Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247217 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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177476 Sep 16, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
straw-man his favorite fallacy?
idiot with no proof of god, pushing his failed creationist cult online for $0.00001 per troll.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177477 Sep 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does my disappointment in not being loved by Topix atheist mental cases show?
Golly, I thought I had it hidden real good.
It isn't up to me to prove one exists to anyone but me, lovey.
Are you trying to prove one doesn't exist? You are doing a lousy job if so.
It's your ass, not mine.
You're a bitter creationist idiot who wants attention.

Problem is you don't even understand atheism so anything that comes out of your mouth is just wasteful garbage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177478 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always been right about my age and I have admitted to a typo, get over it.
You self delusion and davesworld antic pants have no baring on my memory but you are free to delusion yourself as much as your emotional outbursts can stand
I don’t care what or where you developed you godbit make believe. And you have no idea of my intellectual understanding of atheism, that my deal little fool is the whole concept of atheism that the godbot will never understand, it is not the structured religion of godbotism but it is the individual understanding of individuals.
Intelligent man? Obviously does not take after you then? Are you sure you are the father? It is said that DNA testing is showing considerably less genetic link between the claimed father and the child than was supposed. Was you wife a naught girl?
What emotional issues, you keep guessing based on you own projection but you never – ever offer any substantiation of your outlandish comments.
I'm frankly surprised that your keyboard hasn't got up off its desk and said:

"F*ck this stupid creationist's fingers on my back every day. I will not be a tool aiding the broadcast of such ignorance."
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#177479 Sep 16, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
straw-man his favorite fallacy?
I don't think you possess the intelligence level to understand the meaning of a "straw-man. Prove me wrong!!!!

Since: Sep 08

Fowler, CO

#177480 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, I simply do not agree with most of your davesworld BS and tell you so. Therefore, you feel an emotional need to interpret that as ranting, it’s really just a sign of immaturity.
Your fascinations and perversions are best kept to yourself.
Still no examples eh? All you have is opinion and are to sh|t scared to admit it? Please be good enough to grow a set of balls and show me where those typos are? So what you are saying that you believe you are at last and suddenly eliciting an emotional response? A response that you have been harping on about for months. It seems that what you are saying is that you have been lying in the hope of grabbing extras spite points to add to your god fund.
How pathetic… I really have no tolerance for liars and liars for their god are the lowest of the low.
"You self delusion and davesworld antic pants have no baring on my memory but you are free to delusion yourself as much as your emotional outbursts can stand"

You really want to show your ass. And you do. You also left out a comma and a period in that sentence. You also started it off wrong. Should have been "Your" instead of "you".

"I don’t care what or where you developed you godbit make believe. And you have no idea of my intellectual understanding of atheism, that my deal little fool is the whole concept of atheism that the godbot will never understand, it is not the structured religion of godbotism but it is the individual understanding of individuals."

Again, you instead of your preceding godbit, which should have been your usual godbot.

My "deal little fool"?

Missing comma. Two, actually.

"Intelligent man? Obviously does not take after you then? Are you sure you are the father? It is said that DNA testing is showing considerably less genetic link between the claimed father and the child than was supposed. Was you wife a naught girl?"

She could be quite a "naughty" girl. But he is mine.

"What emotional issues, you keep guessing based on you own projection but you never – ever offer any substantiation of your outlandish comments."

Is that one or two sentences? Plus missing a comma.

"Your deliberate ignorance certainly does show"

Missed your period?

"You don’t seem you understand the concept of debate, you make the claim that a mythical entity exists, it is therefore up you to substantiate that claim, or shut up about it"

? You missed a second period?

"Not me trying to prove anything, Einstrien did a pretty good job of that with E=MC^2"

Uh oh. You missed three periods. Oh, you also disrespected your god, there.

"Why do you have a fascination with my ass?"

Because you have it in everyone's face.

Fumble fingers and scattered brains. But you got a fine ass.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177484 Sep 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary... there are people who say that they are atheists who have decided to have a building that they call a church. That does not make atheism a religion, that means that the people who are wanting to have an atheist church have ignored the definition of religion and decided to do whatever it is that they want to do. No different than christian's making up their own rules, and branching off from Catholic, to church of christ, to baptist. The problem is that the definition of religion is completely contradictory to the definition of Atheism so anyone who tries to say that atheism is a religion is being clearly dishonest.
My answer is and has been, it is case by case. I honestly don't get why you'd want to have this disagreement with me. In the case of the Atheist I read here. They are a religious group, with fundamentalist traits. If you read there post, I am amazed you don't see it. atheist with no religious faith wouldn't see any need to compete with other's idea. If you too frequently ponder The Universe kick started on it's own with no intelligent design you have a belief. Without gathering or conversation about your belief, you are a non-religious person. More so, if you could not label your belief, and you did not care to start gatherings or discussions about it, or one better, you were against having your belief labeled. Mr Dawkins himself find the claims of these bloggers here wrong. And I don't think he says that for others to have a Tax exemption.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177485 Sep 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All the law is saying (US LAW) is that atheism if declared deserves the same protection under the constitution, that religion does. Therefore freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
All this was brought up because an atheist in prison wanted to form a study group, but was denied. What the law did , was say an atheist has the right to go to the prison library on Sunday, instead of church. If you can call "study" a religion then atheist prisoners won the right to in court.
I have read the judges' comments on that case. They were rather interesting.

