Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247602 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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#149315 Jan 22, 2013
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that we forget there are different kinds of realities and that our experience of them is entirely dependent upon our perception has nothing to do with hippies. It has everything to do with relinquishing preconceived notions about the self in relation to an infinite universe; not to denigrate the significance of social changes brought about by the 60's. While much of the hippie style and values has been mainstreamed into America,(green movement, eradication of nuclear weapons, an awareness of the destructive nature of a materialistic social status quo etc.), hippies adopted many of the spiritual concepts of eastern philosophy.
I prefer to consider rather than ignore the concept of the "inviolate" nature of the individual spirit before, during, and after physical existence whether or not any theory of reincarnation is involved. I understand the Buddhist teaching that perfect joy can be found in the eventual surrender of self to a supreme force although I have yet to determine how the self who surrenders knows it has done so if it has been so thoroughly absorbed in nirvanic bliss.
With all its distortions, one thing can be said of Christianity, it is not as limiting as Eastern teachings. Though the goal be enlightenment, the path to enlightenment as taught by gurus is not merely self-denial and acceptance of suffering as good, it requires the eradication of your individuality by killing all desire and intent.
For a host of reasons, our religions have emphasized repression, restriction, and pennance rather than benediction, expression, celebration, or love. Nearly all religions, western and eastern alike, have shown a suspicious willingness to surrender the conscious self, either to a bland heaven or nirvanic blessed non-being. If, as I believe, God is individualized in all of us, in all things, then it is precisely that God-given identity, that God-knowing-Itself-as-us that we want to understand.
You are too intellectual for them to grok.

Christianity does allow for more individual expression than the others. Which is sort of an evolutionary advantage. Much more adaptive to change and new things than the others. Can charge ahead instead of just maintaining the status quo. But these pseudo-atheists don't understand that. They just follow other leaders.

Purely and simply, humankind are just facets of a higher being. You can still accept that and be individual. This existence is a construct you spend some time in. Much like being in the Army. You follow the rules to get a job done, but you can think for yourself and use your individual talents to the advantage of the group when needed.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149316 Jan 22, 2013
Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago.

Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:

Yes.
You torture the person.
You prevent the bomb killing civilians.
Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.
End of moral dilemma.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you perfectly.
The problem is you don't understand your own argument.
You cannot define any morality if you do not have an absolute standard to define it with.
In that case, you cannot argue that anything is "right" or "wrong", all you can argue for is expediency.
And if it is expedient for someone to rape someone, then you have no right to condemn that.
You need to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149317 Jan 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know?
<quoted text>
I'm not duty bound to shit. That must be where you're having trouble understanding me. I make my own rules.
<quoted text>
It gives us a survival advantage as a species.
Personally, empathy influences me to be more tolerant and considerate to others, which makes me feel good, and generally leads to people expressing empathy towards me in return.
<quoted text>
That is true for all people. Disparaging atheists in this way is dishonest.
<quoted text>
The news isn't anything to go by.
<quoted text>
We do not have equality in the word. That is why empathy is not a higher priority in some people.
<quoted text>
Atheism only answers one question, "Do you believe in any gods?", with the answer, "No."
I get the feeling that you would like for my worldview to have a name, but it doesn't. It's personal to me.
Yes, you do want to set the standard for your own morality, that is your sinful condition.

I notice that you demand atheists are not disparaged, but that you have no issue when christians are disparaged. So that high horse is one you should not be riding.:-)

Atheism demands a very limited view of the world based on a biblical truth, that states that men suppress the truth of Gods existance because of their love of sin.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149318 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Cycle wasting cu*ts like you deserve no better.
<quoted text>
You really need to deal with your aggression.

It just makes you look like a fool.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149319 Jan 22, 2013
Pat wrote:
EVERY argument for god is an argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather the absence of it.God = human ignorance.
Now let me apply the same arbitrary argument so you can see how logically absurd it is, back to you:

EVERY argument for arockdidit is an argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather the absence of it. arockdidit = human ignorance.

