#187298 Nov 26, 2013
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187299 Nov 26, 2013
You spend your first couple or three decades being assembled on the material scale with enough thought to get by and be energetic. Young, dumb, and full of cum.

Still tied to what you were "taught" to think. Then a transition starts as you gain worldly experience.

Then you CAN start learning things. You have two thirds of your life left pondering what you have done and seen. The thought, or "spiritual" starts getting developed, the body starts falling apart.

Your physical mind is a seed that maybe sprouted by the time the husk falls away.

Is there any other reason for you to exist?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187300 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess thats true, as far as science goes, at that point in time cells did not have a nuclei.

Thank you. Cells only began having nuclei when the evidence came in.

Makes you wonder how the early cells reproduced.

But I will not question your word on this.

When did the cells change from not having nuclei - when the microscope was invented?

I'm learning so much about science here.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187301 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you see the "BadLipReading" of it?
Oh, so funny.
http://youtu.be/5Krz-dyD-UQ
Here are two pretty funny videos along the same lines, but done to music videos instead, with the "misheard" lyrics in print. I promise you a chuckle or two here:

[1] An (East) Indian song


[2] Joe Cocker at Woodstock
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187302 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Your lack of comprehension is shocking!!! When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT. Another word for this process is proof. Use whatever word you like, science has PROVIDED us with the very best explanation. It seems as the ONLY way you can make your point is by using "word games." To bad you don't have observable proof like science. If you did, I guess we would all be believers, and all believing in the same God, great way to end the divisiveness caused by religion.
You are providing a service by illustrating your idiocy.

That nothing exists till science says so.

Others will not admit the idiocy forthrightly, but you do.

Thanks.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187303 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You don't know how hilarious that appears to an English English speaker.
<quoted text>
I guess not. I'm not British.

But I do know lunatics that will laugh uproariously at something rational because it doesn't compute in their minds.

Perhaps you believe your "Englishness" by birth and training qualifies you as being sane and rational all in its own?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187304 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really truly believe, Buck, that putting in a man-created god figure to solve that mystery is sane? Kind of shoots your own theory in the foot, doesn't it, to suggest that something came from nothing, by an act of something that could not have existed if nothing existed?
Whether some people theorize that everything came from nothing, I don't believe that. I just don't think we have enough information yet to take us further back in the chain of events to see what came before what man has already discovered. Even what we know today about the past is a major accomplishment of man, because scientists have discovered means for determining how things work which are far beyond my ability to understand. Certainly, it is much easier for someone, who doesn't want to think, to just take the easy way out, and say that God waved his hand and 'poof' everything appeared. But that is too much like a child's fairy tale. Man would have long ago forgotten all of the 'God did it stories' except for the clever little ruse of threats of horrible unbearable torture for eternity, which has kept irrational beliefs alive, long after they should have died a natural death, as did all of the other invented beliefs that preceded them.
I didn't put anything anywhere.

He gave a theory, and I asked a question.

His theory seems not too useful if it cannot answer any questions.

Cosmological physicists ask the same questions.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187305 Nov 26, 2013
Keyser Soze wrote:
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
He doesn't!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187306 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know the answer to that, Buck, why not tell us, rather than using that argument as if it is some sort of intellectual break through on your part? It still does not lead to us deciding that a belief created by man in an invisible never know to exist God did it.
I don't know the answer, and claim no such breakthrough.

For those attempting to rule out a causality for the universe, it is their "breakthrough" I am questioning.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187307 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you recall me asking Dave Nelson about how we can know when people are reporting something with a material referent and when they are experiencing an illusion? I used a hypothetical military experience Afghanistan as the starting point ... How can you decide which one is describing reality?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's an interesting problem. A problem that does not have a definitive answer. I suppose you would just have to take it on faith, on trust. You'd have to ask yourself which group, or which person, you trust more.
Then you'll have your answer.
We can do much better than that. We can gather evidence.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This problem deals more with experiences of physical objects outside of the body than with things like gods and emotions, but the discussion will be relevant to them all.
To bring adapt it to a subjective experience, lets add this exercise:
I used to ask myself, "How can I tell if my god blindness is like color blindness – blindness to something that is really there - or if the claims of seeing a god were like the paranoid's claims seeing danger that isn’t there?" Why do the colorblind believe that the rest of us see color, but the non-paranoid don't believe the paranoids? What's is the essential difference? The answers to all of these things are related.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Another interesting question. You say that you used to ask yourself that question, why don't you any more?
But it's an interesting and apt analogy, comparing color blindness to God blindness. Care to elaborate on it? I'd like to hear more.
Good for you! I was beginning to fear that you wouldn't get to that.

