Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243322 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.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150043 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you are sorry or not there is a difference between not understanding how an event happened and a paradox.
Paradox
noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion
There is nothing contradictory, false or absurd and therefore not a paradox, The logic of mathematics used to theorise the event contradict nothing. However you would no doubt have been correct until Dr Param Singh invented the mathematics that resolved the problems of infinities. Perhaps you are out of date or perhaps you use the wrong word? I don’t know, I don’t do too well at reading minds.
Human knowledge increases, that is the nature of the human mind and of course the reason for science. Because there is a limit now does not mean that limit will stand next Thursday. Only in the last couple of years has the current limit been pushed back to 10^-34 of a second after the event.
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said
"the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist" That should be worded, "The very laws that govern this universe did not exist" The problem is a infinitesimal turned infinite if you fail to see the paradox , the problem is yours.

Just as the cosmological argument has been waged for 4 thousand years, and in your arrogance and haughty reasoning will not change it from being the paradox it is. It is hardly been solved though our understanding greater yes, but the heart of this mystery will forever be shrouded in a impenetrable fog of absolutes that defy reason to explain.

Param Singh has hypothesis but like so much wonder it is but one possible explanation of many , in cosmology there are many flavors of possibility , but they only hold favor awhile till the next scheme is devised . But like all theory and hypothesis into before the beginning is nothing more than conjecture.
Else the cosmological argument would be no longer a topic and all the rage even here and now , within this very forum.

We you and I can only say the evidence leads us to think it was not a caused event, or better said caused by a uncaused causer of causers. We can go further saying it is possible that quantum fluctuations caused a potential difference in space/time/matter/energy and this was likely due to the nature of minute quantum perturbation, but it takes not away from mystery and paradox of the resulting infinite/infinitesimal.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150044 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory are you presenting?
I am not talking about any of the *philosophical interpretations* of quantum theory. I am talking about the quantum theory as actually used by physicists.
If something decays, it means it has a prior condition.
yes, the prior condition is that of being a muon. But here's the point: there is no difference between a muon that decays now versus a muon that decays at some later time (or that never decays). When that muon decays is random and uncaused.
Now you can claim that such decay is evidence of a lack of a cause, but that would seem to be very illogical...
Why would you say that? It is illogical only if you *assume* that all events have causes. But that is exactly the point at issue, so that assumption is not one you can make without justification.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150045 Jan 25, 2013
"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep;
she didn't know where to find them.
She called the police, they followed the fleece.
Boy Blue was right there behind them.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150046 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
Thank you, Christine. Hope you had a good one, too.
There is much empirical evidence to support my theory. Just look at the quantity of fruits and nuts posting on Topix.
Yes thanks

Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150047 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes thanks
Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe
It's a window looking out on it that you can watch the squirrels from.

On the more serious side, your brand of physics is preoccupied with examining thingies, which makes it difficult to see the whole. The secret is in looking at it as a process. The laws of nature is a process.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150048 Jan 25, 2013

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150049 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor God.
He's going to have to leave town.
His life will be pure Hell after all of these righteous Topix atheists show up on his doorstep.
Hope he doesn't turn over the keys to the kingdom to them.
I'm sure he would, rather than be bored for all of eternity by a bunch of bleating sheep.

1787 August 10.(Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150050 Jan 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said
…

Sorry word count limits
I have no problem with what I mean, those laws exist, and they help us to understand the universe. They came into being at a point in time, that does not mean to say that outside this universe other laws are not in effect.

Please provide evidence of such tuning? From what I have read no such tuning exists and everything in this universe is the result of time coupled with those universal laws. Those laws may or may not exists outside the domain of this universe and came in to existence after the event as a random result of that event and time.

I quoted the definition of paradox, the current understanding of how the universe was created is not paradoxical, there is nothing contradictory, the meshing of quantum and atomic domains are now calculable and seamless.

Yes the argument has been waged for some time and in very recent years the boundaries of that argument have expanded. Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge and understanding increases. Just because you believe it to be contradictory does not make it contradictory, all it means is that you believe it to be contradictory. Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice.

Singh’s mathematics provide logical solutions to several possibility’s by quantifying what is already known about both the quantum and atomic domains. And of course the people involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis and the quantim/atomic interface are for the most part, agreed that his mathematics are the best available for the job in hand. The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.

Even when/(if) a solution is found it will not stop the arguments, just look at the YEC lot, the creationists bunch and the funnymentalist christards who are shown proof that the earth is millions of times older than they claim or that all fossils are transitional fossils or that Noahs flood was impossible or that DNA disproves Adam and Eve living at the same time.

This is where we disagree, evidence (even mathematical evidence) does away with the need for mystery. Personally I would prefer fact than bronze age mythology anytime, this of course does not diminish the wonder but enhances the joy.
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#150051 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
<quoted text>
Thinking was a little sh!t
Always chomping at the bit
Christine chose him as her cuckold
'Cause he has a drippy dikk

hahahahahahahaha.....you loser...

