Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255901 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: 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...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149647 Jan 24, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you are saying but it is a strange point to make. I apologize for using this as an example but I am using it simply so you can understand how it sounds to me. Ex. 2+2=4 but if 2+2 was 7 then it would be correct and we would change the way we do math.
Yeah. I suppose. But as it is illogical now... it sounds ridiculous and it would need to be proven before we start making other conclusions based on that way of thinking.
<quoted text>
Time isn't a bubble. It is a sequence of events. Once god "does" anything at all... he exists within time. If he interacts or has a single thought or observation... that is time.
God has been pushed "outside of time and space" because it is the only place believers can put him where we can't touch him. The problem is... for something to be said to exist... it is within space and time... which then puts us in a position we do agree on.
<quoted text>
I want to take this from a different angle but i want to address this as if i believed it.
If the tested creates the test we have some big problems. I doubt i have to explain this... but for example.... a magician uses a hula hoop to prove his assistant is floating...
Keep in mind i don't believe god would lie as i don't believe in any gods. I'm just pointing out the problem with the claim
If God was outside of time and space, as He created it, then He would have to reveal that fact in some form.

To do this, He has shown, through prophecy, that this is the case.

It is a logical conclusion.

1. To prove God is eternal, He has to show knowledge that He operates outside the bounds of time.
2. God reveals the future through prophecy, operating outside of time.
3. God proves He is eternal.

Second Part:

1. The universe had a start, a first cause that was not of the universe.
2. That first cause has to show that it is outside of time.
3. God has shown He is outside of term and therefore the first cause.

Plenty of evidence that God is the Creator, using very simple logic.

God presents His own argument here:

Isa 42:8 I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isa 42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149648 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Let's do it this way. Define the concept of causality. What does it mean when we say that one thing causes another? Using your definition, prove that everything has a cause.
This post was caused by you.

Therefore it has a cause...

Unless you think it didn't?
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#149649 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists look at a rock and think it replaces the need for God...
No, atheists look at a rock and see a rock. They look at god-S and religion-S (in the plural) and understand that these are man made. Simple as.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149650 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
We know life exists you bozo. Put down your crack pipe for a little while, I think you have had enough.
"Remember, your standard is that you must be able to comprehend something for it to be true"
No, that's your line of bs not mine. If I am open to how life began since we do not know, what "has to be true"?
That is not the argument you made.

You made the argument that if you cannot comprehend something, it cannot exist.

You cannot comprehend abiogenesis, therefore abiogenesis does not exist.

Do you retract that argument?

To grow as a person, you need to be able to admit it when you do not understand something.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149651 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yours is an argument from ignorance not logic.
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have anything rational to present?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149652 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Honest people say "I don't know" to things not known, dishonest people say god.
Arbitrary appeal to your own authority.

Do you have anything rational to present?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149653 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim a god then you prove a god or accept you are a liar.
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln
I have been presenting evidence, but your fanatical goggles have not allowed you to see the evidence, let alone discuss and critique it...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149654 Jan 24, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on human wants and needs. Good = good for people. Evil = bad for people.
How do you know if a line is curvy?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149655 Jan 24, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't.
Do you?
Yes you do.

Hell is a myth.

I don't fear myths.

You do.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149656 Jan 24, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
god cant be outside of time heres why
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.
Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
Time is required for Change,
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
And yet you understand there is a concept called eternal.

How do you account for that?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149657 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists look at a rock and think it replaces the need for God...
A rock is more useful.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149658 Jan 24, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with making choices for you. It has to do with omniscience and freewill.
For any future act you will perform, if some being infallibly believed in the past that the act would occur, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed what he believed since nobody has any control over past events; nor can you make him mistaken in his belief, given that he is infallible. Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed in a way that cannot be mistaken that you would do what you will do. But if so, you cannot do otherwise than what he believed you would do. And if you cannot do otherwise, you will not perform the act freely.
You are assuming that man has no free will in your argument, that is the problem, your foundational premise precludes this option of free will, you then appeal to that premise as proof of itself...

Totally circular.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149659 Jan 24, 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.
And yet you are able to discuss the concepts as if they are fact?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149660 Jan 24, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a hard time saying this... but I have to agree with Riverside redneck on this... that was painful to type.
I don't know if you have read my comment on this a few pages back... but in case you did and still don't follow, im going to use another scenario I'm stealing from a YouTube video i watched.
If i wrote down everything you did for the next week.. then i came back in time and gave you that envelope now and told you not to open it for a week... when you opened it you would find that you did everything i recorded. Apart from the butterfly effect from giving you the envelope, i did not interfere with your free will.
Be careful...

If you don't tow the militant atheist line, you will be banned from the club as a traitor.

Best stop being rational, your fellow atheists will be objecting.

Enjoying your reasoned posts by the way.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149661 Jan 24, 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.
There is a general misunderstanding of "free will" amongst Christians and Atheists.

I have had many Christians disagree with me on this.

It is summed up in this argument:

God has given mankind the choice to rebel.

Not the right to rebel...

So, no, God never gave anyone in the universe the total right to deny His ownership.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149662 Jan 24, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
You let me know if you can teach a rock to think. Logic is not their strong suit.
Interesting, you require intelligence to teach a rock to think?

Sounds like you are making a Creationist argument there...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149663 Jan 24, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
No, atheists look at a rock and see a rock. They look at god-S and religion-S (in the plural) and understand that these are man made. Simple as.
Not so, atheists look at a rock and see abiogenesis...

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) 16 min It aint necessari... 55,916
Massage for ladies in Muscat 1 hr Ziyad 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr River Tam 972,382
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Steve III 649,768
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 3 hr Steve III 427
Will Atheism defeat religion by year 2038? (Feb '15) 3 hr Steve III 70
Does anybody know Doctor REALITY'S race or nati... 3 hr Johnny 39
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Fri Noname 69
More from around the web