Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150936 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The very principle of cause and effect demands absolutes have a cause...
Is your god an absolute?

If so, I'm guessing that you're giving it a pass on any demand that it have a cause. I'm guessing that you're going from strict and rigorous regarding the universe, to anything goes for the god. Am I close?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150937 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
If all that you have as evidence is many people agreeing, that is evidence for many people agreeing, not a god. There is also evidence of many people "sinning." Is that then an absolute moral standard and evidence for a god as well? It isn't, is it?
mtimber wrote:
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
That's a bare claim, not evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150938 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?
Who are you quoting here? Please show me where I said "all physicists"
mtimber wrote:
Also, please supply your source for this amended claim. Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...
What amended claim? If you are referring to the claim that most physicists accept the fact of quantum indeterminacy - that some events at the subatomic level are uncaused - please read the posts addressed to you.

See http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV... please note that "Quantum indeterminacy ... has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics."

Do you know what those words mean?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150939 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What moral principles are original to Christianity?
mtimber wrote:
God predates humanity...
Not by my reckoning. But it would be irrelevant even were it true, because surely you don't claim that Christianity predates man.

Then you have nothing at all to offer as original moral theory from the New Testament or the words of Jesus? Actually, I can name a few Christian ethical values that I believe Jesus was the first to articulate, although none worth saving.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150940 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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."
mtimber wrote:
Actually, if the parts are based in facts that are incontrovertible, you can use them to establish the universal...
That is incorrect. Read it again. We are not discussing universals. We are discussing parts and wholes.

Can you not think of things are true about humanity, but not true about individual human beings? Can a single human being reproduce, or survive for millennia?

How about things that are true about a deck of playing cards, but not true about one card? Can you shuffle or cut one card?

And if you care to rebut a comment, do so. A simple claim to the contrary is merely an opinion, not an argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150941 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I've never said that. If you are going to keep changing my words, we won't accomplish much.
< crickets >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
My worldview - rational skepticism - is superior to yours - Christian fideism - based on the results each has produced both in my life and in the world.
Work with that. Please don't reword it and then argue with yourself again.
mtimber wrote:
I am not sure why you want to claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
Are you going to be dead weight in this discussion? I don't intend to drag you through it. Where did I claim sole proprietorship of rational skepticism?
mtimber wrote:
I would say that logical deduction and induction should be the base of all skepticism by the way...
OK. I wouldn't.

But why tell me here and now? Did you think that your comment somehow related to mine?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150942 Jan 30, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
mtimber wrote:
So you argue that progression is necessarily better?
No. Why do you ask?
mtimber wrote:
You know that is illogical right?
I don't know what it means. They're your words.

I've already asked you to respond to my words as I write them, and not to immediately paraphrase them. You seldom get it right when you do. I don't intend to correct any more, just point out that I the words are yours, not mine, and reject your version.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150943 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I love being enthused in my old age. I recently discovered Buckethead, one of the premier guitar shredders, which is a music style I don't much care for. But I found out he also does some very mellow stuff. Check out his Electric Tears and Colma albums. This one here is betwixt and between those styles. Awesome musical talent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =QJrjXsNlxNQXX
Nice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150944 Jan 30, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Man came first then came his silly imaginary gods.
In that case, how do you account for absolute morality?

God has supplied that, as can be evidenced in the fact that all mankind recognises it.

But how do you account for it, when you deny God?

Where does it come from?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150945 Jan 30, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mention any errors in your bible, I did, however, point out that your deity in the mythic story did not do what was said it did do. I suppose that could be perceived as an error in the myth on your part.
I stated my purpose, that comment is separate from the error of your deity in the myth.
I know you stated you have a purpose.

But you claim you are an accident in the universe, so how can you claim there is any purpose to your life?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150946 Jan 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most physicists study quantum mechanics as a requirement for their degree. But the indeterminate nature of the universe comes out specifically in quantum mechanics, so those who study it for a living will be in the best situation to make the judgment about causality in quantum mechanics.
And, in fact, most physicists who think about quantum physics accept that it is an acausal theory and that some events are not caused.
Again, this is an arbitrary claim on your part.

