Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239449 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

#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...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150980 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< crickets >
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
OK. I wouldn't.
But why tell me here and now? Did you think that your comment somehow related to mine?
Skepticism is illogical without deductive and inductive logic upon which to base it, I am not sure why you would deny that?

You will be denying your own existence next...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150981 Jan 30, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
"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!
Stop sidestepping the question.

If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.

If you can, then account for it.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150982 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal?
Because you would need to be that, just to be equal with God.
How you will improve on that I don't know...

I never said I was the god of your monotheistic religion who you imagine is the creator god.
But I could fit some the definitions of god.

Particularly
5. A very handsome man.

Even this,

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed:

and

6. A powerful ruler or despot.

But especially with you in mind.

A man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#150983 Jan 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Observing collections of events, is observing causality...

An event by its nature is causal.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150984 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Have you ever wondered why Christians claim their god is the only god without a single shred of proof?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150985 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
Prove it.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150986 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
They reject your god because he's imaginary.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150987 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
So you think you can exempt your god from your own assertions? Doesn't work like that. If everything needs to be created, then so does your god, that means your god has to have a god as well.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150988 Jan 30, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.

You are a threat to humanity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150989 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is the First Cause, that is without cause.
He is self attesting, which the First Cause would have to be...
Keep repeating that. Perhaps someone will start to believe it if it is repeated enough times.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150990 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop sidestepping the question.
If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.
If you can, then account for it.
Morals are the rules of group cooperation. They exist because they are a benefit to our survival, without them civilization could not have occurred. They are subjective, depending on human wants and needs. Read The Evolution of Morality By Richard Joyce.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150991 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop sidestepping the question.
If you cannot account for morality, then admit it.
If you can, then account for it.
Stop sidestepping the question and explain a blind retarded girl with deformed limbs. How is a world full of unjust suffering compatible with the idea of a moral creator god? Did god screw up or does he not care about unjust suffering?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#150992 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.
You are a threat to humanity.
Um ... actually no. The Romans saw the opposing religion as a threat, much like how the Muslims did when they first encountered christians and how the Egyptians did when a monotheistic religion attempted to move into their region. It was all about protecting their own superstitions.

Also yes, christians are superstitious people, nothing more.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150993 Jan 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, the Romans used to regard Christians as superstitious, and mocked them much as you and others do now. Was reason enough to them to use them for their sadistic entertainment.
You are a threat to humanity.
I'm a threat to humanity?

Who knew?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150994 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Because the Christians are the ones we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. They are the ones attempting to get their beliefs taught in schools, legislated by Congress, and supported by the government. If Islam was doing the same things here, we would 'display tension' about them in the same way. Both are dangerous, but in different ways. Today Islam is the more violent, although that has not always been the case.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150995 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um ... actually no. The Romans saw the opposing religion as a threat, much like how the Muslims did when they first encountered christians and how the Egyptians did when a monotheistic religion attempted to move into their region. It was all about protecting their own superstitions.
Also yes, christians are superstitious people, nothing more.
Yes and no. The Romans were quite happy to acknowledge other religions as long as they were willing to also accept the Roman deities. They also had a bias towards 'traditional' religions, meaning those that had existed for long periods of time already.

The Romans generally saw Christianity in the same category as other mystery religions, such as the cult of Isis or the Dionysian mysteries. They usually saw these cults as superstitious and because they were often secretive and exclusive, the Romans saw them as dangerous.

Christianity had the additional problem of being a new religion, although it was often seen as a side-branch of Judaism. When the Jewish wars happened, this caused a lot of bias against the Christians. So the Christians either had to associate with the Jews who were seen as disloyal and the cause of many problems OR they were seen as a new religion and hence a problem that way also.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150996 Jan 30, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I think you are wrong here. I think the 'source' is simply the fact that we are a social species.
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...
This only shows the unreliability of your scriptures. Atheists tend to be *more* interested in the truth than Christians. That is why they require proof for religious claims and see 'faith' as a dereliction of the duty to think. The fact that no proofs are given (only arguments full of holes) supports the idea that no proof exists. And that supports the idea that no deity exists.

What this does show is that you are not discussing these things in good faith. You inherently disbelieve what atheists say simply because they disagree with you, even when they are simply reporting their own beliefs. That is dishonesty on your part.

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
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 min dollarsbill 4,616
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min Liam 590,724
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 6 min Serah 70,207
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 36 min gundee123 100,077
How to get Free Steam games, Steam Wallet codes... (Dec '13) 45 min Anonymus 103
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 53 min Stilgar Fifrawi 839,897
You want to profit from the Internet in an easy... 1 hr zafati 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Truths 612,214
More from around the web