Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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: Apr 09

Location hidden

#169654 Jun 22, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>God is alive on earth today and is just waiting for the right moment to burst upon the stage. Jesus is not God, he is dead. The God of Israel is the living God and earth is the "land of the living". God made her first appearance almost 30 years ago and ended the cold war. Do you remember the "50 foot shrunken apple head woman"?
Poe.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#169655 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm impressed you were able to break free after so long. I got out early. When I was in sunday school one day, I decided to ask my teacher if jesus had sinned when he got angry and broke up the money changers market - since anger was a sin. Silence. Granted, a more formidable theological mind could have probably set my mind at ease (he could have told me about the "good anger" of righteous indignation), but that reaction was enough to sow the seeds of doubt early.
Anger is not a sin, it is a natural reaction and an emotion. We cannot control the way we feel. But the way we respond to that anger we can control. God is "slow to anger" and doesn't let it rule her spirit.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#169656 Jun 22, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Anger is not a sin, it is a natural reaction and an emotion. We cannot control the way we feel. But the way we respond to that anger we can control. God is "slow to anger" and doesn't let it rule her spirit.
Yet, your bibles say that all other such "natural reactions" are sins. Funny that.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#169657 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, your bibles say that all other such "natural reactions" are sins. Funny that.
The NT says that, I am not a Christian. The seven deadly sins are: 1) Any sin against Gods' person 2) Any type of abuse or neglect of a child 3) Murder 4) Rape 5) Kidnapping 6) Paying or taking a bribe 7) False witness or swearing falsely by the name of God.
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169658 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm impressed you were able to break free after so long. I got out early. When I was in sunday school one day, I decided to ask my teacher if jesus had sinned when he got angry and broke up the money changers market - since anger was a sin. Silence. Granted, a more formidable theological mind could have probably set my mind at ease (he could have told me about the "good anger" of righteous indignation), but that reaction was enough to sow the seeds of doubt early.
Therein is the problem in the church. Power. Not power over individuals minds per se (unless we're talking about Jehovah's Witnesses or other heretic cults). Among fundamentalist congregations, pastors often don't have the required education themselves and receive their ordination or credentials from a diploma mill as opposed to an accredited seminary or theological school. This problem seems to filter right down to Sunday school teachers who quite often are trusted laypersons within the congregation with very little theological education. The congregation is subject to the politics and comfort of the pastor. If the pastor isn't secure in his knowledge then he will stay with what he's comfortable with, and likewise, will try to keep his congregation "safe." This is comparable to the parent that won't let their child learn how to cross the street safely out of fear they'll be struck by a car. It's incredibly short sighted. Your question could have (and should have) been answered immediately with theological soundness.

Jesus overturned the money changers tables for more than one reason. It's a well known fact that rabbis in Jesus' time committed the entire Torah to memory, and they knew the verses and passages backwards and forwards, night or day, in any weather, etc, etc. In other words, they were experts in what the Torah said in black and white. What confused them was the way Jesus applied the scriptures. He often combined phrases and passages through his actions.

Caiaphas was the Roman installed High Priest that year. This is consistent with Roman practices of letting locals maintain positions of power in their communities so long as Rome's interests were served best. Caiaphas and his family were in charge of the Temple and the vendors there who sold sacrificial animals. There was price gouging and unethical rate exchanges going on. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. He entered from the Mount of Olives on a donkey. This is important, and the rabbis and other religious leaders knew this. It's importance comes from the prophecy of Zechariah 14: verses 4 and 21.(4)"And on that day, his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem." (21)"And on that day there will no longer be traders in the Temple of the Lord."

Jesus was conveying different messages simultaneously here.

1)He was condemning the corruption of the religious-political leaders and making a statement that this judgement was coming from God. He was claiming divinity and the right to judge Israel, it's religious leadership, and the hearts of individuals.

2)The outer court of the Temple was for Gentiles. Gentiles were treated as a lower class by the religious leaders, much as fundamentalists do to unbelievers today. This was (and still is) wrong, and Jesus was ending it. Pagans and Gentiles were not allowed beyond the outer courtyard. When Jesus turned the tables (the origin of the saying) He was sending a loud message to the arrogance of the religious leaders: "The way is open for all to come to me!" You can imagine how the ruling party of the religious leaders would have reacted.

