Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258038 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

#149627 Jan 23, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>JESUS warned/prophesied Peter that he would deny JESUS three times ~ just because Peter chose to deny JESUS (even after denying that he would deny him prior to that) does not mean Peter had his free will taken away.
Peter denied knowing JESUS because he was scared.....
Trust you have enjoyed furthering your lesson :)
No, you're wrong, if Peter had not done just exactly as Jesus said, he would have been a false prophet, or not a deity as is claimed.

When Jesus said that is what Peter would do, then Peter had no choice in the outcome.

The whole freewill thing as asserted by Christianity - is laughable.

Matthew 26:34
34.) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Peter--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."

Peter had to do that, no? But wait, if he didn't, Jesus would have given a false prophecy.

Peter had no choice.

Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times before morning.

Could Peter have done any different? If so, how could Jesus be a god?

No, if Peter had done differently, Jesus couldn't have been deity, not according to the bible. In the story, the moment Jesus said it would happen, it became prophecy. If it didn't happen, then Jesus would have been a false prophet, and certainly not a god.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149628 Jan 23, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Is someone here asserting that humans have free will or that omniscience exists?
We can define omniscience in such a way that it would be compatible with free will, but they are both fictional concepts.
Whether or not the concepts are logically compatible depends on the definition of each concept. I could argue from either side as long as the concepts are well defined.
I think it would be more interesting to argue if either could exist, or do exist, and explain how.
I don't think there is rational approach or reasoning - or logic - that you can apply to a god concept that would create special beings with free will. Then; Restrict that free will by demanding we don't use it freely. And; Give us an inquisitive yearning for knowledge that is all around us, then punish us for using either of those things that the god placed there for us to choose from in the first place...by demanding our deaths, or, blind submission to the notion of "don't question it, do as I say".

Stepping away from the deistic concept of omniscience and free will.

Our immediate and current actions may not be the result of free will, like having to crossing terrain, physical limitations, or that we do have to eat and sleep, etc. But, reflecting on those actions and what we did once and what we had little choice in during that first encounter, and will do, allows us to modify how we react to those relatively immutable aspects of physical existence we face. So I think we do have a modicum of free will in that respect.

But, no matter how we may choose to traverse or encounter something in the future, and even currently, if it's a mountain, for instance, we still have to cross it, or go around it, or dig a tunnel through it. If we still must go from point A to B and if the mountain or river is a part of that point A to B trip, we have little free will in that respect.

That's my general view concerning free will, we have very little.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149629 Jan 23, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
If i wrote down everything you did for the next week.. then i came back in time
\

I'm confused here. Are you writing this down as it happens? Not sure if you're predicting or observing what's taking place a week in the future.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149630 Jan 23, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think there is rational approach or reasoning - or logic - that you can apply to a god concept that would create special beings with free will. Then; Restrict that free will by demanding we don't use it freely. And; Give us an inquisitive yearning for knowledge that is all around us, then punish us for using either of those things that the god placed there for us to choose from in the first place...by demanding our deaths, or, blind submission to the notion of "don't question it, do as I say".
Stepping away from the deistic concept of omniscience and free will.
Our immediate and current actions may not be the result of free will, like having to crossing terrain, physical limitations, or that we do have to eat and sleep, etc. But, reflecting on those actions and what we did once and what we had little choice in during that first encounter, and will do, allows us to modify how we react to those relatively immutable aspects of physical existence we face. So I think we do have a modicum of free will in that respect.
But, no matter how we may choose to traverse or encounter something in the future, and even currently, if it's a mountain, for instance, we still have to cross it, or go around it, or dig a tunnel through it. If we still must go from point A to B and if the mountain or river is a part of that point A to B trip, we have little free will in that respect.
That's my general view concerning free will, we have very little.
The way I see it is, every choice we make is based on knowledge, past experiences, reason and deduction (and a few more). I agree this allows for a degree of freewill. But it's a freewill that was determined by sound reasoning that allows us to make the best choice possible.

