Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
141,661 - 141,680 of 226,367 Comments Last updated 15 min ago

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147480 Jan 7, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
Atheist live in the here and now. Because they live in the natural world. Itís beyond their comprehension the idea of a spiritual world. A world not seen by the natural eye. In some ways I understand their reluctance.
Do you have supernatural eyes? Is there some way you interpret reality that should be taken more seriously than the many, often contradictory ways, that other religious believers interpret reality?

Do you really understand a reluctance to accept ideas without evidence? Do you understand rational skepticism?
Eagle12 wrote:
Theyíre so emphatic about their assurance there is no God. They wonít even remotely experiment in testing the waters sort of speak. Iím afraid itís a lost cause for the majority of atheist when it comes to faith.
Atheists lack a belief in deities.

What is good about religious faith? Isn't faith just committed gullibility?
Eagle12 wrote:
I do not hate them for their unwillingness to even try to reach out to God. We can not and we will not be able to reach everyone. Some will be lost at their own choosing. I have often wondered why God doesnít reveal himself in the natural.
You don't hate us? Was that on the table? Mentioning it at all is telling.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your god doesn't reveal himself because he doesn't exist?
Eagle12 wrote:
But he did once and many believed. Through his miracles he was able to draw in great crowds by the thousands. At some point in the distant future he will reveal himself again the natural world. How far away that time is? I have no idea. I donít believe it will be in my lifetime.
You believe this because it was written down by people who probably believed it too? Are you willing to accept all written claims by people who believed what they wrote?
Eagle12 wrote:
First the Anti-Christ (World Leader) will take the scene. To the atheist this is all make believe and a fairy tale. We must understand that those of us that believe will not change them,(Atheist).
The waiting game for the "end times" is perpetual. It's a cheap trick. The Bible is full of cheap tricks.

If you had valid truth claims, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate them to rational skeptics. Anyone who can evaluate claims consistently, would not be able to accept only the Christian claims. They would have to accept all claims, including alien claims, ghost claims, Sasquatch claims, and claims that haven't been thought of yet.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#147481 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Scary and confusing? Sounds like a date to me.
If it gets too scary you can just focus your attention elsewhere. You don't have to actually watch the movie you know.
Right, I'll bring a Rubik's cube and hammer with me!

Nah, u got to get the adrenaline pumping, it's a good feeling in a scary way.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147482 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Yes, but love is caused by physical and easily demonstrated chemical reactions. You god, if it existed, would have some sort of influence on the world, and that would leave evidence.
Why do you assume that?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147483 Jan 7, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Right, I'll bring a Rubik's cube and hammer with me!
Nah, u got to get the adrenaline pumping, it's a good feeling in a scary way.
It's all about chemistry.

Let's keep in natural.

I don't like getting hammered.

Since: Sep 10

United States

#147484 Jan 7, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I know what u mean but i didn't know it was called that.
I remember this one;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =WrxiwXLgme4XX
lllllllllllol!
There was another one with a female at snooker but I can't find that one!
I'll do it BUT only if Lesbo does it too. She can get her police uniform on and pretend to chase me then she could join in too! It's less embarrassing if more than 1 person does it and it'll have a bit of a twist too.
Wow, I'm already excited at the thought of you two doing it as a duet.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147485 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
Absolutely nothing that all people can agree on.
For the most part there's general consensus on omnipotent, but upon closer examination, this property is itself meaningless and absurd. An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination.
It's only impossible in your imagination.
And quite a few go with omniscience (all-knowing), but the implications of this would be a loss of any free will and humans become puppets performing predetermined rolls. Again, absurd.


Think if it as the multiverse theories. There are an infinite number if things you can do every day. You decide which ones you're going to do, not God. He knows what you're going to do but isn't being your "puppet master". You're your own master.
And let's not even consider omnibenevolent (all-loving) as the very idea of hell makes this property absurd, even if possible.
Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". The word does not appear in any popular dictionary, but is a technical term used more in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred.

God's perfection is Goodness working in and through all those that are His.
Which leaves the vague concept of "creator of the universe", but then you have the "turtles all the way down" paradox and that one falls apart. Or you argue the Kalaam Cosmological position (or some such variant) and end of with the fallacy of begging the question.
The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.

Unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, you're simply stating your opinion, not fact.
So, there is no set of properties that anyone can describe for any entity which could possibly exist and could rightly be labeled a deity.
Care to take a stab at it?
(ref: theological noncognitivism)
I just did.
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#147486 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
So now that raises the question what is the origin of the dying star...and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#147487 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only impossible in your imagination.
<quoted text>
Think if it as the multiverse theories. There are an infinite number if things you can do every day. You decide which ones you're going to do, not God. He knows what you're going to do but isn't being your "puppet master". You're your own master.
<quoted text>
d.
wrong
IF god created ALL he created your future and youre just like a preprogramed robot doing what he designed you to do

no free will

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#147488 Jan 7, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all about chemistry.
Let's keep in natural.
I don't like getting hammered.
What the.......banana cakes are u on about?

