Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198734 Jan 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Most cats, along with dead people who vote, are Democrats.
Most dead people who win are Democrats as well.

"The 2000 United States Senate election in Missouri was held on November 7, 2000 to select the next Senator from Missouri. Incumbent John Ashcroft [R] lost re-election to Mel Carnahan [D], who had died in a plane crash several weeks before election day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Se...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198735 Jan 4, 2014
mtimber wrote:
Moral absolutes can only exist if God exists.Without God there is no right and wrong, there can be no absolute moral values.

Yet everyone lives as though there are absolute moral values, they just don't want to accept the logical conclusion that entails...
I don't live as if moral absolutes exist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198736 Jan 4, 2014
Alarice wrote:
Evolution Could Not Have Occurred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VetLNzFEIb4XX
If your source confuses evolution and abiogenesis in its first slide, its criticisms of science will no longer be taken seriously.

What else do you have?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198737 Jan 4, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
My good Doctor, no offence intended by the question [are you gay?].
Of course it was, just like when you added (prematurely) that I had not answered your question right before I did. You were attempting to demean and undermine me.

I don't resent you for that. As I said, I am here to grow, and one thing I have learned is to stop blaming people like you for what your church does. You're just trying to be loyal to it and your god as you understand it. You are taught that it hates gays, and so you act accordingly, demeaning anybody who would contradict church doctrine.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198738 Jan 4, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
I dont hate homosexuals and dont believe they should be discriminated against in our society. That means they should have the rights we all have as individuals. However I do not support redefining traditional marriage to include same sex couples.
That's discrimination.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Now many as yourself fell compelled to tell us Christians what we should and should not believe.
I don't.

I tell you what I consider right and wrong. I don't expect you to agree. We come form radically different traditions and orientations.
Eagle 12 wrote:
The bible teaches us that the act of homosexuality is a sin.
I'd like to see that thinking overturned. It seems arbitrary, irrational, unkind and unjust to me. I don't expect the church to ever change in this area, so there is only one way to effect that change - diminish the church.

If it thinks it can survive that attitude, it should stand its ground.

If it would rather be continually criticized and eventually diminished by that continual criticism than change, then so be it. I am fairly confident that as surely as continual Christian criticism of homosexuality diminished gays, continual criticism of the church will cost it social standing and social clout as well.

Or, the church can adapt and grow.

Let's see which it chooses.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198739 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>To me, even in the Bible, there are certain things we can use to guide our reaction:

Things such as:

Love thy neighbor
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Do not hypocritically judge

But here is the thing, when I say there are few moral absolutes, I am talking about for society and being imposed on people. For Christians we have many and we choose to accept them. But it is between man and God when someone fails to live by the code. Which is why when dealing with societal morals, often turned into law and forced on people where they are punished for failing to live by them, we need to take a close look at how those particular rules came to be.

IMO when the law is taken out of the equation, morals are essentially a code each individual goes by. And for that individual the morals are absolute. But that code likely has what 'exceptions' they see built in to the code and doesn't have to worry about convincing others. This is why I HATE minimum sentencing guidelines for crimes and mandatory minimums. A judge is supposed to be able to take mitigating factors into consideration and show mercy when called for yet the legislature has taken that power from the person who should be in the best position to judge. Both the case and the need for mercy.

Which is another reason why I would like to see exceptions built into law in the form of degree. I dunno, something like stealing $100 tennis shows is a felony but stealing food from a grocery store because your family is starving is a misdemeanor. Granted it shifts the burden of proof for degree onto the defendant, but let's face it, the burden to prove himself not-guilty is pretty much already there too.

I got off on a rant but basically when it comes to law and penalty I do think there ought to be better ways to take mitigating factors into account

(T) Peace
Subjective and objective standards of morality seem to be the essence of your discussion?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198740 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>What morals are you referring to?

Individual?

Biblical?

Societal?

I guess regardless I would say they exist but who is obligated to recognize them and follow them is a different matter
They cannot be absolute if they are not obligatory...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#198741 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That congregation is extreme, but illustrates very nicely how readily people assimilate the dominant attitude in their church. Those people have heard an extreme message and are extreme.
<quoted text>
I think that virtually all homophobia in the West derives ultimately from a very popular bible that calls it a sin, and a church that teaches that.
When you were a Christian, were you bigoted against homosexuals? Or did they try to teach that? If i remember correctly you had some good things to say about the place you attended. And since you didn't join until an adult, I can't see you staying in a place that taught such a message. If it didn't teach that, why assume so many others do?

