Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#215592 Feb 27, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm humanish.
Is that more like a Spanish or a radish? heheheh

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#215593 Feb 27, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>To my knowledge they are all in John.
John's Gospel was written as much as a century after Jesus' death, when the wagons had been circled, the lines were drawn, and everybody knew what the issues were. John was written with an agenda clearly in mind. It was written specifically to address all the weaknesses present in the earlier attempts to deify a poor ol' itinerant rebel preacherman called Yeshua.
That's why the most popular quotes allegedly uttered by Jesus are almost exclusively from John. All the others are too wishy-washy on the subject. John gives Christians the separation they so deeply crave. Paul may be the godfather of Christian exclusion, but John is the king.
The Gospel of John is so full if errors about Judaism and out right lies that it is a disgrace to everything that the Jesus of Mark and Matthew taught.
Curiously, it is the favorite (sometimes only) Gospel of Christians.

Without the Gospel of John (which is actually a 'Gnostic' text) Modern Christianity would collapse.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#215594 Feb 27, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gospel of John is so full if errors about Judaism and out right lies that it is a disgrace to everything that the Jesus of Mark and Matthew taught.
Curiously, it is the favorite (sometimes only) Gospel of Christians.
Without the Gospel of John (which is actually a 'Gnostic' text) Modern Christianity would collapse.
Listening to you critique the bible is like a Gibbon (Hylobatidae) trying to teach a college Physics class.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#215595 Feb 27, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I forgot you, and Aerobatty, and Karl.
You're the only person I know who names their chickens after people.

Man get those chickens off your desk.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215596 Feb 27, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Listening to you critique the bible is like a Gibbon (Hylobatidae) trying to teach a college Physics class.
I'd suggest that you try securing an education from a secular institution.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#215597 Feb 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We´ll have a little cleaning up to do to get back into compliance with that.
I see that Buck has leaped to the defense of Ehrman. No big surprise there. Buck defends every Christian apologist that is mentioned on these pages. Even though Buck claims to not be Christian.

BTW...the Wiki page on the Historicity of Jesus starts off with the warning...

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

You will note that the theists citing this Wiki page failed to mention that little fact. As you have recently pointed out, there is a reason Christian apologists are not trusted.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#215599 Feb 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope not. Especially when they're whispering things like "Beat me in the face with the Buck Member."
You're making Dave jealous. Dave wants you all to himself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215600 Feb 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
We?! You are the *only* Humanist here. At least the only person claiming to be one. Have you ever seen any other poster besides you that says they're a Humanist?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ On A Cracker
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cayleymac/med...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
All we've got is a bunch of opinionated, retarded, fact-hating, Christian-hating Topix Atheists! here.
Are you complaining that you don't get the respect you deserve?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215601 Feb 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
when the Topix Atheist!(you) says something like "Christians can't be trusted with statistics", you get all pissy when the tables are turned and you get called a bigot.
It was you that went apoplectic over my announcement that I don't trust Christians with statistics. You've got a lot of nerve complaining about that after your recent display. Trust is earned, not demanded. Respect, too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215602 Feb 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If atheism suppresses Christians and freedom of religion as you desire, you'll likely start executing Christians for the criminal act of having a religion. It's the atheist way, proven by history.
As I said, Christians have a history of institutionalized torture and murder. Humanists do not. Conflating humanism with totalitarian states is what we expect from you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Did I say anything about Humanists?
Yes, we both did. You mistakenly said that nobody but me call him/herself a humanist- I pointed out that humanists are nothing like Christians, and that you are confusing us with authoritarian monsters that demand unquestioning submission on threat of death like their Christan counterparts.

This is for you and KiMare, who wanted me to learn the difference between influence and impose:

"The Conservative Crusade For Christian Sharia Law - It’s not just the fringe anymore. Mainstream conservatives are trying to bring America’s laws into agreement with ‘God’s law."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02...

"The question isn’t: Will conservatives push to enact laws based on the Bible? We are way beyond that. The real questions are: 1. How many more of these laws do they want to impose? And, 2. What will our nation look like if their crusade is successful to bring America’s laws into agreement with “God’s law”?

