Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244633 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#176962 Sep 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good!
Maybe you are starting to understand.
Now go back and read where I said you went wrong.
Then look up theory and belief. Theory is a belief, or sure slanted that way. They both require a faith in the accuracy of one's thought logic.
Now, look at the topic of this thread.
Are you an atheist or an agnostic now?
Theory requires observation or defining principal to define the theory

Belief is opinion that requires nothing more than trust.

Look up the definitions and try and make an educated decision as to whether theory is belief

Here are the referance.com dictionary definitions just in case you find it too difficult to do a google search

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

the∑o∑ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the∑o∑ries.
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
be∑lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#176963 Sep 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Horse poop.
1.) ATHEIST.........someone who does NOT believe in God.
"due to the lack of evidence " you will not find in any authoritative definition. That is something you added. Part of your fantasy of intellectualism and of the fad cult of neo-atheists.
That is a phrase that can be ascribed to an agnostic, but not an atheist.
You idiot - when you're able to prove creationist isn't a mental illness you suffer from, your stupidity might matter more.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#176964 Sep 10, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>And...one more...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-130...
...for those NOT well read.
Idjit.
Like this quote.
''What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine''

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176965 Sep 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No Atheists HATE God, they hate the IDEA of God, they HATE the concept of religion. I hate the philosophy connected to God and religion like I hate the philosophy connected to the KKK, or any other hate groups.
Atheists don't hate, Theists hate. Atheists don't wish anyone condemned to eternal suffering for not believing as they do, this is what Theists do.
You can HATE a principal, an ideology, a mindset. I am convinced that no such entity as God exists, so it would be ridiculous for me to hate a non-existing thing. The IDEA of the God of the bible is what I hate. I hate what unsupported beliefs do to people. That a person whom I have never met, would wish me an eternity of suffering simply because I don't believe as they do, is what I hate. The fact that good honest and decent people feel they are no more than miserable sinners and must repent over the course of their lives is what I hate. But what I hate more, is that they infect their children with this horrid mindset. I hate that intelligent people feel their lives are totally worthless without the prospect of an after-life, and worse, claim without reservation, that anyone who does NOT ascribe to this, that their lives are also worthless and have no meaning.
Religion is what I HATE, not a fictitious God thing, I HATE what it does to people.
I accuse you of taking the misrepresentation as the norm. Your blanket of all, serves as a scapegoat for the few. Your hatred blocks out your common sense. If you look in an honest way, you would see Atheism has the same history of rouges doing wrong. What atheism in government fails to do as proven in The USSR and China is control their misguided populist and become overbearing in their opinion as you post shows is possible amongst the Western sort of Atheist. I understand in England your movement is going strong. This is explainable, with what is a very sad truth. Historically as shown in their literature it is in The English DNA to be oppressed. This is why they welcome Atheism.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176966 Sep 10, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>None of the 5 apply to Atheism.
1.) THEIST..........someone who believed in God
1.) ATHEIST.........someone who due to the lack of evidence does NOT believe in God.
Thats it skippy, you can try as hard as you can to make Atheism more than this, but this is all it is. A LACK of belief in a superhuman controlling power due to lack of verifiable information.
But do continue to look stupid, I do enjoy watching you and other make complete fools out of yourselves.
Your reading comprehension is failing you. It is clear all 5 define Atheist. American Atheist now do form to press on political opinion and they meat at churches. If you have issues with Atheist being a religion don't bicker with me, start your movement to end their church. Your aimless babble here does not change a thing. The United States Government recognizes Atheism as a religion and churches have been erected, and people have filled the seats, therefore Atheism is a religion case closed. You could convince me and the 4-10 people that are posting on this tread otherwise, but we are not the bearers of this torch.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#176967 Sep 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
... I understand in England your movement is going strong....
You misunderstand.
What is happening is that religion is declining in the face of education and science. Religions are being seen for what they are - nonsense.
http://www.godchecker.com/

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176969 Sep 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you did not like being called a moron-- or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
LOL!
You can dish it out--but you cannot take it.
Classic.
Again your reading comprehension fails you. Preceding calling me a moron with what is the most idiotic statement I have ever read, "religions have no interest in science". I was trying to be nice. I know it did not seem that way. I think had you posted that years ago, the atheist bloggers at Delphi Forum or youtube, would have requested your silence. The statement is stupid, but for a Western Atheist to post that. It is like having your 8 year old, grade school attending child come home, and find out he does not recognize the "ABCs" he does not know alpha bet. You really have no business discussing this topic at all. If you were wise you'd move on into something more cheerful.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#176970 Sep 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not exactly call it a rest but it was good thanks. Spent a few days studying a 55,000 years old Neanderthal grave site. Yet there are good funnymentalist christians out there who tell me that my memories, my notes and my photographs of what I have just done are impossible Ė go figure.
Sorry, was that a bit of projection showing there? Iím sure it was, after all itís not the atheists who claim atheism is a religion is it? Nope thatís the reglutards who have difficulty understanding anything different from their view. I have no problem with that faith or deliberately imposed ignorance of such reglutards, but I do have a problem with them using that deliberate ignorance to tell me what I believe in when they really have not got a clue.
I donít suppose you can really help your chauvinistic lust can you?
It's a human weakness, lovey. Goes back to our primate days.

