Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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: May 10

Location hidden

#187304 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really truly believe, Buck, that putting in a man-created god figure to solve that mystery is sane? Kind of shoots your own theory in the foot, doesn't it, to suggest that something came from nothing, by an act of something that could not have existed if nothing existed?
Whether some people theorize that everything came from nothing, I don't believe that. I just don't think we have enough information yet to take us further back in the chain of events to see what came before what man has already discovered. Even what we know today about the past is a major accomplishment of man, because scientists have discovered means for determining how things work which are far beyond my ability to understand. Certainly, it is much easier for someone, who doesn't want to think, to just take the easy way out, and say that God waved his hand and 'poof' everything appeared. But that is too much like a child's fairy tale. Man would have long ago forgotten all of the 'God did it stories' except for the clever little ruse of threats of horrible unbearable torture for eternity, which has kept irrational beliefs alive, long after they should have died a natural death, as did all of the other invented beliefs that preceded them.
I didn't put anything anywhere.

He gave a theory, and I asked a question.

His theory seems not too useful if it cannot answer any questions.

Cosmological physicists ask the same questions.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187305 Nov 26, 2013
Keyser Soze wrote:
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
He doesn't!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187306 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know the answer to that, Buck, why not tell us, rather than using that argument as if it is some sort of intellectual break through on your part? It still does not lead to us deciding that a belief created by man in an invisible never know to exist God did it.
I don't know the answer, and claim no such breakthrough.

For those attempting to rule out a causality for the universe, it is their "breakthrough" I am questioning.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187307 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you recall me asking Dave Nelson about how we can know when people are reporting something with a material referent and when they are experiencing an illusion? I used a hypothetical military experience Afghanistan as the starting point ... How can you decide which one is describing reality?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's an interesting problem. A problem that does not have a definitive answer. I suppose you would just have to take it on faith, on trust. You'd have to ask yourself which group, or which person, you trust more.
Then you'll have your answer.
We can do much better than that. We can gather evidence.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This problem deals more with experiences of physical objects outside of the body than with things like gods and emotions, but the discussion will be relevant to them all.
To bring adapt it to a subjective experience, lets add this exercise:
I used to ask myself, "How can I tell if my god blindness is like color blindness – blindness to something that is really there - or if the claims of seeing a god were like the paranoid's claims seeing danger that isn’t there?" Why do the colorblind believe that the rest of us see color, but the non-paranoid don't believe the paranoids? What's is the essential difference? The answers to all of these things are related.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Another interesting question. You say that you used to ask yourself that question, why don't you any more?
But it's an interesting and apt analogy, comparing color blindness to God blindness. Care to elaborate on it? I'd like to hear more.
Good for you! I was beginning to fear that you wouldn't get to that.

I don't ask myself the question any longer because I think I have solved it. Now I share it with others, as I will do with you now. The answers will appear in the next two post because of space limitations.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187308 Nov 26, 2013
Problem [1] restated and answered:

You and the rest of your ten man detail are on maneuvers in an Afghani desert when an explosion kills three of your squad, and leaves you blind and limping. Two three-man details go in opposite directions in search of water.

They each return to you claiming that they have seen water in the distance, are planning to go to the water, and will help you get there with them inasmuch as you are not expected to survive long enough for them to return with water for you.

Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide? In other words, is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do?

This problem was constructed to force you to choose which group to follow. Let's say for simplicity's sake that one group has actually found water, and the other saw a mirage. How can you tell which is which?

My solution to problem [1]

You interview the soldiers. With one group, all three report, for example, an oasis about 500 ft in diameter about three miles away, with two palms on the right side, three on the left, a blue-green color to the water, and a sand dune with the profile resembling George Washington behind it.

The members of the other detail each gives you a different report, with wildly varying descriptions. And when they are questioned a second time, they not only continue to contradict one another, but they begin to contradicting themselves.

So now who saw water and who saw a mirage?

Incidentally, this is the same technique the police use when interviewing suspects. They interview them separately and compare stories to judge if their stories are based on experience or fantasy.

When we ask Christians about the god they experience, no two can agree.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187309 Nov 26, 2013
Problem [2] restated:

How can I tell if my god blindness is like color blindness – blindness to something that is really there - or if the claims of seeing a god were like the paranoid's claims seeing danger that isn’t there?" That is, how do the colorblind know that others see the colors they claim to see? And why do these people believe the rest of us, but we don't believe paranoids that report their experience of danger in the world that we don't share with them?

