Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239040 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.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172106 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What else can you call it, when he uses his Bully Pulpit to literally bring down hate and persecution on entire segments of the population?
I call what he does hate-speech.
He literally calls out for his followers to go out and commit violence against gays, atheists and non-christians.
If you load a gun, and attach a sign commanding your followers to go out and use it?
They will.
I don't pay much attention to televangelists, so I'm not sure what Pat Robertson even does. I'm not defending his views, but I do wonder how a televangelist can claim any success by such actions. I'm sorry that I can't really comment here because I lack the personal knowledge of his views.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172107 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your definition of a "godly reply?"
A godly reply would be one that was so incredibly amazing, that anyone-- any human anywhere-- would immediately recognize it as too amazing for a mere human to have uttered.

A godly reply would be infinitely better than the best come-back, ever in the history of the planet.

A godly reply would be such an amazing pick-up line (if it were couched as such) that all women and most men, would immediately swoon upon hearing it.

A godly reply would so sway a jury, that even the Judge would cry, "case dismissed! That was such an amazing a comment, there your Holiness, there is no need to continue the trial."

And **everyone**-- even the prosecution--- would agree.

A godly reply would be ..

... immediately and obviously....

... godly.

Your bible?

Nothing in there comes even close to qualifying.

It's all re-hashed, plagiarized stories lifted here and there from other, older myths.

Not.

One.

Single.

Original.

Idea within the whole.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172108 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I don't see how the cursing of the fig tree fits into your argument. I would like to understand how it fits into our dialogue. May I ask how you perceive the word "curse?"
Well, the story is 100% myth, so it's really impossible to make complete sense out of it.

But I always saw it as a bit of editing that didn't get stripped-- it was likely one of many such tales woven in, to prove that jesus was **human**.

You do know that there was a massive fight about that, in the early days, weather jesus was **human** or spirit?

And there wasn't any middle ground-- until Constantine's committee forced the two camps together into a mish-mash hodge-poge that it is today.

But back to the tale: Jesus acted out of spite, clearly-- the poor fig was out of season.

Yet, your jesus cursed it to die in a fit of pique.

Not godly.

But very,**very** human.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172109 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't pay much attention to televangelists, so I'm not sure what Pat Robertson even does. I'm not defending his views, but I do wonder how a televangelist can claim any success by such actions. I'm sorry that I can't really comment here because I lack the personal knowledge of his views.
Well-- you just managed to engender respect from this old cynic, for being ignorant of Robertson.

He is a horrid example of the subtype.

Alas, he is also--to me-- a fine example of why there cannot possibly be any **good** or **caring** deities in the present universe.

What sort of god would suffer the likes of Robertson and his ilk, to balk millions out of their pensions, to make himself into an exclusive spokes-person for said god, and to turn so many away due to Robertson's obvious hypocrisy?

No-- free will doesn't cut the mustard. The bible is chock-full of example after example where bible-god **forces** people to do his bidding, regardless.

Where are metaphorical the giant fishes, to swallow up the Robertson's of the world, to return their preaching to the proper path?

Hmmmm?

If god is real?

He certainly displays a great deal of ...

...**not** giving a crap about the fate of the world's people!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172110 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't pay much attention to televangelists,...
I must say, Mr Roman Apologist, you have managed to surprise me.

But even better? You made me stretch a bit, in answer to your replies.

That's not happened in quite a bit, from a theist.

:)

I have enjoyed exchanging ideas with you so far.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172111 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree exactly-- you expressed it more eloquently than I, but I too found the shop owner arrogant and possessing of a missive ego.
In his massive pride, he could not let a minor insult go unanswered.
Rather like the bible's god, come to think of it...
... no **wonder** he got the lesson wrong!
:D
Why do you view it that way?

I see it as not punishing the snooty customer, but as giving him a chance to re-evaluate his initial behavior. Remember, the guest was the smug one and was being sneaky and under-handed about it. The shop owner merely gave the snooter an opportunity to realize it for himself.

When I reiterated that the out-of-towner had been smug and condescending you replied "So?" as if the out-of-towner had every right to treat the store owner this way without any penalty or sense of accountability. Your reply seems, on the surface, to endorse the actions of the snooty customer as somehow socially acceptable. Am I interpreting that correctly?

I'm curious as to how that view is any less arrogant than that of the store owner. The store owner could have kicked the snooty customer out. And then what would the customer learn? Would he learn humility or would he learn that he just isn't welcome in that store any longer? My thoughts upon first hearing that were that the store owner was still willing to allow the customer to come back, but instead of pointing out the customer's behavior, let him do a little work that shows him he's not as smart as he thought he was. There is no better teacher than self induced humiliation. The snooty man was not obligated to follow the owner's instructions.