[snip]

"We saw that in 2012 when Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declared his belief that the laws in our country must “comport” with God’s law. Santorum also argued in opposition to marriage equality, that our nation’s values “are based on Biblical truth… And, those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

"And former Governor Mike Huckabee, who is considering running for president in 2016, proclaimed during his 2008 presidential race that our laws should be in accordance with God’s. In fact, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, went as far as to say:“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”

[snip]

"[W]e should take a look at some of the more concerning passages from the Bible in case they truly mean it when they say our laws should be revised to agree with God’s law:

1. If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night,“she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.” Deuteronomy 22:20-21

2.“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:10-13.

3.“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10 (Unlikely conservatives will push for this law because with it would mean too many politicians would be put to death.)

4.“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” Leviticus 20:9

5.“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of Sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.” Exodus 35:2

========

As is easily seen, it is Christian doctrine, not humanism, that has much in common with totalitarian regimes and death squads than humanists. People should fear Christian government, not secular humanist government. We believe in human autonomy and human rights, not death to those that won't obey.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#215603 Feb 27, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>To my knowledge they are all in John.
John's Gospel was written as much as a century after Jesus' death, when the wagons had been circled, the lines were drawn, and everybody knew what the issues were.
John 11:48 pre supposes it was written before the fall of Jerusalem.

8 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
----------
John 10:33. Indicates the Jews understood the Deity claims of Jesus and that is why Jesus is accused of blasphemy. Jesus did not deny.
----------

33 The Jews answered Him,“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
----------

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215604 Feb 27, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> John 11:48 pre supposes it was written before the fall of Jerusalem.
8 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
----------
John 10:33. Indicates the Jews understood the Deity claims of Jesus and that is why Jesus is accused of blasphemy. Jesus did not deny.
----------
33 The Jews answered Him,“For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
----------
"Obviously I no longer look at the Bible that way. Instead I see it as a very human book, not a divinely inspired one. To be sure, a good many parts of it are inspiring, but I no longer see God’s hand behind it all. We don’t have the originals that any of these authors wrote, only copies that have been changed by human hands all over the map. And the books that we consider Scripture came to be formed into a canon centuries after they were written. This was not, in my opinion, the result of divine activity; it was the result of very human church leaders" - Jesus, Interrupted - by Bart D. Ehrman

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#215605 Feb 28, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
"Obviously I no longer look at the Bible that way. Instead I see it as a very human book, not a divinely inspired one. To be sure, a good many parts of it are inspiring, but I no longer see God’s hand behind it all. We don’t have the originals that any of these authors wrote, only copies that have been changed by human hands all over the map. And the books that we consider Scripture came to be formed into a canon centuries after they were written. This was not, in my opinion, the result of divine activity; it was the result of very human church leaders" - Jesus, Interrupted - by Bart D. Ehrman
We went over that here.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

As far as i know you did not respond to that post.

All of Ehrman's books presupposes Jesus exists. He leans towards atheism so naturally heis going to deny resurrection or Deity claims since he does not believe in Deities.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215606 Feb 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> We went over that here.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
As far as i know you did not respond to that post.
All of Ehrman's books presupposes Jesus exists. He leans towards atheism so naturally heis going to deny resurrection or Deity claims since he does not believe in Deities.
You tout his scholarship, and link to the man, as if as if that bestows some sort of validity, even going as far to classify him as a legitimate scholar, and went so far as to say that - "you aren't even worthy to carry his briefcase" - or something to that effect.