My solution to problem [2]

The color blind know that normally sighted people are actually seeing something that they are not because of the ability of those people to identify colors consistently, and to agree among themselves about what they see, such as when one claims that the colorblind person's socks don't match, and he is able to poll any number of people that give him the same answer without collaborating. The colorblind are convinced by the strong correlation of the answers they get.

The paranoids, however, are different. They seldom agree, even with themselves, coming up with ad hoc argument after argument for why the danger is real, each contradicting the last one, with no two paranoids having the same version of their delusion, and most frustrated with and angry at those who "pretend not to see the obvious."

Unlike the color sighted, the paranoid have to make emotional and passionate pleas to be believed.

Which group do you suppose the faithful most resemble to those of us that don't experience what they claim to experience? Many angrily chide the rest of us for disagreeing, often using the same emotionally charged pleading as the paranoids, often resorting to threats of hellfire.

Furthermore, each describes a different god, contradicting not just one another, but themselves from telling to retelling. That's how I know that the god visions are in their heads.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187310 Nov 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bs Buck, Dr. Eben Alexander contradicted the facts.
But he did sell a book, plenty of suckers will buy into it to read what they want to hear. But fact remains the whole book is unscientific and is personal opinionated gobbledygook.
Sure it's probably a good read, but things like that are far from conclusive and so not science. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
But run go buy the book sucker, he needs the money.
You have not the slightest clue of the science in the book.

One page contains more neuroscience than you have ever been exposed to in your life.

But feel free to make assertions.
JustSaying

Bucharest, Romania

#187311 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>He doesn't!!!
See. He convinced you.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187312 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Cells only began having nuclei when the evidence came in.
Makes you wonder how the early cells reproduced.
But I will not question your word on this.
When did the cells change from not having nuclei - when the microscope was invented?
I'm learning so much about science here.
Ahh, your just being difficult now, I pretty much know that you are intelligent enough to know the point I'm making. The Hershoive star drive doesn't exits does it? Science knows NOTHING about this device, it doesn't exits, at least not now. 100 years from now it may well exist, and someone like you will come along and say "Oh so the Hershoive star drive never exited eh. There may well be many things that exist that we are not YET aware of, as far as you and I and science are concerned they do not exist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187313 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you MISSED "At the present time"
So again your contention is that science was wrong in claiming the earth was the center of the universe? "AT THE PRESENT TIME" That was the best explanation possible. Science has NO way of looking into the future, it deals with the information available, and will amend or change it's findings as new information is discovered, and science moves on. That is how science works, it changes its stance as new information is discovered. Its a self-correcting system, a very health way to do business.
Now lets talk about religion, it NEVER changes it's stance, it wallows in dogmatic beliefs and refuses to even begin to investigate. It is NOT a self-correcting system like science so becomes arrogant and mired in mysticism and myth. A very unhealthy way to do business.
The point is, BartBuffoon, if the best guess of science on matters are proven wrong later, science was wrong at the time.

That being the case, science is likely wrong about some things they tell us now.

This would suggest it unwise to totally trust science.

Comprehension. Work on it.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187314 Nov 26, 2013
I think Longfellow was trying to sell some poems. My friend's new baby is called Evangeline. Lovely name.

I really like waterfalls. Not unusual for my species. Maybe an alien would see more beauty in a stagnant pool.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. at times, it seems the creative force has been staring us in the face, laughing at humanity, since the dawn of time ..
.. proof? Perhaps it is all around us, everywhere, but because of false theologies we cannot see it. In order to move forward, perhaps one must look back ??..
.. was nature worship the very foundation for modern religion? Do you pause in awe when you view a waterfall for the first time or catch the colors of a rainbow ??..
.. can you apply what you know about the known to the unknown? If so, by this process, can you arrive at a cause in keeping with the effect, the direct opposite of religion ??..
Longfellow, in Evangeline:
"Then in the infinite meadows of heaven,
Blossomed the lovely stars,
The forget-me-nots of the angels."
.. what do you think Longfellow was trying to express ??..
Keyser Soze

Istanbul, Turkey

#187315 Nov 26, 2013
A question directed to both believers and atheists:

What purpose, if any, would the Judeo-Christian concept of god serve in the absence of "evil?"

I'll define "evil" loosely, if somewhat imprecisely, as anything that a reasonable person would regard as undesirable.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187316 Nov 26, 2013
Straw man, 111.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess not. I'm not British.
But I do know lunatics that will laugh uproariously at something rational because it doesn't compute in their minds.
Perhaps you believe your "Englishness" by birth and training qualifies you as being sane and rational all in its own?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187317 Nov 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely, that's because the biosphere did. It had to make it happen, and it did.
And has refused to do it again ever since.