Does that make sense or am I just tossing word salad?(childish giggle)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149631 Jan 23, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I see it is, every choice we make is based on knowledge, past experiences, reason and deduction (and a few more). I agree this allows for a degree of freewill. But it's a freewill that was determined by sound reasoning that allows us to make the best choice possible.
Does that make sense or am I just tossing word salad?(childish giggle)
It makes sense, and to emphasize a portion of a phrase you used above:

"allows us to make the best choice possible."

*Allow**Choice*

That indicates, to me, we're only exercising a semblance of free will in an environment that we have very little latitude in the choices available to draw from. The discussion surrounding free will is always thought provoking, because at times you can almost convince yourself we do have free will in what we do from day to day, but upon further examination, we're really at the whim of our environment.

There is one thing we do have 100% free will in.

The choice to die.

Any of us can choose to die in various ways, and that is pure free will if a person chooses that, but, who wants to choose death in order to exercise 100% free will?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#149632 Jan 24, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, if Peter had not done just exactly as Jesus said, he would have been a false prophet, or not a deity as is claimed.
When Jesus said that is what Peter would do, then Peter had no choice in the outcome.
The whole freewill thing as asserted by Christianity - is laughable.
Matthew 26:34
34.) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Peter--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."
Peter had to do that, no? But wait, if he didn't, Jesus would have given a false prophecy.
Peter had no choice.
Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times before morning.
Could Peter have done any different? If so, how could Jesus be a god?
No, if Peter had done differently, Jesus couldn't have been deity, not according to the bible. In the story, the moment Jesus said it would happen, it became prophecy. If it didn't happen, then Jesus would have been a false prophet, and certainly not a god.
You let me know if you can teach a rock to think. Logic is not their strong suit.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149633 Jan 24, 2013
The three denials are at the end of this short BBC documentary:

www.youtube.com/watch...
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>JESUS warned/prophesied Peter that he would deny JESUS three times ~ just because Peter chose to deny JESUS (even after denying that he would deny him prior to that) does not mean Peter had his free will taken away.
Peter denied knowing JESUS because he was scared.....
Trust you have enjoyed furthering your lesson :)

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#149634 Jan 24, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because God knows what choices you will make doesn't mean He makes those choices for you.
Simple as that.
Was it my free will to be born?

Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?

Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?

Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?

As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?

As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?

Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?

All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149635 Jan 24, 2013
If you look at the BBC skit in my post above, it actually explains how Judas had little or no free will.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it my free will to be born?
Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?
Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?
Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?
Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?
All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.
Imhotep

United States

#149636 Jan 24, 2013
You know how the Catholic Church is always going on and on ... and on and freakin' on ... about the sanctity of life and also a bunch of vague concepts about liberty "n stuff?

We can't have abortion because every sperm is sacred. We can't have insurance coverage for women's health care because something about Taco Bell and freedom. We can't even fund cancer screening because apparently Jesus was cool with women dying of undetected breast cancer.

And all of this - all of it - goes back to the Church's insistence that life begins with your very first hell-worthy dirty thought and must be protected at all costs, despite all consequences, including, of course, the consequence of dead women, whose lives are not nearly as valuable as the "life" of an unborn fetus. In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms - all to protect those fetuses. No exceptions. None. Not if the fetus is already dead inside the womb. Not if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it. No goddamned exceptions EVER.

Well, except for one: when it's going to cost the Church money.

Turns out, when a man sues a Catholic hospital for malpractice because his wife and the twins she was carrying inside her died when she turned up in the emergency room and her doctor never bothered to answer a page - well, things get a little tricky. Yes, the Catholic hospital adheres to the strict Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, as set forth by the U.S.

Conference of Catholic Bishops. And yes, those directives include the claim that "[t]he Church's defense of life encompasses the unborn" and a mandate to uphold "the sanctity of life "from the moment of conception until death."" But come on. That obviously does not apply when Catholic Health Initiatives, the Church-affiliated organization that runs the Church-affiliated St. Thomas More Hospital where a young woman and her two unborn fetuses died, is the lead defendant in a lawsuit:

Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court "should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term "person," as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define "person" under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses."

