Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173319 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Objective proof isn't possible and that's why you use that qualifier.
False. IF god were actually REAL?

There would be all SORTS of OBJECTIVE FACTS to back his "realness".

Is that the case? Nope.
Roman Apologist wrote:
No person who argues for or against the existence of God is objective.
False. I, for one, would be DELIGHTED if there were a god who gives a cat's meow about humans.

Seriously-- I would love for that to be true.

My bias is on record as being positive, therefore.

Alas-- there remains NO REASON TO THINK THIS IS THE CASE.
Roman Apologist wrote:
But bias alone doesn't work as an argument against the truth of any claim. Consider the following logic.

If there are two propositions that we identify as "X" and "-X" respectively, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents we identify as "Y" and "Z" and "Y" has a bias in favor of "X" and "Z" has a bias in favor of "-X" then one of them is still correct regardless of bias. This is how the objectivity qualifier fails as an argument against the existence of God or in favor of atheism as a default position or philosophy.
Your nice wall-o-words goes unread-- because your initial premise is demonstratively false.

And as such? No argument will convince someone that a yellow, sour lemon is really a chocolate bar.....

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173320 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Matthew 2
New Living Translation (NLT)
Visitors from the East
snipped for brevity
Please don't flood the threads with lengthy cut'n'paste. Leave a link and those who are interested will read it, those who aren't wont.

Very, very few people want to read 3 posts full of cut'n'paste anyway, I just scroll past it. I've read it all before, anyway.

BTW, it's against Topix TOS too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173321 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If there are two propositions that we identify as "X" and "-X" respectively, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents we identify as "Y" and "Z" and "Y" has a bias in favor of "X" and "Z" has a bias in favor of "-X" then one of them is still correct regardless of bias. This is how the objectivity qualifier fails as an argument against the existence of God or in favor of atheism as a default position or philosophy.
Logic fail: you ASSUME that the two positions are EQUAL.

They are not-- the entire premise "god" is one of INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY.

Requiring equally INCREDIBLE PROOF to be true.

The opposite? Is simply the default position when presented with a NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE claim (gods).

Not-X is far more likely than X in your scenario.

They are not equal.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173322 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
A dictionary is the standard of word usage in any specific language and is peer reviewed by a panel of editors who are experts in that language. They spend hours a day reviewing words and the usage of the words to form a consensus.
So what? Even by **your** definition, ALL dictionaries are BEHIND THE ACTUAL USAGE.

In any case? You can continue to call a sour yellow lemon, "a bright pink chocolate bar" if you like.

It won't make it so-- but you can keep making a fool of yourself, if you wish.

We won't stop you from that task.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173323 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly and as I have said before, once the believers can provide proof for their God, I know I for one would eagerly examine the evidence.
Until then I simply have no reason to believe.
<quoted text>
Same here--- I would **love** for there to be a magical "sugar daddy" who watches out for people.

.. meh.

The **facts** simply do not support such a claim.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173324 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject. Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God. A baby has no cognitive knowledge of God but does have the inquisitive mind to explore the world he or she is a part of. So the baby isn't an atheist. A baby is an open minded exploring human being. To be able to say "I'm an atheist" one has to know what atheism is, and one has to be aware that this is a conscious choice.
If we ask a person "Do you believe in God?" the default answer of ignorance would be "What is God?" If I ask you, you're going to say that you don't believe in any god. It's not a position of ignorance you hold. It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
I did not willfully reject a belief in a god. I weighed the evidence, considered the pros and cons and found decided that the possibility of a god is virtually nil.

Therefore, I am without a belief in a god whether it's your god, the Muslim's god or the gods of Mount Olympus.

No willful rejection here, just a shrinking trust in the credulity of the claims of the religious. Once one god/ess topples off the pedestal of blind faith, the rest fall pretty much like dominoes.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173325 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't answer my question. WHY do you require such a high standard of evidence?
Because the claim is so incredibly ...

... unlikely.

Given the **facts** we know about the world in general?

## innocent babies die each and every day-- easily preventable deaths-- for a **god**

## natural disasters strike every day in one way or another, and more often that not, kill someone-- usually the old, or the very young-- for a **god** who **cared**? Easy to warn people with sufficient time to get out of the way...

## the world's leaders, for the most part, tend to be rather selfish and evil folk-- on average. Sure, certain modern forms of government have limited the affects of these greedy folk on the populations at large, but the fact that these people are allowed to remain in charge? Says that if god is real? He's rather an uncaring master...

## diseases that attack the young, the innocent, the infants-- some of these are horrific. Parasites that literally eat an infant's brains from the inside-out. WHAT SORT OF GOD PERMITS SUCH AS THAT TO EVEN EXIST?

...

I can go on and on and on here-- piling up mountains of proof that if there IS a god?