So what I'm understanding, is that his views are valid as long as you find benefit in the view, if not, it's then that you discard his scholarship.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215607 Feb 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is for you and KiMare, who wanted me to learn the difference between influence and impose:
"The Conservative Crusade For Christian Sharia Law - It’s not just the fringe anymore. Mainstream conservatives are trying to bring America’s laws into agreement with ‘God’s law."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02...
"The question isn’t: Will conservatives push to enact laws based on the Bible? We are way beyond that. The real questions are: 1. How many more of these laws do they want to impose? And, 2. What will our nation look like if their crusade is successful to bring America’s laws into agreement with “God’s law”?
[snip]
"We saw that in 2012 when Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declared his belief that the laws in our country must “comport” with God’s law. Santorum also argued in opposition to marriage equality, that our nation’s values “are based on Biblical truth… And, those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”
"And former Governor Mike Huckabee, who is considering running for president in 2016, proclaimed during his 2008 presidential race that our laws should be in accordance with God’s. In fact, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, went as far as to say:“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”
[snip]
"[W]e should take a look at some of the more concerning passages from the Bible in case they truly mean it when they say our laws should be revised to agree with God’s law:
1. If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night,“she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.” Deuteronomy 22:20-21
2.“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:10-13.
3.“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10 (Unlikely conservatives will push for this law because with it would mean too many politicians would be put to death.)
4.“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” Leviticus 20:9
5.“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of Sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
========
As is easily seen, it is Christian doctrine, not humanism, that has much in common with totalitarian regimes and death squads than humanists. People should fear Christian government, not secular humanist government. We believe in human autonomy and human rights, not death to those that won't obey.
Hiding another accusation about me in someone else's post again. While running like a sissy from direct debate? What a hypocritical coward.

1. The article equates the free PERSONAL expression of a core tenant of faith to something being imposed on ALL society. Is it just ignorance or deliberate humanist deceit? Is there a 'rational, moral humanist' I could ask???

2. Both Santorum and Hunkabee decried the shift from Constitutional practice into the recent assertion that a viable unborn child is not a person, or that a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered couple equates to marriage. Things that our Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves about.

They did not seek to impose new or different understandings. Moreover, there is no equatable comparison between a Christian society and a Sharia Law society.

Still not man enough defend your charge of homophobia?

Smile.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#215608 Feb 28, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You tout his scholarship, and link to the man, as if as if that bestows some sort of validity,
It does. It sounds like you are implying his PH.D.s along with his 30+ years of experience is of little validity to you.
even going as far to classify him as a legitimate scholar,
Ehrman is a legitimate scholar with 30+ years of experience.
and went so far as to say that - "you aren't even worthy to carry his briefcase" - or something to that effect.
Yes to those who denies the existence of Jesus.
So what I'm understanding, is that his views are valid as long as you find benefit in the view, if not, it's then that you discard his scholarship.
Discard his soft atheism not his scholarship.Ehrman comes to different conclusions with the same evidence and debates with scholars. He feigns ignorance when it comes to resurrection. If there is anything from history which would validate resurrection as a hoax he would be on it. There isn't. That means resurrection is history and he knows it but will not admit it. If crucifixion is history then so is resurrection.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#215609 Feb 28, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
You never defended me-- when I was being bullied by your fellow Genuine Christholes™.
You joined in in the bullying, in fact.
You lie.
It's how you roll, I guess.
I get the impression that one WAS the school bully. Nothing's changed.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#215610 Feb 28, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to explain Australia's record?
When they got rid of nearly all the guns in their country, including almost all handguns-- gun deaths went **DOWN** so dramatically, that everyone was surprised.
But you cannot explain that-- because you prefer your delusions instead.
That was mostly because of the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996.
http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories...
http://www.portarthur.org.au/index.aspx...

I think the scumbag who did that should be subjected to the same regimen as the convicts were @ Port Arthur in the old days.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#215611 Feb 28, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the nature of science. LOL
Unfortunately little of ancient materials survive. However, recent excavations at Hadrians wall uncovered many messages on wood "note pads" from common soldiers stationed there in the first to second centuries demonstrating that literacy was quite common.
There is NO evidence of widespread illiteracy. it is merely an assumption that illiteracy was wide spread.
Ancient graffiti. Well, well, well.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215612 Feb 28, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must vomit a lot.
Only when I think of paedophiles and rapist and to be honest I don’t have as many nightmares as I used to have thanks for your concern

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) 3 min mdbuilder 1,762,994
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 min Susanm 341,604
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Brew In 35,965
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 19 hojo 12,405
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May 16 Go phartse 4
News PBA: Columbian parades new import vs Aces May 4 AndPhartse 2
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar '18 Lonnie Peters 201,480