Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187450 Nov 26, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Actually, billions of people throughout human history have not experienced God..."
OK name 50 of these people :-)
Your long post is amusing and seem atheist-centric.
Actually after previously posting that I didn't understand your question, I think you are asking me to name 50 people of the billions that have not experienced God. Do a google search of any name, and if you get 50 names, then those 50 have not experienced God, and given us proof of that experience. I personally do not know anyone who has even stated they have experienced God, though most people I know do claim they believe there is a God.

Today it is not proved that God exists, which indicates that no experience has occurred which carried enough weight to be accepted as proof of a God. Any event in a person's life, which to them seemed miraculous, unexpected, or of a god-like nature, is only how they processed the input through their own brain, and came up with that experience being proof of God. It was not actually a real experience of God, or at least they cannot prove it was, and that would be 100% of all who make such a claim.

A lot of people have given accounts of Near Death Experiences, and claimed that proved that God exists or Heaven exists (for those who claimed they saw what they believed to be Heaven), yet the very same sensations have been produced in humans in a lab setting or in training (for example for space flight) which has been attributed to a shortage of oxygen to the brain, which causes a person to have certain hallucinations. I have never had any form of illegal drug, but claims are made, according to what I have read, that certain drugs cause people to experience certain things too, but that experience is inside their own mind, as others in attendance with them do not see what they are seeing.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187451 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples of the paranormal have been proven for years with scientific precision.
People with prizes are scam artists.
From an actual researcher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =qw_O9QiwqewXX
And all of these paranormal examples have been recognized by mainstream science I presume. Can you show me some documentation that shows mainstream science acceptance of paranormal events? Not just some guy with some degree's but a consensus among scientists. Now show me the "scientific precision" that you claim.

Seems as though an awful lot of money has gone unclaimed over the years given the huge dollars available to anyone that can prove paranormal events. How about those people that have done so with "scientific precision?"

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187452 Nov 26, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have no hard proof for any of your allegations?
I didn't think so.
Isn't that called slander?
No.

What's it called when you pop off, and get hit in the face?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187453 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Tell you what, take 20 people all with serious illnesses, admit 10 to the hospital and let medical science deal with them, have the other 10 stay home and pray for God to cure them. Lets take a poll down the road and see how many God cures and how many medical science cured. Being completely honest, which group would you chose to be in giving that you had a very serious illness?
Why are you bringing prayer into this?

I said nothing about praying instead if hospitals, all I said was that it stay away for hospitals.

Why are you adding into it?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187454 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I thought James Randi's "homeopathic sleeping tablets overdose" demonstration was quite excellent.
Religitards believe any old nonsense.
<quoted text>
Don't call him James.

He is the Amazing Randi.

In the words of Dr. Sheldrake: "The man is a liar". "He is a deceiver by profession and he is a deceiver by nature".

The reason Sheldrake can publicly say this to an audience without fear of being sued for slander?

He has proof - ironclad, documented proof that Randi is a fraud.

...or, excuse me. I mean the Amazing Randi.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187455 Nov 26, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
EMF detector / video and digital recording devices / thermal imaging devices.
Let's just start with this question bl.....How much evidence is required to make something factual?
And you use James Randy for a reference?
And what evidence do you have that show things from the spirit realm generate electromagnetic fields? Or somehow can be detected via electromagnetic fields? EMF devises detect electromagnetic fields, these fields are generated by everyday household or industrial appliances. So how do you tell the difference between a ghost and a dishwasher?

For something to be factual it must be observable, and observable by the strictest of scientific means, it must be tested for repeatability, and able to be examined form every angle, it must then pass peer review in reputable scientific journals, and then be subjected to numerous attempts at falsification.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187456 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone sees a different truth, nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. This has been known for some time.
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
-Marcus Aurelius
If we lived in Aristotle's day, or for the next 1900 years after him, we'd likely believe that spontaneous generation is fact, because science said so.
Capisce?
What everyone sees is actually the same "fact" but how each person describes what they see, or how they remember to describe what they see will be different because each person has different abilities, and/or different reference points, and differing abilities to recall. If 100 people standing at a street light all facing the same point in the intersection see two cars collide, the fact of the two cars colliding will not be different, because what happened is what happened. The description of what was seen by the 100 people will be 100 slightly differing descriptions, and if the same people were to later be asked to retell what they saw, their second accounts would differ from what they first told, because that is the nature of how we recall things. The two cars colliding will not have changed at all (by that I mean the actual first event, as to the actual fact will not have changed. Obviously the two cars situations will be changed drastically at a later time.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187457 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>And all of these paranormal examples have been recognized by mainstream science I presume. Can you show me some documentation that shows mainstream science acceptance of paranormal events? Not just some guy with some degree's but a consensus among scientists. Now show me the "scientific precision" that you claim.
Seems as though an awful lot of money has gone unclaimed over the years given the huge dollars available to anyone that can prove paranormal events. How about those people that have done so with "scientific precision?"
The reason is that actual scientists doing work in this field invite legitimate skeptics to view their work, not phony skeptics with prizes.

