Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245275 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.

Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#173303 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [ˈɪgn&#6 01;rəns]
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.
Atheism rejects fantasy and superstition.
from your holy guidebook... Which is full of disgusting things

Imagine a 100-page book of photos. 50 of them are hard core pornography. The other 50 pages are exquisite photos of sunsets.

Would you keep that book on your coffee table? Let your children read it?

What isn't boring in that book is sadistically cruel, rabidly misogynic and just plain primitively stupid.

But even more important, the Bible is supposedly the guide to morality, inspired by a deity.

Why is any of that awful stuff included in such a supposedly wonderful guidebook?

Why does anyone have to make excuses for the filth in it?

The "context" argument does not hold.

There is no moral context into which murdering babies, for example, may be inserted.

Televangelists wave it dramatically, declaring it to be the "world's best-selling book for a reason,"

It may be the world's best seller, but not one Christian in a thousand knows what's really in it.

Atheists do !
we read the whole thing.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173304 Aug 2, 2013
Well we would expect in the past people would think that, for example the wind blowing fiercely must be some angry supernatural being because they didn't know better at the time. They were ignorant to the knowledge and advances we have.

We no longer think you have to sacrifice animals to have a good harvest as people of the bible times did.

We have outgrown such thoughts.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>This was easy in the past, the supernatural were things quite visible. But I'm afraid we've conquered about all the visible phenomenon, and the supernatural is mostly about as apparent as
Russel's teapot. Mostly the supernatural to the unversed is within things already considered within the known, because we have progressed far beyond the average Joes level of comprehension.

I mean it's pretty damn hard trying to understand the scope of physics today, and some will never be able to grasp the concepts
needed to know what these things mean. But I like you, will jump at the opportunity to learn something dynamic enough for a paradigm shift.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173305 Aug 2, 2013
No it's not backwards it's completely logical. Notice god doesn't come down to earth to wrestle all night with men anymore right?

How about instead of belching excuses why you have failed to provide any proof for your god you could instead provide a single shred of proof that your god is anything more than a work of someone's imagination.... I'll wait.

Btw in court if any lawyer refused to show evidence of their claims would be laughed out of court.

You are failing miserably.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>In all sincerity, isn't that a backwards philosophy? Evidence is what serves to convince (prove to) a person or group of persons as to a specific proposition. My position is that no singular piece of evidence is convincing enough. Cumulative evidence is what matters. In a criminal jury trial, the prosecutor uses more than one type of evidence, and when taken as a whole, the jury then deliberates in light of all of the evidence presented. What you're suggesting is that you would convict (or acquit) the defendant and *then* examine the evidence after the prosecution and defense concluded their respective arguments. Isn't that backwards?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173306 Aug 2, 2013
We all realize you ran from my post showing how you yourself admitted the gospels are dishonest.

: very smug smile :
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.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#173307 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree that natural causes should be considered before supernatural causes. But insisting that supernatural causes have to be testable to verify their existence seems extreme to me. If there are supernatural beings, they must be capable of free movement between our time/space existence and another plane of existence. Paranormal investigators use thermal scanners and sound recording equipment, and have developed fair criteria to determine whether or not an event is natural or supernatural. The methodologies are constantly being evaluated and improved to look for fraudulent practices in the field environment.
I find that the charge of "insufficient evidence" is too much of a convenient argument. It appears to be a philosophical and emotional escape hatch for the atheist who doesn't wish to find himself or herself cornered by evidence that is difficult to refute. It allows for too much "subjective value" which is emotionally based at the core, while grasping for whatever naturalist philosophies will support the atheistic worldview.
Supernatural beings exist only in your onw imagination. Paranormal "investigators" are Scammers of the first order. Get some education.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173308 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
That still makes no sense. You are belching tired excuses for the tremendous amounts of errors between the two. But let's play along with your fan fiction just for laughs.
Matthew would have lost nothing mentioning that they lived in Nazareth and he was born in a manger: this would actually strengthen his case as we see similar birth narratives in the OT.
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.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Luke, who knew Jesus through Paul correct? So he never even met Jesus yet his myth for some reason counts as a gospel..... Regardless... He would have lost nothing by mentioning the escape to Egypt.
True, Luke never met Jesus that we know of. But Luke did know Peter through Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul and would have access to Peter, James, and other apostles via the trips to Jerusalem. In recording history, the writer doesn't need to be a direct eye-witness, but DOES (or at least should) need to have access to or association with an eye-witness or somebody else who has that association or access.
Givemeliberty wrote:
So which is it, did they move to Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt or did they already have a house there before?
Mary's family was from Nazareth and it's logical to conclude that Joseph met her there, and decided to make a homestead there. This is no different than me meeting my wife in her hometown and living here for the rest of my life. Same thing.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Your argument for these huge errors make no logical sense at all.
If you're aware of ancient Jewish customs it makes perfect sense.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Worse you are admitting the gospel writers dishonestly presented the birth narrative in different ways to different people! How much more proof than that fact does anyone need to see it's a myth?!!!
It's not dishonest at all. Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. Most Jews were aware of the prophecy of Hosea 11:1 in which God says that He will call His son out of Egypt. Matthew believed that this was a clear fulfillment of that prophecy. Since many Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the true Messiah, Matthew was attempting to demonstrate a truth claim via prophetic fulfillment. His gospel was focused on the Jews.