I was gonna smash the Rubik's....oh never mind!
KJV

United States

#147489 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Well now, you are adding an assertion to create a strawman argument. There was never a mention of it being "discarded" only that one is there, not to mention the type of teapot was never detailed, so the ones we associate today with "teapot" are not the only possible ones applicable.

Then you attempt to shift the burden of proof yet again. You still have no evidence that your deity exists, that's it. Until such evidence is presented then your deity is just an assumption.
That's incorrect KK you know we have evidence you have ruled it out for you and only you. The evidence is still here.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#147490 Jan 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I'm already excited at the thought of you two doing it as a duet.
I was thinking that after Lesbo does it, Tide and River need to make a guest appearance, that'll be cool, won't it? But I just don't know how we could get those two in, to make it really funny!!

Goodnite, guys!

XOXO!! Right back at ya, Catcher! ;-)
KJV

United States

#147491 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Stars are the result of matter-energy interaction.
A star is a massive, luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity.
For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium are created by stars, either via stellar nucleosynthesis during their lifetimes or by supernova nucleosynthesis when very massive stars explode.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147492 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. That is what so fascinating.The desire and need to know where,how and why.Its the central mystery of our lives.
And yet, most people refuse to learn enough mathematics to understand what we have found so far. To me, that suggests they don't want to do any real work which leads them to seek simplistic answers to complicated questions. And *that* is what they find in religion.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147493 Jan 7, 2013
I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only impossible in your imagination.
...
So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#147494 Jan 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I'm already excited at the thought of you two doing it as a duet.
Duet ? or duel? Because duel is just my game.:)
We could do a diet though or duet ? or even

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147495 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Think if it as the multiverse theories. There are an infinite number if things you can do every day. You decide which ones you're going to do, not God. He knows what you're going to do but isn't being your "puppet master". You're your own master.
No, if he's all powerful and all knowing then he would know ever variation of every decision I would make before I was even created, so he could not help but create me to follow a certain path.

(Why "he" anyway? Circumcised?)

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#147496 Jan 7, 2013
Clementia wrote:
What the.......banana cakes are u on about?
I was gonna smash the Rubik's....oh never mind!
Come closer and I'll tell you...

...closer...

<whisper> I'm not wearing any panties!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#147497 Jan 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.
So much wrong is such a short sentence.

First, causality depends on the notion of time and time is part of the universe. So either time is infinite into the past, allowing for an infinite string of causality, or time is finite into the past and causality is meaningless for the 'first' event. Either way, talking about a cause for the universe as a whole is problematic, to say the least.

Second, we know of uncaused events in our own universe, so the assumption that everything needs to be caused is already known to be wrong. What argument do you have that the universe was, in fact, caused?

Third, even if causality is an aspect here, there is no reason there needs to be a *single* cause for the whole universe, as opposed to multiple causes (which tends to be the case for most things in the universe). Why not say the universe was caused by a committee?

Fourth, even if there is a single cause for the universe, the identification of this cause with 'God' is problematic, to say the least. You see, simply having a cause does not imply an intelligence, consciousness, morality, or even ownership.

Fifth, unlike your avoidance of the issue, YOUR claims make the positive existence statement, so are the ones with the burden of proof. WE do not have to show them wrong; YOU have to show them correct.
KJV

United States

#147498 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>So an eternal intelligence is required to create humans but was not itself created makes more sense to you than an eternal universe?

(which may or may not be cyclic ... or the "expansion" we perceive could just be a local phenomenon that goes beyond the range of our sensors ... or countless other natural explanations which may at least be testable at some point).
The creator "God" has not deemed us worthy of much information outside of our Universe. We can't even handle the information he has given us.

Hedonist:

What if God had created a parallel universe for each choice we make. so every scenario is played out in everyone's life. Maybe in addition to one life lived out and every possibility alternative is played out, maybe we live everyone's life that ever lived in all possible scenario with that life. Then God would have very good data to judge each soul on.

We just don't know what God has kept from us.
KJV

United States

#147499 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>At least you are willing to ask questions! That is a far cry better than most theists we experience on here.

Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
"Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov -- "

I robot

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 2 min curiouslu 733,091
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min Charlie Sheen 258,009
Is Michael Brown REALLY dead? 9 min Plywood Board 0
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min seriously the ori... 539,012
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 44 min bacon hater 94,676
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Stephania 599,962
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 1 hr Naveen kumar 1,108
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 7 hr Blck 106
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••