Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247828 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.

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#150428 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."
The cosmic microwave background radiation was produced before the universe was a half million years old. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave... :
"As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to lose energy until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons, forming hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation."
And Big Bang nucleosynthesis was complete by about T = 1000 seconds. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleos... ;
"Big Bang nucleosynthesis ... began at temperatures of around 10 MeV and ended at temperatures below 100 keV. The corresponding time interval was from a few tenths of a second to up to 103 seconds."
Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?

Yes it is theoretical, but supported by evidence. That can't change the theoretical basis. We can directly observe the exact same things that happened after 150 million years to billion years after , happening over again.

Any look into the unknown by experimentation, such as the Big Bang is a branch of theoretical cosmology. If we could see back farther
we would have a physical model but are limited in that respect.
At this point we can say anything beyond a certain limit is theoretical. This image shows you the limit. though it maybe extended a bit farther in a few years. At any rate there is a gap between what is known for sure and what is under study, what is under study is of theoretical nature.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/hubble_discov...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150429 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Every worldview has to presuppose an absolute standard of truth.
Maybe, but so what? They are still not all equal. One is empirically superior to all of the rest.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150430 Jan 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
IANS, life is a series of adventures. Some good, some bad.
You get some variation, some chance to express yourself.
Your concept of a God is something that never let's the rain fall, never let's you feel pain, and never let's you be individual.
Perhaps a loving God is the one that lets you taste of life, and the various seasonings of it. It is all temporary, anyhow.
Your ideal seems to be one where you eat tortillas everyday. With no seasonings.
Lets, not let's.

It's just that you did it three times in just one sentence.

Let's be a little more mindful of grammar.

Your god will appreciate it, I'm certain.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150431 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, because no one has yet to demonstrate that I lied. If you believe your christians don't lie, then you are more deluded than I once thought. You lie about having evidence all the time. As for absolute, even your morality is not absolute, you just pick and choose which parts of your spoonfed morals you want to follow, and ignore all the rest, it is you we cannot trust, because you profess an absolute when there is none, that is how people make excuses for bad behavior.
I have demonstrated it.

The Bible clearly shows that you are lying on this matter.

And as the Bible has shown it can be trusted, then I see no reason to take your word over the truths it clearly reveals.

You do know of God, but you suppress that truth so that you can continue in sin.

You say you don't lie, as if there is an absolute moral value you wish to ascribe to yourself.

Why would you, as an atheist be concerned about that?

You see, you claim to live by atheistic principles of morality, but then you appeal to Christian principles of morality as the defining standard of your character.

Which reveals, that yes, you do know God, but you deny Him as it suits your purpose to...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150432 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You make your own purpose. Mine is to seek evidence. Since you present no evidence all your claims about your religion are dismissed as mythology.
Why would you make your own purpose?

You are just a chemical accident that is a smudge on the universes windscreen.

How much purpose do you think you can have as an atheist?

Obviously, as a Christian, I can explain why you have value and why there is a purpose to your life.

But as an atheist you cannot account for it.

You sense your life should have purpose, contrary to your professed atheistic position, because God has revealed that to you. You cannot admit that, because it would mean repenting and turning to the God who gave you purpose.

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#150433 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your citation supported your original claim that, "Actually everything back to about 150 million to a billion years
after the the event is pretty much theoretical."

Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
Steven Weinberg (born May 3, 1933) is an American theoretical physicist .

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150434 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What are you appealing to with that rebuttal?
Sorry, but the physics community has the final word on physics, not the Christian community, and the overwhelming majority say that quantum indeterminacy is a fact. Even if they are wrong, you are no position to contradict them and insist that all physical events are determinate (caused).
<quoted text>
< crickets chirping >
Good answer.
You keep making a claim that the majority of physicists vocally support you.

Can you point me to the evidence for that please?

Sounds to me, that you are making a claim that you cannot support.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150435 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't know that it wasn't a god or, more likely, gods. But I do know that if it was, it wasn't Jehovah-Jesus, which is what I assume you mean by "God."
Interesting, you don't know if it was Gods, but you do know that it wasn't God?

I think you prejudice against Christianity is clearly revealed here.

How can you make such an absurd appeal?

1. I don't know what did it.
2. It might have been gods.
3. It definitely wasn't God.

Do you think this is "logical" reasoning?

I am sorry, but that is so irrational that that argument can only be termed foolish.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150436 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...
This isn't a complete thought. These clauses all lacks predicates. They're just a series of fragments that don't deserve any of the periods you gave them. http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/mkleckn...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150437 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
The implication being then, that because you believe in a god, you never lie? Really?
Imply what you like, it is irrelevant to the point I made...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150438 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Have you read The First Three Minutes by Weinberg?
I don't suppose he made a video of it as well?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150439 Jan 27, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox News needs you!
Which God? is a good question to start.
You can easily DEFEAT all agnostics...
Provide 'verifiable' evidence you're God is the only true God in a way other cults cannot.
"May the Force be with you"
The subjective perception of God means He is not an absolute persona argument...

Three people looking at New York from different angles, means New York doesn't exist...