The gist of the comments was that, in order to ensue **equal** application of the law, then non-belief must also be included under the "religion" umbrella.

It was the opinion of the judges that the law **must** be applied equally, or else stricken from the books, and the only way to do that, is to treat atheism as a kind of "religion", for the **purpose** of **equal** treatment under the law.

A legal fiction-- something our legal system does all the time.

The easiest example is "corporation"--- it's a legal fiction to pretend the company is a "corpus" or body-- it's not, of course, it's a collection of things/people/assets/etc.

But it's useful under the law to pretend a corporation is a person.

A legal fiction.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177486 Sep 16, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Or phrenology;0)
Indeed.... or celestial spheres?

LOL!

... wait, there's more idiocy:

power crystals
crystal healing
crystal seeing
pyramid power
ley lines
ouija boards
out-of-body projection
far seeing
...

... and last but not least? Goat staring.

<LMAO>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177487 Sep 16, 2013
RayOne wrote:
The atheists feel left out of getting fair time. They should worship their own way on their own day. The Devil is dancing with the prospect.
Why is it, you True Believers™ give all the **real** power to your favorite anti-gods?

Hmmm?

You are most amusing.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#177489 Sep 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read the judges' comments on that case. They were rather interesting.
The gist of the comments was that, in order to ensue **equal** application of the law, then non-belief must also be included under the "religion" umbrella.
It was the opinion of the judges that the law **must** be applied equally, or else stricken from the books, and the only way to do that, is to treat atheism as a kind of "religion", for the **purpose** of **equal** treatment under the law.
A legal fiction-- something our legal system does all the time.
The easiest example is "corporation"--- it's a legal fiction to pretend the company is a "corpus" or body-- it's not, of course, it's a collection of things/people/assets/etc.
But it's useful under the law to pretend a corporation is a person.
A legal fiction.
Exactly, but what it was really saying is that a non religious person has the rights a religious person does to form a group. The only way to justify a simple basic human right was to cover non belief under the same law as belief.

This is much the same way cocaine was included under the narcotics laws already in place, but we know cocaine isn't a narcotic, it was easy to define it a narcotic under existing law.
Another legal maneuvering or as you said legal fiction to cover something under existing laws.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177490 Sep 16, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not his fault. He was obviously taught that Teh GOD created the Universe. Teh GOD said, "POOF" and there it was. During the first Super Nova Teh GOD said, "Hey, what just happened to my star?"
Teh GOD said, "Oh yeah, I work in mysterious ways".
BOOM goes the next star and Teh GOD says, "See?"
Secretly Teh GOD calls a board meeting.
"Jesus, why the hell are all of my stars exploding?"
Jesus says, meekly, "I think it's the hydrogen, Father, I mean Me. We didn't factor in the fission".
Teh GOD says, "Fishin? You mean if I had just given Adam a fishin pole everything would be OK?"
I love how you wrote their GOD in the same image as his creators/worshipers.

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177491 Sep 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly, but what it was really saying is that a non religious person has the rights a religious person does to form a group. The only way to justify a simple basic human right was to cover non belief under the same law as belief.

This is much the same way cocaine was included under the narcotics laws already in place, but we know cocaine isn't a narcotic, it was easy to define it a narcotic under existing law.
Another legal maneuvering or as you said legal fiction to cover something under existing laws.
Exactly-- either the prison officials had to eliminate all groups, or else they had to include non-religious people too.

The law must be blind with respect to religion/no-religion, or else it is unjust.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177492 Sep 16, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the comically from?
I find it comical when people think they are getting to someone when in all actuality they have no point. Dave here thinks he has some sort of special powers. I personally think he's bipolar. One minute he can't stop talking about death and hell, and the next minute he's talking about loving woman's asses. However, you're right... he in general is not funny at all, he's actually quite depressing.
christINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#177493 Sep 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
My answer is and has been, it is case by case. I honestly don't get why you'd want to have this disagreement with me. In the case of the Atheist I read here. They are a religious group, with fundamentalist traits. If you read there post, I am amazed you don't see it. atheist with no religious faith wouldn't see any need to compete with other's idea. If you too frequently ponder The Universe kick started on it's own with no intelligent design you have a belief. Without gathering or conversation about your belief, you are a non-religious person. More so, if you could not label your belief, and you did not care to start gatherings or discussions about it, or one better, you were against having your belief labeled. Mr Dawkins himself find the claims of these bloggers here wrong. And I don't think he says that for others to have a Tax exemption.
learn some real science so you wont look so ignorant

