Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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

Rocky Ford, CO

#185174 Nov 17, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dave, but "dis-" means "not". And yes, there are similarities in meaning between "disavow" and "lack of vow", though modern usage gives disavow a stronger meaning. "lack of vow" would mean neither vowing for or against, while "disavow" would be to vow against.
However, the case with "disbelief" and "lack of belief" are essentially the same. Both mean "to not believe".
You really should think these things through more thoroughly.
<quoted text>
So you are saying that belief is the same as non-belief?
Explain to me, clearly, the semantic difference between "a disbelief in Santa Claus" and "a lack of belief in Santa Claus".
Disbelief is a denial. It is an affirmation that you don't believe in something.

Lack of a belief is no commitment to a certain thinking about something. It is being apathetic and non-committal.

You are on here denying. You are committed to a belief.

No matter what you might like to think.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185175 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to defend that claim that Jesus was wise - more wise than say Mary Tyler Moore?
He escaped stoning by educated Jews for blasphemy by pulling out quotations from their own Old Testament writings and turning them against their ideas.

He referred to the Religious Right as a dog sleeping in the barn who will not eat, and will not let the cattle eat either.

When accosted for picking grain to eat on the sabbath, he explained that man was not made for such rules, but the rules made for man.

He said you would not impress him if you perform miracles or cast out demons. But you would impress him if you offer a cup of water to a thirsty stranger.

I could go on.

I remain uncertain what Mary Tyler Moore's insight was, exactly.

Since: Sep 10

San Clemente, CA

#185176 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Walk a mile in my shoes, Silky Pants.
Some of us just like our fists to feel things crunch.
If you tried it, you might be surprised at the sensation.
Then you want to refine and develop its efficiency and power through better technique.
It's an art form.
You are hereby granted an exemption.

But no firearms, please.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185177 Nov 17, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, clearly you haven't read the book and are speaking opinions that are without basis.
The delusion he is speaking of is the delusion that there is actually evidence of the god of yours. In that sense, yes it is a delusion. The evidence you all claim is in fact nonexistent. And with no evidence it is only logical to conclude that there is very, very likely no god.
Though admittedly, one can not claim "no god" definitively. Not without perfect knowledge on the subject, which no human has.
But there is evidence.

Who told you there is no evidence?

Find the sonuvabitch, and tell him he lied to you.

You are a yap-mouth moron, Dagwood.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#185178 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think I'm lying, then I'll let Dawkins refute you himself, Darwin'sDogPecker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102...
Interviewer: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic, then?"
Dawkins: "I do"
Interviewer: "But you are called the world's most famous atheist".
Dawkins: "Not by me".
But don't mislead.

Dawkins doesn't believe in any Abrahamic gods or any of these...
godchecker.com
He takes a rational view, once describing religius beliefs as delusional - as is easily illustrated...
https://www.google.co.uk/search...

https://www.google.co.uk/search...

The RC Church has a Chief Exorcist and there have been cases of child flaggelation among shiites. There is Zionism and Islamism. There is no limit to the madness of religion.

Religion = supersition. It's divisive and outdated.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#185179 Nov 17, 2013
WOW!

The Buck Crick Show is back!

Too bad it's all reruns.

Seen these same episodes two years ago.

Not interesting then, less so now.

Since: Sep 10

San Clemente, CA

#185180 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Winning 99.99%
The only one I can recall losing is when I got mixed up on the writing of the Copper Scrolls found in the Qumran excavations.
It was a couple of years ago. I corrected the record.
That's it.
Hell, you lost at least 4 or 5 to me.

The U.S. Constitution, remember?

I can understand why you can't bring yourself around to recall.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#185181 Nov 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Disbelief is a denial. It is an affirmation that you don't believe in something.
Lack of a belief is no commitment to a certain thinking about something. It is being apathetic and non-committal.
You are on here denying. You are committed to a belief.
No matter what you might like to think.
Nonsense.

One day clerics take their place in human history beside witchdoctors, medicine men and druids.

By now it should be plain to all that there's no evidence of an interventionist god(s), much less any Abrahamic one or any of these...
godchecker.com

Religion = superstition

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185182 Nov 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.denverpost.com/brea kingnews/ci_24542271/an-ancien t-underground-sea-lies-beneath -chesapeake-bay
Ancient seawater was twice as salty?
Don't these sort of things get in the way of theories about the development of life based upon present conditions?
There is always a way around it. Cobble a little here; snip a little there.

I guess the whales found it less salty going back in the water than when they crawled out.