I hope you get the point.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150440 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I have to remain consistent with my worldview.
That's not enough. That only makes it (formally) valid, not sound. Its premises have to be correct for it to be sound.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

If your world view and the argument underlying it are based on a false premise, it is wrong, even if consistent.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150441 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a complete thought. These clauses all lacks predicates. They're just a series of fragments that don't deserve any of the periods you gave them. http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/mkleckn...
I understand ltimber is a student at the Eagle School of Grammar.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150442 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"Speaking" was your word, not Kitten's.
Besides, if one were claiming that science literally spoke as part of an argument, it would be a reification fallacy.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skeptic...
This is a pqarticularly petty quibble on your part. Wouldyou have been happier if she has said "Scientists are correct." I trust that you are happy to hear - oops! I meant "read" - arguments of this degree of pettiness now yourself, as I certain that you would never offer an argument that you would reject yourself.
<quoted text>
Your god can be ruled out on the evidence. There is no possible way that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly loving god is involved in our lives. Epicurus understood this long before the Christian era:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
<quoted text>
What eternal? You seems to be prepresupposing that such a thing exists, an act of blind faith.
It was a classic use of the fallacy of reification which atheists use all the time.

Especially when they confuse empirical science with theoretical science...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150443 Jan 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is theoretical, but supported by evidence. That can't change the theoretical basis. We can directly observe the exact same things that happened after 150 million years to billion years after , happening over again.
Any look into the unknown by experimentation, such as the Big Bang is a branch of theoretical cosmology. If we could see back farther
we would have a physical model but are limited in that respect.
At this point we can say anything beyond a certain limit is theoretical. This image shows you the limit. though it maybe extended a bit farther in a few years. At any rate there is a gap between what is known for sure and what is under study, what is under study is of theoretical nature.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/hubble_discov...
Looks like a big eyeball to me.

So does the core of the earth.

Cheers, here's looking at you.

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150444 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"Speaking" was your word, not Kitten's.
Besides, if one were claiming that science literally spoke as part of an argument, it would be a reification fallacy.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skeptic...
This is a pqarticularly petty quibble on your part. Wouldyou have been happier if she has said "Scientists are correct." I trust that you are happy to hear - oops! I meant "read" - arguments of this degree of pettiness now yourself, as I certain that you would never offer an argument that you would reject yourself.
<quoted text>
Your god can be ruled out on the evidence. There is no possible way that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly loving god is involved in our lives. Epicurus understood this long before the Christian era:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
<quoted text>
What eternal? You seems to be prepresupposing that such a thing exists, an act of blind faith.
The Epicurus quotes contain so many false premises as to be absurd, you might want to go through them and see if you can spot the assumptive premises built into the arguments before you trumpet them as absolute logical argumentation against God.

Causality points to an eternal source, do you deny that?

Are you saying all the atheists that argue for an eternal source are acting on blind faith?

If you are, then we agree.

As they are, you are correct.

As you are an atheist, then yes you are acting on blind faith.

Actually not blind faith, but rather willful ignorance.

Which is the worst type of stupidity

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150445 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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?
Really? You need help with this one? OK.

Because somebody lied to you that such a god exists and said such a thing.

You're getting a nice lesson in logic today. I wonder if you can benefit from it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150446 Jan 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The first cause argument is not applicable to the universe as an entity. The idea of causality is derived from experience with objects much smaller than universes that are contained in them. You cannot extend the inductions (generalizations) derived from studying the whole and apply them to the parts. That one is called a fallacy of composition. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compo... :
"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."
We don't have enough information about universes to generalize about them, and there is an excellent argument against anything existing before time. Causes imply a before state and an after state. The word "before" has no meaning until T = 0+.
There is no "before time" just as there is nothing on earth south of the South Pole. The phrase is meaningless, as is the claim of a first cause preceding time.
"You haven't seen everything, so you can't know if causality is constant."

Nice attempt at a rescuing device.

Interesting how you personally however can claim the opposite:

"I haven't seen everything but I do know that causality is not constant."

Interesting that, don't you think?

I can't.

But you can.

An appeal to your own omniscience perhaps?

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#150447 Jan 27, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you make your own purpose?
You are just a chemical accident that is a smudge on the universes windscreen.
How much purpose do you think you can have as an atheist?
Obviously, as a Christian, I can explain why you have value and why there is a purpose to your life.
But as an atheist you cannot account for it.
You sense your life should have purpose, contrary to your professed atheistic position, because God has revealed that to you. You cannot admit that, because it would mean repenting and turning to the God who gave you purpose.
This is sheer hogwash, a person has what ever purpose they choose to pursue. Even if it is a chosen life of debauchery or world conquest. Indeed it could be one while doing the other, as Caligula proved possible.

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 4 min HipGnosis 4,238
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min who 177,916
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min Catcher1 882,213
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min kent 603,887
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 20 min jack 606
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 31 min 15th Dalai Lama 8,481
**STOLEN** E. Bernstadt KY 1 hr mama1 1
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr sangili karuppan 7,719
More from around the web