Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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: May 10

Location hidden

#183710 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Classy as always, Buck.
What would you know about spirituality?
Likely more than a guy who believes there is no such thing as "spirit", but claims to experience it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183711 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It seems that you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me repeat:
The validity of rational skepticism is confirmed by evidence, which is is what makes it radically different from faith. Rational skepticism has taught us to reject the claims of kings and priests about our world and our place in it. As a result, we have replaced the sterile and stifling systems of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - with such powerful innovations as empirical science and the rights of men. The results have been stunningly successful and have made lives better.
What are the comparable fruits of religious faith? Equating the two is the fraud, Buck.
Nice try.

Your contrast was really contrasting faith with non-faith, or more specifically, theism with atheism.

"Rational skepticism" is only a tool, your scriptural text for your faith position.

You can fool some. The rebuttal stands.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#183712 Nov 13, 2013
oneear69 wrote:
<quoted text>Most Chinese believe in Taoism,I don't include agnostics,, they do not believe in a god as written by christians, jews or muslims , but they usually believe in a higher force of creation, and a life after death.I have even talked to some atheists , who think there is a devil or still think there is an after life. For me I simply do not believe in any kind of god,no afterlife, no ghosts, not even aliens,lol. Sadly christianity although still small in China is on the rise, as well as in Russia.It would seem when times are tough, people tend to put the responsibility of change on a false deity,rather than face it head on.
More than 50% of Chinese follow no religion

Not necessarily so, the very definition says agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Not the same as believing in a creator. The majority of agnostics I know tell me they don’t believe in a god because there is no proof of a god but should proof be offered then they will evaluate that proof. They also don’t believe that chocolate teapots inhabit Venus either but should evidence be provided then…

I’m with you up to the aliens, my view is that the universe is so huge with billions of galaxies each with billions of suns. Recent observations tell us that a considerable percentage of those suns must hold planets and a percentage of those planets are in what is known as the goldilocks zone and some even contain water. Then if at least a small percentage of those planets do not contains alien live of some sort then the universe is a huge waste of space.

Christianity has always been strong is Russia, it currently accounts for about 45% of the population

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183713 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You have a predilection for linguistic sophistry. Here you are getting tangled up in whether continued change is continuation or change. It's both. Do you really want to expend any more energy on that?
<quoted text>
There may be opposition, but I am not part it. I support the present trend, and expect it to continue without additional effort until Christianity assumes minority status in America and the Christian church loses its influence on law, public policy and social mores. It is in that sense that I mean I have no burden of proof.
Those that don't want to see that trend continue into the future and are willing to work to see that it doesn't have the burden to convince others of that. I have no such burden. Is that not obviously true to you?
Is there any point too trivial or self-evident for you to argue, Buck? It's an amazing thing to behold. I can only speculate about what need of yours it serves.
Your argument is absurd.

You are trying to claim that a continuum of change is "status quo", and to advocate it entails no burden.

First, it is not status quo. Second, even if it were, that confers no escape from the advocates' burden of proof.

Your logic is self-refuting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183714 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
Any of them who are against SNAP (food stamps), welfare or ACA?
Are fakes. At the end of Matthew, in their own silly book, they are given a commission: to feed the hungry, to house the homeless and to help the sick.
Fakes, the entire lot.
It's a personal call.

No government was given any such commission.

Taking someone else's money (taxes) and giving it to someone else is not personal generosity or charity.

You blithering idiot.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#183715 Nov 13, 2013
Not to mention the possibility there is life that can develop outside of the Goldilocks zone, or in higher dimensions, or in dark matter or parallel universes or... I could just say "god dunnit" but that seems so very unimaginative.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
More than 50% of Chinese follow no religion
Not necessarily so, the very definition says agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Not the same as believing in a creator. The majority of agnostics I know tell me they don’t believe in a god because there is no proof of a god but should proof be offered then they will evaluate that proof. They also don’t believe that chocolate teapots inhabit Venus either but should evidence be provided then…
I’m with you up to the aliens, my view is that the universe is so huge with billions of galaxies each with billions of suns. Recent observations tell us that a considerable percentage of those suns must hold planets and a percentage of those planets are in what is known as the goldilocks zone and some even contain water. Then if at least a small percentage of those planets do not contains alien live of some sort then the universe is a huge waste of space.
Christianity has always been strong is Russia, it currently accounts for about 45% of the population

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183716 Nov 13, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Very disappointing Buck. Your little aphorism here is exceedingly lame, even by your standards.
"Oh yeah, you couldn't show water to a fish." See what I mean? Nothing. No impact.
Honestly, if your humor has slipped to a "Gilligan's Island" level, maybe you should take a sabbatical.
You couldn't recommend a sabbatical to a fish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183717 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Whatever else it is, atheism remains skepticism for unsupported god claims.
No, it isn't.