You keep showing that ass and I get aroused.

So what did you manage to reconstruct in your mind about those long dead Neanderthals? How they thought, how they talked?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176971 Sep 10, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You misunderstand.
What is happening is that religion is declining in the face of education and science. Religions are being seen for what they are - nonsense.
http://www.godchecker.com/
I admit perhaps it is unfair of me to compare a English movement with The American Atheist movement. Because you are from England and would be closer to this information than I am, I have to concede your point. At times when watch Mr Richard Dawkins, I assume that the English version mirrors our version, or even we are a cheaper copy. The American version is to step into the role of religious influence. I would rank them in the top 5. Prior to The Tea party forming they did have a long run as being the most hated group by American society. This was in accordance to Time Magazine. When the Tea Party s dead, the Atheist will still be going. These two groups rival and combine. American politics/religion is entertaining, and in my opinion a fault.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#176972 Sep 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Theory requires observation or defining principal to define the theory
Belief is opinion that requires nothing more than trust.
Look up the definitions and try and make an educated decision as to whether theory is belief
Here are the referance.com dictionary definitions just in case you find it too difficult to do a google search
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
the∑o∑ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the∑o∑ries.
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
be∑lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
For the life of you, you can't see where those require faith in your assumptions of what is correct? It is written right in the definitions.

Topix atheists seem to have this mental block about what faith is. A kneejerk random neuron firing episode.

If one PhD doesn't have faith in the data collection and interpretation methodology of another PhD in his field, does that make him an atheist? If he does, does it make him one of your religitards?

You have raw nerves interfering with your objectivity, love.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176973 Sep 10, 2013
DavidQuinn wrote:
Atheism requires no faith at all but I wish i had Jean-Paul sartre's attitude to religion, a man so thoroughly atheist he deemed the whole subject beneath his intelligence to consider. Simply religion is divisive and restricts us as a species, simple as that. Check out a book that's causing a bit of a buzz in the Uk called 2082 the chronicles of hope. On the website the 1st chapter for the 1st book is on there for free, there's a speech in there by an atheist politician that's genius
Until proven otherwise. The UK conversation about this and The united States conversation, are two different topics. Unless someone could prove to me that The UK does have active, well supported activist, and churches for Atheism. The same would be true if Scottish Mormons walked in on a conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. The topic is interesting, but perhaps not worthy of people's precious time.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#176974 Sep 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit perhaps it is unfair of me to compare a English movement with The American Atheist movement (blah, blah)....
No. You just misunderstand what's happening.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176975 Sep 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a human weakness, lovey. Goes back to our primate days.
You keep showing that ass and I get aroused.
So what did you manage to reconstruct in your mind about those long dead Neanderthals? How they thought, how they talked?
I am sorry Dave but I am accusing you of wasting your time. I have read parts of your long well detailed blogs. This crowd is really behind on this topic completely. I knew that they would just disagree, out of their bizarre style. These are not the atheist you use to chat with. I think you are missing those days. My guess is the collage crowd that use to frequent this debate grew weary of it. Maybe the, "no, no, that's not true crowd." that denies the sun comes up every morning to try to win a argument succeeded in irking the smarter bloggers off topix. The false claims, poor reading comprehension, and actually being behind the times in where this debate has gone. It's mainly a question of why do they still blog here. I can't see that they are into it. I started posting on this tread I expected some of what I got. It has all ways been the norm, but the quality of bloggers here is ridiculous. In honor of their debating skills I leave you this.

blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#176976 Sep 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reading comprehension is failing you. It is clear all 5 define Atheist. American Atheist now do form to press on political opinion and they meat at churches. If you have issues with Atheist being a religion don't bicker with me, start your movement to end their church. Your aimless babble here does not change a thing. The United States Government recognizes Atheism as a religion and churches have been erected, and people have filled the seats, therefore Atheism is a religion case closed. You could convince me and the 4-10 people that are posting on this tread otherwise, but we are not the bearers of this torch.
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.

Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

NOW, you can consider yourself fully educated on the meaning of ATHEIST........No, no, don't thank me, glad I could help.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#176977 Sep 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a human weakness, lovey. Goes back to our primate days.
You keep showing that ass and I get aroused.
So what did you manage to reconstruct in your mind about those long dead Neanderthals? How they thought, how they talked?
Such a lot of males, certainly in the western part of the world have now managed to overcome their urges and treat a woman as an equal, not a sex object. But there are still some primitive morons around and one thing is for sure you wonít get over it.

