• Sections
Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

# Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255295 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

#152813 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about religion and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting religious dogma is nigh on impossible it seems...

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

#152814 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are NOT shifting of arbitrary values assigned to objects. Thew values are not arbitrary.
Take a sheet of paper. Label it "X" at the top.

This is your universe and transfers of energy and mass within it.

Draw a circle near the bottom left hand corner. 1.37774996006006 inches perpendicular to the edges if you wish. Put a "1" in it. Fill the rest of the sheet with shapes and assign numbers according to the ratio of the volumes to your original circle. You can use relative energies if you wish.

This will be 1/X interacting with all of those other values. Each and all other shapes have a direct line effect on the volume of that first circle, the total effect between any two determined by the distance away. Statically you have this attractive force we will call gravity exerting a pull on the volume of that 1/X. The cumulative effect locks 1/X in place, and has a fixed effect on any energy transfers within it. Now go to the top right and move one of those shapes. Now recalculate the cumulative effect. Which will get real hard because they all start moving.

That is where your virtual particles and weakness in physical perception come into being.

It gets harder to keep track of when you get energetic streams you call EM emissions.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#152815 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shifting of arbitrary numerical values assigned to an object and assumed properties and interactions.
It is a subjective interpretation of effects, nowhere near a direct observation.
http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-real-...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152816 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Humanists see humans and human ethics and ideals as an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Humanists don't have values which are edicted on society, we see the best of society and give voice to what is. Humanists see that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Humanist see ethical values as being derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We see that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness and therefore life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
So morality is merely a tool for biological advancement?

And is therefore just a matter or expediency and not a statement of absolute good or bad.

So again, with that in mind, what did Hitler do wrong?

What does the society that rapes and pillages another society do wrong?

They are not doing anything wrong, according to your expressed worldview, they are just acting expediently.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152817 Feb 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume "purpose and destiny" without ever showing evidence for these concepts as anything more than your wishful thinking.
Are you arguing that purpose and destiny are not something inherent in humanity?

It seems you are, that these concepts are just wishful thinking.

That being the case, why are you arguing with me, when your life has no purpose?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

#152818 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Trying to get some of you guys to actually think about atheism and its inherent contradictions, instead of parroting the atheistic mantra is nigh on impossible it seems...
To strike a spark requires substance and momentum.

You will get more light striking butter with a plastic knife than striking a standard Topix atheist's brain with reality.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

#152819 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Carnivals must love you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152820 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The "truth" of God is self-evident to you, and to those who believe as you do, it is NOT at all self-evident to many others including myself. Your problem is that you start with a faulty premiss and then build everything around this premiss. It always comes down to whether or not your beliefs are TRUE. True in the demonstrable way. You have a belief, a belief that can not be demonstrated to be real. I'm sure its very real to you, but you can never convince anyone else that its true without..........OK....the scariest word for all Theists..........Evidence.
I think you need to realize what truth means, When you say "The TRUTH of God" you're i big trouble. It's a wonderful sounding phrase but total bullshit. Here......TRUTH, "That which is true or in accordance with FACT or REALITY. And FACT..."A piece of information used as EVIDENCE....or FACT.."that which is INDISPUTABLY the case. So as you can see, your flowery religious phrase is without merit.
Do you know how childish you sound when you state your beliefs as factual? "You were created by God for a purpose." You can't even prove this mythical being exists let alone has given us a purpose. When you do this, you are making a positive claim, "You were created by God for a purpose." The burden of proof now falls squarely on your shoulders, prove God exists, and then we ca move on to the purpose bullshit. So what was Hitlers purpose, how about John Wayne Gacey, or any number of psychopathic killers? Yeah, Yeah, they had a purpose but ignored Gods recommendations. LOL
Of course I can account for purpose and destiny. Why do you think this is such a huge mystery? I can only feel intense pity for you, unable to navigate through life without an imaginary outside agent, you poor bastard. I decide my pathway through life, I decide my purpose, I control, up to a point, my destiny, not some outside agent. Why is it so very difficult for you to accept that anyone can decide their purpose in life. I personally have devoted my life to the creative arts and passing on what I have learned to others. THIS IS MY PURPOSE IN LIFE. Others have chosen to improve the lives of others by devoting their live to medicine or the sciences.
I can't suppress this knowledge of God when there is NONE. Beyond you holy book, there is NO knowledge of God that is demonstrable within reality.
I am not making an argument.

I am making an absolute knowledge claim.

The self-attesting God has revealed Himself to you.

But your nature, sinful and selfish is at war with Him.

So you suppress that truth.

But you cannot be consistent with that suppression, as your whole existence has been defined by the One who created you.

So you will end up suppressing those things that God has revealed to you as best you can.

Unfortunately for you, as you will be judged on this, that suppression is self evident as you have to deny the obvious in order to maintain your denial of truth.

You do it here, by insisting you have "a purpose", but you cannot ACCOUNT for why you would have a "purpose" when you are an smear on the windscreen of the universe...

Revealing the very point of truth I am pointing out to you and proving the case.

The only option for you is to run around making arbitrary knowledge claims and demand everyone agrees with you, completely avoiding the problem and reinforcing my point.

I will make it again, so you can see it clearly:

HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSE IN THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#152821 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So morality is merely a tool for biological advancement?
And is therefore just a matter or expediency and not a statement of absolute good or bad.
So again, with that in mind, what did Hitler do wrong?
What does the society that rapes and pillages another society do wrong?
They are not doing anything wrong, according to your expressed worldview, they are just acting expediently.

