Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256136 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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173890 Aug 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. But my beliefs are based on what convinces me. I am entitled to the standard of evidence I use for everything else.
But you do not subject your atheism to the same standards as you do ''everything else.'' You just assume its true and judge everything else according to your base assumption. In another post of your you used Theist 1 and Theist 2, but you did not include your atheism in the mix. You put Theism under your microscope and your atheism gets a free ride even though there is no explanatory power for hardly anything. It does not sufficiently explain why 1+1=2 which is really abstract. It does not explain the origin or source on Physics or life. Wheras the Theist would say 1+1=2 makes sense and has explanatory power because it is an indication of the fingerprint of God. As i understand it things in Science are assumed by effects. Quantum physics, particle astrophysics black holes uses theoretical rather than empirical constructs.

What is the atheist explanation for evil?
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173891 Aug 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a disbelieve in any stupid unsubstantiated bullsh*t invented by theists ie human beings who refuse to think logically.
And that is why it is infantile. It wants to evaluate everything else but give itself a free pass. Like a baby who makes a lot of noise at one end and no responsibility at the other. And that is why it is to be rejected. If there is any truth then it is not to be found in atheism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173892 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
All one has to do is take a look at what is and juxtapose atheism against Theism, since atheism explains nothing and Theism explains everything, at least in a broad stroke, atheism is eliminated. It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It alone explains very little because it is a stand on one relatively trivial issue. But the scientific method and the theories we have from using it *do* explain what we see around us.

One problem with theism is it can explain 'anything'. If the world is one way, theism simply says that God wanted it that way. If the world is another way, the exact same explanation holds. No matter what happens, exactly the same explanation holds. This means that theism has no explanatory power: by allowing anything, it explains nothing.

In order to actually have an explanation of something, you have to be able to show why it is not something else and that means being able to make specific predictions as to what will and what will not happen. And guess what? That is exactly the scientific method: make a hypothesis, test it, modify if needed. But always require testability.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173895 Aug 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually it does doesn't it?
M-Eve and Y-Adam but they were not the first , just the first of all living, and they lived some years in time apart from each other.
But it does in saying this, falsify the creation myth, and does in other ways also.
Evolution never works on a single individual-- always on a species.

So even if there were a genetic "bottleneck", it'd have to be of a smallish group-- a couple of thousand individuals? Something like that.

Modern observation of animal species near extinction has given an unfortunate "laboratory" in determining how small a population is still viable.

And just two individuals wouldn't work.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173896 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
An unmoving flat earth that is square and rests on top of pillars.
<quoted text>
Indeed. Under a transparent dome with holes-in, for rain to fall through....

... because the bible also states the sky is blue, due to water overhead....

....!!

'Tis a silly book.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173897 Aug 9, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we scared LB away. Can't handle a normal discussion. Gets angry and says extremely strange things like "evolution didn't do anything for Einstein's theory of relativity!"
hahaha, I will never forget that.
I missed that one-- I typically only skim over the godbottery, looking for nice gems to highlight and make fun of.

And to also point out the illogical consequences of.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173898 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> But you do not subject your atheism to the same standards as you do ''everything else.'' You just assume its true and judge everything else according to your base assumption. In another post of your you used Theist 1 and Theist 2, but you did not include your atheism in the mix. You put Theism under your microscope and your atheism gets a free ride even though there is no explanatory power for hardly anything. It does not sufficiently explain why 1+1=2 which is really abstract. It does not explain the origin or source on Physics or life. Wheras the Theist would say 1+1=2 makes sense and has explanatory power because it is an indication of the fingerprint of God. As i understand it things in Science are assumed by effects. Quantum physics, particle astrophysics black holes uses theoretical rather than empirical constructs.
Wrong. All are strongly based on empirical testing.
What is the atheist explanation for evil?
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?
First, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It along explains very little.