"Skepticism" concerning a god-claim would be to doubt or suspend judgement.

The atheist believes all god-claims have to be false.

Atheism has nothing to do with skepticism.

Thinking

Royston, UK

#183718 Nov 13, 2013
Why would you?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't recommend a sabbatical to a fish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183719 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
This is your Christian upbringing shining through. It was the church that taught you that the self is evil. You were taught that free will is to be subordinated to others, and that failure to do so is due to an inflated, rebellious ego. The model for that was a woman daring to eat an apple.
You have it backwards:
Refusing to submit to the authority of priests speaking for an imaginary god is not a problem with the ego. Seeing oneself as having meaning, purpose and value apart from the worship of a god is not a problem with the ego. Placing value in autonomy, freedom, self-respect, self-pride, self-confidence and self-actualization is not a problem with the ego.
Seeing yourself as being defective and worthy of punishment for having been born human IS a problem with the ego. Falling to your knees and lowering your head and eyes to beg forgiveness for that IS a problem with the ego.
The "ego" is not the "self".

That error invalidates your post.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183720 Nov 13, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. then why do atheists say, "I don't believe in God" ??..
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't-- that's a strawman.
They say they do not have faith in gods.
Very different.
But I doubt you get it-- if you could? You'd be reasonable.
And?
All reasonable people are atheists.
.. what makes you think I wouldn't get it ??..

.. most atheists I know have said, "I'm atheist," or "I don't believe in God." ..

.. are you saying all believers are unreasonable ??..
Thinking

Royston, UK

#183721 Nov 13, 2013
Just because a believer is not reasoning does not mean they are unreasonable in the social meaning of the word.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. then why do atheists say, "I don't believe in God" ??..
<quoted text>
.. what makes you think I wouldn't get it ??..
.. most atheists I know have said, "I'm atheist," or "I don't believe in God." ..
.. are you saying all believers are unreasonable ??..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183722 Nov 13, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. then why do atheists say, "I don't believe in God" ??..
<quoted text>
.. what makes you think I wouldn't get it ??..
.. most atheists I know have said, "I'm atheist," or "I don't believe in God." ..
.. are you saying all believers are unreasonable ??..
Blob crossed himself up.

He inadvertently disclaimed his own position.

He won't realize it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183723 Nov 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why would you?
<quoted text>
Why would I what?

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#183724 Nov 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I what?
Why wouldn't you what?

Whatting can be fun, if you do it correctly.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#183725 Nov 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Not to mention the possibility there is life that can develop outside of the Goldilocks zone, or in higher dimensions, or in dark matter or parallel universes or... I could just say "god dunnit" but that seems so very unimaginative.
<quoted text>
Just considering the form of life we know, there could very easily be alternatives to carbon/water/goldilocks. Given what is known about the ability of carbon based life to exist in extreme and hostile environments then I see no reason to discount alternatives

And true (real true, not Christian “True”), the “doh, I don’ unnerstan’ so it muss be my god wot dunit by magic” just does not make a lot of since in the real world of reality

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#183726 Nov 13, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't you what?
Whatting can be fun, if you do it correctly.
what?
Thinking

Royston, UK

#183727 Nov 13, 2013
Blasphemer!

;)
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Just considering the form of life we know, there could very easily be alternatives to carbon/water/goldilocks. Given what is known about the ability of carbon based life to exist in extreme and hostile environments then I see no reason to discount alternatives
And true (real true, not Christian “True”), the “doh, I don’ unnerstan’ so it muss be my god wot dunit by magic” just does not make a lot of since in the real world of reality
LCNLin

United States

#183728 Nov 13, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Just considering the form of life we know, there could very easily be alternatives to carbon/water/goldilocks. Given what is known about the ability of carbon based life to exist in extreme and hostile environments then I see no reason to discount alternatives

And true (real true, not Christian “True”), the “doh, I don’ unnerstan’ so it muss be my god wot dunit by magic” just does not make a lot of since in the real world of reality
Amusing mumbo jumbo in second paragraph LOL
Thinking

Royston, UK

#183729 Nov 13, 2013
What what!
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
what?

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) 15 min obammy b mo popular 1,521,412
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Susanm 313,940
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sun SomePhaarts 32,913
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 20 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr 20 DelucaKoehn 11
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 18 RNC 11,137
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Apr 8 Allycat1999 290
More from around the web