That rabbit hole isn't worth pursuing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149320 Jan 22, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles my mind just how morally challenged theists can be. Ethics are the rules of group cooperation, nothing more. They have nothing at all to do with your sky fairy beliefs. The golden rule is pretty simple. We do not kill witches for the same reason we do not kill theists. We should treat each other as we want to be treated. This is the basic principle that allows civilization to exist. Morals evolved in us because they are a benefit to our survival.
By the way, faith is immoral for it is dishonest. Honest people admit to not knowing things that are not known, theists just fill in all the blanks to all the tough questions with the word god and considered the matter solved. Theists are both mentally lazy and dishonest.
You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.

You then appeal to subjective morality.

You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.

Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149321 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago.
Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:
Yes.
You torture the person.
You prevent the bomb killing civilians.
Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.
End of moral dilemma.
<quoted text>
So it is ok to torture people as long as you pay for the crime later?

Interesting theology you have there.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149322 Jan 22, 2013
?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to deal with your aggression.
It just makes you look like a fool.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149323 Jan 22, 2013
No, not theology.
It's called doing the right thing.
The default position is to avoid torture wherever possible.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is ok to torture people as long as you pay for the crime later?
Interesting theology you have there.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149324 Jan 22, 2013
Bollocks.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.
You then appeal to subjective morality.
You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.
Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149325 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No, not theology.
It's called doing the right thing.
The default position is to avoid torture wherever possible.
<quoted text>
But how do you define the right thing.

I have yet to see you present a reasonable basis for morality.

Your last attempt was it is okay to be immoral as long as you pay for the crime later.

The ends justify the means in other words.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149326 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
You are fast becoming my favourite atheist.

Your elucidation of the true nature of atheism is a wonder to behold.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149327 Jan 22, 2013
?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are fast becoming my favourite atheist.
Your elucidation of the true nature of atheism is a wonder to behold.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#149328 Jan 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Conservation of energy is a local, not just a global phenomenon. The Higg's particle 'produces mass' only in the sense that the symmetry breaking and the resulting interaction with the Higg's produces resistance to forces (i.e, mass). Also, the vast majority of ordinary matter gets its mass from a *different* symmetry breaking, not from the Higg's (which produces masses for the larger quarks and some other large particles).
Conservation of energy , depends if isolated / open or closed.
We cant be sure if it even applies on a universal scale, but assuming it does.
How can we isolate or close a galaxy or even solar system?
We can isolate them or close them to within the universe.

Unless I don't understand it, it's pretty much claimed the Higgs field gives mass to ordinary particles. Though not the only way, and not all mass needed for an atom, or other things found or unknown such as dark matter, and black holes.

Here is an interesting take on it, But you're the particle man.
But I've been led to thing the Higgs field (fields) are the reason.

"The Higgs field (or fields) and its particle (or particles, if any) are collectively referred to as the “Higgs sector”. I’ll use that term as a catch-all in the following discussion. The simplest possible Higgs sector is the one that appears in the so-called “Standard Model of Particle Physics”, a set of equations describing all of the known elementary particles and the simplest possible Higgs sector: one Higgs field and its associated Higgs particle.[Actually that's the way things are after the Higgs field becomes non-zero; to see what things are like before the Higgs field is non-zero, read this article, which shows the Higgs sector actually starts off with four Higgs particles, and ends up with one.] But far more complicated Higgs sectors, with many more fields and particles, might be present in nature. For them, the implications of the current Higgs searches are correspondingly much more complicated to characterize."

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-pos...

Of course we could all be wrong about it, or at least it is a possibility too.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149329 Jan 22, 2013
You're still incorrect.

It would be immoral not to save civilians from a bomb blast if you could.