The best lessons are the ones that cause us discomfort and embarrassment, because they cause us (if we're honestly observant) to realize that we're no better than the next guy, and they hold us accountable. If we're so smug and snooty that we don't recognize it for ourselves, what's the better choice? Are we to be banished by the owner with no hope of redemption; or do we learn a lasting lesson from a journey in which we come to realize it by experience and humility?

In the end, the store owner did our a snooty customer a favor, not a disservice. The disservice would have been to kick the customer out with no redemption, or to let him continue with his condescending behavior which would only encourage him to continue such behavior in the future.

What would you have done?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#172112 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well-- you just managed to engender respect from this old cynic, for being ignorant of Robertson.
He is a horrid example of the subtype.
Alas, he is also--to me-- a fine example of why there cannot possibly be any **good** or **caring** deities in the present universe.
What sort of god would suffer the likes of Robertson and his ilk, to balk millions out of their pensions, to make himself into an exclusive spokes-person for said god, and to turn so many away due to Robertson's obvious hypocrisy?
No-- free will doesn't cut the mustard. The bible is chock-full of example after example where bible-god **forces** people to do his bidding, regardless.
Where are metaphorical the giant fishes, to swallow up the Robertson's of the world, to return their preaching to the proper path?
Hmmmm?
If god is real?
He certainly displays a great deal of ...
...**not** giving a crap about the fate of the world's people!
The story of Job is rife with free will.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172113 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you view it that way?
I see it as not punishing the snooty customer, but as giving him a chance to re-evaluate his initial behavior. Remember, the guest was the smug one and was being sneaky and under-handed about it. The shop owner merely gave the snooter an opportunity to realize it for himself.
No, the store owner was being arrogant, claiming to know what was best for the customer.
When I reiterated that the out-of-towner had been smug and condescending you replied "So?" as if the out-of-towner had every right to treat the store owner this way without any penalty or sense of accountability. Your reply seems, on the surface, to endorse the actions of the snooty customer as somehow socially acceptable. Am I interpreting that correctly?
if the customer was *actually* snooty, instead of simply realizing that the store didn't have what was required, then the customer was being rude. The store owner was, on the other hand, being arrogant, and cruel by wasting the time of the customer.
I'm curious as to how that view is any less arrogant than that of the store owner. The store owner could have kicked the snooty customer out.
Which would have been much better than sending the customer on a wild goose chase back to the same location.
And then what would the customer learn? Would he learn humility or would he learn that he just isn't welcome in that store any longer? My thoughts upon first hearing that were that the store owner was still willing to allow the customer to come back,
On the contrary, as you told it the store owner was closing up just as the customer returned. Arrogant, mean, and pretentious.
but instead of pointing out the customer's behavior, let him do a little work that shows him he's not as smart as he thought he was. There is no better teacher than self induced humiliation. The snooty man was not obligated to follow the owner's instructions.
If the customer asked for a store that had other items, then the store owner had the option of not giving an answer (saying he didn't know of one) instead of wasting the customer's time and energy.
The best lessons are the ones that cause us discomfort and embarrassment, because they cause us (if we're honestly observant) to realize that we're no better than the next guy, and they hold us accountable. If we're so smug and snooty that we don't recognize it for ourselves, what's the better choice? Are we to be banished by the owner with no hope of redemption; or do we learn a lasting lesson from a journey in which we come to realize it by experience and humility?
In the end, the store owner did our a snooty customer a favor, not a disservice.
Garbage. The store owner was the one that needs correcting: we was rude to a customer. He wasted the customer's time and energy. He assumed he knew better than the customer what was good for him. He set out to teach the customer a 'lesson' instead of realizing his store might not have been what the customer required.
The disservice would have been to kick the customer out with no redemption,
Much better than the arrogant wold goose chase he sent the customer on.
or to let him continue with his condescending behavior which would only encourage him to continue such behavior in the future.
What would you have done?
If I were the store owner? I would have sent him to a store that was better equipped or said I didn't know of one. perhaps I would have asked what the customer was looking for and figured out a suitable place to send him. Even if the customer was rude, the reply should be politeness and helpfulness, not the type of condescension the store owner showed.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172114 Jul 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Your church teaches you it's okay to use the middle finger? No wonder you are ashamed to say what church you go to. It must not be much of a church from the way you turned out.
<quoted text>
(_*_) take a lick

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172115 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the story is 100% myth, so it's really impossible to make complete sense out of it.
But I always saw it as a bit of editing that didn't get stripped-- it was likely one of many such tales woven in, to prove that jesus was **human**.
You do know that there was a massive fight about that, in the early days, weather jesus was **human** or spirit?
And there wasn't any middle ground-- until Constantine's committee forced the two camps together into a mish-mash hodge-poge that it is today.
But back to the tale: Jesus acted out of spite, clearly-- the poor fig was out of season.
Yet, your jesus cursed it to die in a fit of pique.
Not godly.
But very,**very** human.
Yes I know about the controversy in deciding whether Yeshua was human or divine. I do know that Constantine brought the two opposing sides to the table to decide, but I do not believe that he tried to directly influence the Council of Nicea. The evidence I've seen doesn't support that theory to the extent that sensationalist authors such as Dan Brown would have us believe.