3)Jesus knew this event would seal His fate. He did this for that reason also. Because from that point on, the Pharisees were committed to killing him before Passover. They had to act immediately because the Romans would brutally suppress any form of insurrection, and the Pharisees were granted authority by Rome to maintain the peace, or Rome would.
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169659 Jun 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing as god. If you disagree, you need to provide proof.
You've had since the biggining of recorded time itself to prove that you are not liars.
You've failed. How long do you think you can go on lying to people about god, before people wise up and demand proof?
What constitutes proof? What kind of God would act according to the whims and demands of a mere mortal human?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#169660 Jun 22, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
What constitutes proof? What kind of God would act according to the whims and demands of a mere mortal human?
What kind of god would entrust these mere mortals with the duty of passing on it's words?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#169661 Jun 22, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
What constitutes proof? What kind of God would act according to the whims and demands of a mere mortal human?
The kind that cannot escape the ever piercing gaze of it's creations ever new invention of tools to detect and see everything in the universe.

Since: Sep 08

Olney Springs, CO

#169662 Jun 22, 2013
Poor Topix atheists.

They will enter a building and negotiate elevators, escalators, hallways, and doors on the right or left to get what they seek and assume it is quite normal. That is the structure of their universe.

But they expect a supreme deity that constructed one to deliver to their own door.

Presumptuous, and quite dumb.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#169663 Jun 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing as god. If you disagree, you need to provide proof.
You've had since the biggining of recorded time itself to prove that you are not liars.
You've failed. How long do you think you can go on lying to people about god, before people wise up and demand proof?
that was to Dave Nelson. I still do not get your way of thinking or replying to people. I wrote you a long serious comment and asked you for an explanation, over on the thread about Atheists on the March in America, or some such title - which I think it is silly, since the onward christian soldiers mentality seems to be silly, and that seems to be a copycat type title, which no sensible atheist would want to do.

I do not think Dave Nelson has existed since the beginning of recorded time, so you at least should have written "you believers in some god or other" rather than merely you.

Also you seem to think insults and calling folks liars is an acceptable approach for a presumably rational atheist. I think it gives a very bad example of atheism, and requires other atheists to denounce you and your tactics - which is too bad, since you are capable of making rational arguments against religious beliefs.

I do not think that you know there is no God - if you say you do, then the burden of proof is upon you. You are very arrogant in saying that if someone disagrees with you, the burden of proof is on that person. If you state there is no God, the burden of proof is on you, not on the person who disagrees with you. I wish you would go read my comment on that other thread and finally explain yourself either here or there.

Why do you take the burden of proof on yourself by making a claim that there is no God and that you know it?? Why do you think you can get by with telling everyone who disagrees with your assertion that the burden of proof is on him or her? Why do you prefer insulting people? Why do you like to call people liars when that term usually implies a deliberate telling of something they know to be false - don't you think any of them are actually dumb enought to believe it is true?

I think you are a very emotionally immature person, full of hostilities and arrogance. I think you do harm to the atheist "cause" and argument. I think you are quite capable of doing much better, by debunking the views of believers with sensible arguments - and I wonder why you don't do that. I also wonder why you will not assume the burden of proof when you claim to know there is no God. If you made any claim, wouldn't the burden of proof be on you, instead of the person who disagrees with you?

I wonder how you were raised. You seem to have the egocentricity of a toddler. a nasty one at that. grow up. you seem to think the only sign of maturity is your obscenity and your insults. why don't you use the rational mind which one suspects you have? are you terribly angry or unhappy or both, and taking it out on folks on topix?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#169664 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The kind that cannot escape the ever piercing gaze of it's creations ever new invention of tools to detect and see everything in the universe.
well, I need to read more of your comments to see your point here. If you imply that a relatively decent god created relatively rational human beings, who will use better and better tools to "see everything" (do you mean understand everything?) in the universe (do you include a possible multiverse?) I doubt such a being exists, or that mankind is such a creation.
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169665 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of god would entrust these mere mortals with the duty of passing on it's words?
A God who wants to work through people. How would humanity learn if God did everything for us, instead of through us? By passing on His word through us, we think about it. Then it passes from thought to action. It causes a change of heart if we choose to believe. We then improve our lives not because we're told to, but out of appreciation for what has been done for us.
Favorite Adversary

New York, NY

#169666 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor Topix atheists.
They will enter a building and negotiate elevators, escalators, hallways, and doors on the right or left to get what they seek and assume it is quite normal. That is the structure of their universe.
But they expect a supreme deity that constructed one to deliver to their own door.
Presumptuous, and quite dumb.
I know, right? lol

