Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 238927 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.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157935 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity, there are very different.
There - They're ;) Other than that, you are so smart!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157936 Mar 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/...
Ebon Alexander is a lifelong Christian who saw exactly as you would assume a man of his faith would.
<quoted text>
You are a liar, and you are also wrong.

Eben Alexander, at times, ATTENDED an Episcopal church. That does not mean he was a believing christian. The indication is that he was not. From his words:

"I adored the simplicity—the absolute honesty and cleanness of science. I respected that it left no room for fantasy or for sloppy thinking. If a fact could be established as tangible and trustworthy, it was accepted. If not, then it was rejected."

Also, if as you say, he saw EXACTLY what a man of christian faith would see, WHY DID HE NEVER SEE JESUS? Don't you think that's pretty central to Christianity? Why was he guided by a figure of a person he did not recognize and had never met? Wouldn't your theory suggest a loved one who had died and gone to heaven?

HERE, Alexander professes HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD:

"I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself."

What's amazing is idiots like you that know nothing, are not very intelligent, yet claim to know more about brain function than a practicing neurosurgeon trained in neuroendocrinology, and to know more about someone's personal beliefs than they themselves.

You are a liar and a moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157937 Mar 3, 2013
Albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, your fundamental flaw is that atheism isn't another religion. It is a lack of belief, you don't need faith to lack belief of something of which there is no proof.....got it?
You are a liar, Albatross.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the preeminent reference tool for philosophy:

"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157938 Mar 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Televangelists and every other huckster shilling sole feel good nonsense. Wanna write a horsesht book on NDEs? Lol!
<quoted text>
Hey Moron,

Speaking of hucksters, why would huckster Sam Harris write an insulting article about Eben Alexander, then refuse to debate him on his experience?

Need a hint?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157939 Mar 3, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
ToE is not unproven.
You are a liar.

The rudimentary concept is proven. What exists in scientific literature has at least 9 definitions, from the rudimentary to the more tenuous claims.

By saying ToE is proven, you are attempting to sweep in the tenous and unproven claims with something as simple as antibiotic resistance - which, by the way, is not even evolution.

Why are atheists such liars?

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157940 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Moron,
Speaking of hucksters, why would huckster Sam Harris write an insulting article about Eben Alexander, then refuse to debate him on his experience?
Need a hint?
Yeah!

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157941 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar.
The rudimentary concept is proven. What exists in scientific literature has at least 9 definitions, from the rudimentary to the more tenuous claims.
By saying ToE is proven, you are attempting to sweep in the tenous and unproven claims with something as simple as antibiotic resistance - which, by the way, is not even evolution.
Why are atheists such liars?
Yeah! Why?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157942 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Albatross.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the preeminent reference tool for philosophy:
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."
Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157943 Mar 3, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you're not understanding this - abiogenesis is the necessary prediction of our sciences, including but not limited to evolutionary theory.
(I wrote the word "necessary" on purpose, so that you could nitpick it)
However, abiogenesis doesn't form the basis for any of our sciences, for multiple reasons:
1. It's not been demonstrated
2. The processes, if any, are not fully understood.
That's simply not enough to form a foundation for contemporary theories of science. Hence, our theories predict abiogenesis and not the other way around.
<quoted text>
We'd have to rethink our sciences to include how abiogenesis is not true. If it turns out there's some kind of divinity/non-material agent involved, every framework theory would need to be fully remade.
<quoted text>
You mean "unpredictable variation," but "random" will suffice for shorthand.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily - it would depend on how the external agent designed life. Perhaps it chose "random" variation and evolution to do its creating.
<quoted text>
I don't think you could give up any assumption w/out knowing what the designer wanted, how the designer designed. Unless you have some insight into "it," we really wouldn't be able to make any claim - any claim. We would have great difficulties narrowing down causes for any phenomena.
<quoted text>
Sorry, you haven't convinced me. How does evolution require abiogenesis?
It's quite clear how it predicts it - no creators involved in any of our sciences.
You admitted it is "necessary".

I agree - abiogenesis is necessary for current Darwinist theory. I worded it as "inextricably linked".

What does "necessary" mean to you? I know what it means to most people.

The nitpicking I'm engaging in, whether abiogenesis started it all or not, is why people doing science cannot be honest. Their need to feign purity compels them to pretend they don't have "necessary" assumptions intertwined in their theories.

