Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258480 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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221828 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it was just like when the 'Baggers claimed Bush's "War on Terrierism" stopped further attacks. Not only was it not true, but it was the Elmer Fudd defense. What do you need an elephant gun. Their ain't no elephants around here. See how good it works!
Exactly.

"No one has ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the people." ME 2:24

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221829 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Oh. Gott mitt uns means all the Nazis were Christian?

Then "So Help Me God" means that all US military people are Christian.
They wish.

I'm pretty sure that's been taken out of the oath.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221830 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The term is used frequently by pro-Darwinian scientists.
WTF ?

Between you and RR, you almost make a human.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#221831 Mar 27, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
are you both antichrist AND rascist? you must be kkk or black panther....
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That should also tell you that your intolerant bias against Christians holds no water.
waaasssuuup wrote:
too bad that you're so bigoted against the people of God or maybe we could be friends:-)
You people are so abused, and so unfairly maligned despite being so loveable. Crying about how others don't respect your religion any more than it respects anything else is a particularly endearing trait.

Somebody call the waaaaaaahmbulance

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#221832 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Justin Beiber.... I wish everyone would just leave her alone.
I thought we Americans are supposed to pick on the Canadians.

Now you are telling us to stop?

Huh?

:o)

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221833 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
They wish.
I'm pretty sure that's been taken out of the oath.
They will claim that "In God we trust" proves the USA is a Christian nation but "God with us" doesn't prove Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.

The usual Chrsthole double standard.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221834 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The term is used frequently by pro-Darwinian scientists.
I'm using my phone.

Does that make me a Bellist?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221835 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you arguing against claims I didn't make? Religions have to evolve or they become extinct. Simple. Verifiable. Evidential.
It seemed as if you were making the implication that they changed their teaching for survival reasons. In other words you were not just stating a reality but commenting on their intent.

Religion wouldn't inherently be required to change to survive. If anything, the teachings should stay the sane regardless of society otherwise it is simply teaching what people want to hear and not actually its beliefs

However if you are simply stating that when presented with evidence that contradicts an interpretation that something will not survive if it refuses to acknowledge it because the loss if credibility will contribute to its decline then I would agree with that

But short of that, I don't see a need to evolve its teachings. Just like with the Constitution. Sure some things may get tweaked here or there or something added as it really didn't hold an option on it before. But for the most part it is the foundation and will stay constant.

The church itself does not need evolution to survive. It's members on the other hand may have plenty of areas to change how they interpret scripture or how much they feel faith should interact with society. Or make improvements on how it deals with others inside and outside of the church.

Put it this way, truth doesn't need to evolve to survive. So unless there is a reason to question that, then you leave what you believe to be true alone. You can't improve on truth. But people can always improve themselves

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221836 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>You can't even follow your own writing. Your very first sentence was about the number of people that have believed in gods. An argument from popularity. A logical fallacy. You're not very bright.
It was in response to the comment it was more likely all religions were wrong. And I replied just as it is MORE LIKELY that if they are wrong it would be in the specific ownership than there being a higher power.

I never even implied that God must exist because so many people believe it

You either don't understand the argument you are making and what logical fallacy of popularity means or you read my post wrong.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221837 Mar 27, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
They will claim that "In God we trust" proves the USA is a Christian nation but "God with us" doesn't prove Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.
The usual Chrsthole double standard.
Who says that? I never heard anyone say that.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221838 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm using my phone.
Does that make me a Bellist?
No. But it might give you Bell's Palsy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221839 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially for lying to and scaring children.
Do some of you realize how silly you make yourselves look when no matter what adult conversation is going on, instead of contributing to it instead you just constantly throw in some comment as if you think people might forget what 'side' you are on

Yes, I remember you are still anti-Christian

Now....any thoughts on whether or not a belief in an after-life might have on deterrence and morality in this life? I personally don't think it makes a big difference for several reasons:

1) People rarely think about the consequences

2) People would still be just as deterred to try to avoid life in prison for example, regardless of whether or not even more punishment could follow in a life to come. Just as people are into immediate gratification, they also tend to only concern themselves with negatives that will occur soon. The take a "I will cross that bridge when I get there" attitude with anything too far off

3) I believe most act according to their own morality and if not that, then public perception and judgement by their peers. Whatever the reasons people are how they are, good or bad, I think they would be that way regardless of if there was an afterlife

