• Sections
Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

# Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255959 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187308 Nov 26, 2013

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.
JustSaying

Bucharest, Romania

#187311 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>He doesn't!!!
See. He convinced you.
blacklagoon
#187312 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ahh, your just being difficult now, I pretty much know that you are intelligent enough to know the point I'm making. The Hershoive star drive doesn't exits does it? Science knows NOTHING about this device, it doesn't exits, at least not now. 100 years from now it may well exist, and someone like you will come along and say "Oh so the Hershoive star drive never exited eh. There may well be many things that exist that we are not YET aware of, as far as you and I and science are concerned they do not exist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187313 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you MISSED "At the present time"
So again your contention is that science was wrong in claiming the earth was the center of the universe? "AT THE PRESENT TIME" That was the best explanation possible. Science has NO way of looking into the future, it deals with the information available, and will amend or change it's findings as new information is discovered, and science moves on. That is how science works, it changes its stance as new information is discovered. Its a self-correcting system, a very health way to do business.
Now lets talk about religion, it NEVER changes it's stance, it wallows in dogmatic beliefs and refuses to even begin to investigate. It is NOT a self-correcting system like science so becomes arrogant and mired in mysticism and myth. A very unhealthy way to do business.
The point is, BartBuffoon, if the best guess of science on matters are proven wrong later, science was wrong at the time.

That being the case, science is likely wrong about some things they tell us now.

This would suggest it unwise to totally trust science.

Comprehension. Work on it.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187314 Nov 26, 2013
I think Longfellow was trying to sell some poems. My friend's new baby is called Evangeline. Lovely name.

I really like waterfalls. Not unusual for my species. Maybe an alien would see more beauty in a stagnant pool.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<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 ??..
Keyser Soze

Istanbul, Turkey

#187315 Nov 26, 2013
A question directed to both believers and atheists:

What purpose, if any, would the Judeo-Christian concept of god serve in the absence of "evil?"

I'll define "evil" loosely, if somewhat imprecisely, as anything that a reasonable person would regard as undesirable.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187316 Nov 26, 2013
Straw man, 111.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<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

#187317 Nov 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely, that's because the biosphere did. It had to make it happen, and it did.
And has refused to do it again ever since.

Got it.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187318 Nov 26, 2013
The bible said god created evil.
Are you asking if that was done to keep god in work?
Keyser Soze wrote:
A question directed to both believers and atheists:
What purpose, if any, would the Judeo-Christian concept of god serve in the absence of "evil?"
I'll define "evil" loosely, if somewhat imprecisely, as anything that a reasonable person would regard as undesirable.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187319 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, BartBuffoon, if the best guess of science on matters are proven wrong later, science was wrong at the time.
That being the case, science is likely wrong about some things they tell us now.
This would suggest it unwise to totally trust science.
Comprehension. Work on it.
Correct. That is why we don't use the Bible as a science book. It has been proven to be wrong time after time.

Since: Sep 08

#187320 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
LOL!!!

Go back and read my first response to your stupid scenario. Remember the green and vegetation? Plus the much more realistic appraisal of the situation than you can possibly come up with in your drug induced intellectual home away from home intellectuality.

Your inability to put such examples into realistic perspectives reveals the artificiality of your intellectual heights achieved. Daydreaming is a nice euphemistic word for it.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187321 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And has refused to do it again ever since.
Got it.
You have been to every planet in the universe to verify this ?

ROFLMAO

You are seriously demented.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187322 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No such dimension's have ever been verified by science. The James Randy foundation has set aside one million dollars the anyone that can prove this supernatural world of ghosts and sprits. No one has claimed this prize since it was offered some 10-15 years ago, I wonder why!!
Can you name and describe the "scientific" devices used in this research? Can you "site" any reputable scientific journal that supports these findings?
There is NO evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, it doesn't exist. Personal testimony, anecdotal accounts, and someones delusional experience doesn't count as evidence.
The statement I wrote is accurate, if anything is observable (the scientific definition not a personal account) and testable then it is a fact.
There is no James Randi prize.

Never was.

It is a proven scam.

And yes, it has been claimed.

He would not pay up.

James Randi is a proven con-artist and a proven charlatan.

He has been adjudicated as a liar in court.