You keep moving your goalposts, BertLasagna.

Now you have moved to mainstream consensus as your standard.

Real science is not done by consensus, FartBalloon.

This is why I despise discussions with your type. You get pushed into a corner on facts, and you find a trap door.

Nothing is ever not as you claim, because you can undress and re-dress your claim any time you choose.

Your character and constitution is that of Jello.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187458 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, however man has historically had beliefs in many gods, and generally today we have dismissed all of the very ancients beliefs as being the inventions of those primitive civilizations. Information about the Abrahamic God dates back in history to ~ 3000 or 4000 years BCE and that is a drop in the bucket of time of the total time of man's existence on this planet.
The basis for the current major world religions, or at least that of about 4 billion humans, being Christians and Muslims, and the tiny number of Jews, is taken from books, which were compiled mainly withing the past 1800 years. We have a lot of information today that has disproved much of what all of those books have told man. The totally fundamentalist of these religions still claim (as I understand it) that the "holy" books are 100% fact, however, they cannot be proved to be partly fiction, and still be 100% fact. It would seem to me that the three mentioned religions all accept the same God as being perfect, so that an imperfect account of this God could not have come from a perfect God, which lends to the credibility that the information came from man.
Yes, man, in order to survive for hundreds of thousands of years had taught himself how to feed himself and how to cover himself against freezing to death, through sheer necessity, but aside from the strictly obvious things such as a skin taken off an animal can be wrapped around your body and keep you warm, or the fibres, or pieces of grass can be woven in a material that can be wrapped around your body to achieve the same thing. He, however, did not know anything about the internal properties of those things, or how they grew etc., other that they just did it.
Most of us today would be dead within a few days, weeks or months, depending on what part of the world we lived in, if we had to exist as man did even a few hundred years ago, because we have not learned what man did in those days to stay alive. The majority of western society people lived in cities, in highrise buildings, and could not feed themselves after the last of the food they ransacked from stores was eaten or spoiled, nor could they keep themselves warm for very long in cold weather, simply because there are too many in a small space, and none know what to do.
Our greatest danger today is to have our technology suddenly become unable to function. I have read that about 90% of North Americans would be dead within a year, if we lost all electrical and electronic functions (which is not a total impossibility). When I think about the several months of lost electricity that parts of the USA and Canada suffered during an ice storm several years ago, some of which affected members of my family, it scares me what would have happened, had that have covered the whole continent. Because the surrounding areas were not without resources, very few people actually died in that event, because help could be sent to them, or get them to a place where they could be helped, but if the whole continent lost its electricity, aside from what might still be brought in by planes from other continents (but the planes could not refuel after coming here), we would become helpless as a mass very quickly.
My Sc degree which is 43 years old was mainly in the life sciences so I think I did at least know much more than people did back in those days, though I have likely forgotten the details of a lot of it. But having known the info exists, and generally knowing the processes involved, I don't need to create gods to explain what they needed gods to explain back then.
The could deal with those kinds of things in those days because they had no means to not deal with them. Yes, they had found some things they ate or drank which over time they had decided must make a difference, but they would not have a clue why those things acted.
You ramble on so much, I don't know if you have a point here.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187459 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
My last response missed the last part of your post. I am not convinced that God isn't out there because, as has been said many times by many people, proving something doesn't exist with facts, which would have to exist, is an impossibility, so I am open to the possibility that a god could exist but man just hasn't yet found any evidence of same. I am also convinced that the evidence that some men claim proves God, is in fact false, because the evidences that have been cited have been proved to be false, or alternatively they cannot be verified to be true.
That evidence has been found disproving certain parts of the text books of the believers is a true fact and therefore I am pretty confident that God, as explained by the Bible, or Quran, is a man-created God. Should a real god actually exist, and man's description of it should be similar to what is written in those books, would only be a coincidence rather than knowledge of that god.
I do not spend any of my time seeking a god, in the course of my life now, nor have I actually ever done that. For the first several decades of my life, I just accepted, as do the masses of believers, that what I had been taught was true. I now "know" that what I was taught was from the writings of man-inspired books, so therefore I still am not seeking a god.
Actually the subject of God only comes up for me when I am faced with believers who insist that I am somehow lacking in knowledge because I do not believe, or by believers whose behavior is harmful to other human beings, and I take exception to the harm they are causing, as with the anti-gay movement of some believers. I do not support persecution or prejudice of any kind, although being human, I do have my personal likes and dislikes of certain people (I do not however use those opinions to mistreat these people).
Well at least you're not an atheist.

That's a good start.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187460 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ok, Buck, I think we agree that neither of us knows how things began. I don't think there is a God that created everything, but I don't know factually that there is no God, but I do know factually, that no god has yet been verified by man to exist. My understanding of all of the information that has entered my brain throughout my lifetime has led me to believe that things that have never been proved are not likely existing, and that things that have been proved to exist actually do exist, or did exist, at least at the time they were proved.

