Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255259 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209122 Jan 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can define the age of Adam you can define the age of Earth, but only by flawed biblical reasoning. Note flawed, you will insist to be such, and we will define you as such flawed biblical reasoning..
The bible does not date the age of the earth.

It doesn't claim to.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209123 Jan 30, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Easy, the Qur'an sites the age of marriage for a young girl to be the age of puberty, and proclaims that age to be 15. However it is argued in the Qur'an that the age of puberty cannot be fixed at 15 since many young girls reach the age of puberty before 15.
The Prophet Muhammed took a girl, and I mean TOOK, of 9 years old for his wife, he also married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. Most little girls of 9 years of age are still playing with dolls not having sex with a man 7 or more times older than she. Religion does poison everything!!!
Everything?!

Religion prisons my coffee???

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209124 Jan 30, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I'm willing to bet you are incapable of an honest answer to this question..........We are sitting in a boat and suddenly turn around and see a wake, we didn't hear anything, but there it is, a wake. Now I wager $10,000 dollars it was caused by a boat, would you wager $10,000 that it wasn't?
No stupid, we're sitting in the boat...

I never said anything about a boat being there, just a wake.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#209125 Jan 30, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect to Riverside Redneck:
A dog know what to do with evidence like a scent or a sound. Why don't you?
What would we say about somebody that came to this place without religious indoctrination? If faith does this to a mind, does it not deserve to be considered a mental disease the way schizophrenia is? This degree of separation from native reasoning is simply neither normal nor healthy.
That's always a humdinger, "with all due respect"....

Sort of like "no offense,but" right before you say something offensive.

You're a dickhead the way you categorize religion with mental illnesses.

You asked in what way are your words hurtful to Christians, that's how.

You're a POS Christophobe.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209126 Jan 30, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are reading too much into how I view science
I simply haven't kept abreast of the study of bumblebees! I am fine with it if science has figured it out
Sorry. It's just that so many of the theists here are anti-science.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209127 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is harming others a bad thing in atheism?
Are you saying "not harming others" is a bad thing?

I would think harming others is a bad thing in almost anyone's book.
mtimber wrote:
You have claimed a position but not supported it.
"Don't harm others" is an axiom. Axioms are agreed upon. They are not supported.

So I guess you don't agree with "don't harm others"?
mtimber wrote:
Why is it wrong for one strong entity to rule over a weaker entity, it seems you have abandoned evolution as a driver of morality as evolution cannot supply the position you appeal to.
The strong ruling over the weak has a name. It is "bullying". Apparently you are all in favor of bullying. I am glad you don't live in my town.
mtimber wrote:
If evolution were true, harming others could well be a good thing if it causes your progeny to survive.
Oops. Naturalistic fallacy on your part. Evolution is not the basis of a moral philosophy.

Just because evolution is true does not mean "bloody in tooth and claw" is a good basis of behavior.

Besides, we are a social species. Acting bad toward the whole could well get your genes deleted from the gene pool.

I suggest you read up on Robert Heinlein's idea of "enlightened self-interest".
mtimber wrote:
You are contradicting your own stated worldview by insisting that harm is absolutely morally wrong.
No I am not, as shown above.

You are merely constructing a straw man (oops, another fallacy) and beating up on it. You views are far too simplistic.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209128 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed there is no evidence for God, which means you would have to be omniscient to know that.
Fail.

Claiming there is no evidence of God is not a claim to omniscience. Not even close. For one, there IS no evidence of God...not any that has been found yet. I will admit that maybe someday someone will discover evidence of God, but that is a different matter. "There is no evidence of God" is based off what we know today.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209129 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if morality is subject to change then child molestation is not absolutely wrong...
Is that what you really believe?
***I*** believe it is wrong. Society believes it is wrong. Heck, even YOU believe it is wrong. But that does not make it an absolute.

Unlike you, I don't know everything.

And you still don't seem to get "don't harm others". Why is this such a difficult concept for you to get? Religion?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209130 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are appealing to absolutes again...
You think that because you see everything in terms of absolutes. All you have is binary thinking...black or white.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#209131 Jan 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Changing a name is not "discovering".
You said Crick and Watson "discovered" it.
Here's some homework for you, Sis. Look up two definitions, preferably in English:
"rename", and "discover"
I think this will help you out of this particular state of confusion you are in.
Then you can get back to your previous state of confusion on Darwinism and the Pope being Atheist.
Ahh buck have you decide to copy my tactics?

There is hope for your yet.

