Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256562 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

#150352 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He exempts himself from the laws of science , do you expect his god to obey them?
You are arguing that I deny the first cause argument?

Are you sure you want to take that position?

That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?

It seems to me that you will hold any position temporarily, if you think it will bolster your appeal to yourself being your absolute standand of authority...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150353 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
zzzzzz
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.
Are you asking for a reasoned argument or empirical evidence?

If you are arguing for empirical evidence, because that is the only method by which you measure the universe around you, then I would ask you to empirically show that a "rockdidit" (non life to life).

If you reject God based on a prejudiced appeal to empiricism, then you also have to reject:

arockdidit
nothingdidit

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150354 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you actually knew something. Can you not address the infinite regression or are you proposing that only your god is exempt from the "everything needs a creator" assertion?
Lovey Dove, from my postings on here you should understand I tend to get into regression and causation rather deeply. Not this topical psuedo-intellectual BS you and your crowd gets into.

For that reason I am quite aware that as the truly insignificant pieces of stellar shit that you and your fellow in the know and full of clues intellekshuals is the absolute truth of the matter, that not only is it impossible to get the grand overview from this lowly station in the larger scheme of things, but definitely on the presumptuous side for such iggorant and developing random collections of matter. It's called getting ahead of yourself.

You can imagine a lot of things, but be careful what you commit yourself to believing.

You follow the path back to your origination, which is what science does, and learn what you can along the way before you jump to conclusions to feed your own little ego. We got a long ways to go before you start asking what created the creator of the creation,

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150355 Jan 27, 2013
Every worldview has to presuppose an absolute standard of truth.

That absolute standard, if correct, will account for human experience.

The problem is, is that most atheists cannot even accept they presuppose certain things to be true, without being able to test them empirically.

Like:

"nothingdidit"
"nothingexploded"
"arockdidit"
"rocksthink"
"rockscare"

So we end up trying to explain the myth of neutrality, that atheists try to present as their great standard, whilst they appeal to their biased unsustainable presuppositions.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#150356 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you asking for a reasoned argument or empirical evidence?
If you are arguing for empirical evidence, because that is the only method by which you measure the universe around you, then I would ask you to empirically show that a "rockdidit" (non life to life).
If you reject God based on a prejudiced appeal to empiricism, then you also have to reject:
arockdidit
nothingdidit
<mtimber> "robble, robble, robble, glarrrgh"

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150357 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
You really are an idiot. Us atheists do not say no god exists, we deny your claims of a specific god the way you deny all other religions. So by your own fallacious argument here, you are saying that the other gods do not exist but that yours does, and that in private you actually believe in those other gods as well as your own.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#150358 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
You are a numbskull that believes what you want, you make that perfectly clear. Especially with 2 and 3.

You propose to know what different people think , and rewrite what it means to have no knowledge.

You may as well have said, I don't know what you think and I don't care what you think. Because I'll make it up for you.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#150359 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovey Dove, from my postings on here you should understand I tend to get into regression and causation rather deeply. Not this topical psuedo-intellectual BS you and your crowd gets into.
For that reason I am quite aware that as the truly insignificant pieces of stellar shit that you and your fellow in the know and full of clues intellekshuals is the absolute truth of the matter, that not only is it impossible to get the grand overview from this lowly station in the larger scheme of things, but definitely on the presumptuous side for such iggorant and developing random collections of matter. It's called getting ahead of yourself.
You can imagine a lot of things, but be careful what you commit yourself to believing.
You follow the path back to your origination, which is what science does, and learn what you can along the way before you jump to conclusions to feed your own little ego. We got a long ways to go before you start asking what created the creator of the creation,
Here you go, Dave, this'll save you some time. From now on just C&P this link into every post, no typing needed.

http://www.rndapps.com/images/WordSaladLogo.j...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150360 Jan 27, 2013
Whilst standing on the absolute truths of Christianity to deny Christianity.

Shouting out absolutes, whilst denying absolutes.
Screaming absolute moral positions, whilst denying morality.

Using logic, whilst denying the absolute cause of logic and even the existence of logic in some cases.

Arbitrary, inconsistent and illogical.

And yet demanding that people who do not adopt this are lacking in intelligence...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150361 Jan 27, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
<mtimber> "robble, robble, robble, glarrrgh"
Ah, the old stick your tongue out argument...

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#150362 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are arguing that I deny the first cause argument?
Are you sure you want to take that position?
That the first cause is a conclusion of logic and reason and indeed science is built on that principle?
It seems to me that you will hold any position temporarily, if you think it will bolster your appeal to yourself being your absolute standand of authority...

I was talking about Dave, Is that you Dave? A slip up with your socks? In general it meant that Dave has his own conceptions of some things, and they do not always agree with known values.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150363 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response of "god dun it" is irrational, yet you accuse others of not responding rationally. Irony meter, you broke another.
My argument is quite logical.

Everything created has a cause.

The first cause has to be by nature eternal.

To be eternal, the first cause has to operate outside of time.

The first cause has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving and eternal.

On the point of God being eternal.