In this age of information sharing , morality is well defined by a worldwide set of definitions.

Long ago this was not possible , so morality was regional, or even dictated locally. In the end morality is defined by the consensus within a group. What the accepted terms of morality are, depends on the group defining them. So absolute morality would be what was decided by the largest set of people. But there could never be a true absolute morality, not as long as two sets exist.

Judged:

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152822 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Stop being such a coward, there are no CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE. Now that is a FACT. Any other accounts of Jesus were written decades after his existence. That is also a FACT. Don't be a pussy, now, show me your evidence, and not your holy book, that shows that the Jesus you spastically believe in, existed.
Your claims are arbitrary, appeal to anti-theist propaganda and are false.

There are plenty of studies out there, by Christians and non-Christians that assert the existence of Jesus.

Also, your argument that the Bible is invalid has also been shown extensively to be unsound.

Denying the obvious, arbitrarily, does not make you right.

But because you are suppressing the truth, on every level you can, with a religious zeal that a suicide bomber would be impressed with, you will believe any piece of nonsense that supports your suppression of the simple fact of Jesus' existance.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152823 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are intelligent beings that are able to plan. That makes our plans have purpose (our specific goals). We also get to plan aspects of our lives, which gives our lives purpose.*We* create the purpose.
No, it is not self-evident that were have been intelligently designed. If anything, it is evident that we are not.
So you purpose because you purpose.

That is a circular arbitrary claim.

WHY do you purpose?

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#152824 Feb 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Carnivals must love you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152825 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not clear what you are asking:
1) Are the moral laws determined by humanism the same as those determined by religion? The clear answer is no: humanists are more likely to support gay marriage, for example. Because they see fairness as central, the unfairness of the denial of marriage simply because of sexual preference is wrong.
2) Are moral laws produced by secularism also based on trying to control people? No, the ultimate goal is human happiness and fulfillment, not control. Religion is the side obsessed with control.

Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.

Now what is your reaction to my statement of truth?

Have I "sinned" against humanism.:-)

Will the followers of humanism be offended at this statement and decree I deserve death?

Will they count this as a moral "sin".

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152826 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
War is a harsh word. But yes, we deny that this is a 'fundamental truth'.
Of course you are at war with this truth.

It is evident in your desire to have it removed from society.

It is evident in your rage filled vitriolic attacks against those that do hold it.

The war is plain to see.

But the standards of truth, which are self evident, reveal you are on the wrong side in this matter...

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152827 Feb 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My purposes in life: to love, to learn, to teach, to help, to experience, to share.
More specifically, I have devoted a fair amount of my life to understanding mathematics and physics and teaching the same. I am married and love my wife and support her life choices just like she supports mine.
Why should you "purpose to love" as an atheist?

You are merely a smear on the windscreen of the universe.

How do you account for this "purpose to love", that you adhere to.

Of course, God gave us this absolute standard of morality for you to do this, so it can be accounted for because of that, but you do not accept that, so how do you account for this self evident truth?

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152828 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not making an argument.
Oh, we know.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152829 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you who is missing the point - and tragically so.
You keep repeating (ad nauseum, I might add) that people who don't believe in a god can't account for morality or reason or purpose or destiny and on and on and on.
You keep repeating this as if it were a fact, when clearly it is not.
However, you have to keep repeating it because, in your mind, it is inconceivable that people can have or be these things without the benefit of believing in your god.
You chose to believe something and once you did that, you closed your mind to all other possibilities.
No, that is not my point.

My point is that the truth is self evident.

You suppress that truth.

But have to keep acknowledging that truth.

As you keep doing this very thing, then you prove the point.

If I said that you were a tap dancer because you were wearing tap dancing shoes and tap dancing, you would not argue the point.

Your behaviour is exactly what the Bible reveals it will be.

The Bible also gives a full account for your behaviour.

So it predicates, I apply the test, you confirm the results and the truth is in.

You are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#152830 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.

You make these statements that are completely and wildly inaccurate and then base the rest of your argument on the belief that what you start with is true - which it isn't.

This is why everyone mocks you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#152831 Feb 10, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...so the proof of your god's existence is that I don't believe in your god?
Oh well, I guess that means Leprechauns and unicorns are real too....
Gods existence does not have to be proven, it is self evident.

All knowledge relies on an ultimate standard of truth.

God is that ultimate standard.

The proof is in your denial of absolutes, whilst appealing to them, showing that you will not allow logical arguments to take you to logical conclusions.

You suppress logic and truth to maintain your opposition to the truth.

You cannot help it, your sinful nature will not allow you to do otherwise.

You are a lost cause.

If it were not for Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging you to reason logically and correctly, bringing you to repentance and to your true purpose in life.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

#152832 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
In this age of information sharing , morality is well defined by a worldwide set of definitions.
Long ago this was not possible , so morality was regional, or even dictated locally. In the end morality is defined by the consensus within a group. What the accepted terms of morality are, depends on the group defining them. So absolute morality would be what was decided by the largest set of people. But there could never be a true absolute morality, not as long as two sets exist.
And the present worldwide morality is defined by Christian ideals. A universal brotherhood of mankind and individual rights because it is "the right thing to do".

The Romans weren't too good at that until they got religion. You won't find such advanced much in any other religion, including those Eastern ones.

Jesus 1
Atheists 0

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.