I don't ask myself the question any longer because I think I have solved it. Now I share it with others, as I will do with you now. The answers will appear in the next two post because of space limitations.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187308 Nov 26, 2013
Problem [1] restated and answered:

You and the rest of your ten man detail are on maneuvers in an Afghani desert when an explosion kills three of your squad, and leaves you blind and limping. Two three-man details go in opposite directions in search of water.

They each return to you claiming that they have seen water in the distance, are planning to go to the water, and will help you get there with them inasmuch as you are not expected to survive long enough for them to return with water for you.

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? In other words, is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do?

This problem was constructed to force you to choose which group to follow. Let's say for simplicity's sake that one group has actually found water, and the other saw a mirage. How can you tell which is which?

My solution to problem [1]

You interview the soldiers. With one group, all three report, for example, an oasis about 500 ft in diameter about three miles away, with two palms on the right side, three on the left, a blue-green color to the water, and a sand dune with the profile resembling George Washington behind it.

The members of the other detail each gives you a different report, with wildly varying descriptions. And when they are questioned a second time, they not only continue to contradict one another, but they begin to contradicting themselves.

So now who saw water and who saw a mirage?

Incidentally, this is the same technique the police use when interviewing suspects. They interview them separately and compare stories to judge if their stories are based on experience or fantasy.

When we ask Christians about the god they experience, no two can agree.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187309 Nov 26, 2013
Problem [2] restated:

How can I tell if my god blindness is like color blindness – blindness to something that is really there - or if the claims of seeing a god were like the paranoid's claims seeing danger that isn’t there?" That is, how do the colorblind know that others see the colors they claim to see? And why do these people believe the rest of us, but we don't believe paranoids that report their experience of danger in the world that we don't share with them?

My solution to problem [2]

The color blind know that normally sighted people are actually seeing something that they are not because of the ability of those people to identify colors consistently, and to agree among themselves about what they see, such as when one claims that the colorblind person's socks don't match, and he is able to poll any number of people that give him the same answer without collaborating. The colorblind are convinced by the strong correlation of the answers they get.

The paranoids, however, are different. They seldom agree, even with themselves, coming up with ad hoc argument after argument for why the danger is real, each contradicting the last one, with no two paranoids having the same version of their delusion, and most frustrated with and angry at those who "pretend not to see the obvious."

Unlike the color sighted, the paranoid have to make emotional and passionate pleas to be believed.

Which group do you suppose the faithful most resemble to those of us that don't experience what they claim to experience? Many angrily chide the rest of us for disagreeing, often using the same emotionally charged pleading as the paranoids, often resorting to threats of hellfire.

Furthermore, each describes a different god, contradicting not just one another, but themselves from telling to retelling. That's how I know that the god visions are in their heads.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187310 Nov 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bs Buck, Dr. Eben Alexander contradicted the facts.
But he did sell a book, plenty of suckers will buy into it to read what they want to hear. But fact remains the whole book is unscientific and is personal opinionated gobbledygook.
Sure it's probably a good read, but things like that are far from conclusive and so not science. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
But run go buy the book sucker, he needs the money.
You have not the slightest clue of the science in the book.

One page contains more neuroscience than you have ever been exposed to in your life.

But feel free to make assertions.

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) 24 min Into The Night 51,257
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Eagle 12 11,395
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 458
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 3 hr Eagle 12 149
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 24,628
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Eagle 12 22,083
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 3 hr Eagle 13 1,633
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 3 hr Eagle 13 185
More from around the web