Probably not that much of a challenge, relatively speaking, since they were busy trying to grow a cooling system for their testicles and learn how to give birth under water.

Must have been thinking "Speed up, you goddamned mutations!"

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185183 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Tough litigators.
"Tough"?

HA HA HA!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185184 Nov 17, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
--Richard Dawkins
Guess you are just lying about Dawkins like you lie about so many other things.
Oh yeah. You caught me in another lie. Drats!

...NO, WAIT...

"He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist."

This is from "The Telegraph".

The date of the citation is Feb. 24, 2012.

What is the date of you citation, DogPecker?

OK, I'll tell you. Your citations is from October 18, 2006.

So tell me, DogPoop, which is the more "evolved" position?

Huh?

So which one of us is correct?

Or,...is Richard Dawkins lying about himself?

Are Dawkins and me wrong about Dawkins, and you right??

You are a womp-jawed moron, Dagwood.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185185 Nov 17, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
--Richard Dawkins
Guess you are just lying about Dawkins like you lie about so many other things.
How does it feel, Dagwood, to have your little ass nailed to the wall, clearly and convincingly, by someone who,...

...let's see, how did you say it...

...whose "ideas are so idiotic".

Can you imagine what a fool a smart person would make of you?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#185186 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell, you lost at least 4 or 5 to me.
The U.S. Constitution, remember?
I can understand why you can't bring yourself around to recall.
Pigeons always think they won the chess game and argument.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185187 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Funny you should say that.
"Never quits" is how I'm often referred to.
Listen closely next time.

They were calling you "Cadaver Shit"

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#185188 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel, Dagwood, to have your little ass nailed to the wall, clearly and convincingly, by someone who,...
...let's see, how did you say it...
...whose "ideas are so idiotic".
Can you imagine what a fool a smart person would make of you?
Idjit.

Religious commentators have become so excited at the thought of his conversion that I almost don’t have the heart to break it to them that he said nothing in Thursday’s discussion that he hadn’t already said six years ago in "The God Delusion". You’ll find the relevant section in Chapter 2, including the seven-point scale where one represents total certainty that there is a God and seven represents total certainty that there is not. Right there Richard writes,

“I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

And how did he describe himself to the archbishop on Thursday, in his supposedly stunning retreat from atheism?“I’d put myself at 6.9.”

Concession? Conversion? The answer to Christian prayers? Hardly! It was as clear a restatement of the position he took in "The God Delusion" as you could wish for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voi...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#185189 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah. You caught me in another lie. Drats!
...NO, WAIT...
"He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist."
This is from "The Telegraph".
The date of the citation is Feb. 24, 2012.
What is the date of you citation, DogPecker?
OK, I'll tell you. Your citations is from October 18, 2006.
So tell me, DogPoop, which is the more "evolved" position?
Huh?
So which one of us is correct?
Or,...is Richard Dawkins lying about himself?
Are Dawkins and me wrong about Dawkins, and you right??
You are a womp-jawed moron, Dagwood.
You are wrong.

I may not have his stature, but I identify with Prof Dawkins.

Non-believers need not care if we're clasified as atheist or agnostic and at various times he has accepted both labels. According to some they aren't mutually exclusive. One person on the Atheist Threads describes himself as an 'agnostic atheist'.

Perhaps like me Prof Dawkins cares little how religionists label him. He makes his views plain enough and you make plain you cannot comprehend them.

Religion = superstition
Get over it

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185190 Nov 17, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Your are not nearly as tough as your words and I am sure you are quite familiar with the wearing of silk panties.
Well, I'm pretty tough. Maybe not as tough as you.

Don't know.

And yes, I am familiar with the wearing of silk panties.

I have eaten my weight in them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185191 Nov 17, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
WOW!
The Buck Crick Show is back!
Too bad it's all reruns.
Seen these same episodes two years ago.
Not interesting then, less so now.
Then it won't take you long to not listen, BenAssFucked.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#185192 Nov 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism definitely requires faith.
Atheists cannot prove that deities don't exist, they simply believe that they don't.
That is faith.
When you write things like this, do you actually legitimately not remember all the times you have been corrected?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185193 Nov 17, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell, you lost at least 4 or 5 to me.
The U.S. Constitution, remember?
I can understand why you can't bring yourself around to recall.
What? I wiped the floor with you on the Constitution.

It's not difficult. You are a liberal.

Which means you don't even like the Constitution.

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) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,509,134
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr John-K 313,666
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 18 hr AnyonePhartss 32,820
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Sat BuzzerPhartss 2
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web