But I see toy have not yet given up lying. must be too deeply engraved in your psyche

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#209132 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

"Don't harm others" is an axiom. Axioms are agreed upon. They are not supported.
So I guess you don't agree with "don't harm others"?
I never agreed to it. Who agreed to it? Why?

The lion who eats the antelope didn't agree to it. Is he immoral? Why or why not?

Why should the lion get a pass and I don't?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#209133 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what you've been saying, that's what you've changed your story into.
You said that DNA was discovered about 75 years ago. Then you specifically named Watson and Crick for their discovery of DNA, you called it an "amazing discovery".
Now you back pedal and change your story.
Pathetic.
OK lets look at it from a completely different angle that may be more to your understanding

Assume you could not read or write, assume you did not know what a book was.

You find something that you can look at and see that there are squiggles on the various leaves of funny leafy stuff between the two hard bits that enclose it

You call this strange thing an ugg

Many years later some people who have the benefit of maybe 100 years advances in educational and scientific understanding come across this ugg, they look at it, they examine it they study it and they eventually derive some semblance of meaning for this ugg. And they call it a bible.

Now although the ugg/babble was discovered by the illiterate moron we are calling you the significance/understanding of the ugg/babble was not discovered until some cleverer people took a closer look with more relevant technology that allowed them to see in more detail.

There does that make it easier to understand?

Also note that there was no back-pedalling but please feel free to clone buck tactics, he seems to have cloned mine.

I wonder if Francis Crick was in any way related to buck, that would be a fine piece of irony would it not?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209134 Jan 30, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if morality is subject to change then child molestation is not absolutely wrong...
Is that what you really believe?
Let me clarify...

***I*** think that child molestation is wrong. And yes, I think it is wrong in every case.

But that does not make it an absolute truth. The most anyone can say is "I think it is wrong". But there is no absolute rule they can point to and say, "See!"

And that seems to be something you can't grasp

Perhaps in some bizarro world some society might consider it acceptable behavior. I would disagree, but there is no absolute rule. At the end of the day, all we can do is decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral.

In my case, I start from the position "don't harm others".

Since you consider harming others to be acceptable, why are you against child molestation?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209135 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything?!
Religion prisons my coffee???
Well, it did poison Kool-Aid. Cf Jonestown.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#209136 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that because you see everything in terms of absolutes. All you have is binary thinking...black or white.
You just offered "do not harm others" as an absolute.

But you think you didn't.

Typical Darwin StumpBrain -ism.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#209137 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
That would've been better than her lie.
"At the time it was not known as DNA as I have said all along"
What lie?

Or are you saying that Miescher did actually name his protein DNA?
Jim

London, UK

#209138 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's always a humdinger, "with all due respect"....
Sort of like "no offense,but" right before you say something offensive.
You're a dickhead the way you categorize religion with mental illnesses.
You asked in what way are your words hurtful to Christians, that's how.
You're a POS Christophobe.
It is clear from the responses of the religious here that even simple baseless beliefs can result in serious brain damage among the religiously infected.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#209139 Jan 30, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't a fact that Watson and Crick discovered DNA.
Just stop.
Accept your loss with some dignity, geez.
See above

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#209140 Jan 30, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify...
***I*** think that child molestation is wrong. And yes, I think it is wrong in every case.
But that does not make it an absolute truth. The most anyone can say is "I think it is wrong". But there is no absolute rule they can point to and say, "See!"
And that seems to be something you can't grasp
Perhaps in some bizarro world some society might consider it acceptable behavior. I would disagree, but there is no absolute rule. At the end of the day, all we can do is decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral.
In my case, I start from the position "don't harm others".
Since you consider harming others to be acceptable, why are you against child molestation?
If you think it is wrong in every case, you think it is an absolute.

But you think it is not an absolute.

I see.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#209141 Jan 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I never agreed to it. Who agreed to it? Why?
The lion who eats the antelope didn't agree to it. Is he immoral? Why or why not?
Why should the lion get a pass and I don't?
Which is why you are morally bankrupt in my book.

And you are engaging in the naturalistic fallacy. Oops.

Really, Buck, I do believe you would say "Black" if I were to say "White", even if we were talking about polar bears. Your compulsion to contradict everything I say leads you to say some incredibly inane things.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,382,921
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 28 min ThomasA 311,154
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 23 hr Evan 32,266
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue IB DaMann 9,635
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) May 23 Ceren 39
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) May 22 01niner 201,860
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) May 15 Idiots 285
More from around the web