I am not sure what you actually believe, because it appears, as long as I have observed your posts here, that you have mainly argued against atheism, yet in the past few days I have read several posts of yours which lead me to believe that you do not accept the authority of the Bible as truth (and for at least the mainly Christian segments of our population, the Bible would be the main source of such a belief).

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187461 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't call him James.
He is the Amazing Randi.
In the words of Dr. Sheldrake: "The man is a liar". "He is a deceiver by profession and he is a deceiver by nature".
The reason Sheldrake can publicly say this to an audience without fear of being sued for slander?
He has proof - ironclad, documented proof that Randi is a fraud.
...or, excuse me. I mean the Amazing Randi.
"Sheldrake also argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena,[11] and questions such modern scientific facts as the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices.[11][12] He accuses scientists of being susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience"[7] and says "the biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers".[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Perpetual motion? The guys a nut!

No one cares if an idiot insults them because no one takes idiots seriously.

Do you have any of that documented proof or is it hidden in a secret file known only to a few?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187462 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG.
So if it isn't abiogenesis, then aliens or an asteroid must've seeded this works with life, huh?
ANYTHING but God, right?
You're not talking science, you're talking hypothetical science fiction nonsense.
There's nothing to back up your belief in abiogenesis, aliens or asteroids.
But the very most hypothetical science fiction has to be God doing it, especially since we have no evidence of that. Why are you so willing to accept that when you question ideas that have some factual background to them?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187463 Nov 26, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sheldrake also argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena,[11] and questions such modern scientific facts as the conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices.[11][12] He accuses scientists of being susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience"[7] and says "the biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers".[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Perpetual motion? The guys a nut!
No one cares if an idiot insults them because no one takes idiots seriously.
Do you have any of that documented proof or is it hidden in a secret file known only to a few?
You have perpetual motion devices in your fingers that just typed that.

They are called atoms.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#187464 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, Buck, I think we agree that neither of us knows how things began. I don't think there is a God that created everything, but I don't know factually that there is no God, but I do know factually, that no god has yet been verified by man to exist. My understanding of all of the information that has entered my brain throughout my lifetime has led me to believe that things that have never been proved are not likely existing, and that things that have been proved to exist actually do exist, or did exist, at least at the time they were proved.
I am not sure what you actually believe, because it appears, as long as I have observed your posts here, that you have mainly argued against atheism, yet in the past few days I have read several posts of yours which lead me to believe that you do not accept the authority of the Bible as truth (and for at least the mainly Christian segments of our population, the Bible would be the main source of such a belief).
You know what I like about you? Your honesty!

"I don't think there is a God that created everything, but I don't know factually that there is no God,"

I know you don't believe me but I know factually for myself there's a God.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#187465 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Tell you what, take 20 people all with serious illnesses, admit 10 to the hospital and let medical science deal with them, have the other 10 stay home and pray for God to cure them. Lets take a poll down the road and see how many God cures and how many medical science cured. Being completely honest, which group would you chose to be in giving that you had a very serious illness?
I know our President meant well with the healthcare mandate. But I seem to think more people are going to be without insurance than with it.

Putting that aside I want you to know that Jesus never one time criticized a Medical Doctor. Notice the story in the scripture below. The young woman had spent all that she had seeing Doctors.

Mark 5:25-34

King James Version (KJV)

25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,

26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.

28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.

29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187466 Nov 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have perpetual motion devices in your fingers that just typed that.
They are called atoms.
Great! Now try getting work out of them without putting the same energy into them.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187467 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you bringing prayer into this?
I said nothing about praying instead if hospitals, all I said was that it stay away for hospitals.
Why are you adding into it?
So you don't believe in prayer? Good for you, finally some sanity. I would presume that if you're extremely ill and don't want to go to the hospital, as a theist your other option wold be to seek help from God via prayer. So what would be your other option rather than seeking help from medical science?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187468 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
But the very most hypothetical science fiction has to be God doing it, especially since we have no evidence of that. Why are you so willing to accept that when you question ideas that have some factual background to them?
Because in nearly 4,000 years, the Bible hasn't changed it's tune.

Science seems to change every 2 seconds.

I can't consider that reliable.

Even so, if abiogenesis is ever actually discovered, that would not disprove God. If scientists are ever successful in creating life in the lab they will have only proven that life can be produced as a product of intelligent design.

They will unwittingly be making the theists point true.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187469 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
So you don't believe in prayer? Good for you, finally some sanity. I would presume that if you're extremely ill and don't want to go to the hospital, as a theist your other option wold be to seek help from God via prayer. So what would be your other option rather than seeking help from medical science?
OMG what?

I didn't say I don't believe in prayer.

You're STILL adding words that I did not write.

Knock that shit off.

What I do instead of going to a godforsaken hospital is heal myself.

It's worked for me for over twenty years.

I'm good without your doctors "practicing" medicine on me. That's all they do is practice, practice, practice.

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 PersonOfInterest 83,256
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 11 hr Dogen 2,578
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu Dan78iel 3,989
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct '17 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web