Got it.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187318 Nov 26, 2013
The bible said god created evil.
Are you asking if that was done to keep god in work?
Keyser Soze wrote:
A question directed to both believers and atheists:
What purpose, if any, would the Judeo-Christian concept of god serve in the absence of "evil?"
I'll define "evil" loosely, if somewhat imprecisely, as anything that a reasonable person would regard as undesirable.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187319 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, BartBuffoon, if the best guess of science on matters are proven wrong later, science was wrong at the time.
That being the case, science is likely wrong about some things they tell us now.
This would suggest it unwise to totally trust science.
Comprehension. Work on it.
Correct. That is why we don't use the Bible as a science book. It has been proven to be wrong time after time.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187320 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Problem [1] restated and answered:
You and the rest of your ten man detail are on maneuvers in an Afghani desert when an explosion kills three of your squad, and leaves you blind and limping. Two three-man details go in opposite directions in search of water.
They each return to you claiming that they have seen water in the distance, are planning to go to the water, and will help you get there with them inasmuch as you are not expected to survive long enough for them to return with water for you.
Both groups swear that they have seen water, but it's very hot out, they're dehydrated, and you realize that one or both groups might be seeing things - a mirage. Which will you follow, and how can you decide? In other words, is there a way to decide when a group of people claim to see something whether they actually do?
This problem was constructed to force you to choose which group to follow. Let's say for simplicity's sake that one group has actually found water, and the other saw a mirage. How can you tell which is which?
My solution to problem [1]
You interview the soldiers. With one group, all three report, for example, an oasis about 500 ft in diameter about three miles away, with two palms on the right side, three on the left, a blue-green color to the water, and a sand dune with the profile resembling George Washington behind it.
The members of the other detail each gives you a different report, with wildly varying descriptions. And when they are questioned a second time, they not only continue to contradict one another, but they begin to contradicting themselves.
So now who saw water and who saw a mirage?
Incidentally, this is the same technique the police use when interviewing suspects. They interview them separately and compare stories to judge if their stories are based on experience or fantasy.
When we ask Christians about the god they experience, no two can agree.
LOL!!!

Go back and read my first response to your stupid scenario. Remember the green and vegetation? Plus the much more realistic appraisal of the situation than you can possibly come up with in your drug induced intellectual home away from home intellectuality.

Your inability to put such examples into realistic perspectives reveals the artificiality of your intellectual heights achieved. Daydreaming is a nice euphemistic word for it.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187321 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And has refused to do it again ever since.
Got it.
You have been to every planet in the universe to verify this ?

ROFLMAO

You are seriously demented.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187322 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No such dimension's have ever been verified by science. The James Randy foundation has set aside one million dollars the anyone that can prove this supernatural world of ghosts and sprits. No one has claimed this prize since it was offered some 10-15 years ago, I wonder why!!
Can you name and describe the "scientific" devices used in this research? Can you "site" any reputable scientific journal that supports these findings?
There is NO evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, it doesn't exist. Personal testimony, anecdotal accounts, and someones delusional experience doesn't count as evidence.
The statement I wrote is accurate, if anything is observable (the scientific definition not a personal account) and testable then it is a fact.
There is no James Randi prize.

Never was.

It is a proven scam.

And yes, it has been claimed.

He would not pay up.

James Randi is a proven con-artist and a proven charlatan.

He has been adjudicated as a liar in court.

New-Age Spiritual guy is correct on the paranormal being observed by scientific processes.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#187323 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not the slightest clue of the science in the book.
One page contains more neuroscience than you have ever been exposed to in your life.
But feel free to make assertions.
.. like religion, do you find scientific reductionist (fundamentalism) an intellectual dodge ??..

.. can any book, scientist or cleric answer the cosmic mysteries relating to consciousness, life after death or a creator? I think not ..

.. for some reason, I like to believe there is an interconnectedness with everything in creation. That's why you're wrong on Climate Change ..

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
Free CLASSIFIEDS | POST UNLIMITED FREE CLASSIFI... (Mar '16) 18 min gina5l 3
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 23 min swampmudd 2,733
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 32 min Bongo 119,228
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Paul Scott 6,274
is god black or white? and why? (Oct '08) 3 hr Paul Scott 457
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr kent 679,242
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 4 hr xavier 4,112
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr VIKING EATS YOUR ... 982,143
More from around the web