Can you prove any of the above?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150947 Jan 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. This is part of the general question of inductive inference. But such inference is *always* in doubt to some extent. No number of observations are enough to *require* the next observation to agree.
You wouldn't be arguing causality there would you?

You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction.

Induction relies on causality...

But as you have denied causality as absolute, how do you now account for induction?
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#150948 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Professing that we are just glorified circuitry being put to use by a higher form of life is based upon a 2000 year old National Enquirer?
Yeah, I can see a Topix atheist believing such. They all know we just got poofed here.w.
do they ?LOL

I see your stil DELUDED Dave!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150949 Jan 30, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Because agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms so a person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist for example.
You Christholes sure do need this explained again and again and again.
<quoted text>
Still sticking to the same argument in every post you make I see:

"Christians smell and I don't like them!"

You need to learn to think logically and argue your position.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150950 Jan 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Zeus is a god , it applies to him too.
It doesn't say prove there's a Jesus or YWHW .
Those are just your flavors.
No one is on there arguing about the existence of Zeus....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150951 Jan 30, 2013
The_Box wrote:
Because the best way to fight superstition is to challenge it.
Are you challenging superstition or religion?

The latter seems more likely.

Unless of course you're out there arguing about the existence of ghosts....
It's not hard to see the difference here. Zeus-worship has no influence on our society whatsoever, while Christianity has a ton.
Those of us who believe its influence is negative are going to oppose it. Why would I spend any time opposing Zeus-worship when it's irrelevant?
Ah. So it's non-religious dogma you're after...

Good luck!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150952 Jan 30, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Leaving aside your inability to answer questions...
My claim is factually based, welcome to reality. Unlike your so called bible absolute moral god, we modern secular humanists realize it is wrong to have slaves, instead of commanding it as your god did. We know it's wrong to storm a city kill all the men and boys, take a sword to every infant, rob every house and lastly round up and rape every woman before putting her to death saving only the young begin girls to be sex slaves as commanded by your absolute lol moral god. Even Paul and Jesus condoned and approved of slavery.
Now I know Hovind has taught you when people bring up the hideous morality of your so called absolute moral god that you are to say... No no that has no bearing on the conversation or we'll discuss that later right? Right?
Except it does. You can't in one minute say your god is this creator of absolute morality and then refuse to discuss his morals! Lmfao!
I can make my factual claim because it is reality and observably correct. You being a delusional victim of the church have been programmed to disagree and think the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
I enjoy reality and think the future is bright as more people leave your deluded way of thinking.
Secular humanist morality is by far superior to the so called godly morality of the bible.
Indisputable fact.
<quoted text>
You still have not grasped the point and I suspect you will not be able to, as you have been one of the least coherent atheists on here.

How do you ACCOUNT for the absolute moral standards you keep appealing to?

Where do you get that from?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150953 Jan 30, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
there are no absolute moral standards! all moral is relative
So if your neighbour decides to steal your car, you are ok with that?
Pat

Granby, CT

#150954 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, how do you account for absolute morality?
God has supplied that, as can be evidenced in the fact that all mankind recognises it.
But how do you account for it, when you deny God?
Where does it come from?
"In that case, how do you account for absolute morality?
God has supplied that.."

Proof of gods absolute morality - a bind retarded little girl with deformed limbs.

So was Mr. Morality unwilling or unable to prevent such terrible and unjust suffering? How do you account for being so stupid? Me thinks Mr. Morality loves stupid.

Confucius say you have very small noodle and no like to use it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150955 Jan 30, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a proven creationist with no proof of god, who lies about science. Why do you think your opinion even matters in this forum?
What do you hope to achieve here with such outright stupidity. I mean you deny fossil evidence for f*cks sake.
Do you know what the fossil evidence tells you?

Everything drowned...

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) 36 min BenAdam 830,430
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 41 min Michael 585,804
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RADEKT 270,837
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. (Jul '14) 1 hr Ricky F 166
Getting even with a former bully 1 hr British women 3
Friends Mom Naked (With Pics) (Jan '13) 1 hr Yes I would 4
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr truthandcommonsense 3,667
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Epiphany2 611,946
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 8 hr Paul Porter1 99,270
More from around the web