Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247290 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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150348 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman.
No one is arguing that "everything" is created by intelligence.
What is being argued that all things that are created, were created by intelligence.
God is eternal, so is not a part of the creation.
zzzzzz

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#150349 Jan 27, 2013
I kind of figured hehe no harm done. And indeed I enjoy your posts.

All the best :)
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry...
Previous response was for another poster.:(
I do appreciate the background on the poster you were referring to.
The Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured goat herders.
Given the information readily available it is odd so many individuals find this book so compelling, yet have never read it!
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150350 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
In which case, the universe itself can happen into existence without a "creator." Thus, your presupposition of there being a required creator for the universe is invalid. Science is correct in assuming that it is not required and therefore should progress as is, without any religious nonsense perverting it.
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150351 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted your point, please respond to it rather than try to change the subject.
You stated that nothing was caused by everything.
I suspected you did not mean that to come out that way, but asked you to clarify it.
Rational discussion requires that you engage in a conversation.
If you want to be respected as rational, then you should respond respond rationally and qualify your point if someone else thinks it is not all that clear...
Your response of "god dun it" is irrational, yet you accuse others of not responding rationally. Irony meter, you broke another.

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.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#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...

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#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?

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) 6 min scaritual 878,413
Ruthlessly GREEDY New Yorkers earned 9-11 20 min Knock off purse s... 7
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 28 min WasteWater 272,853
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 32 min WasteWater 8,001
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min RoSesz 603,240
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr BenAdam 3,821
Weeniez, testicals, panites, dresses, make-up..... 2 hr BenAdam 6
More from around the web