Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239363 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: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147534 Jan 7, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
Nice link,thanks

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147535 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
..."When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147536 Jan 7, 2013
*** Typo *** should read --

But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR claim.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147537 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope this helps you.
"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick
This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.
Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."
Now that's some fancy singin' and dancin' there! So I cannot do anything that is inconsistent with my nature, so by this twisted logic I would be omnipotent too. That's absurd.

To accept this argument is to redefine the word "all" such that "all powerful" is some strange twilight zone parody of "all". You really fell for this lame apologetic?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147538 Jan 7, 2013
Anyone here familiar with CTMU theory?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147539 Jan 7, 2013
I could care less if non believers identify themselves as ultra super cool non deluded people of the awesome, we are not hung up on labels like you are. And the only reason many non believers avoid the atheist title is because of negative baggage thrown on the term from believers. Non believers are non believers regardless of what they dub themselves.

And non believers are growing at an alarming rate for the leaders of faith.

Just accept it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Deal with it?
LOL, ok.
2% of Americans are self-identified atheists.
Dealt with.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147540 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I cannot provide evidence and not that the earth and moons and planets don't show any signs or the fact that these threads are loaded with point after point of evidence. No it's not that I can't provide it it that I won't!
If you refuse to provide evidence of your assertions, then you are more dishonest than I had originally thought.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#147541 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.
"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.
Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL
Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
The CIA factbook does not show its methodology for arriving at those figures nor is there any indication of how old the data on which it is based are. Other sources are more transparent, notably the Pew Forum and ARIS. Without that metadata, there is no way of knowing how reliable its statistics are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147542 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Discarded teapot was an attempt at humor and not an attempt to create a straw man.
2. The diety is not "mine".
3. Central point is their is actual evidence against the teapot vs no evidence against the diety.
You contradicted yourself in the last statement. You cannot disprove that there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147543 Jan 7, 2013
Oh so your IQ just got lower I see. Thanks for clearing that up. So do you accept the divine teapot that brewed up the universe and all life on earth?
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so you do believe in a diety.You just call it a teapot. Thanks for clearing that up.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147544 Jan 7, 2013
Imagination doesn't qualify as evidence.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
That's incorrect KK you know we have evidence you have ruled it out for you and only you. The evidence is still here.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147545 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.
"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.
Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL
Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Can't you make one point without invoking a fallacy. Let's look at the "majority" track record.

When Adolf said "let's torture Jewish people to death," the majority of Germans thought that was a good idea ... and the majority of the world thought it was none of their business, until he threatened to take over the world.

During the Crusades, a majority of the people thought the church knew what it was doing. So they killed a bunch of "brown" people who were minding their own business. Now the majority of those people blame the US for these slights, go figure.

The majority of the people thought the Inquisitors knew what they were doing, which resulted in the torture and death of a lot of innocent people.

The majority of England thought the US should be under English rule. So the US fought back. Then the majority of the US thought black people were less than human and should be slaves. Once they were freed the majority of the US thought they were still less than human and thus deserved no rights. Nice track record there.

The majority of Ancient Egyptians thought the pharaohs were demi-gods, so much that they took what they said as law even though the priests and preistesses were actually pulling the strings.

The majority of the world's population thought human sacrifices were a great thing for a few thousand years.

The majority thought the Earth was flat.

The majority thought lightning was some magical power of the gods.

The majority thought you could use your hands to wipe your butt.

Not a very good track record for the majority, it's more often wrong than correct, so if you want to pull that fallacy, it actually makes your religion look like a really bad idea.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147546 Jan 7, 2013
A highly opinionated personal philosophy by intelligent design loving Chris Langan. He is a theist with an able average IQ and some media popularity.

Regardless, like all theists who want to try to happily combine evolution and god he runs into the brick wall of first showing observable proof for god. He is unable to so his silly little CTMU is no more convincing than the divine teapot created the universe with the big brew.

It's a work of his imagination and nothing more.
Freebird USA wrote:
Anyone here familiar with CTMU theory?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#147547 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I am confused here, you said :-
Quote
Getting rid of guns will not prevent children from getting murdered…
EndQuote
And I replied
Quote
Nope but it will get rid of children being murdered with guns
Endquote
So you counter by showing how easy guns are to obtain?
How can arms trafficking and illegal possession of guns ever be classed as
Quote
Getting rid of guns
EndQuote.
The point is... Make a law banning guns then only criminals will have guns.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147548 Jan 8, 2013
River Tam wrote:
You should read the short story if you haven't. As good as John Cusack is, you just can't get the insanity of King's mind into a movie.
Is it a popup book?

Those are the best.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147549 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
The point is... Make a law banning guns then only criminals will have guns.
Batman doesn't need a gun.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#147550 Jan 8, 2013
River Tam wrote:
Right. Let's all streak. Wait, let's get the amputee. She'll get caught first.
I'll meet you all at the pub when they let me go :)
I'll wait at the pub.

I'm just an enabler.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147551 Jan 8, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Batman doesn't need a gun.
Batman deploys many type guns in his arsenal. But...
Batman doesn't want to kill people, he captures them for trial mostly. This is because his parents were murdered and he doesn't want to be like the murderer.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#147552 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Batman deploys many type guns in his arsenal. But...
Batman doesn't want to kill people, he captures them for trial mostly. This is because his parents were murdered and he doesn't want to be like the murderer.
None of that matters because DC comics suck.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147553 Jan 8, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>None of that matters because DC comics suck.

We all need our heroes , even if they aren't real.
But it is a nice concept but our batmen in reality kill quite efficiently, ask OBL.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Lumatrix 839,637
how long after taking the Vivitrol shot can i f... (Nov '12) 21 min Nicole543 105
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 24 min gundee123 100,066
Does watching interracial porn excite you (Mar '12) 57 min tanyacandrews 9
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Mr Ironhart 4,568
How to Fix PC Run slowly? 1 hr sydneybush0123 1
chat with demi lovato 112 (the real official de... (Jan '09) 3 hr Andrea 1,928
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr guest 590,579
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr onemale 271,386
More from around the web