Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258467 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.

Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#236051 Sep 2, 2014
Atheist may experience love alright but it’s all self love. This explains why there’s not one Atheist funded children’s hospital funded entirely by Atheist.
Thinking

Glasgow, UK

#236052 Sep 2, 2014
Prove your claim.

Prove every hospital in the world isn't so.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Atheist may experience love alright but it’s all self love. This explains why there’s not one Atheist funded children’s hospital funded entirely by Atheist.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#236053 Sep 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Prove your claim.
Prove every hospital in the world isn't so.
<quoted text>
Atheist love so much that they don’t participate in charities in any appreciable amount as a organized group. Howbeit there are some Atheist charities but they are practically non existent comparatively speaking to those of believers. This is an example of Atheist love.
Thinking

Glasgow, UK

#236054 Sep 2, 2014
Philosophy isn't proper science.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible.
The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe:
If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life. This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism.
— Alvin Plantinga, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, 2014

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#236055 Sep 2, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Atheist may experience love alright but it’s all self love. This explains why there’s not one Atheist funded children’s hospital funded entirely by Atheist.
Yeah well tell us how much you funded them you ..assswipe.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#236056 Sep 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Philosophy isn't proper science.
<quoted text>
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. There is no consensus on many central problems in philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences such as biology or physics. Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy. wiki
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#236057 Sep 2, 2014
Professor of Anthropology and Sociology Jack David Eller believes that the four principal New Atheist authors (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris) do not offer anything new in terms of arguments to disprove the existence of gods. He also criticizes them for their focus on the dangers of theism, as opposed to the falsifying of theism, which results in mischaracterizing religions; taking local theisms as the essence of religion itself, and for focusing on the negative aspects of religion in the form of an "argument from benefit" in the reverse. Wiki

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#236058 Sep 2, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Professor of Anthropology and Sociology Jack David Eller believes that the four principal New Atheist authors (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris) do not offer anything new in terms of arguments to disprove the existence of gods.
I don't know why anything new is necessary.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#236059 Sep 2, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Atheist may experience love alright but it’s all self love. This explains why there’s not one Atheist funded children’s hospital funded entirely by Atheist.
Correct - love begins within someone [Self]- to express it is still love - and not what you call "self-love".

Please stop making up unfounded things.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#236060 Sep 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Philosophy isn't proper science.
<quoted text>
I agree - Plato had many things also wrong - when trying to correlate philosophy and natural science.
Thinking

Glasgow, UK

#236061 Sep 2, 2014
Philosophy isn't proper science. The A380 Airbus is unconcerned by your philosophy.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. There is no consensus on many central problems in philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences such as biology or physics. Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy. wiki

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#236062 Sep 2, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree - Plato had many things also wrong - when trying to correlate philosophy and natural science.
Speaking of natural science, why do gays often speak with a lisp?

Smile.
School Lad

United States

#236063 Sep 2, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you condescending moron, I am aware of the works of Shakespeare.
Just stating fact, you consider that stating fact is protesting too much then I see where your problem is.
Are you an Atheist?
Don't you know that Jesus loves you .
How do you think life and the world got here as we know it ?
Have you read the Bible ?
It's way will teach you about things !
What's UK like ?
Do they have McDonald's over there ?
Do you drive on right or left side of road ?
Have you been to Europe ?
I live in USA .
Anyway you have a blessed day .
I'm always learning that's why I ask questions ?
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#236064 Sep 2, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah well tell us how much you funded them you ..assswipe.
We do it with money that says "In God We Trust" on it. Are you sure you can handle the answer?
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#236065 Sep 2, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist love so much that they don’t participate in charities in any appreciable amount as a organized group. Howbeit there are some Atheist charities but they are practically non existent comparatively speaking to those of believers. This is an example of Atheist love.
Atheists are very selfish and self-centered. I consider them dangerous.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#236066 Sep 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of natural science, why do gays often speak with a lisp?
Smile.
Practice, it's a choice not an impediment.
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#236067 Sep 2, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Atheist may experience love alright but it’s all self love. This explains why there’s not one Atheist funded children’s hospital funded entirely by Atheist.
Atheists do have children's hospitals, but unfortunately they murder the patients because the patients are an inconvenience to the atheist parents. Just google abortion 'clinics' for your local slaughter house.
atheism is destructive

Alabaster, AL

#236068 Sep 2, 2014
USN Atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...the ignorance is strong in this one.
Projection.

“too hard to handle”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#236069 Sep 2, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and... KJV published in 1611
Sorry buddy but the English language in all its variants goes back much further than that. Other languages, including Sumerian and Latin (the bases for the word love) go back far further than the NT what was compiled in the 300AD and the Tanakh from which you OT is selectively copied.
Do not try making specious claims to big up you self esteem and god book because most human beings are not as stupid as you and can see through your deceit the moment you open your mouth and words come out.
Good point Chris!

This verse was written in Aramaic. It is a command and admonition TO christians, that if THEY don't love, they had better watch out!, not as some sort of apologetic against non believers!....He that loveth not knoweth not God...is a warning to believers.

I appreciate your insights.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#236070 Sep 2, 2014
Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox has argued that science itself sits more comfortably with theism than with atheism: "as a scientist I would say... where did modern science come from? It didn't come from atheism... modern science arose in the 16th and 17th centuries in Western Europe, and of course people ask why did it happen there and then, and the general consensus which is often called Merton's Thesis is, to quote CS Lewis who formulated it better than anybody I know...'Men became scientific. Why? Because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science. wiki

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 16 min Nohweh 15,726
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Mirrormirorwall 683,635
Kyrie makes it OFFICIAL: he's SICK of LeBron!!! 1 hr Mirrormirorwall 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 983,094
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 3 hr Mirrormirorwall 22
What did O.J. Simpson do with the murder weapon... 3 hr Mirrormirorwall 16
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Jake999 619,689
More from around the web