So you are guessing again? How christian of you to be incapable of understanding such concepts. What I deduced from those long dead Neanderthals is that they EXISTED as well as several technical details that are beyond you so Iíll not bother going into bone density, skull size, nasal cavity and brow ridges

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#176978 Sep 10, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Like this quote.
''What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine''
Lifted, without attribution, from John Lennox.

Just so you know, he's a mathematician, not a physicist. Also a philosopher, Fundie, Creationist, and all-around nutter.

Christopher Hitchins handed him his head in debate: https://www.google.com/search...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#176979 Sep 10, 2013
Typo. "Hitchens".

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#176980 Sep 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
For the life of you, you can't see where those require faith in your assumptions of what is correct? It is written right in the definitions.
Topix atheists seem to have this mental block about what faith is. A kneejerk random neuron firing episode.
If one PhD doesn't have faith in the data collection and interpretation methodology of another PhD in his field, does that make him an atheist? If he does, does it make him one of your religitards?
You have raw nerves interfering with your objectivity, love.
My guess is that you have probably read the definitions but not actually UNDERSTOOD them, blinkered by your theist blindfolds. But we can expect no more from a primitive chauvinist such as yourself.

Wrong, the real problem is that reglutards seem to have this impression that faith is actually fact. This is a known phenomenon, they have the same problem with various words such as truth, morality, church and theory

Such a scenario makes the first PhD question a particular branch of research, nothing more, nothing less, it does not make his rejection a religion nor does it make the second PhDs contention a religion and only an idiot would cite such a stupid and irrelevant example. That field of research is not necessarily regarding a god and even if it were regarding a god then of course there would be no observational evidence for the second PhD to base a theory on and so what he would have would be nothing but belief. Therefore the first PhD would have every reason to have no faith in the second PhDs opinion,

I have nerves for sure, we all have. My objectivity seems to be far more rational than guessing a god did it by magic out of nothing using nothing as evidence and yet claiming such bronze age mumbo jumbo as truth. Go figureÖ

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#176981 Sep 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry Dave but I am accusing you of wasting your time. I have read parts of your long well detailed blogs. This crowd is really behind on this topic completely. I knew that they would just disagree, out of their bizarre style. These are not the atheist you use to chat with. I think you are missing those days. My guess is the collage crowd that use to frequent this debate grew weary of it. Maybe the, "no, no, that's not true crowd." that denies the sun comes up every morning to try to win a argument succeeded in irking the smarter bloggers off topix. The false claims, poor reading comprehension, and actually being behind the times in where this debate has gone. It's mainly a question of why do they still blog here. I can't see that they are into it. I started posting on this tread I expected some of what I got. It has all ways been the norm, but the quality of bloggers here is ridiculous. In honor of their debating skills I leave you this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =9-k5J4RxQdEXX
I'm aware of what they are and how they operate.

There are two types of atheists on here. Those that bought their intelligence, either in a CrackerJack box or institution that poured it into their skulls for them, and those with some serious neural network wiring issues primarily caused by ingesting too many deleterious chemicals in their adolescence, hence the stunted of further development. Some are both.

I learned very quickly after getting on on here almost 3 years ago that there would be no rational and intellectual interaction with them. However, I have become somewhat addicted to poking them with sticks. Gives me something to do and them a purpose in life. They enjoy the nerve stimulation, it sends a jolt of electricity into their brains that they wouldn't otherwise experience. Unfortunately it just passes on into the environment as they have no means to store it and put it too use.

Plus I like the shape of Christine's ass.

On their own they are a small and ineffectual group of people on the global scale, but they make great object lessons on the dangers of enabling idiots through education and mass communications.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#176982 Sep 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a lot of males, certainly in the western part of the world have now managed to overcome their urges and treat a woman as an equal, not a sex object. But there are still some primitive morons around and one thing is for sure you wonít get over it.
So you are guessing again? How christian of you to be incapable of understanding such concepts. What I deduced from those long dead Neanderthals is that they EXISTED as well as several technical details that are beyond you so Iíll not bother going into bone density, skull size, nasal cavity and brow ridges
Yes, many of them have turned gay.

You can not be considered an equal until you get your emotions under control and quit gnashing your teeth at the approach of any male.

Men are attracted to intelligent women that don't have attitudes.

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 nanoanomaly 1,261,547
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Justise_League 201,844
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr feces for jesus 310,302
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat Stewart scott 29,844
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Jul 25 xxxrayted 1,714
News 3 Arkansas players arrested on forgery complaint Jul 23 Fart news 2
More from around the web