But I do think an afterlife justice system would provide more deterrence if anything, not less. And there is still the justice system from man regardless. So even if God forgives someone, they aren't going to want to open themselves up to man's justice just for practical reasons if nothing else.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221840 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody claimed he speaks for all of science.
Straw man fallacy.
What we have is my assertion that science is not neutral toward god or the supernatural, and I have a prominent spokesman for science backing up my assertion.
We have your assertion to the contrary.
Right. You have his opinion. And he is entitled to it, of course. And no doubt the fact that his opinion aligns with yours makes it all the more compelling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221841 Mar 27, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I love returning to a really good movie, after not seeing it for a time, and discovering yet new nuances and depths.
Me too

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221842 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
They wish.
I'm pretty sure that's been taken out of the oath.
You're pretty wrong.

Look at the plaque at 2:19

www.todaysmilitary.com/inside/view/meps-oath-... ;

My son just said that oath a few weeks ago, "So Help Me God" is still very much a part of the US Military.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221843 Mar 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You people are so {SNIP}
waassup & I were not having a conversation, fucknugget.

Why'd you make it seem like we were?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221844 Mar 27, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we Americans are supposed to pick on the Canadians.
Now you are telling us to stop?
Huh?
:o)
HAHA!!

My bad.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221846 Mar 27, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, let me disabuse you of the fallacy that humans only use 10% of our brains-- that is simply not true, and has been long debunked by neural scientists.
.
You may have misread or that is incorrect about the ten percent of the brain. I said in unison. People used to believe man only uses 10% of his brain while the other 90% is never used. They looked at us as capacity. That is what people got wrong. What it is rather is that we only use 10% of our brain at any particular time. Some actions access some parts of our brain. Others from different parts. We have much higher than 10% brain capacity. But we don't use more than 10% at the same time

If you find anything disputing that please let me know as that has been my finding

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221847 Mar 27, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. You have his opinion. And he is entitled to it, of course. And no doubt the fact that his opinion aligns with yours makes it all the more compelling.
His opinion carries more weight than yours, given his position.

So far, you are losing the argument badly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221848 Mar 27, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, let me disabuse you of the fallacy that humans only use 10% of our brains-- that is simply not true, and has been long debunked by neural scientists.
However, many humans don't pay attention to their senses, that much is true.
And with the advent of electronic escapism, even less so than before.
One circumstantial proof of this, is looking at people who've lost one of their senses-- and how they learn to pay attention to the remaining ones as compensation.
It all boils down, I think, to the ability to focus and pay attention.
More neural studies prove that humans can **only** pay attention to a single thing at one moment in time.
The people who try to do multiple things? Actually do only one thing at a time, then switch to another, then switch again, and switch again.
With each switch, some of the focus is lost-- the more you switch? The less effective your focus becomes.
Studies have shown this to be quite true, and a single-taker is much-much better at that single task, than the multi-tasker could ever hope to be.
It's better to take tasks in sequence, finishing one, then going on to the next task and so on.
----------
As for "sixth sense"? That remains an unproven idea, and must be dismissed at present.
Coincidence and confirmation bias, coupled with selective memory, easily explains the various "sixth sense" phenomena.
As for the senses I don't if we disagree more on a semantic or fundamental level. Maybe both. Maybe neither.

Let me explain what I believe a "sixth" sense to be. I agree our senses are sharper when we are not distracted. But I also believe we have the ability but not the knowledge on how to use out senses to do much more with them then we do now.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be a "sense". Is perception or intuition a "sense"? I don't know how you would define either. But I believe there exists a disconnect between man and his perceptions due to the lack of developing the ability to use it or learning how to be more in tune with it.

Maybe that is what you would define as a sixth sense. If so then we would disagree. But I believe some people has the ability to perceive things most people never have and probably never will be able to as they don't even know its something they are lacking. That is why I mentioned even small things we take for granted like animals knowing when someone is sick or when danger is around. It's a perception that transcends just normal observation. Or I should say what we know to observe. I think out perceptions have the ability to be so much greater than they are, but we just don't know how.

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 Reality Check 1,684,568
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 20 min Trojan 35,360
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Brilliant 326,622
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr Poster Child for ... 12,059
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jan 17 Sweet 293
News Horsechief commits to Pacific (Mar '06) Jan 4 NicePhartts 8
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Dec 24 Randy from Wooster 201,884
More from around the web