Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243433 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.

Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#147737 Jan 9, 2013
Not many now. His collage came unstuck.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
How many pictures in your collage?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#147738 Jan 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Grammar is inconsequential, really. As long as the meaning is clear, a few grammatical errors or typos are easy to overlook. I make one or two in almost every post. This is a first draft medium, and first drafts are always rife with error--as any editor. That's why grammar nazis are so unloved on internet forums.
There is a difference, however, between grammatical errors and functional illiteracy which, as Churchill said, is something up with which I will not put.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147740 Jan 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose there was no end to his insanity.
There's a difference in screening to help a person and screening to eliminate them. But I much thought it was Aryan features he screened for in creating the Hitler youth program. His attempt was to create the blue eyed blond race. I guess if you had brown eyes you were faulty. But most of this was done by a guy under Hitler I think? Kurt Gruber And Mengle probably others.
Oh he was not the first, such sterilisation was practised in the US since before the turn of the last century

“After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[61] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_...

Also there was a considerable eugenics movement here too :-
“When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favour of the confinement, segregation, and sterilisation of a class of persons contemporarily described as the "feeble minded." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-c...

Here we see the bad side of Darwins work that is swept under the carpet.

Where do you draw the line, Just like screening for mental abnormality, mass screening without 100% consent on the off chance that the person may purchase a gun at some time in the future is unethical. As is storing data obtained from such screening where it is accessible, consider that any “gun salesman” needs access to it (and by definition anyone else with a motive to obtain such information).

Perhaps the solution is a national licensing scheme where the prospective gun owner (only the prospective gun owner) is assessed (he wants the gun therefore he must agree to the assessment or do without a gun) and if successful is issued a licence. He can then obtain a gun and/or ammunition by producing the licence along with the payment. This has the advantage of cost benefits, only those who it effects are screened, not everyone, there is not doubts that it is ethical and any stigma of a refusal is kept private. The public has the advantage of knowing that the gun owner was assessed when (probably just before) he obtained the gun and not many years previously when he was a child.

The type of system employed by most European countries comes to mind. It may not be perfect but it is tested and known to work reasonably well. True that those with nefarious use in mind are going to bypass the system but that will happen under any circumstances.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147741 Jan 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. But only because of the first amendment freedom of speech. If some people would just shut and not piss everyone off they would not be getting shot!
Take Septic for instants.
Take you too

So what you want is freedom of speech for you and the people you agree with but not for anyone who p|sses you off otherwise you will shoot them

That my dear is not freedom of speech, that is Fascism

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#147742 Jan 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to believe in irony meters.
But you just keep breaking them.
I don't believe in them any more.
Mine just went burp and fell to bits when I read KJV post

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#147743 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh he was not the first, such sterilisation was practised in the US since before the turn of the last century
“After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[61] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's
The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_...
Also there was a considerable eugenics movement here too :-
“When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favour of the confinement, segregation, and sterilisation of a class of persons contemporarily described as the "feeble minded." http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-c...
Here we see the bad side of Darwins work that is swept under the carpet.
Where do you draw the line, Just like screening for mental abnormality, mass screening without 100% consent on the off chance that the person may purchase a gun at some time in the future is unethical. As is storing data obtained from such screening where it is accessible, consider that any “gun salesman” needs access to it (and by definition anyone else with a motive to obtain such information).
Perhaps the solution is a national licensing scheme where the prospective gun owner (only the prospective gun owner) is assessed (he wants the gun therefore he must agree to the assessment or do without a gun) and if successful is issued a licence. He can then obtain a gun and/or ammunition by producing the licence along with the payment. This has the advantage of cost benefits, only those who it effects are screened, not everyone, there is not doubts that it is ethical and any stigma of a refusal is kept private. The public has the advantage of knowing that the gun owner was assessed when (probably just before) he obtained the gun and not many years previously when he was a child.
The type of system employed by most European countries comes to mind. It may not be perfect but it is tested and known to work reasonably well. True that those with nefarious use in mind are going to bypass the system but that will happen under any circumstances.
Adam wasn't a gun owner.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147744 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -
<quoted text>
So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.
What? I never said anything close to that.

There's no object God couldn't lift.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147745 Jan 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I can't prove them right. I can't prove them wrong. I'm not an astrologist or a scientist of any kind. I can fix your car, I can put new windows in your house, I can rebuild your lawnmower engine, I can probably out drink you, but I cannot prove or disprove anything having to do with the origin of the universe. All we're doing here is speculation, because you can't prove it either way either.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147746 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume what? I made no assumptions, so you'll have to be specific in what part you are unclear.
You said that if God existed, He would leave evidence.