The explanation of evil is many-fold: most people are self-centered to some extent. Some are to a much greater extent and don't worry about how their actions affect others. That can be from neurological problems, upbringing, or simple idiosyncrasies. Others are motivated by tribal impulses and are willing to destroy anyone outside their chosen tribe. In either case, the evil is not caring about how ones actions affect others, especially to the point that there is enjoyment of hurting others.

The 'mathematical nature of the universe' is mostly due to the fact that we use mathematics as a language. Since the universe is regular in its properties, and since the language of mathematics is designed by us to describe regularities, it isn't surprising that we see the universe as mathematical. In many ways, this is wrong, though. It is like saying the universe is English because its regularities can be explained in English.

Information is not a conserved quantity. There are many ways to simply increase or decrease information. In general, a system has information about something else if there is a causal connection such that the existence of the first system makes the existence of the second more or less likely.

As an example, a penny lying on the ground has information: it shows that someone in the past went by and lost a penny. Because there are few other ways to produce pennies on the ground (given the laws of physics), that penny has information about people.

Now, suppose I agree with my wife that if I put a penny on our porch I want her to pick me up from work. In that case, that penny has more information. It is relatively unlikely that a penny will fall out of my pocket and land on the porch on the day I say such a thing. So, when she comes home and sees that penny, it has information. That information is that I want her to pick me up from work.

On the other hand, coming home to find air inside my house carries very little information. Why? Because it is a something that happens naturally under a great many situations. Of course, it *does* carry information: it shows that there was a previous generation of stars that formed the oxygen and nitrogen in their cores. But it carries very little information about human activities.

The conclusion? Information happens in something when the causes leading to that thing are restricted in some way. These restrictions give information about those causes. This is a natural process following from the laws of physics.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173899 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Here, you display your near-total ignorance of the significance of mathematics.

Within any given system of math? There is no uncertainty with regards to what it says-- the proofs and all that.

But math **only** proves math.

And in **some** systems of math? 1+1=3 is not only possible, but the only correct solution.

1+1=2 is only a convenient model, that we non-mathematicians have borrowed for the simple task of counting.

But it's just a **model**. It doesn't **prove** anything.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173900 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> How convincing is your atheism? What does atheism explain?
Nothing at all.

Athiesm is simply NO FAITH IN SUPERNATURAL.

That is ALL that it is.

So it cannot explain **anything**.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173901 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Including atheism.
Athiesm is NOT a belief-- it is the TOTAL LACK OF BELIEF.

Seriously-- do try to keep up.

You are starting to look even more stupid that before...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173902 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
What is the atheist explanation for evil?
There isn't one-- atheism is the lack of any and all belief in supernatural woo. It therefore, cannot explain evil.
lightbeamrider wrote:
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
See above. In any case? The universe is mathematical?

That would be NEWS to pretty much EVERYONE who has a working brain, still...
lightbeamrider wrote:
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?
What about it? It's certainly not from MAGIC as YOU claim...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173903 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> And that is why it is infantile. It wants to evaluate everything else but give itself a free pass. Like a baby who makes a lot of noise at one end and no responsibility at the other. And that is why it is to be rejected. If there is any truth then it is not to be found in atheism.
Skeptic is correct: you are just a liar, with no proof of anything.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173904 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> And that is why it is infantile. It wants to evaluate everything else but give itself a free pass. Like a baby who makes a lot of noise at one end and no responsibility at the other. And that is why it is to be rejected. If there is any truth then it is not to be found in atheism.
No free pass for atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. It deals with only one relatively minor issue: the existence of deities. it says nothing about anything else. Most atheists are quite willing to have beliefs in deities if there was strong enough evidence for such.

On the other hand, the scientific method can and does lead to explanations about a great many things in the universe. It supports, but does not require, atheism by showing that supernatural explanations are unnecessary to understand the universe.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173906 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
But you do not subject your atheism to the same standards as you do ''everything else.''
Not true. How far have you inquired into someone's atheism? I suspect only as far as your religious beliefs are concnerned.
You just assume its true and judge everything else according to your base assumption.
You're proving my point here by deciding in advance of his answer.
What is the atheist explanation for evil?
You'd have to define what evil is first. Selfishness would be my claim.
What is the atheist explanation for the mathematical nature of the universe?
How could it be otherwise? If we lived in a magical universe that didn't rely upon math that would be more suiting to a deity.
What about information? What is the origin or source of information?
Same as everything else.

