Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245183 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.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#164550 Apr 28, 2013
Expert in all Things wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? Provide an example, please.

It does not carry a message. Which is exactly what information theory is about. If it ever carried a message please write it down so we can read it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164551 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>2nd century, produce them or continue to fail. The Catholic church was not formed until 380-450 BC. But, if we accept your claim, a lie, the 2nd century would be still be way after Christ and the original Jewish Christians.
Sorry, the Catholic church is just a bastard pagan counterfeit.
There are seven churches mentioned in Revelations, in the Bible that the RCC uses and not one is the Catholic church.
Your failure is endless, but don't get upset and start spewing and whining.
Come on Joe, produce the writings from the 2nd century, so I can revise my understanding. Although, the point is moot and you are mute when it comes to facts.
It is currently considered that roughly 1/3 of the world's population are considered Christian of all denominations, including RCs and RCs are considered to be over 1/2 of all. So if you remove the RCs and all the other denominations which don't follow your literal biblical interpretation, which many of the mainstream Protestants fall into, and then everyone else who might differ from your particular belief, and then take off the percentage of claimed people of faith which actually don't follow their faith, or at least don't practise the religion they were claimed to be part of, which seems to be around 80% to 90%(I am basing that of about 10% of the claimed members of my former denomination are actual church goers - that is Canada's largest Protestant denomination) of them, then the world population of what I would guess you accept as true Christians is quite small (possibly even as small as one person, being you). Would that be a close guess?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164553 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>"Oh".
So,show us proof of your disbelief, until then you are not on any type of ground. Like I said, I have not seen your prove of nothing existing. That is the ground that you stand on.
You have no proof of nothing. Yet, you keep begging for our cookies. If I went to the atheist forum and posted it would be a bunch of nuts dumb enough to think that science is atheism and some how proves the point of atheism. It does not.
You continue to misstate atheism as a belief, when it is in fact a lack of a belief, in a deity. You cannot assume, unless told, any beliefs that any atheist might have. Again there is no way of proving a non-existence because something not existing would have no evidence. That leaves a big 'unknown' which only a believer can fill, IF he can provide his proof, which no believer in known history of man has yet done, and said 'proof' has been verified to be true.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164554 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Which is you proving that first sign of losing a debate. Resorting to ad hominem attacks. Thank you, kind sir.
If you have evidence of your knowledge then please provide us with some of your knowledge. Questioning why a non-believer doesn't believe is hardly showing us how you arrived at what you believe. We have no beliefs related to a deity, so we have nothing to show you. The best we can do, as we continue to do, is refute claims made by you or others which are known to be incorrect.

Likely the main interest of some atheists, at least in participating in these discussions, is the displeasure many of us get from observing the behaviors of certain believers in the world especially as relates to how they treat other human beings. That however would not necessarily be a characteristic of an atheist, because we wouldn't know that from the word atheist.

I have been particularly attracted to staying on some of these threads due to the overt bigotry of many 'Christians' on these threads. Bigotry has always been something I have not approved of. I see it as a main cause of the world's problems, along with money, power.
Expert in all Things

Redding, CA

#164555 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Your analogy is nonsense. Save the space. your lack of scientific understanding only serves your desire to debate while not knowing much.
Your desperate attempt to will science into something it is not is hilarious. First, science does not do anything,science is what mean observe. Perhaps you meant flawed humans, who call themselves scientists.
Perhaps you need a clue or your mommy.
First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. The other meaning of the word "proof", as it is used when we refer to whiskey – "this is 90 proof" – actually has its origin in the meaning of the word as we use it in science, but that's a whole different story!
Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law, and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.
In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws.
Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter.
Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.
Well done!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#164556 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, God doesn't have days. He exists in all times simultaneously. As quoted from scripture; "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
So, Psalm is to be taken literal now? I get so confused, with christians constantly changing which verse is to be taken literal and which is to be taken figuratively. I was sure that Psalm was not to be taken literal.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's comparing a "day" to God as having no meaning of time. Comparing 1,000 years to a 3-hour night watch.
The problem is, your god, or the writers of the bible, used day, an exclusively human term.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think we see time very much differently than God.
Time is a completely human term. Why would a god use the term in a way that man would not understand?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
He didn't literally rest - he doesn't need to. He did that as an example for us, to keep one day for rest, the Sabbath Day.
Where did you get that bit of information? That's not in the bible.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, Eve ate the fruit because she was tempted by Satan, and she's an imperfect human.
That's funny! So your god made man and put Satan in with him? Then when man failed, god killed them all, save 8, so that man could start again. If the bible is true, god knew that we were going to fail again. After he wins the big battle against evil, he is going to lock Satan away for a 1,000 years, then let him out and run the same test all over again?!?!? That's insane! Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is insane.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It wasn't a day. Genesis 1:11, 1:12 clearly dispute that. Plants can't grow from seedling to mature plant and produce more seeds that grow into more mature plants in a 24 hour period.
Oh, but it is godly magic! If he can make a full grown man, why can't he make full grown plants?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Same thing with Genesis 2:21-22, when God created Eden.
Are you saying that Eve was created as a baby? WTF?

