Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243500 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: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150959 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-W0q4lZ2rloXX
The way to heaven
I'll build a stairway to heaven
I'll climb to the highest star
I'll build a stairway to heaven
Cause heaven is where you are.

Well a, well a, well a, over the rainbow
That's where I'm gonna climb
Way up high where the bluebirds fly
I'm gonna love you all the time

I'll build a stairway to heaven....
Pat

Granby, CT

#150960 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. They are "real" thingies that arose from maybe a fog. Or maybe a particle. Maybe even a different dimension. Maybe a bunch of numbers had a party and created us. Maybe even we emerged out of total nothingness. But those atheist, they be real. And in the know.
NO, whe're just honest and will admit not knowing things that we don't know. You insecure theists can never do that. You need to cling to your fairytales because you are all a bunch of terrified death deniers.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150961 Jan 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding does not make a criticism. Yes, space is without a boundary. So the only boundaries to spacetime are at the beginning, and possibly at the end.
How do you know that space lacks a boundary?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#150962 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
No one says he's an atheist, unless they don't know that he was a deist.
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
Mark Twain
I couldn't find that quote, it's likely a lie.

"In God We Trust." It is the choicest compliment that has ever been paid us, and the most gratifying to our feelings. It is simple, direct, gracefully phrased: it always sounds well — In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true. And in a measure it is true — half the nation trusts in Him. That half has decided it."

On page 394.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150963 Jan 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you challenging superstition or religion?
The latter seems more likely.
Unless of course you're out there arguing about the existence of ghosts....
Religion is superstition.
I have also argued about ghosts, psychics, mediums, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, and other things that people support irrationally.
<quoted text>
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ah. So it's non-religious dogma you're after...
Good luck!
We don't need more of any dogma. Ideas should be supported based on their soundness and the evidence that supports them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150964 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction. Induction relies on causality...
Nope.

Causality is an induction - a conclusion drawn through induction by observing a constant correlation between prior events or conditions called causes, and subsequent ones call their effects.

Causality refers to relationships in the material world: This billiard ball caused that one to move.

Inductions are abstractions derived from observing collections of events and identifying their common or recurring qualities: billiard balls can cause inelastic collisions.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150965 Jan 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you challenging superstition or religion?
Dude, religion is merely a form of superstition.

Supernatural is supernatural.

You worship a god, some other guy doesn't travel on a Tuesday.

Hey IANS, this reminds me of another saying. Don't cheat:

El martes, ni te cases ni te embarques.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150966 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God has supplied that, as can be evidenced in the fact that all mankind recognises it.
All mankind does not recognize a universal morality, so your argument fails from the start.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150967 Jan 30, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that atheists live a life of killing, rape, lies, etc...?
Do I understand what you are asserting?
We really do believe in god because we are moral... but we pretend we don't believe so we can sin..........
I would love if you show me what i missed here because this sounds ridiculous.
I feel like a real world example of this would be like i am in a room with a police officer... and i want to steal a woman's purse... so although i see the cop staring at me. I pretend he is not there so i can steal the purse. I am also pretending jail doesn't exist because i don't want to go there?
Pardon the strange example. I hope i misunderstood.
I myself haven't made any claims of where i get my morals. That is your debate with others on here.
Your 'presupposition' that i am a liar is what bothers me.
How does the Bible 'clearly' show that i am lying?
I hope the answer doesn't express bigotry.
Ok.

Please excuse my dumbing down the argument with some of the posters here.

The morality that you use, cannot be accounted for with your professed worldview.

Now absolute morality, which we all appeal to instinctively, has to have a source.

God is that source.

Yet atheists, whilst appealing to absolute moral positions, deny that absolute morality exists.

The tension then is a strange one.

Indicating contradictory beliefs.

The outward denial of absolute morality.

With the internal appeal to absolute morality.

This tension, which all atheists exhibit, clearly reveals an enmity between the two issues.

That friction, that enmity reveals something deeper, the internal war in the atheist on the issue of accepting Gods claims on them, especially moral claims.

It is these inconsistencies that reveal the larger battle is in fact taking place.

Now, not many atheists have the courage to actual admit that tension, let alone try to account for it.

Why?

Because they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

How do I know that?

God, who is self attesting, and also the absolute standard of morality, has revealed it in the scripture.

