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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153018 Feb 10, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Remember the Crusades? Religion is an insult to human dignity. There will always be good and bad people in the world, but history has recorded that for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The USSR and Communist China practiced atheism as their fundamental worldview and philosophy.

They didn't need religion, therefore your argument is illogical, as they did plenty of killing in the name of atheism.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#153019 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think by me quoting Proverbs I have in some way invalidated Proverbs?
Maybe you have simply misunderstood what Jesus said, because of your predisposition to reject any truth the Bible presents.
:-)
You miss the point, I think.

Fundies cannot argue from a scientific basis, since they simply don't understand the material or how it works.

That's fine - we unbelievers can showcase your ignorance and self-contradiction using _your_ materials.

Oops.

Must suck to be you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153020 Feb 10, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, what has been self evident is you lack of faith in your god. Otherwise you wouldn't run from simple questions like; How does one cure leprosy?
When someone like you refuses to stand behind your god, I conclude that you are a complete phony.
I am not understanding your question.

If you rephrase it clearer I might be able to deal with it.

There are so many implied assumptions in it, that at this point, it would make no sense to answer it.

Present your argument.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#153021 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my point...
Why are so many atheists at war with God, if they really do believe He does not exist...
You really can't read at all, can you?

That's not an attack on your myth, it's an attack on you.

You're not God, remember?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#153022 Feb 10, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhh you don't belive in that do you?
No, I bedead in it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#153023 Feb 10, 2013
GenoGirl wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude your not getting the point of my comment, I meant, you all disagree with each other, and it'll keep going round in circles, no maatter what you say to them, they wont beleive you
You are so right about that. However we can learn from these Atheist. They do have some value that we can use. Also one must take in account those that come to the thread to read both sides of the argument. Some of these people may be on the fence. The fence riders can be reached.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153024 Feb 10, 2013
GenoGirl wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude your not getting the point of my comment, I meant, you all disagree with each other, and it'll keep going round in circles, no maatter what you say to them, they wont beleive you
I agree.

And the reason they refuse to accept what they are saying is because they are suppressing the truth.

My purpose here is not to educate that anti-theists.

My purpose here is to help those that are willing to think, to actually think...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153025 Feb 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>A little research will show you that DNA evidence for the father of Alexander The Great exists. A simple process to prove via physical evidence that Alexander The Great existed, unlike either Jesus or your God. A speaking of your imaginary friend were is the scientific reality based evidence I requested? Cat got your tongue?
Are you saying that you only believe in something if it can be proven by forensic evidence (empiricism)?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#153026 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you raise quantum physics and argue that because you have not defined a cause, no cause exists, which of course is an assumption on your part and not actually evidence that causality is suspended in quantum physics...
Just because you cannot identify the cause of an effect, does not mean it does not have a cause.
----------
Yes, every effect is caused, that is the nature of causality which we observe.
So what was the First Cause?
----------
You have two choices:
1. Account for the First Cause.
2. Deny it and reduce yourself to an infinite regression, which of course does not account for anything and is illogical.
There has to be a First Cause, causality proves that.
But you have to deny that simple truth.
Hence your appeal to the murky theoretical nature of quantum physics as a rescuing device....

You will have to accept there is a cause beyond your conception of cause, and this does not mean there was a reason or cause.

Otherwise it's an absurd paradox and everyone's opinion is just as valid as yours. Therefore the universe simply always was. Anything more than that is sheer speculation ,unprovable and illogical.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153027 Feb 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You miss the point, I think.
Fundies cannot argue from a scientific basis, since they simply don't understand the material or how it works.
That's fine - we unbelievers can showcase your ignorance and self-contradiction using _your_ materials.
Oops.
Must suck to be you.
Oh dear...

The old "only atheists have science" routine...

Okay, Mr Science.:-)

Please account for the absolute universal laws of logic as an atheist....

...When you have done that, then you can come back and claim them as belonging to you and all the resultant scientific knowledge derived from using them, also belongs to you as an atheist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153028 Feb 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You really can't read at all, can you?
That's not an attack on your myth, it's an attack on you.
You're not God, remember?
I don't remember claiming to be God...

So I am not sure what your point is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#153029 Feb 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You will have to accept there is a cause beyond your conception of cause, and this does not mean there was a reason or cause.
Otherwise it's an absurd paradox and everyone's opinion is just as valid as yours. Therefore the universe simply always was. Anything more than that is sheer speculation ,unprovable and illogical.
So you are arguing there was a cause, but you don't know what it was, or what it isn't and I should accept what you dont know as knowledge...

Don't you see the absurdity of that?