An all powerful god that lets children get shot, or die of leukaemia, or get raped by priests, or to be threatened with eternal damnation would also be immoral- if such a god existed.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But how do you define the right thing.
I have yet to see you present a reasonable basis for morality.
Your last attempt was it is okay to be immoral as long as you pay for the crime later.
The ends justify the means in other words.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#149330 Jan 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Those virtual particles are effects of the motion of space producing matter.
You can't collect pixels in a bucket. They aren't really "solid". "Pixels" are just swirls of energy impacted by a stream of energy, which "lights" them up giving an appearance of solidity.
That was an approximation, or 2D representation of a 4D process.
Not sure how virtual particles come to be really, I'm not sure the case is closed on them at all. They are mysterious though.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149331 Jan 22, 2013
Still loving it. We're pretty high up in the Chilterns so it still looks good.

Walking a dog through muddy fields is much less fun than through snow.
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
u still enjoying the snow? I'm fed up of it! I want it to rain.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#149332 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Point proved.
Slavery was not wrong then, but is now.
And if tomorrow society decides that slavery of a few will benefit the majority, with your reasoning, you are duty bound to follow that decision.
If you have lived in Germany during the 1930's, with your reasoning here, you would have been a nazi...
Have you really thought this through thoroughly?
Slavery may not have been moral then (to us), but was considered such 2-6 thousand years ago. But you can't apply one standard against the other because we do not understand life the same way.

Survival is not necessarily an submission of approval.
One may be a Nazi in 1940's Germany for no other reason than fear.
Yes morality is subjective like that but you have to remember the dynamics that the singular impression of it may differ from the majority. But you are also using two standards where one is pretty much universal in 1940 Germany , the seeds of freedom had been already been sewn throughout the world.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#149333 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But even after several days, you still cannot account how you keep appealing to absolute moral standards, whilst denying they exist?...
You have yet to define what you mean by "absolute moral standards". Those listed in the Bible most certainly cannot be what you are talking about.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
...You keep making authority claims about morality, but what is your ultimate standard of morality upon which you keep measuring moral issues with?...
No, I don't. But I realize it is beyond you to understand.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly do not get it from atheism, which you want to present as a rational viewpoint to adopt...
Atheism only informs you of what I am NOT, i.e., I am not a theist. It tells you nothing about what I am. Again this appears to be too hard for you to understand.

What I am is a Humanist.

Humanists understand that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of responsible freedom.

Humanists understand that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.

Humanists understand that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#149334 Jan 22, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the morality that your family abides by is the morality that you learned in India or England? Was it learned from your religion or your town?
What makes you believe that your morality is superior to mine?
I learnt it from my mummy, who learnt it from her mummy, and so on, they influenced by Nanak and the saints. i honestly don't know if we influenced by our religion or born this way, but we agree with Nanak and we don't wanna see others in pain. This feeling runs through all my mother's side of the family. There might be 1 rotten apple in the family, i'm sure. But my papa's side of the family also go to the gurudwara, believe in Nanak, but they are pure evil! I don't know maybe some people just don't wanna even try to be good.

I never said my morality was superior than your? morality is mortality how can u have different levels, killing someone is wrong, killing them softly is worse than killing them quickly?

I was trying to tell u that since the beginning of the hindu religion, which was started thousands of years before any other religion, it might even be the first ever religion on the planet. The saints in that religion are saying, murder, rape, slavery is wrong, so how can u say morality changes?

I don't know about western religions, but in the eastern religions, morality has always been the same. Yes, people in India kept slaves, raped women, murdered etc..but everyone always knew it was immoral. But stupid, ignorant, powerful people still do evil things!

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 Darwins Stepchild 880,974
Ask me a trivia question (Oct '08) 35 min hellohelloem 213,278
What Steps we can take to preserve and conserve... 44 min blueair india 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 53 min Peace_Warrior 613,084
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 1 hr Ruby88 53,495
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 hr cutepie 581
9/11&bin 1 hr REV CAROL 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr dollarsbill 8,359
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 hr sangili karuppan 7,656
The Christian Atheist debate 3 hr Critical Eye 4,082
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 hr June VanDerMark 603,567
More from around the web