HE SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE AT ALL.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173326 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory I can grant that you have a valid point and a coherent argument. But we're not dealing with medicine in this debate. My trust (faith level) is right around 90-95% I would say. Compared to a 51/49 percentage ratio, I'd say that my confidence is sufficient. I would go so far to say that anyone who has taken the time to research and investigate with an open mind before making a decision, and comes away with 75% or higher confidence is doing very well. So why the high expectations?
Pardon us, sir--**you** are not sufficient to the task.

You have freely admitted to being indoctrinated into the thing.

You are **literally** the same as an alcoholic praising the virtues of a particular brand of Vodka....

...**literally**... it is **exactly** the same thing.

Why **your** brand of religion, and not, say Druidism? Or Navajo?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173327 Aug 2, 2013
There is absolutely no reason both gospels could not have mentioned the census and why one says they lived in Nazareth before Jesus' birth and the other says they didn't move there until after they left Egypt. Sorry but none of your belching changes these glaring errors. One of your gospel writers, Luke never even met Jesus. Lol!

Show the scripture that says Mary's family lived in Nazareth while Joseph didn't. You are diving wildly into fan fiction now, sorry.

Your knowledge of Jewish tradition is more than wanting. For more on Jewish traditions and how clumsily the gospels screw them up can be seen here.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/86...

Educate yourself.

It's not dishonest to change and tailor your lol word of God to appeal to different groups of people? That is highly dishonest! What's more Luke by your own ADMISSION never even met Jesus! But he is called upon decades later to pen his version of the Jesus story?

I really don't see how you could be more dishonest... Unless like all the other messiah sons of god at the time and place, it was made up. Then your explanation would make sense.

Your imaginary friend god certainly didn't influence the writers, this we agree on. Then again until you can demonstrate proof he exists it would be illogical to claim he did anything, ever.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>But this doesn't account for the census that required Joseph to travel back to Bethlehem. You're forgetting that key element of the account. While Joseph's permanent residence was Nazareth, his home of record was Bethlehem. He traveled there in compliance with a lawful directive.
True, Luke never met Jesus.
Mary's family was from Nazareth and it's logical to conclude that Joseph met her there.
If you're aware of ancient Jewish customs it makes perfect sense.
It's not dishonest at all. Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience.
Luke on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles.
It was documented honestly. God didn't interfere.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173328 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Mr Liberty made the assertion that he would look at the evidence AFTER God was proved. This is backwards. The weight of the evidence is what makes proof possible.
No-- he got it **exactly** correct.

You **must** test the quality of the liquor, BEFORE you get roaring drunk on it.

Because after the first bottle? You are deeply into it, and no longer care...

... just so long as you get yet another bottle...

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173329 Aug 2, 2013
You and any theist are completely unable to provide a shred of observable evidence beyond your imagination and projection. Prove me wrong on this. Show us this observable proof for god that doesn't require your imagination and projection.

We'll wait but won't hold our breath.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I see your mistake. You're using the words 'evidence' and 'proof' synonymously. This is a common error. Evidence is what leads to proof. Evidence is submitted to convince (prove to) the jury of guilt or innocence, or of liability. The jury considers the total body of evidence and then deliberates. When they reach a verdict on the basis of that evidence, they do so because the evidence proved the case one way or another.

BTW- Your ad hominem fallacies indicate that it's you who are failing. If you weren't, you wouldn't feel the need to resort to them.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#173330 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
Impress me - Satisfy this argument

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14)

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Is this logical to you?

Compare: Matthew 21:18,19

There are two things to take note of here. The first is that this incident is an example of the common Marcan theme of apocalyptic determinism. Israel is to be cursed because it “bears no fruit” by not welcoming the Messiah — but clearly the tree here isn’t being given the choice to bear fruit or not.

And your response would be?

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark...

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173331 Aug 2, 2013
A list of logical fallacies... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallac...

Stop humiliating yourself by just making sht up.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>"Dewey Defeats Truman" fallacy. The Chicago Tribune newspaper assumed Thomas Dewey would win the 1948 Presidential election over Harry Truman.:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173332 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
Each of those have been completely debunked by smarter men that either you or me.

As for the NDE's?

That one deserves a mention:

Among predominantly **christian** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic christian imagery.

Among predominantly **muslim** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic islamic imagery.

Among predominantly **jewish** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hebrew imagery.

Among predominantly **hindu** cultures? People who experience NDE's have visions of classic hindu imagery.

Do you see a trend, here?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173333 Aug 2, 2013
Sadly you do not have one shred of evidence for your god. All of your lame arguments are good for a laugh as they all require logical fallacies... Since you don't know what those are...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallac...

All of them require imagination and projection. All of them could be used to lol " prove " leprechauns and sock elves.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued

Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.

No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.

However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:

The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
Historical Evidence
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
Presuppositional Arguments
Intelligent Design Arguments

Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173334 Aug 2, 2013
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha !
BwahahahahhahahahahahahhHhhhah HahHahahahha!!!!