He reveals the future consistently and accurately, therefore affirming He is outside of time and therefore the First Cause.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150364 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Whilst standing on the absolute truths of Christianity to deny Christianity.
Shouting out absolutes, whilst denying absolutes.
Screaming absolute moral positions, whilst denying morality.
Using logic, whilst denying the absolute cause of logic and even the existence of logic in some cases.
Arbitrary, inconsistent and illogical.
And yet demanding that people who do not adopt this are lacking in intelligence...
You are the ones asserting there are absolutes. The need for evidence is completely contradictory of claiming there are absolutes. We want evidence, you supply no evidence. Until you supply evidence that there is a god then your god is mythology, that is not an absolute, that is called sanity.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150365 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an idiot. Us atheists do not say no god exists, we deny your claims of a specific god the way you deny all other religions. So by your own fallacious argument here, you are saying that the other gods do not exist but that yours does, and that in private you actually believe in those other gods as well as your own.
Atheists often say lots of things, often not very consistent with what they have said before.

But atheists are not my absolute standard of truth.

God is.

And God tells us in the Bible, that you do know about Him.

But that you are denying His reality, because you want to live a selfish sinful existence.

On this point, knowing you do not have any absolute requirement for telling the truth as an atheist, I have to accept Gods point of the view on the matter.

I have to remain consistent with my worldview.

I challenge you to do the same.

And on that point, as an atheist, I see no absolute moral reason why you would not lie that you do in fact know God, would you care to explain to me, upon what basis I should believe you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150366 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a numbskull that believes what you want, you make that perfectly clear. Especially with 2 and 3.
You propose to know what different people think , and rewrite what it means to have no knowledge.
You may as well have said, I don't know what you think and I don't care what you think. Because I'll make it up for you.
You did not actually respond to any of my arguments with a logical refutation.

Just an appeal to your own absolute ability to gauge everyone elses intelligence.

Are you omniscient?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150367 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about Dave, Is that you Dave? A slip up with your socks? In general it meant that Dave has his own conceptions of some things, and they do not always agree with known values.
I agree that Dave does not agree with the values that you have no basis to account for as an atheist, but that does not mean that he disagrees with absolute values as you claim here...

You seem to think that your opinion somehow equates with absolute values.

Why is that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150368 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the ones asserting there are absolutes. The need for evidence is completely contradictory of claiming there are absolutes. We want evidence, you supply no evidence. Until you supply evidence that there is a god then your god is mythology, that is not an absolute, that is called sanity.
Of course I am asserting absolutes.

It is absurd to deny their existence.

You cannot function in this universe without them.

I am asking you to account for them.

But it seems you are reduced to the absurdity of denying them, just so that you an hold onto your own arbitrary opinions about how the universe "should" be.

Notice the "should" in my statement...

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#150369 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Science does not speak - fallacy of equivocation.
2. Atheists presuppose God does not exist (publicly, in private they do know).
3. There is no scientific data that can account for the origins of the temporal from the eternal, so to assume that this true is to presuppose it is true. Which is an act of blind faith and appeals to vicious circular reasoning.
<quoted text>
You did not actually respond to any of my arguments with a logical refutation.
Just an appeal to your own absolute ability to gauge everyone elses intelligence.
Are you omniscient?
Replying to nonsense is in fact nonsensical , my reply was in order. There was no logical to refute logically.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150370 Jan 27, 2013
Open to all atheists:

Atheists say they lack a belief in God.

God says that isn't true, that they do know of Him, but suppress that truth so they can continue sinning.

Now God, by His nature cannot lie.

But the atheist, appealing to subjective morality, is free to lie at will.

Therefore why would anyone believe an atheist who claims that they lack a belief in God?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150371 Jan 27, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you appreciate our DNA ~***The first is his very public embrace of religion. Dr. Collins, who was not raised with any religious training, wrote a book called "The Language of God," and he has given many talks and interviews in which he has described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical school intern. "I came at this from a position of ignorance," he said. "I came at it from an intellectual point of view." Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field are uneasy about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism.
The other objection stems from his leadership of the Human Genome Project, which is part of the N.I.H. Although Dr. Collins was widely praised in 2003 when the effort succeeded, the hopes that this discovery would yield an array of promising medical interventions have greatly dimmed, discouraging many.
While Dr. Collins cannot be blamed for the unexpected scientific hurdles facing genetic research, he played an important role in raising expectations impossibly high. In interviews, he had called the effort "the most important and the most significant project that humankind has ever mounted" and predicted it would quickly allow everyone to know the genetic risks for many diseases.
Some scientists and advocates for people suffering from diseases criticized the extraordinary amount of money and attention the sequencing effort garnered, saying it distracted from more fruitful areas of research.
Dr. Collins's confirmation by the Senate is all but certain. He has long cultivated good relations on Capitol Hill. And since the administration finalized rules for broader use of stem cells in federal research before nominating him, anti-abortion forces will have a harder time using that issue to stop his confirmation.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/ti... ***
It is indeed exciting, is it not?
And Dr. Collins, while an evangelical Christian, understands that evolution is true and that creationism and ID are garbage. He is very explicit about this in his book.

Once again, I have no problem with someone who can do science rigorously but still believes in a deity (I think they are wrong about the latter, but that is there right). That means accepting that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and that humans have evolved from earlier apes (we are apes still). Dr. Collins is fine with these 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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Buck Crick 64,145
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min mpetershat 654,160
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 11 min thetruth 9,369
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 27 min Student 45,249
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 44 min HipGnosis 183,184
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 46 min gundee123 828
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 49 min Jake999 281,892
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Lbj 106,549
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr pusherman_ 973,849
More from around the web