Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 253362 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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175056 Aug 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave.
Yes, my child? You have a question for me?

It will have to wait till morning. I'm going to bed. Good night.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#175057 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all. I said you have them because of those generations of moral teachings by religion. It is part of your culture. You are an ethnic Christian whether you believe in Jesus or not. He won.:-)

If you believe your morality is something that arises from within you, then you need to re-evaluate just what you do believe,or not believe in. The strictly materialistic view of existence requires such things to be learned.

You can develop an empathy and such for those you grew up with, as they are a part of your very world. But going beyond that to outsiders is something different. You just can't trust them until you know them. some of them will smile at you, then kill you for something you have and they want. To know them you have to live with them. Religion spread that tribal value of empathy, etc to larger political groups. It became the shared values, and thus a mechanism for trust and merging of groups.

The first gods were pretty much local. Monotheism became the universal ruler establishing morals all must follow.
While I don't agree that it was a religious beginning, I do agree that religion has helped to spread a set of moral values that it has established. It is good to know that you do not hold the idea that all non-believers hold a corrupt set of moral value, and thank you for conversing with me peacefully :-). It is not done often enough and greatly appreciated.:-)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175059 Aug 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, my child? You have a question for me?
It will have to wait till morning. I'm going to bed. Good night.
I have a question, why can't you creationists grow some balls and:

1. Prove the gods your're here to lie about.
2. Stop attacking hard science we use everyday, when you can't even prove your god.
3. Correct your rag bible and remove the parts about atheists being fool - forever.

See if you are brave enough to challenge your cult leaders with the facts they are so frightened of?

You can't do any of this because you are a conscious liar for your cult.

You mental illness means you cannot confront the fact that you have no proof of god or accept that you're lying to complete strangers.

After your brainwashing by the creationist cult, you have lost all of your logical facilities.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#175060 Aug 20, 2013
Bible Study 101

The Bible means exactly what it says.

If what the Bible literally says contradicts your church's doctrine then it is figurative and must be interpreted to fit the church's doctrine.

If there are two contradictory statements in the Bible only the one that agrees with your church's doctrine is literal, the is figurative and must be interpreted to match the church's doctrine.

If you can't find support for a particular church doctrine then search for a passage that can be interpreted to match church doctrine.

Always invoke the Holy Spirit's guidance to back your interpretation, the Holy Spirit is never wrong and to argue against it is irrevocable damnation to eternal torment in Hell.

How to tell if your interpretation is of the Holy Spirit: The interpretation will match church doctrine.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#175061 Aug 20, 2013
I am so glad you have stopped pretending to be a Deist and not a fundie Christian. We all knew you were one Dave thanks for proving us right. Explain how countries that never embraced Christianity still have morals in fact many peoples who never accepted Christianity have better morals than the majority of you and your fellow Christians. You are really so senile to think that 2000 years of Christianity evolved everyone in world Christian or not?

Wow Senile Dave that is ultra low IQ even for you.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I said you have them because of those generations of moral teachings by religion. It is part of your culture. You are an ethnic Christian whether you believe in Jesus or not. He won.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#175062 Aug 20, 2013
Holy effing sht you are in lala head injury land big time now.

SMH.

Seriously Gramps you really don't believe this right? You are trying to look ultra stupid on purpose right? You really aren't this ignorant right?

Right Dave?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No tribe, no political group exclusivity, nor even ritual worship. It was there, but it wasn't part of the teachings. It also ended blood sacrifices.
LCNlin

United States

#175063 Aug 20, 2013
Albert Einstein called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist.
Score one for agnostics!

Scratch an atheist and they often turn out to be agnostic. Richard Dawkins

waiting for proof of atheism,
take your time?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#175064 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
Albert Einstein called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist.
Score one for agnostics!
Scratch an atheist and they often turn out to be agnostic. Richard Dawkins
waiting for proof of atheism,
take your time?
I am atheist.

That proof enough?

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175065 Aug 20, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I am atheist.
That proof enough?
you're dumb
Thinking

UK

#175066 Aug 20, 2013
Me too.

Atheism exists.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I am atheist.
That proof enough?
LCNlin

United States

#175067 Aug 20, 2013
Scratch an atheist and out pops Richard Dawkins and agnostic
LCNlin

United States

#175068 Aug 20, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you're dumb
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I am atheist.
That proof enough?

Not exactly proof :-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175069 Aug 20, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I know next to nothing about Physics, Quantum Theory, higher math, etc.
Time and determined study can probably fix that.
I often argue from the viewpoint of my experience and/or knowledge. Why these theological arguments usually wind up with bickering over a scientific point that leans neither towards or away from supernatural powers, I've never quite understood. Science can only deal with what can be proven.***shrugs***
This happens because theological arguments are often based on assumptions that can be shown to be wrong via science. For example, the 'first cause' argument is full of holes, both because the notion of causality is itself problematic and because it fails to prove what is claimed. The science can show how the argument fails by specific examples.
I DO know better than to argue from lack of comprehension (be it ignorance or stupidity), lol.
Which is far better than most who engage in theological arguments.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175070 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
Albert Einstein called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist.
Score one for agnostics!
Scratch an atheist and they often turn out to be agnostic. Richard Dawkins
waiting for proof of atheism,
take your time?
You don't really understand what Dawkins was saying, do you? Or what "proof" means, hey.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175071 Aug 20, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you're dumb
Hard to tell, really. He's writing and not speaking.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175072 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Time and determined study can probably fix that.
But not him.
Thinking

UK

#175073 Aug 20, 2013
Maybe two housebricks would?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
But not him.
LCNlin

United States

#175074 Aug 20, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't really understand what Dawkins was saying, do you? Or what "proof" means, hey.
Defensive atheist,
seems to run in the religion,
oh sorry ....
NOT at religion
LOL

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#175075 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
Scratch an atheist and out pops Richard Dawkins and agnostic
Scratch a christian and out pops Fred Phelbs and fundamentalistic christianity
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175076 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Time and determined study can probably fix that.
<quoted text>
This happens because theological arguments are often based on assumptions that can be shown to be wrong via science. For example, the 'first cause' argument is full of holes, both because the notion of causality is itself problematic and because it fails to prove what is claimed. The science can show how the argument fails by specific examples.
<quoted text>
Which is far better than most who engage in theological arguments.
please explain a bit more about your phrase "the notion of causality is itself problematic". I am a variety of determinist, and do not believe in free will. So I am intellectually for socalled punishment as restraint and deterrence, to prevent repeats and copycats - to the extent that a punishment does deter those actions (I do not think it always does, but I suspect it sometimes does - since I would be afraid to break a law and kill a very evil person, though I would feel it was moral to do so, to prevent that person from doing harm to me or others. For example, I would not want to be arrested and imprisoned, even for killing someone like Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell, even if it were possible to do it. First of all, other evil men would replace them in the Senate. Secondly they would be martyrs, and it could cause more rightwing types to become activists. I am not sure whether I would have dared to kill a Hitler if I had the opportunity - though morally I think that is a case where one should have tried, if possible.)

So what is your view regarding free will and causality, and what are the other problems regarding causality that you meant? I know that after does not mean because of.

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 min Russell797 8,571
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min sonicfilter 1,346,143
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr Brian_G 310,649
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) 18 hr Mary 284
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri Bruins 31,883
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Feb 3 KeS 201,847
News IU ranked 13th, Butler 16th (Dec '07) Feb 3 Fart news 89
More from around the web