Now as for the cursing of the fig tree, a literal reading would certainly lead us to believe that Jesus was pissed off and wished death on an out-of-season tree. When considered in that framework of thought, I understand how anyone would reach that conclusion. I came to the same conclusion myself. "Why was kind, gentle Jesus berating a bush?" Good question huh?

But-

Upon re-reading the entire chapter, and understanding a bit more of the context, I think we can understand it in a new way that actually makes sense.

A Palestinian fig tree will usually bear fruit before the leaves appear. This is unique to Palestine. When Jesus saw the tree from a distance, He noticed the leaves but not the fruit. Now another argument comes into play here. "If Jesus is God, and God is omniscient, then why didn't He know there was no fruit on it?" The answer to that is that Jesus didn't always choose to use His powers. They weren't to be misused, but to teach instead.

But now onto the object lesson that Jesus was teaching.

When Jesus got closer to the tree, He saw that even though it had leaves, it wasn't bearing any fruit. It was useless. It was decaying from disease. In ancient times, such a tree would be cut down and used for wood. Jesus was demonstrating to the disciples that Israel's political and national identity had been corrupted, and was no longer producing any useful purpose as a nation. Jesus cursed the fig tree as a warning. Not in spiteful anger. This was meant to show the disciples that the corruption of Israel was taking place from the roots up, just as the disease within the fig tree. Because of the national corruption, the nation of Israel was blind to it's own faults, and would be destroyed by Rome. This did happen in 66-70AD. The tree would be dead from the roots. The roots of Israel were diseased by the political/religious corruption of the ruling class. This is the modern understanding of this passage in it's deeper cultural and historical context.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172116 Jul 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Stop cowering there are thousands of variations of Christian churches from catholic to Mormon.
Which Christian denomination do you belong to.
Isn't it funny how so many Christholes are to scared to say what religion they belong to on here? Seriously I laugh at their humiliation.
<quoted text>
why do you want to know About Bro. Love's traveling salvaction show???

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172117 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the store owner was being arrogant, claiming to know what was best for the customer.
<quoted text>
if the customer was *actually* snooty, instead of simply realizing that the store didn't have what was required, then the customer was being rude. The store owner was, on the other hand, being arrogant, and cruel by wasting the time of the customer.
<quoted text>
Which would have been much better than sending the customer on a wild goose chase back to the same location.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, as you told it the store owner was closing up just as the customer returned. Arrogant, mean, and pretentious.
<quoted text>
If the customer asked for a store that had other items, then the store owner had the option of not giving an answer (saying he didn't know of one) instead of wasting the customer's time and energy.
<quoted text>
Garbage. The store owner was the one that needs correcting: we was rude to a customer. He wasted the customer's time and energy. He assumed he knew better than the customer what was good for him. He set out to teach the customer a 'lesson' instead of realizing his store might not have been what the customer required.
<quoted text>
Much better than the arrogant wold goose chase he sent the customer on.
<quoted text>
If I were the store owner? I would have sent him to a store that was better equipped or said I didn't know of one. perhaps I would have asked what the customer was looking for and figured out a suitable place to send him. Even if the customer was rude, the reply should be politeness and helpfulness, not the type of condescension the store owner showed.
Why do you think the store owner showed condescension? I never said he did. You're assuming he did. Why are you assuming that?

Yes the store owner was closing up as the snooty customer returned, not BECAUSE the snooty customer returned. The store owner was closing because it was closing time. Are you speculating on emotional and volitional grounds?

There are two types of humiliation.(Humili being the root- as in "humility")

One type is that of revenge. You're assuming that's what happened in the story I used. The other type is teaching. When we're humiliated, we're humiliated because somebody is cruel and wants to injure us, OR we've been unfair to others and when we realize it, it's humiliating, especially if we're in the company of those we treated badly. We feel awful about it. Sometimes we need to be humiliated in a kind way.

The young snooty man's behavior was the issue here. Not the merchandise, not the customer service issues, but only the cocky smugness of one man, in another man's place of business. The store owner helped the young man. He gave him excellent customer service.
He gave directions designed to redeem the young man, not cast him out without learning from it. If revenge was the goal, why bring the offender back to your own doorstep?

1) Be content with what's in front of you when in another man's home or business.