As such, we can safely say that current evolutionary theory MIGHT NOT BE TRUE, or it might be true. Given this, we can therefore say with iron-solid confidence - it is not proven.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157944 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Albatross.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the preeminent reference tool for philosophy:
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."
You tell 'em! They have so much faith, it is dripping out their ears!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157945 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a "physical" event, but not a physical thing. Same with all the other "particles". They can't see them, either.
It is way more massive than a proton or neutron. Should have been a lot easier to find if it existed.
Particles are swirls of "energy" flow. Observing apparatus uses swirling "energy" flows to observe. To detect there has to be something to "bounce" off of, or means to measure the effect of the observing apparatus' applied energy has on something else as it gets channeled through the maze. Such as if the swirl falls into line with a swirl in the observed. That increase has to affect something else that can then be read. They do something like that with their deductions determining the other particles, and the Higgs's itself. The splattering technique.
They are missing the swirl patterns. Actually they are observing the effects, but because they can't see the patterns, they call it a particle. That is where you get the quarks and all these other things. It is really just flows bumping around each other and in loops.
There ain't a damned solid particle to be had. That is why they have these charge fields and sophistric bullshit.
I explained the basic process last night.
Flows create polarities because of direction of motion and direction of spin. Motion of space is the only real "force". Particles are just markers of where they collide and combine.
They worship idols.
Correct and well-said.

There are no particles, and there is no matter, as such.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

-Max Planck, Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157946 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"
Wrong.

Your own cited definition contradicts you, and agrees with me.

Thanks.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157947 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Your own cited definition contradicts you, and agrees with me.
Thanks.
Why doesn't everyone agree with you?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157948 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You are a liar, and you are also wrong.

Eben Alexander, at times, ATTENDED an Episcopal church. That does not mean he was a believing christian. The indication is that he was not. From his words:

"I adored the simplicity—the absolute honesty and cleanness of science. I respected that it left no room for fantasy or for sloppy thinking. If a fact could be established as tangible and trustworthy, it was accepted. If not, then it was rejected."

Also, if as you say, he saw EXACTLY what a man of christian faith would see, WHY DID HE NEVER SEE JESUS? Don't you think that's pretty central to Christianity? Why was he guided by a figure of a person he did not recognize and had never met? Wouldn't your theory suggest a loved one who had died and gone to heaven?

HERE, Alexander professes HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD:

"I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself."

What's amazing is idiots like you that know nothing, are not very intelligent, yet claim to know more about brain function than a practicing neurosurgeon trained in neuroendocrinology, and to know more about someone's personal beliefs than they themselves.

You are a liar and a moron.
I had a dream the other night with people I knew, but didn't recognize. It was weird. I could recall vivid details of the dream and they were people I knew, but I could not recognize their faces.

For a tough guy, you sure are a chickenshit when it comes to the hereafter.

Pussy.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157952 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"
Don't even humor this argument.

This moron has been trying his word games in an effort to portray atheists as the same as believers because that's the only way he can claim superiority.

If he had any real arguments, he would use them.

All he can do is play word games, quite his ID heroes, play word games and make threats.

He's a 300 (or whatever) pound, thumb sucking baby.

And he's dangerous.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157953 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even humor this argument.
This moron has been trying his word games in an effort to portray atheists as the same as believers because that's the only way he can claim superiority.
If he had any real arguments, he would use them.
All he can do is play word games, quite his ID heroes, play word games and make threats.
He's a 300 (or whatever) pound, thumb sucking baby.
And he's dangerous.
You're quite right, but I don't know about dangerous. I don't usually bother with him but I was wondering if he was really that slow or just a troll. Just shows what religion can do the human mind, perhaps?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157954 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Correct and well-said.

There are no particles, and there is no matter, as such.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

-Max Planck, Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist
You got that from Dave's word salad?!

It's no wonder you can get whatever it is you want to get from a book like the bible.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157955 Mar 3, 2013
atheists dont have a clue wrote:
<quoted text>Why doesn't everyone agree with you?
He hasn't gotten to beat everybody up.

Yet.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157956 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You're quite right, but I don't know about dangerous. I don't usually bother with him but I was wondering if he was really that slow or just a troll. Just shows what religion can do the human mind, perhaps?
If a tiny fraction of the things he has claimed to have done are true, he's plenty dangerous.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157957 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He hasn't gotten to beat everybody up.
Yet.
Might makes right?

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) 6 min Phantom2010 837,024
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 7 min Truths 4,079
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 8 min The swamiji 7,155
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 12 min The swamiji 1,427
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 21 min lightbeamrider 176,756
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 42 min Tony17 589,351
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 443,179
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Porkpie Hat 271,262
More from around the web