I would be curious to hear your own experiences but in the meantime I can tell you mine

My parents always instilled in me that people are equal and never taught or encouraged any type of prejudice. My church literally has never broached the subject of homosexuality nor was it ever taught while I attended a parochial school grades 1-8. Although I attend a Catholic church and all the homilies are based on what scripture is read and my church always reads from the four gospels.

cont

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198742 Jan 4, 2014
River Tam wrote:
I saw this article on another thread. You might like it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/...
I liked it.

This man articulates nicely the deep contempt of his church for gays. And he has recognized it and decided to transcend it. He's rejecting mainstream Christian culture in this area. And he sounds much different from the people that have accepted that culture, many of whom are posting in this thread, and who ask why we think that there is such a thing as Christian homophobia, or call us bigot for referring to it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#198743 Jan 4, 2014
Ians

Part 2

However I grew up with strong prejudices towards homosexuality. The act itself was the main issue. I didn't look at it as moral or immoral but I simply found the idea of two men engaging in sex with each other as gross. My only exposure to what a gay man acted like was the very effeminate portrayal in movies and tv. That only reinforced my belief that this was not something a real man would do. And this attitude was commonly held among classmates, coaches, etc. It someone was looking to insult someone, the go-to insult was pretty much calling them a fag

As I got older other things started to play a factor. For example, reading about someone bullied into suicide or beaten up or killed for being gay. While I still found the actual act repulsive, I never looked at it as immoral and therefore viewed such attacks as cruel hate-crimes. I might have been personally very uncomfortable with it but nobody deserved to be attacked over how they live their life when they aren't hurting anyone. I also met some people who were gay. They were very decent people so I started to embrace the idea that while something I could never do, it didn't make someone less of a human being or less of a man

It was from there I started to pay more attention to some of the social injustices as in general I was developing more of a social conscience. For the same reason I felt nobody should be attacked or bullied for being gay, I also felt there was no justification for prejudice against them when it came to social rights and equality. I also had become more educated as far as believing sexual preference is something someone is born with. I never chose to be straight, so why would it be any different for those who were gay? And given the social stigma, it made no sense

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#198744 Jan 4, 2014
Ians

part 3

And this is pretty much the same story with the majority of my friends. None were taught to be anti-gay thru the faith. And as we got older and more comfortable in our own skin where proving we were 'men' by playground standards became less of an issue, we started looking at things differently. When I was a kid the last thing you wanted anybody to think of you was that you were gay. But as we became adults, being a man for the reasons that count (moral, good friend, good family member, good husband, good worker, etc) it became much easier to see the social injustices

To this day, religion has never played any role in how i viewed homosexuality. And knowing the Bible does not support isolating sins, hypocritically judging, or hating I started to become more and more offended at people who used it to justify things I know it did not allow. But I believe the following 2 things to be true

1) People formed their opinions on homosexuality independent from their faith.

2) People who use the faith to justify hatred of homosexuals do so for self-serving reasons and if there was no faith to use as an excuse, they would simply use a societal argument. They would claim deviant behavior is harmful to society. That it threatens the family unit. That it isn't natural. Etc, etc Pretty much all the reasons used now but used in conjunction with faith as the reason they oppose it

I think people simply will find the best excuse they can when looking to justify something. And since a majority of society is Christians, those looking to rationalize will claim God. But if they didn't have that then it would be country or family. Yet I wouldn't hold the country or the idea of family any more responsible than the Bible who doesn't teach what people do in its name. There is no way to stop people from using something as an excuse. And if you take one excuse they will find another

But I am curious as to your personal experience and what your church taught.

(T) Peace

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198745 Jan 4, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's impossible to be any more self absorbed than it is for people, otherwise known as Christians, and a few other variations of theists, who think the entire universe was created just for them, and they are the most important thing the universe has contained within it.
How about the atheist who thinks they are the standard for truth?

Does that not make them God?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198746 Jan 4, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
The jury is out in my mind how much damage fossil fuels and Freon type gases have on the weather.
Well done. You are agnostic on the issue.

So how do your recommend the world respond in the face of uncertainty? Act or not?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198747 Jan 4, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! You are a master at hypocrisy.

I bet you are a Christian.
Why is hypocrisy wrong, and upon what standard do you base your condemnation on?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198748 Jan 4, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>I suggest you read Dr. Richard Carrier's book Proving History. He makes some powerful arguments that a historical Jesus never existed.

You would probably like to think that there is no debate about Jesus being a real historical figure. You would, however, be quite wrong.