Since: Sep 08

Olney Springs, CO

#169667 Jun 22, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> that was to Dave Nelson. I still do not get your way of thinking or replying to people. I wrote you a long serious comment and asked you for an explanation, over on the thread about Atheists on the March in America, or some such title - which I think it is silly, since the onward christian soldiers mentality seems to be silly, and that seems to be a copycat type title, which no sensible atheist would want to do.
I do not think Dave Nelson has existed since the beginning of recorded time, so you at least should have written "you believers in some god or other" rather than merely you.
Also you seem to think insults and calling folks liars is an acceptable approach for a presumably rational atheist. I think it gives a very bad example of atheism, and requires other atheists to denounce you and your tactics - which is too bad, since you are capable of making rational arguments against religious beliefs.
I do not think that you know there is no God - if you say you do, then the burden of proof is upon you. You are very arrogant in saying that if someone disagrees with you, the burden of proof is on that person. If you state there is no God, the burden of proof is on you, not on the person who disagrees with you. I wish you would go read my comment on that other thread and finally explain yourself either here or there.
Why do you take the burden of proof on yourself by making a claim that there is no God and that you know it?? Why do you think you can get by with telling everyone who disagrees with your assertion that the burden of proof is on him or her? Why do you prefer insulting people? Why do you like to call people liars when that term usually implies a deliberate telling of something they know to be false - don't you think any of them are actually dumb enought to believe it is true?
I think you are a very emotionally immature person, full of hostilities and arrogance. I think you do harm to the atheist "cause" and argument. I think you are quite capable of doing much better, by debunking the views of believers with sensible arguments - and I wonder why you don't do that. I also wonder why you will not assume the burden of proof when you claim to know there is no God. If you made any claim, wouldn't the burden of proof be on you, instead of the person who disagrees with you?
I wonder how you were raised. You seem to have the egocentricity of a toddler. a nasty one at that. grow up. you seem to think the only sign of maturity is your obscenity and your insults. why don't you use the rational mind which one suspects you have? are you terribly angry or unhappy or both, and taking it out on folks on topix?
Skeptic's neural network got corroded. Some flaky connections resulted, resulting in a confused interface with reality. He can't help it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#169668 Jun 22, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
A God who wants to work through people. How would humanity learn if God did everything for us, instead of through us? By passing on His word through us, we think about it. Then it passes from thought to action. It causes a change of heart if we choose to believe. We then improve our lives not because we're told to, but out of appreciation for what has been done for us.
So your god makes everyone flawed then tells these flawed people to write a book about this god during a time when barbaric acts were considered a good thing and then expected the species to accept this garbage after we become more intelligent. Then you claim that this book, which was written by flawed beings and filled with a bunch of barbaric commands, is somehow more valid what is said of Zeus, Apollo, Imhotep, Ra, Bastet, Nyarlethotep, Cthulhu, and the millions of other gods.

Yeah, not buying it, if your god is real, he's a moron and should not be worshiped on those grounds alone.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#169669 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yet, your bibles say that all other such "natural reactions" are sins. Funny that.
No it doesn't

Quack Quack

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#169670 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>What kind of god would entrust these mere mortals with the duty of passing on it's words?
The God of Abraham.

Quack Quack

Since: Sep 08

Olney Springs, CO

#169671 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So your god makes everyone flawed then tells these flawed people to write a book about this god during a time when barbaric acts were considered a good thing and then expected the species to accept this garbage after we become more intelligent. Then you claim that this book, which was written by flawed beings and filled with a bunch of barbaric commands, is somehow more valid what is said of Zeus, Apollo, Imhotep, Ra, Bastet, Nyarlethotep, Cthulhu, and the millions of other gods.
Yeah, not buying it, if your god is real, he's a moron and should not be worshiped on those grounds alone.
Are you arguing against the existence of the Abrahamic deity, or the existence of any deity, intelligent designer, or the supernatural period?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#169672 Jun 22, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The God of Abraham.
Quack Quack
Then that god is an idiot.

“My name is Trunks...”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#169674 Jun 22, 2013
I think (she) is arguing against the existence of any type of God. The Abrahamic deity, I can safely say, does not exist. Thank goodness, because that deity is not a very benevolent one.

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) 35 min sonicfilter 1,224,536
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Brilliant Chicky 309,759
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) 11 hr robert walker 6
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Mon tom wingo 29,725
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... Apr 29 Sauck freedom 6
News Freshman Jonah Bolden declared ineligible for U... (Sep '14) Apr 29 tom wingo 4
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 27 TerryE 5,306
More from around the web