Why do you believe stating something like "my deity, whom I believe in just as much as every other believer, in every other religion, on the planet believes in their deity, made it. And I have no evidence for that except my own, personal subjective experiences of the deity that I was encultured to, trained in, and socially practice as a Christian, compel me to simply accept without question that the words "my deity did it" is an explanatory phrase for any question I might have."

It's intellectually lazy to posit a deity created everything, LB. Especially when your claim rests upon nothing but your personal feelings.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173907 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It like eliminating 1+1=3 as opposed to 1+1=2. The latter explains things and the former is therefore wrong.
Actually, no. The claim that 1+1=2 is something that happens in some formal system. It is then applied to physical systems to explain their regularity. But not all physical systems obey this model.

For example, if you take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of ethyl alcohol and mix them together, you will not get two quarts of liquid. You will get slightly less because there is room between the water molecules for the alcohol molecules to fit between.

Or, you can take 1 proton and hit it with 1 other proton and obtain 3 protons and 1 anti-proton. Again, the simplistic model of 1+1=2 doesn't apply.

The point? Mathematics is an abstract language. It can be used to form *models* of physical behavior. But those models are subject to testing just as every other model is. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. When they do, we have a scientific theory. When they do not, we look for other models.

Now, the rule 1+1=2 requires very few assumptions to demonstrate. But it does require assumptions and if those assumptions are not met in a physical situation, that rule does not apply. Others may. We use the mathematics to model the situation and we then use the models to explain things. But they explain only if they pass any and all tests of them as applied to the real world.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#173908 Aug 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution never works on a single individual-- always on a species.
So even if there were a genetic "bottleneck", it'd have to be of a smallish group-- a couple of thousand individuals? Something like that.
Modern observation of animal species near extinction has given an unfortunate "laboratory" in determining how small a population is still viable.
And just two individuals wouldn't work.

No you don't get it ,Y-chromosomal Adam is our (MRCA) all currently living people are descended patrilineally from this man.
As with mitochondrial eve is the mother of all currently living
humans. They just lived thousands off years apart, They never meet I don't think .:)

But DNA tells us we descended from this pair.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173909 Aug 9, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It does not sufficiently explain why 1+1=2 which is really abstract. It does not explain the origin or source on Physics or life. Wheras the Theist would say 1+1=2 makes sense and has explanatory power because it is an indication of the fingerprint of God.
And the theist would be wrong. The statement 1+1=2 is proven in some formal system. It requires very few assumptions, but it does require assumptions. It is not a 'finger print of God', but simply a part of a formal language we use to help us understand the universe.

I would also point out that a great many proven results in mathematics are quite counter-intuitive. Simply 'making sense' is very far from being a reliable standard for truth.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#173910 Aug 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't get it ,Y-chromosomal Adam is our (MRCA) all currently living people are descended patrilineally from this man.
As with mitochondrial eve is the mother of all currently living
humans. They just lived thousands off years apart, They never meet I don't think .:)
But DNA tells us we descended from this pair.
Some fairly recent findings

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173911 Aug 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't get it ,Y-chromosomal Adam is our (MRCA) all currently living people are descended patrilineally from this man.
As with mitochondrial eve is the mother of all currently living
humans. They just lived thousands off years apart, They never meet I don't think .:)
But DNA tells us we descended from this pair.
Unlikely, given modern observations of population dynamics.

A single individual does not a species make.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#173912 Aug 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlikely, given modern observations of population dynamics.
A single individual does not a species make.

You still don't understand, it's ok n/m
Maybe you should look up the terms.

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
sexy sister and my girlfriend family holiday 18 min cool 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 21 min Steve III 45,018
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 21 min onemale 281,495
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min Steve III 650,851
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 56,497
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Catcher1 971,901
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 183,001
More from around the web