God is the First Cause, that is self evident.

That you are reduced to having faith in a first cause you cannot prove exists, cannot explain and cannot account for, because of your desperate need to deny God, is quite clear.

The argument for the First Cause is self evident.

You are just saying you don't like the idea of God being the First Cause....

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#153030 Feb 10, 2013
Finding God, or the proof of one is easy. There is something far more mysterious and elusive.

The Safe Place.

The place you put that document, tool, part, or other thing you will need later.

Then it vanishes. Into nothingness. Never to be seen again. Nothing left but a vague memory of someplace that was safe where you put something you needed.

I wonder if they are made of virtual particles.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#153031 Feb 10, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhh you don't belive in that do you? You're an Atheist remember?
so i have to believe in a god to quote the bable ?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#153033 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to go and do some reading.
I think you will find your opinion, as stated here, is not based in any facts whatsoever.
Do you have anything to offer other than your arbitrary opinion?
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#153034 Feb 10, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
A good read about evidence of Christ outside of the Bible.
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-histor...
Could you pick a more biased site, The Beginning and End!!!! Really Josephus stole the information on Jesus from Christian documents.

The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,
by G. J. Goldberg

The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77

In this article the Testimonium is shown to be a close rewording of a text that also appears in the Book of Luke. This modification of a source while respecting peculiarities and difficult phrases can be explained as Josephus' standard method of working, but cannot be explained as the normal manner of composing a Jesus story by later Christian writers. The conclusion is that the account in the Antiquities is almost entirely the work of Josephus, based on a Christian proselytizing document that was in circulation circa the year 90.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153035 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you raise quantum physics and argue that because you have not defined a cause, no cause exists, which of course is an assumption on your part and not actually evidence that causality is suspended in quantum physics...
Just because you cannot identify the cause of an effect, does not mean it does not have a cause.
Once again, you claimed that science is based on the assumption of causality. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory: it is a probabilistic theory and not a causal theory. So you claim that science is based on causality is false, whether QM is a complete theory or not.

More specifically, there are actual, testable effects of causality that are violated by QM and have been tested. QM is shown to be correct in these tests and causality is not.
Yes, every effect is caused, that is the nature of causality which we observe.
By *definition, every effect is caused. The *definition* of 'effect' is 'something that is caused'. The question is then whether every event is an effect. THAT is a very different question and one you have not shown to be true.
So what was the First Cause?
You have not shown there is one. There are other possibilities:
1) there is an infinite sequence of causes.
2) Since each effect tends to have many causes, there may be (and likely are) many 'initial' causes.

You still have to show that a *first* cause exists and that that first cause has the other characteristics of a deity: like a mind, a personality, morality, etc.

In all likelihood, the 'initial' causes are simply quantum events.
You have two choices:
1. Account for the First Cause.
2. Deny it and reduce yourself to an infinite regression, which of course does not account for anything and is illogical.
An infinite regression is not illogical. It is a definite *logical* possibility.
There has to be a First Cause, causality proves that.
But you have to deny that simple truth.
Hence your appeal to the murky theoretical nature of quantum physics as a rescuing device....
No, it simply destroys your whole arguments.

More specifically, every caused event (i.e, an effect) has a *physical* cause. So any initial cause is physical and not a deity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153036 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you only believe in something if it can be proven by forensic evidence (empiricism)?
Proven? In the real world absolute proof is impossible. But yes, belief without empirical evidence is irrational. In mathematics, I ask for the proof to be reducible to the axioms of mathematics (usually Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory).
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#153037 Feb 10, 2013
There is evidence of avoidable suffering.
Therefore no all powerful compassionate god can exist.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an absolute truth claim you have made there.
Are you departing from the typical atheistic position that says it makes no truth claim on this subject?
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#153038 Feb 10, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you only believe in something if it can be proven by forensic evidence (empiricism)?
It certainly goes a very long way to proving something to be true. But I'll take reliable documentation, pictures, abundant corroborating and contemporary first hand accounts, scientifically proven and tested be true, and of course any physical evidence. None of which you have for either Jesus or your God thing. Not surprising since Christian doctrine says they are one of the same, all apart of this holy trinity BS. I do so love this religious mumbo jumbo. Christian Voodoo.LOL

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) 3 min lightbeamrider 831,436
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min WildWeirdWillie 176,589
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 8 min Justice-League 3,732
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Anthony MN 586,424
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 13 min What if 5,854
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 23 min BenAdam 443,003
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 28 min Gas Woman 121,744
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 hr Tony17 99,363
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 8 hr Neelakaran 6,452
More from around the web