Thank you, counselor, for totally undermining everything the Catholic Church has ever said about women and health care and fetuses and the "sanctity of life," just to save a buck, thereby confirming how very empty and meaningless all that rhetoric really is.

Praise the Lord.!

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#149637 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Big ego small brain syndrome. Very common amongst godbots.
Thank you....

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#149638 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The three denials are at the end of this short BBC documentary:
www.youtube.com/watch...
<quoted text>
Judas knew the strength that JESUS had, he had witnessed it himself on many occasions, and Judas knew that JESUS could defend Himself. It didn't turn out that way at all.....

And Judas took his own life .... and if I had witnessed what was going on back then, I probably would have to. I had to watch "The Passion of the Christ" with no volume, and it was a huge shock to see what they actually did to Him. But, in Sunday School, we coloured in little driplets of blood running from short thorns, just scraping His flesh, and although we knew about the sword in the side, actually watching it on the screen was horrific.

Thank GOD we have moved on from those days, although of course, there are circumstances that actually have not moved on at all.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#149639 Jan 24, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
We can't have abortion because every sperm is sacred.
They actually argue fertilised egg and embryo is sacred. This is despite the problem that approx half of fertilised eggs are naturally aborted without the women even knowing she is carrying a fertilised egg. But according to the madness of catholic theology these eggs are infused with souls, and they will go to purgatory, before going to heaven. They debate this type of thing in the vatican, instead of contributing to society in the real world.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149640 Jan 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
"Christian" morality is also subjective.
Didn't you know that?
Would you expand on that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149641 Jan 24, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
What does "Gods nature is reflected in His universe" mean then? God is partially held to the laws of physics?
The laws of logic, morality and uniformity reveal the character of God...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149642 Jan 24, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Evil can certainly exist without God, but answering that question has nothing to do with the other question, which was:
"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"
May I assume you have no answer? If not, let me know and I'll address the other question.
It does apply, how can you have an absolute standard of evil, without an absolute standard of good?

You are appealing to that as the basis for your argument, my question is, upon what basis do you make that appeal?

Where do you get absolute morality from?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149643 Jan 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is a field of study. There are competing "theories", but no scientific consensus yet.
<quoted text>
That isn't even metaphorically accurate. You want to parrot the "goddidit" argument, which in itself suggests that you realize how fallacious that argument is.
Life either came from non-life, or has always existed. The Biblical Creation myth is also a life from non-life answer. Apparently, in that myth, man was created from clay. I don't know if you interpret that literally or metaphorically, but either way, it suggests an answer of life from non-life.
No, the atheist wants to present the godidit argument as invalid whilst retaining the rockdidit argument as valid.

I am making the Transcendental Argument for the existance of God.

You can of course match that and make the transcendental argument for the creative powers of rocks if you want, but that might be a tough one...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149644 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you are talking about. You can't put the cart before the horse and expect to get to town. There were no equilibrium and until the formation of matter and energy separated into its different forms there was no basis for the laws as we know them. Though we are starting to understand the forces in the first few seconds , one is sill elusive and beyond our understanding at this point. Superforce or the unification of all forces separated, we see it partly as zero point energy but cannot duplicate or even model it yet. So you don't make sense, no laws were suspended before they settled into equilibrium.
Wow, and you observed all of that?

Where did law come from by the way?

Was there a point where "law" did not exist?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149645 Jan 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It is to us because, were are not primitives or savages.
One of your own team members disagree with you...

Are you saying they are a primitive or savage?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149646 Jan 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
That was oddly worded.
We look at rocks and see no evidence in those rocks to support a claim that a god exists.
Do you suggest that rocks hold evidence for your god? Does that evidence exclude other gods?
I feel like I'm examining a box of rocks right now.
Atheists look at a rock and think it replaces the need for God...

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Say no to stupid 87,865
The Future of Politics in America 29 min It aint necessari... 173
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 43 min Truth-be-Told 446
Why east indians buy all the motels (Sep '09) 1 hr Enough is enough 42
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr kent 665,112
News The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 1 hr Caesar 5
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Pegasus 284,467
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 18 hr nanoanomaly 977,190
More from around the web