Luke on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles who didn't have the same cultural presuppositions. He tailored his gospel to an audience that didn't place nearly as much emphasis on the Jewish cultural expectations of first century Palestine.
Givemeliberty wrote:
If it was truly inspired by the great invisible sky wizard wouldn't they demand it be documented honestly and accurately immediately?
It was documented honestly. God didn't interfere with the personalities of the authors in the inspiration process. Accuracy was paramount and was preserved by oral tradition. Immediacy of writing wasn't a concern because the apostles all believed that Jesus would return prior to their deaths. When they realized this was an unreasonable expectation they started to write it down. Of course I still think Matthew took notes (albeit primitive by our standards) even if he didn't pen his gospel until 20 years later.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173309 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No it's not backwards it's completely logical. Notice god doesn't come down to earth to wrestle all night with men anymore right?
How about instead of belching excuses why you have failed to provide any proof for your god you could instead provide a single shred of proof that your god is anything more than a work of someone's imagination.... I'll wait.
Btw in court if any lawyer refused to show evidence of their claims would be laughed out of court.
You are failing miserably.
<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.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173310 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
We all realize you ran from my post showing how you yourself admitted the gospels are dishonest.
: very smug smile :
<quoted text>
"Dewey Defeats Truman" fallacy. The Chicago Tribune newspaper assumed Thomas Dewey would win the 1948 Presidential election over Harry Truman. In one of the most embarrassing political photos of the 20th century, Harry Truman was seen grinning while holding up a Chicago Tribune newspaper with the headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" AFTER Truman had won the election. You're assuming a victory again when you shouldn't.

: confident grin :

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173311 Aug 2, 2013
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.
And if the prosecution fails to prove their case, the default position is innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

In the case where the existence of something is claimed, the burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim. The default position is non-existence.

Now, how much evidence and of what quality should be required? Let me analyze this a bit.

How much evidence would you require if I claimed I was in a car accident? Even though the probability of a car accident is rather low on any given day, they do exist and are rather common in bulk. For something like this, you might well take my word on it or require very little extra evidence (an arm sling, for example). It may even be considered as a reasonable explanation for the existence of an arm sling.

Suppose I told you that I had found an emerald in my back yard? This is a possible, but much more rare thing, and you might well be skeptical of my claim without any additional evidence (actually producing the emerald, say). Again, such a happening is *possible*, but the sheer unlikelihood of it is enough to promote some skepticism.

Now, suppose that I said that I flew to the moon yesterday. You would be correct in saying I was either a liar or insane unless I presented *very* solid evidence (a spacecraft, a moon rock, etc) This because, among other reasons, we know humans don't have the capacity to go to space without ships that are expensive and we know the round trip would take more than a day. You would know that the likelihood I was lying or insane was far, far higher than the likelihood I was relating a true event.

And this gets to an important point. Something dramatically different than the ordinary requires much higher standards of proof. The quality of the evidence required is and should be much higher. So, for the supernatural, it is required that the evidence be of much higher quality than whether I found an emerald or went to the moon. It is such a dramatic claim that is so far from any other evidence obtained that very strong, clear evidence should be the absolute minimum for belief.

And, let's face it, the proof required for any particular version of a deity is *at least* what is required to merely prove the existence of a supernatural. As the claim gets more specific, the specificity of the required proof increases. Any other alternative would be preferable if possible.