Are you confused?
Expert in all Things

Redding, CA

#164557 Apr 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not carry a message. Which is exactly what information theory is about. If it ever carried a message please write it down so we can read it.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#164558 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Numbers have nothing to do with it. It is simply an observation as to where people would rather be.
OK! Whatever you say.
Expert in all Things

Redding, CA

#164559 Apr 28, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Mainly because I never heard of or even imagined that anyone would ask such a bizarre question, as the origin of the pyramids is widely known, though I am sure the exact details down to number of people involved, number of years required etc., might not be particularly exact. 2000 men could do a job in less time than 1000 men conceivably.
I also do not support a theory that humans etc just randomly came into existence, nor definitely did they suddenly appear from nothing through some miracle of what could not have existed if nothing existed.
I can't locate the article or video now, mainly because I haven't looked recently, but I did watch a video a few years ago where a man demonstrated quite easily actually using certain procedures how the stones at Stonehenge and other such sites which very large stones were apparently moved in what would seem impossible human tasks.
What scientific evidence do you base your assumption that it was built by men?

Also you need to update your video links, Stonehenge are pebbles in comparison,

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164560 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Your analogy is nonsense. Save the space. your lack of scientific understanding only serves your desire to debate while not knowing much.
Your desperate attempt to will science into something it is not is hilarious. First, science does not do anything,science is what mean observe. Perhaps you meant flawed humans, who call themselves scientists.
Perhaps you need a clue or your mommy.
First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. The other meaning of the word "proof", as it is used when we refer to whiskey – "this is 90 proof" – actually has its origin in the meaning of the word as we use it in science, but that's a whole different story!
Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong.
Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter.
Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.
I studied logic in university and I know what logic is and I know that you can take 2 or more statements which you can state are all correct (even though in truth they are not) and therefore the conclusion by logic must be correct. It obviously fails if the original hypotheses are false rather than true, though the final conclusion would be true based on those false statements.

So yes if we input false claims and derive a conclusion and then state we have proved something is fact, we are wrong, or at least potentially are wrong. However science, if it is true science, inputs known facts into statements, if they use these to arrive at a conclusion, and the hypotheses would have to have been tested by accepted scientific methods.

If right and wrong are determined by a belief which is based on a book of unproved information which a great deal of contradicts itself, then we have a very uncertain idea of what is right and wrong. Is the OT of an eye for an eye as God ordered and even allegedly demonstrated throughout much of the OT the truth or is doing onto others and loving your enemies as at least some of the teachings of Jesus indicate, the truth, and since many believers claim they are all the truth, how crazy is that?

I feel that right as it applies to humans acting towards humans must be determined by whether what we do is harmful to another person, does no harm, or actually does good for the other person (which would be perceived by that other person in that way - basically the Golden Rule).

I don't think you can go wrong following that, though circumstances will (as they do anyway with following the Bible) sometimes lead to confusion. You might harm a person if they, because they are not following the same rules, are harming you or someone else, in order to protect a third person. There the Golden Rule is a bit difficult always to determine. I would not want someone to shoot me in any situation, yet if I was a cop and I saw someone about to kill a child I would have no choice if I could not stop him any other possible way but to shoot him. Even going by the Bible, regardless of whether you follow OT or NT you still get these predicaments, though the New Testament will tell you that it doesn't really matter which course of action you take as long as you accept that Christ died for you should the course you take be the wrong one, and therefore ultimately you will be rewarded by God (in Heaven). Not a logical argument, no matter how you cut it.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#164561 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>What does a man who wrote the Bible have to do with your lack of scientific evidence to support atheism?
What does science have to do with Atheism? Other than we both require evidence.
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
Huh? What does a man who wrote the Bible have to do with your claim that God did these things.
I don't claim that a god did anything.
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
Please share with us the verses that tell the believer to kill everything in the village if even one person is not a believer. Please share this.
Deuteronomy 13

Here another goodie!

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
But, why are you so focused on the Bible and one God? Why not focus on your reasons for not being sure if there is no God? Perhaps you wish to talk about the god, Anubis and the writings concerning him?
Simple.“cdesign proponentsists”
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
I do not know why you chose to come here with a lame position that you do not know if there is a God or gods or whether there is not.
As long as the god or gods stay hidden by magic, how would I know that they are here?
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
You do not seem interested in discussing other gods or why you are not certain if the God you mock and say is made up does not exist.
Notice how you fluctuate between "You say that you don't know exist or not" and "the God you mock and say is made up does not exist.", make up my mind! LOL!