Gasp! Hahahahhahahahahahahahahha!

Lol lmfao hahahahahhahahahahahaha!

Oh wow you REALLY fcked up there!

Remember when KJV humiliated himself with this same exact defense when bust as being langoliers?

Priceless! Thanks for the laughs idiot!
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>I've known DNF for a very long time. We have defended and supported each other's views on the gay forums for years. He's warm hearted and can defend his own position very well.

He's not a sock puppet.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173335 Aug 2, 2013
His evidence is so nonexistent that even Judge Judy would dismiss his case before the first commercial break!

:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I do not reject "evidence" so much as ask for actual... evidence.

What you've presented so far?

Would not qualify in a Hollywood Crime Drama-- let alone something as important as actual reality itself.

I've stated this previously:

1)**If** the consequences for **not** believing are **so**dire** as "everyone" claims?

2) Then a **just** and **caring** god has the **responsibility** to make it SO PLAIN, that a BLIND MAN could "read" the message without any effort.

3) the cop-out that "nothing you don't work for has value" is bullshit--

--- do you **WORK** for each breath of air you breathe?

No! It's literally free-- so long as your lungs are functional.

But there is **nothing** more valuable than that next breath of air-- TO YOU.

Yet they are all free...

----------

So.

If your god is real? HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE HE IS REAL.

Nothing less will do---

-- IF HE ACTUALLY CARES.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173336 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
You may have a bit of a point here, a newborn is pretty much a clean slate. As you stated yourself, a baby is a questioning and questing young human being. They strive to hold their heads erect, they learn to roll over and then begin....and on and on it goes. They instinctively know how to suckle, cry for attention to their needs and they learn a lot!

But they observe the physical world only, what they can see, touch, hear and smell. Yes, they thrive on love so I suppose their god is spelled MaMa and DaDa....they are blissfully without belief in a supernatural deity who some say has promised to offer them things they don't need and could care less about.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173337 Aug 2, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Or...The evidence for God is at the same level as evidence for werewolves.
GREAT!!! Now I can cash in those silver bullets I've been saving in case of an attack......might as well throw out that wolfbane and those old wooden stakes too, or am I being a bit rash???

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173338 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Continued
<quoted text>
Here is my position on evidence relating to proving the existence of God.
No one piece of evidence on it's own is going to convince a resistant skeptic. I know that myself.
However, I feel that the extraordinary claim can be satisfied based upon the cumulative evidence such as:
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Philosophical Arguments
These I have significant problems with, both philosophically and because they don't actually manage to prove their claims. In general, I am very skeptical about purely philosophical arguments. We know very well that philosophers manage to get a great many things wrong because they assume more than what they actually state.

The Cosmological argument assumes certain things about causality that are known to be false (that every event is caused). It is also internally inconsistent since every cause we know is a natural cause, but the conclusion is the existence of a supernatural cause. This is probably the strongest of your arguments. But even this one is a LONG way from proving your desired conclusion.

The teleological argument fails because we do not know what is possible *without* an intelligence working, so the conclusion that there must be one is unsubstantiated.

The Ontological argument is false because it assume that existence is a property that something can have or not have and that existence is 'better' than non-existence in some scale. You do not get to assume existence of something so it can be better when made existent.
Historical Evidence
This is by far the weakest of the ones you present. Dramatic tales from a superstitious time do not serve to prove the existence of a supernatural.
Medical Evidence (NDEs)
When a NDE is able to read something hidden from all in the room that nobody in the room knows about, it will give *some* evidence. At this point, it is a collection of anecdotes from people whose brains are failing. Not the best time to make a claim. Furthermore, the same effects can be produce by stressing the brain in other ways. SO, again, not sufficient to support the case. This one *could*, potentially, give some evidence of phenomena that have been called supernatural.
Presuppositional Arguments
At best these are arguments by mere assertion: That certain types of argument take precedence over rationality. Again, a very weak argument at best.
Intelligent Design Arguments
Essentially the same as the teleological argument.
Each of these on it's own may not carry the standard of proof you claim needs to be so high. However, when observed cumulatively, a fair minded skeptic may not concede, but will admit it's an impressive total body and attempt at extraordinary proof when evaluated honestly.
I do not agree. I find it a collection of very weak arguments given by desperate people wanting something to be true that they cannot justify. If anything, they show how much people will accept *any* argument when it comes to the existence of a God.

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
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 min ChromiuMan 6,228
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Clearwater 110,169
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 47 min presidentialwhakker 675,528
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 52 min gabhomo 982,210
exhibitionism (Jul '13) 57 min exhib 8
----*PUBLIC REBUKE to: --TV Preachers, POPE---- 1 hr stirringYTube 1
Call for Gov Asa Hutchinson To Resign 1 hr Hiddn Numbrz 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr WildWeirdWillie 184,738
More from around the web