New-Age Spiritual guy is correct on the paranormal being observed by scientific processes.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#187323 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.. like religion, do you find scientific reductionist (fundamentalism) an intellectual dodge ??..

.. can any book, scientist or cleric answer the cosmic mysteries relating to consciousness, life after death or a creator? I think not ..

.. for some reason, I like to believe there is an interconnectedness with everything in creation. That's why you're wrong on Climate Change ..

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#187324 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the things I could teach you...
I dont take lessons from childish p|ssheads brandishing guns, give nano a try if you are so keen on educating someone.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#187325 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing compared to what you've been snorting.
You think E=MC2 proves that an omnipotent god is not possible.
LMAO!
Are you gonna share the good stuff or what?
I dont think, I know, all you need to do is the sums. I realise sums are probably beyond you but thats not my problem

You really have no idea of the scope of that equation do you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187326 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't consider the fact that Harris is no longer a laboratory scientist or that he is a prominent atheist relevant. He is just as capable of making those judgements as if he were publishing papers today.
I don't find the laboratory parameters relevant either. They just tell us that Dr. Alexander had bacterial meningitis, and was very ill when those numbers were determined. They don't tell us what his brain was capable of before, during or after that time.
What we do know is that Dr. Alexander did not suffer much or any irreversible brain damage, which is relevant. What he calls brainstem damage was undoubtedly a transient loss or suppression of brainstem function caused by cerebrospinal hypoglycemia and/or bacterial neurotoxins, which process was undoubtedly affecting most or all of his brain to varying degrees throughout the illness.
And we still have no reason to believe that his neocortex was not functional when he experienced what sounds like typical hallucinations. He can't know how much of his brain was working at what level when he had those experiences.
What I see in his words is the will to believe. Nobody faults him for that, and many people that have had such experiences report them as profound.
Still, there is no more reason to believe that this man's mind left his brain or visited another world than there would be if he had taken hallucinogens and reported the same experience.
I'll take the word of the slew of colleagues in neuroscience at research universities who looked at the details of his case and were at a loss to explain it.

Alexander's experience does not "sound like typical hallucinations", nor does it even sound like atypical hallucinations.

I place importance on the fact that Sam Harris makes mistakes when he tries to explain the events. I also place importance on Harris' refusal to debate Alexander on the subject. He debates other people.

One interesting thing, which is not altogether unique in the NDE literature, is that Alexander did not recognize the image of the "spirit", or whatever, who came to meet him during his experience.

It was a young blonde figure, with distinct facial characteristics. It troubled him in the aftermath that he did not know who the person was. He voiced his disappointment to others.

Alexander was adopted. Eventually, after his NDE, he met his birth parents for the first time. They showed him a picture of his younger birth sister, her name escapes me, whom he did not know existed, and who had died as a teenager.

His immediate reaction on seeing the willowy blond face was, "That's Her!"

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187327 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no James Randi prize.
Never was.
It is a proven scam.
And yes, it has been claimed.
He would not pay up.
James Randi is a proven con-artist and a proven charlatan.
He has been adjudicated as a liar in court.
New-Age Spiritual guy is correct on the paranormal being observed by scientific processes.
If it is a scam the he could be taken to court and made to pay up. So why wasn't he sued?

"According to Randi, Geller tried to sue Randi a number of times, accusing him of libel. Geller never won, save for a ruling in a Japanese court that ordered Randi to pay Geller one third of one percent of what Geller had demanded, but this ruling was canceled, and the matter dropped when Geller decided to concentrate on another legal matter.[5][89]"
"In 1991, Randi commented that Uri Geller's public performances were of the same quality as those found on the backs of cereal boxes. Geller sued both Randi and CSICOP. CSICOP argued that the organization was not responsible for Randi's statements. The court agreed that including CSICOP was frivolous and dropped them from the action, leaving Randi to face the action alone. Geller was ordered to pay substantial damages to CSICOP.[90][91] Randi and Geller subsequently settled their dispute out of court, the details of which have been kept confidential. The settlement also included an agreement that Geller would not pursue Randi for the award in the Japanese case or other outstanding cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Lega...

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

A Universe from Nothing? 7 min u196533dm 53
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 24 min replaytime 40,434
Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min Aura Mytha 15,963
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr IB DaMann 215
The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 3 hr Thinking 4,656
Why I quit atheism 3 hr Nooooo 391
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr Thinking 24,070

#### Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web