Simple.“cdesign proponentsists”
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
It sounds like you thought you had a position wherein you could attack but offer nothing to attack. Well, ignorance can always be questioned and yours has been.
I guess I should just take your word for it and run away.

Naw, I'll stick around. You may feel like you are being attacked, most fundies do. I don't really care what you believe, it doesn't belong in public school's science classes.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164562 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
So how has science proven ''evolution''? Do you know what they do to determine this?
I don't know all of it by a long stretch but I know enough that it has been confirmed to happen. There are existing cases but rare which I have stated before on Topix of species which are found in two different climatic situations in a small part of the world, and they exhibit different traits due to the climate though are the same species, so they are evolving due to circumstances. One which I am thinking of but can't refer to specifically at this moment is where a species bears it young fully developed as do humans, or at least in some form of that, while in a different climatic situation they lay eggs from which their young develop.

It is considered the species is evolving from one method of procreation to another due to the environment, and likely has much to say about other evolutions some of which man would not have been able to see as it is happening like that one, but may have changed gradually over millions of years. It is considered very rare to actually observe evolution, as in that case, actually happening. We usually only find evidence of the former state, and see what exists now.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#164563 Apr 28, 2013
Expert in all Things wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =n9kzOfuiTeoXX

Exactly my point.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164564 Apr 28, 2013
And educated.... Okay sorry I was really reaching there.

My bad :)
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>What's wrong with you?

You make RR look almost civilized.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164565 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Good. So, what is your point.
I am not trying to get you to believe in Kraken.
If you choose not to believe in Kraken, that is your choice.
Perhaps you will try Coyote.
See how easy,if those two don't suit you, I can present others to you.
Rather than playing word games which it appears you are weak at, why not show your proof for the God that apparently you believe in, and sew what we think about it? If it is sound enough you might find some new believers on Topix.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164566 Apr 28, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, these kind people are not here to debate their position, they have this idea that they can attack one God.
I have offered them Kraken, Coyote and Dionysus, they do not seem interested. I guess, in reality they know that the God of the Bible exists and they think that Kraken, Coyote and Dionysus do not exist.
How far do you want to pretend to be simple? To the point where you confirm that you are? Atheists do not believe in any deity; that covers all of them. They do not believe that these Gods do not exist; they just don't believe they do. This is usually because they have nothing to indicate to them that they do exist.

You still have not provided any evidence that we should start believing in a God, which you do, because you must have that evidence, otherwise we would would have to seriously question your judgment.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#164567 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Another baseless claim?
What IS it with you people?
Provide evidence that there would still be people alive and with arms and legs still attached if God was watching over.
In turn, provide evidence that God WASN'T watching over, which is why people aren't alive and with arms and legs not attached....
It's your claim. It's your onus.
Go.
What's a baseless claim? The evidence rests with the Theist description on the traits that this God things supposedly has. Kind, Loving, Compassionate, Just, All powerful. Are you telling me that this God was powerless to stop the horror in Boston? He watched, knew what would happen, but chose to do nothing? Is that what you are contending?

God WAS'NT watching? So there are things that take place that God IS NOT AWARE OF? That would certainly explain the slaughter at Sandy Hook, and the thousands of children that die of starvation on a daily basis. You do know that your God is completely worthless right? Yeah I thought you'd agree!!!
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#164568 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, poor me...
"Pluto takes 248 years to complete one full orbit around the Sun."
http://www.universetoday.com/13865/orbit-of-p...
Bullshit, no one has ever witnessed Pluto make on full orbit, its never been observed, its just science making a guess once again. Do you believe everything you read? Numbnuts!!!!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#164569 Apr 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And educated.... Okay sorry I was really reaching there.
My bad :)
<quoted text>
I think we all have been guilty of trying to attach intelligence to these people, likely because they seem to know how to post on the internet. That is probably trying to hard.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164570 Apr 28, 2013
I don't think dust buster there has anything except logical fallacies, ad hom attacks and word games.

When some being really exists you can show observable proof for it. You don't need to play word games on if President Obama exists do you?
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>Rather than playing word games which it appears you are weak at, why not show your proof for the God that apparently you believe in, and sew what we think about it? If it is sound enough you might find some new believers on Topix.

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) 9 min nanoanomaly 865,861
CYD Dendritic Polymers-Wastewater Treatment Mat... 10 min cytanzhi 1
Christianity is fading away... 15 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 10
News GOP hopefuls take on illegal immigration in deb... 35 min Quirky 4
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Burke Devlin 6,563
Why the lottery is SO EVIL 1 hr Ray of Reason 5
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 177,618
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr onemale 272,439
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 2,074
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Padtrick Daniels 600,163
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) Sun andy 45
More from around the web