The evidence for this however, is plain to see, when the atheists buttons are pressed on this issue...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150968 Jan 30, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not defending the atheists because i see it in us too... but I hope you are not so blind as to not see Christians being guilty of this on here as well!
Its like watching a bunch of angry kids playing king of the hill... remember that game?
I agree.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150969 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't be arguing causality there would you?
Nope.
You deny causality is required for the start of the universe, but then mention induction.
Induction relies on causality...
other way around. The conclusion of causality is based on induction from observations. Not all observations support this conclusion.
But as you have denied causality as absolute, how do you now account for induction?
Induction is imperfect, but is the only way we have of coming up with hypotheses which can then be tested. It is the testability that is crucial.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150970 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. As long as you don't affirm or deny the possibility of a god or gods, you are agnostic. Agnostics like me do deny "God."
Who can say that no god of any description is possible unless the idea is logically impossible? I can't.
However unlikely, the idea of a god isn't logically impossible, therefore it is possible by default. It seems to me that we must all admit to a mustard seed of agnosticism.
But many named gods can be ruled out such as the one you call "God" ... Jehovah-Jesus. Doing so, however, doesn't make one no longer agnostic. It can't.
Why aren't you asking us what we believe and what we call ourselves rather than telling us? You need to understand what the terms mean to unbelievers, and how we use them, unless it is your intention to try to impose a preferred definition upon us.
If you are, I would suggest you think it through. There's only one outcome that I've ever seen come to pass whenever that happens.
Why is it, do you think, that you need to rule out the particular God?

Have you ever wondered why atheists display so much tension around the Christian God?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150971 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
To whom? To the universe? None.
To me and those that love me? What does it say about you that you don't know what purpose we serve, or even whether we experience a sense of purpose? I love many chemical accidents, and they love me.
Why do you want to demean humanity with such descriptions? Sure, it is technically correct, but it is horribly incomplete. Why do you distill the worst definition you can from the whole. We are so much more than that.
This chemical accident also has a sense of dignity, purpose, and self-worth. This chemical accident also has hopes and dreams for the future of mankind and the world.
Your worldview not only has impeded progress in the human condition, it cheapens the human experience. You should be proud of what you are, not all of which is an accident - just your biology. You are the abstract thinking ape, the one that uses language and numbers to contemplate, compute, communicate, measure and record. With a little practice, you can play a piano or guitar.
Do you still not understand where purpose, meaning and value come from? Not the belief in a god, nor in the belief that you were built to serve one. If anything, such a belief demeans you and perverts your sense of purpose.
You still have failed to account for purpose.

Please understand the point and respond to the point itself...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150972 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I didn't say that you were required to break any law, only that you were free to.
I also said that with such cheap forgiveness on demand available to you, you are free to lie all you want, especially when proselytizing. Lying for Jesus is OK, right? Christians overrate their religious experience to others every weeks in church, telling them about the victory, and the overwhelming joy in their hearts. Nobody asks for forgiveness for doing that.
And you are bound by nothing. Faith is a choice. You submit to Christianity by choice.
I am not free to break Gods Law. Lying is not permitted by the way...

That is the whole point of the gospel...

And laying down your life for someone you love, you consider "cheap"?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150973 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. They are "real" thingies that arose from maybe a fog. Or maybe a particle. Maybe even a different dimension. Maybe a bunch of numbers had a party and created us. Maybe even we emerged out of total nothingness. But those atheist, they be real. And in the know.
Lots of maybes to draw an absolute from...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150974 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.

He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150975 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God, who is self attesting, and also the absolute standard of morality, has revealed it in the scripture.
Then why do so many people find the Bible to be morally appalling?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150976 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
That's a bare claim, not evidence.
It is not about evidence, it is about authority.

People do not reject God because of lack of evidence, they reject Him because they do not want to submit to His authority.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150977 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever wondered why atheists display so much tension around the Christian God?
This has been explained numerous times. Skeptics primarily combat the superstition relevant to their social environment.

In the United States, that superstition is Christianity. If Hindus begin to gain power in the US and want laws catered to their religion, we skeptics will point out the lack of evidence for their beliefs as well.

Christianity isn't special; it's just prominent.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150978 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.
All self attesting facts point to the self attesting God.

That conclusion cannot be escaped...

That you have to deny those facts, in order to deny God, proves the point...

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
bless the jews (Nov '08) 4 min USaWarringIDIOTSo... 7,350
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Burke Devlin 855,765
The Christian Atheist debate 23 min -Alan S Shole- 1,073
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 26 min End Times 612,650
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 41 min June VanDerMark 596,675
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 1 hr Waiting4ever 366
Former Middle School Classmates Share An Emotio... 1 hr komismithwright 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 177,219
More from around the web