BTW...while Carrier's arguments are very powerful, I personally feel it more likely that some man with a name similar to Jesus existed and was a minor religious teacher. The stories we have today in the New Testament came to exist in much the same manor that the fantastic tales of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. While Boone and Crockett are real historical people, so so many of the tales told about them are nothing buy mythology. Almost certainly, the same happened to this Jesus character...stories blown all out of proportion. At least...that's my opinion.

Carrier's position really isn't all that different from mine. His is more in line with the stories of Paul Bunyan, a character that never existed. But Bunyan's mythical stories are very similar in type to the mythical stories of Boone and Crockett.
Are you offering an argument based in fact or desire?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198749 Jan 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The data shows there has been no increase in number or intensity of storms.
Would you say that the wiser course of action would be to disregard the overwhelming majority of climate scientists or to take their warning seriously?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198750 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>It's a societal issue powered by the church's doctrine. It's my belief that without the church's continual marginalization of gays, there would little to no homophobia in the culture. I don't consider it natural to feel homophobic - it's an idea hat needs to be taught and learned - and I don't see another source for the idea.

The exact same phenomenon is repeated as atheophobia. There is no natural reason to despise unbelievers - just the continual teaching of that attitude by the church multipled by billions of people over centuries. People simply don't despise unbelief until somebody tells them to.

If the church taught that atheists and gays were their god's elect - favored in its eyes - those two groups would beheld in high esteem. But instead, they are taught that they are both sinners and an abomination to their god, and as a result, both groups have lived in the closet as societal outcasts. That's not a coincidence to me.

Skombolis wrote, "I would pretty much guarantee if you hooked people up to a polygraph and asked them was it the church that convinced them to feel how they do about homosexuals or did they already feel that way anyway, you would have pretty much every answer that they had already felt that way"

They might not know the origin of their prejudice. It need not have come directly from a sermon. It may have come from a parent that learned it from the church, or from a parent that learned it from a grandparent that learned it from the church.
God condemns homosexuality as it is an aberration that benefits no one.

But please explain what absolute moral standard you are currently appealing to when you say intolerance of homosexuality is absolutely morally wrong?

Are you not an atheist that holds there are no absolute moral standards? So why are you appealing to them?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#198751 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Gay marriage would have been the law centuries ago if the church didn't teach that homosexuality was an abomination to its god. Proposition 8 in California failed because of a huge campaign funded by the Mormons.

"Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here. Frank Schubert was the chief strategist for Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California.“We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban. The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote ... interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics...

I don't see what's so controversial about my claim. There it is. You say that gay marriage wouldn't pass without Christian votes. But those are Christians that weren't captured by the church's homophobic element. The part that was led to its defeat in California. You point to the one group of Christians and praise them as essential, but ignore the group that rallied to cause the proposition to lose.
The bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#198752 Jan 4, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the best thing for you to do is get a job washing dishes. Im going to help you with that. When you go in for a interview, just say,Hi, Im John, I can wash dishes.
No matter what they ask you just answer,Hi, Im John, I can wash dishes.
If they ask you how old you are just say,Hi, Im John, I can wash dishes.
If they ask you about previous employment just say,Hi, Im John, I can wash dishes.
It won't take too long and they will understand your full capabilities.
Happy washing!
Thanks oldtimer, but I have no desire to emulate you.

I am, however, glad you were able to find some sort of meaningful and appropriate employment for yourself during your life.

I guess, that as you near the end of that journey, those days of washing dishes will be fondly remembered, at least until the Alzheimers takes hold.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198753 Jan 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
If God could cleanse you from all unrighteousness, why would he not cleanse you when he made you, and save a lot of suffereing? God is responsible for our sin. He created us, placed us in a world of sin, which is appealing and available, and he made us with the proclivity to commit sin. Why would he create a problem just to show he could solve it, but only after damaging consequences occur? Is it conspicuous to you that this message has been perpetuated by men in groups that profited from that alleged need to restore communion with God by a forgiveness process, as they operated something called a "church", which was the exclusive provider? If Adam is to blame, what in hell does that have to do with me? Are you aware this salvation plan is utter nonsense? Are you aware that this vicarious atonement through Jesus plan was fought by the followers of Jesus he left behind, who apparently didn't think Jesus taught any such thing, and they were the closest persons to him?
Are you suggesting that the church created the problem called sin and then offered itself and obedience to it as the only solution for it?

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) 2 min mdbuilder 1,659,040
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Anthony Ramon 35,116
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr Monday Blues 322,241
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr SolarWarmist 11,925
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web