Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258044 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.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#192379 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor me.
That's what I was going for but forgot what it was called.
I remember that my grandpa had a Farmer's Almanac, but I never tried to read it. He kept it with his chewing tobacco.
I read the Farmer's Almanac.

I've never chewed tobacco. I've chewed mushrooms once or thrice (Archaic).
Jim

UK

#192380 Dec 15, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> They always win. Good triumphs over evil. Whatcha gonna do on that day?
Christians use these empty threats to convert stupid & gullible people through fear.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192381 Dec 15, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>If Megyn Kelly says it's so, then it's so.

Dude lives at the North Pole. Of course the North Pole keeps moving. Why do you think he has so many slaves, er...elves? Somebody has to pack that shit up.
The North Pole is underwater, too.

At least it was when some guy in a speedo swam across it.

Since: Sep 10

United States

#192382 Dec 15, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is your opinion. The slave owner who legally owns slaves is of a different opinion and his opinion is equally as valid as yours. If your going to be an atheist Catcher then don't be a punk about it. It is you who believes your rights come from men. Not me. If rights come from men then men can enslave. They can even do genocide.
Slavery is an abomination, like so many other things in your Bible.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192383 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is not the obstacle to systematic slavery that you implied it was.
Christianity orchestrated the greatest, most costly defeat of slavery in world history.

That's a point in their favor, if history matters.

Being a rational skeptic means acknowledging counterfactuals.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192384 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
After it didn't.
How about the god endowed right to own slaves. It's in their bible,complete with an owner's manual for their care and maintenance.
So is the prohibition against urinating against a wall.

The Constitution does not enshrine biblical law, but it does rely on the existence of God for its rationale.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192385 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is important to understand and acknowledge where rights come from: people, not gods, and our ability and willingness to enforce them. In a democracy, rights are the choices of the people,...

!
The source of rights is acknowledged, by Jefferson and company - "nature's God".

I recommend against a nation following your idea of rights coming from people. When this occurs, law is what the people with the most power can impose on the ones without it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192386 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. It may have been a faith based decision arrived at after prayer.
He relied on the admissions committee not being liberal racists.

If they had exercised a faith based decision, he would have been admitted.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192387 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>So is the prohibition against urinating against a wall.

The Constitution does not enshrine biblical law, but it does rely on the existence of God for its rationale.
Which god?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192388 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
They were both conditional proofs based on the acceptance of the logical law of non contradiction and the meanings of "married" and "bachelor".
I just removed three unnecessary words to clean it up.
<quoted text>
No.
If you're going to jump scale you need to say "Something that cannot exist does not exist."
Tom does not exist because he cannot, because a married bachelor cannot exist.
Defining Tom as a married bachelor rules out his existence.
<quoted text>
My argument has been consistent. Your understanding of it might not have been.
<quoted text>
No I didn't.
Do you know who gets to decide what I mean by what I say?
It's not you.
<quoted text>
At least you haven't acted out of character.
This is why it's pointless to argue with Topix atheists - when you clearly lose, you never admit it.

You argued that a self-contradictory biblical description of a god proves it does not exist.

You analogized this by saying, "if you say Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".

That is blatantly false and illogical.

Then you changed it to "If Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".

You eliminated the premise of your original argument, which is, that the self-contradictory description proves non-existence.

Now, you say this is consistent, you just "cleaned it up".

You need to find an opponent with a lower intellect to match yours.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192389 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
They were both conditional proofs based on the acceptance of the logical law of non contradiction and the meanings of "married" and "bachelor".
No. Your second try was based on the law of non contradiction.

But it is irrelevant to your initial assertion - that descriptions of contradictory features renders the object described non-existent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192390 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.
Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?
I couldn't say.

Does he believe in emanations from penumbras?

If so, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192391 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.
Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?
I think a religious test for office is unconstitutional.

That's what atheists and humanists have told me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192392 Dec 15, 2013
River Tam wrote:
Ron Jeremy never has to worry about his brain being destroyed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192393 Dec 15, 2013
davy wrote:
Creator, not god, and written by a man who wasn't a Christian. So simple even a religitard should be able to understand it.
<quoted text>
Look again.

" the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Seems the "religitard" had it right, and you have it wrong.

What kind of "...tard" does that make you?


Jim

UK

#192394 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why it's pointless to argue with Topix atheists - when you clearly lose, you never admit it.
You argued that a self-contradictory biblical description of a god proves it does not exist.
You analogized this by saying, "if you say Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".
That is blatantly false and illogical.
Then you changed it to "If Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".
You eliminated the premise of your original argument, which is, that the self-contradictory description proves non-existence.
Now, you say this is consistent, you just "cleaned it up".
You need to find an opponent with a lower intellect to match yours.
Science finds religion dishonest and manipulative.
Jim

UK

#192395 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a religious test for office is unconstitutional.
That's what atheists and humanists have told me.
Why do people with no evidence for god, keep thinking they are scoring points?
Jim

UK

#192396 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Look again.
" the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
Seems the "religitard" had it right, and you have it wrong.
What kind of "...tard" does that make you?
Religitards will never admit being wrong, so your point is...?
Jim

UK

#192397 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity orchestrated the greatest, most costly defeat of slavery in world history.
That's a point in their favor, if history matters.
Being a rational skeptic means acknowledging counterfactuals.
But naturally, they forgot to update their books and remind people slavery is wrong & bad.
Jim

UK

#192398 Dec 15, 2013
Its around christmas when the religious get jumpy tougher to keep the myth going.

Especially when the kids know santa isn't real.

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) 1 min OzRitz 1,460,165
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 min ThomasA 312,854
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 16 hr Pete_Carroll 32,616
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Wed Go Blue Forever 59
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Dec 5 Yin 17
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Nov 28 Local Warming 10,371
Should child beauty pageants be banned? (Sep '14) Nov 22 Heatherfeather 780
More from around the web