http://youtu.be/hd-076rsC68

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177494 Sep 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
My answer is and has been, it is case by case. I honestly don't get why you'd want to have this disagreement with me. In the case of the Atheist I read here. They are a religious group, with fundamentalist traits. If you read there post, I am amazed you don't see it. atheist with no religious faith wouldn't see any need to compete with other's idea. If you too frequently ponder The Universe kick started on it's own with no intelligent design you have a belief. Without gathering or conversation about your belief, you are a non-religious person. More so, if you could not label your belief, and you did not care to start gatherings or discussions about it, or one better, you were against having your belief labeled. Mr Dawkins himself find the claims of these bloggers here wrong. And I don't think he says that for others to have a Tax exemption.
I have no choice, but to disagree with you. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god, but if science ever gives me a shred of evidence that would say otherwise then I would gladly agree with you. However, there are too many different ideas on creation, and I will not lie and say that I know for sure which one is fact. I do not believe in a super power or higher power (deity) so therefore by definition I do not have a "religion". I do not have a need to attend an atheist "church" because I do not need a building to discuss anything that has to do with my thoughts on creation. Anytime you have a different idea than someone else then technically you are competing with the other persons idea because you both think that you are correct at the basis of the conversation that may be happening.

I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to discuss their beliefs. The biggest problem that I have is that the religious people on here want to push that word "belief" as though it is some sort of religious word. I have no reason to believe that science has got the correct theory as to how the earth was created so far. Science has yet to fail us in any important endeavor to date. I disagree with many things in the bible, and I can't stand for someone to say that it is the correct book written by the correct god because that is a false statement and also one that cannot be proven. I also do not understand the need for religious people to come on here and talk about Richard Dawkins as though he is some sort of end all be all of atheism. He is not the "leader" of atheists... he is simply someone who speaks his mind in a very public and brash manner. This does not however mean that every atheist agrees with everything he says. He is just another person in this world who is attempting to get people to think instead of follow what everyone else says.
followerofSatan

Chicago, IL

#177495 Sep 16, 2013
christINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
learn some real science so you wont look so ignorant
http://youtu.be/hd-076rsC68
thanks for posting that... nice presentation....

(funny how everything works out without supernatural beings)
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#177496 Sep 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it comical when people think they are getting to someone when in all actuality they have no point. Dave here thinks he has some sort of special powers. I personally think he's bipolar. One minute he can't stop talking about death and hell, and the next minute he's talking about loving woman's asses. However, you're right... he in general is not funny at all, he's actually quite depressing.
Personally I think the better word to describe him would be pathetic.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177497 Sep 16, 2013
*I have no reason not to believe that science has got the correct theory as to how the earth was created so far.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177499 Sep 16, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Personally I think the better word to describe him would be pathetic.
You're right... he really is.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177500 Sep 16, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no choice, but to disagree with you. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god, but if science ever gives me a shred of evidence that would say otherwise then I would gladly agree with you. However, there are too many different ideas on creation, and I will not lie and say that I know for sure which one is fact. I do not believe in a super power or higher power (deity) so therefore by definition I do not have a "religion". I do not have a need to attend an atheist "church" because I do not need a building to discuss anything that has to do with my thoughts on creation. Anytime you have a different idea than someone else then technically you are competing with the other persons idea because you both think that you are correct at the basis of the conversation that may be happening.
I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to discuss their beliefs. The biggest problem that I have is that the religious people on here want to push that word "belief" as though it is some sort of religious word. I have no reason to believe that science has got the correct theory as to how the earth was created so far. Science has yet to fail us in any important endeavor to date. I disagree with many things in the bible, and I can't stand for someone to say that it is the correct book written by the correct god because that is a false statement and also one that cannot be proven. I also do not understand the need for religious people to come on here and talk about Richard Dawkins as though he is some sort of end all be all of atheism. He is not the "leader" of atheists... he is simply someone who speaks his mind in a very public and brash manner. This does not however mean that every atheist agrees with everything he says. He is just another person in this world who is attempting to get people to think instead of follow what everyone else says.
Definition of belief (n)

Bing Dictionary

be·lief

[ bi l&#63484;f ]

1.acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
2.trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
3.something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true

This is all true 3 for 3. For the very simple reason. You can not prove there was no creator of The Universe, even harder to prove no creator of Earth or humanity. With the limits of what is humanity on Earth in regards to time. We are now starting to put together plans make Mars habitable. Your claims of facts are just what you believe, and when get emotional about it and support them as you do, as mentioned above in definition #1. You don't feel the yearn though? If you do, you will move on, if not. You really should find better hobbies than this, your time is very limited.

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 min R C Honey 310,472
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 20 min sonicfilter 1,274,451
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 29,907
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr IB DaMann 6,800
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Aug 20 Jcrombie67 282
Hoophall Invitational - Miami Aug 17 Hoophall 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 16 Doctor Justice_ 201,862
More from around the web