Why do you assume that?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147747 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't prove them right. I can't prove them wrong. I'm not an astrologist or a scientist of any kind. I can fix your car, I can put new windows in your house, I can rebuild your lawnmower engine, I can probably out drink you, but I cannot prove or disprove anything having to do with the origin of the universe. All we're doing here is speculation, because you can't prove it either way either.
There is a huge difference between hypotheses based on available evidence (red shift, CMBR, etc.) and speculation based on personal wish fulfillment (desire to matter to the universe, eternal life, etc.)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147748 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that if God existed, He would leave evidence.
Why do you assume that?
If there is no observable nor measurable impact of a deity, then the very idea that such a meaningless entity might actually exist is an absurd consideration.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#147749 Jan 9, 2013
Or nothing more than the product of someone's vivid imagination. Again supposedly god/s were always interacting with humans. Fighting along side them, knocking them up, and having all night wrestlefests man lovin all alone with Jacob.

Yet for some reason ever since say 2000 years ago as more and more people documented properly what they observed god/s kind of vanished.

Perhaps Yahweh/Jesus doesn't want us mocking his unabrow?:))
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no observable nor measurable impact of a deity, then the very idea that such a meaningless entity might actually exist is an absurd consideration.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147750 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>What? I never said anything close to that.

There's no object God couldn't lift.
So since he can't make one, he's not god.

You're kind of new to logic, aren't you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147751 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
If there is no observable nor measurable impact of a deity, then the very idea that such a meaningless entity might actually exist is an absurd consideration.
Have you devised a way to test for deities?

If so, what are you holding back on? Get that tester out & let's test for God!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147752 Jan 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
So since he can't make one, he's not god.
You're kind of new to logic, aren't you.
Eh?

God can't make something too heavy for Him to lift because He could lift anything He wants.

You think that's the GOTCHA logic?

LOL

There are things that God can't do.

He can't lie.

He can't sin.

He can't hate.

he can't learn anything new.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147753 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Or nothing more than the product of someone's vivid imagination. Again supposedly god/s were always interacting with humans. Fighting along side them, knocking them up, and having all night wrestlefests man lovin all alone with Jacob.
Yet for some reason ever since say 2000 years ago as more and more people documented properly what they observed god/s kind of vanished.
Perhaps Yahweh/Jesus doesn't want us mocking his unabrow?:))
<quoted text>
Perhaps everything changed when Jesus died for us...

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#147754 Jan 9, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm too busy for wild god chases.
Tell the dude to make an appearance.
It shouldn't be difficult for someone omnipotent.
You’re too busy playing multiple roles as women.

You are weird dude.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147755 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you devised a way to test for deities?
If so, what are you holding back on? Get that tester out & let's test for God!
In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.

When it comes to the question of gods, there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.

It make absolutely no sense to say that something exists when there no possible way of testing its existence?

Have you defined a set of testable properties for a deity yet?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147756 Jan 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Eh?
God can't make something too heavy for Him to lift because He could lift anything He wants.
You think that's the GOTCHA logic?
LOL
No, that's not "gotcha" logic. It's called a paradox.

There is no way to satisfy both parts of the question, either deity can make an object he can't life an therefore is not omnipotent, or he cannot make such an object and is not omnipotent.

A paradoxical property cannot exist for any entity, neither in reality nor in the imagination.

What you are experiencing is called cognitive dissonance.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147757 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.
When it comes to the question of gods, there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.
It make absolutely no sense to say that something exists when there no possible way of testing its existence?
OK, so you have no way of testing deities. So you have no logical way of determining that they do't exist.

Got it.
Have you defined a set of testable properties for a deity yet?
Don't need to. God proved Himself to me long ago

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) 3 min Stilgar Fifrawi 855,136
the real reason Obama allowed and mosque near G... 5 min Knock off purse s... 4
The REAL REASON Howard Weitzman VAMPED from th... 7 min Knock off purse s... 2
REALITY: Tiger Woods is a SICK TRICK! 8 min Knock off purse s... 3
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min kent 596,422
Twitter Arab Master 11 min Knock off purse s... 2
REAL Music !!! Part IV !! 13 min Knock off purse s... 7
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr I Am No One_ 444,356
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr -Alan S Shole- 1,026
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr End Times 612,623
More from around the web