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#150052 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with what I mean, those laws exist, and they help us to understand the universe. They came into being at a point in time, that does not mean to say that outside this universe other laws are not in effect.
Please provide evidence of such tuning? From what I have read no such tuning exists and everything in this universe is the result of time coupled with those universal laws. Those laws may or may not exists outside the domain of this universe and came in to existence after the event as a random result of that event and time.
I quoted the definition of paradox, the current understanding of how the universe was created is not paradoxical, there is nothing contradictory, the meshing of quantum and atomic domains are now calculable and seamless.
Yes the argument has been waged for some time and in very recent years the boundaries of that argument have expanded. Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge and understanding increases. Just because you believe it to be contradictory does not make it contradictory, all it means is that you believe it to be contradictory. Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice.
Singh’s mathematics provide logical solutions to several possibility’s by quantifying what is already known about both the quantum and atomic domains. And of course the people involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis and the quantim/atomic interface are for the most part, agreed that his mathematics are the best available for the job in hand. The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.
Even when/(if) a solution is found it will not stop the arguments, just look at the YEC lot, the creationists bunch and the funnymentalist christards who are shown proof that the earth is millions of times older than they claim or that all fossils are transitional fossils or that Noahs flood was impossible or that DNA disproves Adam and Eve living at the same time.
This is where we disagree, evidence (even mathematical evidence) does away with the need for mystery. Personally I would prefer fact than bronze age mythology anytime, this of course does not diminish the wonder but enhances the joy.
Okay let point out the fallacy in your arguments.

"outside this universe"?
This will take much speculation.

I made no reference to tuning, fine tuning or anything of the nature.

"Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice"

Arrogance and wishful thinking.

"Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned (physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge)"

Argument from authority.

"involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis"

Another way of saying conjecture.

"science and mathematics has taken over"

This is a conflicted statement, exactly what have science and math taken over?

I agree some of us use reasoning and science as tools to better understand the world, but has science taken over?
Will science conquer Iran's Theocracy?

The universe itself IS a paradox , can you say why there is something instead of nothing?
Why a infinitesimal became infinite, or even how is it not paradoxical in nature right down to Schroeder's cat and the time that passed for a photon to exist both 13 bya and now , despite your protest it is.

Just how old is a photon that originated shortly after the BB and has traveled 40 billion light years? Hint how does a photon appear to break causality?

The universe is a conglomeration of paradoxes.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150053 Jan 25, 2013
F**k off, identity thief.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking was a little sh!t
Always chomping at the bit
Christine chose him as her cuckold
'Cause he has a drippy dikk
hahahahahahahaha.....you loser...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150054 Jan 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't. The question is a subjective one, based on your opinion. No absolute morality required.
"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"
So, do you think they are evil or not?
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?

You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150055 Jan 25, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Very nicely written :)
Very nicely read.:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150056 Jan 25, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Across time and societies, those calling themselves Christians have held many contradictory beliefs about morality.
Do you have an example you would like to put forward?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150057 Jan 25, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an example of a god of the gaps fallacy, which is a variant of the argument from ignorance.
You fill in what you do not understand with "goddidit".
This is an example of a rock of the gaps fallacy, which is a variant of the argument from ignorance.

You fill what you do not understand with "arockdidit".

See how arbitrary claims work?

Do you have a logical reasoned response to make instead, or do you just want to make arbitrary claims and expect others just to accept them?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150058 Jan 25, 2013
Non sequitur.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If no absolute morality is required, then how do you define evil?
You have obviously pre-supposed that an absolute morality does exist, as you are using the term "evil", which is an expression of an absolute moral state...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150059 Jan 25, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
How many stories, do you know of, describing the beginning of the universe? Every religion and culture, just about, has the same blind faith as you do.
When is the earliest know writings of your god? About 3,500 years ago, if I am not mistaken.
You have to do better than blind faith.
What, like nothing exploded, that kind of story that requires immense faith?

Special pleading.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150060 Jan 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And from now on you will be reported for your copy and paste block spam. Fair enough? You come here to troll but then get furious when treated like a troll? I suggest if you can't handle it stay in the Christian forums.
Thanks Daffy.
Oh and I will be staying, for a long time regardless of how you wail and cry for getting what you ask for :)
<quoted text>
This is an atheist forum?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150061 Jan 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You see half wit you are doing it backwards. Before you can that god is a creator or an authority you fist need to demonstrate observable proof for a god.
Until you have demonstrated and defined a god the rest is imagination, nothing more.
<quoted text>
No, it is you that has it backwards.

You pre-suppose naturalism before you even begin to look at any data...

Everyone pre-supposes their ultimate standard.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150062 Jan 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen as expected Derek4's other screen name mtimber has refused to answer any question and continues to dodge actual debate.
He wishes to claim his god is the absolute authority when it comes to morality yet when questioned about the horrific acts his god committed and commanded his people to do he as expected cries that this is an unfair off topic question.
So remember his god is the absolute authority on morality, just don't bring up examples of his god's morality or he will hide and scream no fair.
Typical unintelligent, intellectually dishonest Christian idiot trolls like him are a dime per 100,000.
Do you mind if I call you Margaret?

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 14 min HipGnosis 919
Why donate Prince Alwaleed bin Talal all his mo... 16 min dm3t7b 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 20 min Burke Devlin 854,608
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 31 min 2all 596,180
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 40 min Rosa_Winkel 444,292
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 43 min PELIN 275
"Zimbabwean President" asks Barack Obama "Do y... 1 hr Funny News 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 hr Charlie Sheen 272,082
More from around the web