2) If not satisfied, don't be snooty. Be gracious.

3) When holding another person accountable, give them a way to learn the lesson AND redeem themselves and welcome them back when they do.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172118 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>why do you want to know About Bro. Love's traveling salvaction show???
Good song!

"Hot August night..." :D

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172119 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>If yours are shut your pie hole
leave topix atheism forum !
Joe Gortuna

Eureka, CA

#172120 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Church was wonderful !!!!!!!!!! Its great being on the winning side.. I love it... You guys are missing a blessing !!!!!!! HALELLUJAH AMEN
It is even better to be on the right side, maybe one of these days you'll find out how that feels.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172122 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think the store owner showed condescension? I never said he did. You're assuming he did. Why are you assuming that?
because he clearly assumed he knew what was best for the customer rather than letting the customer decide that for himself.
Yes the store owner was closing up as the snooty customer returned, not BECAUSE the snooty customer returned. The store owner was closing because it was closing time. Are you speculating on emotional and volitional grounds?
Did the store owner not know about how long it would take to make that circuit?
There are two types of humiliation.(Humili being the root- as in "humility")
One type is that of revenge. You're assuming that's what happened in the story I used.
yes, clearly that was the case. The store owner was offended by the customer and set out to 'teach him a lesson'. That is revenge.
The other type is teaching. When we're humiliated, we're humiliated because somebody is cruel and wants to injure us, OR we've been unfair to others and when we realize it, it's humiliating, especially if we're in the company of those we treated badly. We feel awful about it. Sometimes we need to be humiliated in a kind way.
The young snooty man's behavior was the issue here. Not the merchandise, not the customer service issues, but only the cocky smugness of one man, in another man's place of business. The store owner helped the young man. He gave him excellent customer service.
Garbage. The store owner sent the customer on a wild goose chase hoping to 'teach him a lesson'. That is far from beneficent. It is haughty and arrogant.
He gave directions designed to redeem the young man, not cast him out without learning from it. If revenge was the goal, why bring the offender back to your own doorstep?
To smugly rub the customer's face in it.
1) Be content with what's in front of you when in another man's home or business.
And what if that business doesn't have what you need? Why not ask for directions to another place that does?
2) If not satisfied, don't be snooty. Be gracious.
Which the store owner certainly was not.
3) When holding another person accountable, give them a way to learn the lesson AND redeem themselves and welcome them back when they do.
That wasn't 'holding the customer accountable'. It was blatant revenge for feeling belittled. The store owner is the one *seriously* in need of looking within and learning not to be so testy. And, in any case, it wasn't the store owner's job to hold the customer accountable. To think otherwise is sheer arrogance.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172123 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Church was wonderful !!!!!!!!!! Its great being on the winning side.. I love it... You guys are missing a blessing !!!!!!! HALELLUJAH AMEN
OOPs!
I'm Joe Fortuna, not Joe Gortuna
I'm Joe
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172124 Jul 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read your previous, and lengthy story.
Obviously the arrogant store-owner's quality of goods wasn't enough to impress the out-of-towner.
I see the bible as being much the same: it cannot impress directly, it's too fatally flawed.
But.
If you deliberately mislead someone, and deliberately send them on a convoluted and confusing journey?
Then, as they are at their most confused-- you literally hit them over the head with a cherry-picked nugget from the bible?
Maybe... maybe **then** they will be confused enough to accept it?
Is **that** how your god works?
Nice Bob! Thats clearing up the story.
I can't wait to see the response.
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172125 Jul 15, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>YO Mikko the Dikko shut yo pie-ho
Did you learn your attitude from the one you call jesus?
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#172126 Jul 15, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you misunderstood my point. The out-of-towner was the smug arrogant one, and was attempting to belittle the store owner insidiously. He was being sneaky and disrespectful, and not appreciating that the store owner was allowing him to be in his store in the first place. The smug out-of-towner didn't even connect the name of the store with his own behavior. "Humble Inn" A play on the word "humbling." When somebody is humbled, they realize they may have been too cocky. Too smug. Too condescending. So, the store owner gave him a second chance to appreciate what had already been in front of him. The out-of-towner took too long to realize his mistake. He arrived just as the store owner was locking up for the night. The out-of-towner shouldn't have been so cocky and arrogant.
That's the lesson. And it's a good one.
Sometimes your stories have a deeper meaning than what you see in them. In other words your story has been humbled, and you don't even realize it.

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) 5 min Quirky 1,232,291
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 8 hr TerryE 5,559
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 hr Junket 309,857
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 23 hr Hector Valente 201,809
Seeking financial and lending help or assistanc... (Jan '13) Fri Olsen Pole 4
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri tom wingo 29,760
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) May 17 tom wingo 84
More from around the web