And again, that isn't bias. It is simple, reasonable standard for proof.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173312 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
And if the prosecution fails to prove their case, the default position is innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
In the case where the existence of something is claimed, the burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim. The default position is non-existence.
Yes the burden of proof is indeed on the prosecution. But the default position on historical evidence is not skepticism as with the hard sciences. Evidential based claims regarding history are the exception to the rule. UNLESS there is a very good reason not to, historic claims are accepted rather than rejected, so long as measures (such as the ten tests) are in place to neutralize bias as much as possible. Now on to your next point where I have real world professional experience.
polymath257 wrote:
Now, how much evidence and of what quality should be required? Let me analyze this a bit.
How much evidence would you require if I claimed I was in a car accident? Even though the probability of a car accident is rather low on any given day, they do exist and are rather common in bulk. For something like this, you might well take my word on it or require very little extra evidence (an arm sling, for example). It may even be considered as a reasonable explanation for the existence of an arm sling.
I have worked as a licensed private investigator and as a military police patrolman. In insurance claims and fraud investigations, a police accident report and medical treatment document are necessary and acceptable evidences that you were in fact in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). A sling might convince the average Joe, but I can admit to being cynical and skeptical after seeing my share of fraudulent claims.
polymath257 wrote:
Suppose I told you that I had found an emerald in my back yard? This is a possible, but much more rare thing, and you might well be skeptical of my claim without any additional evidence (actually producing the emerald, say). Again, such a happening is *possible*, but the sheer unlikelihood of it is enough to promote some skepticism.
I would be skeptical, but you wouldn't need to provide the emerald to satisfy me. An authenticated statement from a local reputable jeweler or local certified geologist would suffice. Especially if you were filing an insurance claim of theft of said emerald.
polymath257 wrote:
Now, suppose that I said that I flew to the moon yesterday. You would be correct in saying I was either a liar or insane unless I presented *very* solid evidence (a spacecraft, a moon rock, etc) This because, among other reasons, we know humans don't have the capacity to go to space without ships that are expensive and we know the round trip would take more than a day. You would know that the likelihood I was lying or insane was far, far higher than the likelihood I was relating a true event.
And this gets to an important point. Something dramatically different than the ordinary requires much higher standards of proof.
You have a point here. So what would suffice as proof? Well a working space shuttle or recently used lunar module would be a nice bit of evidence, along with NASA and local flight plan confirmation. Eye-witness accounts from neighbors who saw the lift-off (who could hide that earth shaking event?:)) would be a nice touch. Insanity or a pathological disorder manifested in lying would be my first guess. I can admit that.
polymath257 wrote:
The quality of the evidence required is and should be much higher. So, for the supernatural, it is required that the evidence be of much higher quality than whether I found an emerald or went to the moon. It is such a dramatic claim that is so far from any other evidence obtained that very strong, clear evidence should be the absolute minimum for belief.

And again, that isn't bias. It is simple, reasonable standard for proof.
But here is where we disagree. More in the next post.:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173313 Aug 2, 2013
Continued
polymath257 wrote:
The quality of the evidence required is and should be much higher. So, for the supernatural, it is required that the evidence be of much higher quality than whether I found an emerald or went to the moon. It is such a dramatic claim that is so far from any other evidence obtained that very strong, clear evidence should be the absolute minimum for belief.

And again, that isn't bias. It is simple, reasonable standard for proof.
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.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173314 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. It's usually used by somebody who attacks the character of a person rather than the argument itself, and in your case you do so with no personal knowledge of me. If stated without such personal knowledge this is a lie, and as such, is a demonstration of immorality. It fails to answer or critique the argument and seeks to demean the person instead which seems to be the easier task, thus revealing a "lack of spine."
Don't you defend Darwinian Evolution" as being true? If yes, you too are an apologist.
I don't believe as you do, but I do believe that you honestly believe. There, we have that settled at any rate.

As for Darwinian Evolution, I think it's been refined and updated a bit since his day. Still, evolution is fact and there is proof to support it.
There we can agree to disagree.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#173315 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It's so cute when socks talk to each other!
Oh and I wanted to add who would stay in another city for 2 years if their wife gave birth there instead of returning home?
I wouldn't stay in Cleveland an extra weeks let alone an extra 2 years instead of taking my baby home.
Oops sorry for interrupting your obvious sock to sock talk. Continue to gush over how smart your other sock is! Wow sorry but you went wayyyyyyy over the top there.
<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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173316 Aug 2, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, it's not MY fairy tale
:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173317 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, by your own definition atheism is a passive state of mind. I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion let's grant your definition as being true.
Well, that's a start at least.
Roman Apologist wrote:
What do you call your resistance and rejection of what I believe to be credible evidence in favor of Christian theism?
A desire for **objective** and even more important--**credible** evidence to support the god hypothesis.

The **more** wild a claim? The **more** objective and credible the facts **must** be, to support such a claim.

For example: someone claims that he was given a magical iPod by super-intelligent aliens, that contains all the secrets of the Universe in audio book form.

Now, that is something that **could** be possible--barely-- but not **impossible** on the face of it.

Is that someone credible? Does he have **objective** facts to support his claim?

More importantly: is the magical iPod available for study? No? Why not-- what happened to it?

His claim that the secrets were SO impressive that they automatically erased themselves after HE listened to them simply does not carry any weight....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173318 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Note that I'm not asking your opinion of my beliefs. I know what they are. What do you call your rejection of evidence that I believe to be credible? Is it active atheism or passive atheism?
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.

“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.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min June VanDerMark 600,254
I don't wanna stay on the line! He's gonna beat... 11 min Doctor REALITY 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 min Pegasus 272,475
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 39 min Stilgar Fifrawi 866,215
disabled sex (Jun '14) 42 min garath 11
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 49 min janeebee 6,564
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 hr andet1987 6,317
The Christian Atheist debate 5 hr ChristineM 2,137
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 9 hr imr 48
More from around the web