Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#200415 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Riverside Redneck says that that law was overturned. He may say that it was reconfirmed somewhere in the New Testament, but you should probably quote that instead. He says that the Old Testament is dead.
Incidentally, feticide is not murder.
I don't debate faith with faithless people.

I simply answered a question about what the Bible says.

Killing a person, even a little person, is murder.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#200416 Jan 7, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is nothing but opinion. It qualifies as historical fiction, or myth, and nothing more.
Are the Jewish people fiction too?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#200417 Jan 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
What you THINK is evolutionary behavior is you opinion. Was is considered evolutionary behavior by scientists includes a lot more than what you point to. Sex (particularly among primates) has far more purpose that reproduction.
And same-sex-sex is not only practiced by humans. It is seen in a great number of mammal species. So your idea that homosexuality isn't "natural" is just false. The idea is a product of your biases and not a fact.
And while you may not have said so directly, your constant rants on anal sex show you DO think anal sex is icky. And that you are just looking for rationalizations to justify that view.
If you think I have misunderstood you, perhaps you need to explain yourself more clearly. What I have seen you present on the subject of gay marriage is no more than deep seated religious bias. Not facts.
LOL There's no denying the evolutionary advantage of heterosexual unions. But in a world with an est. population of 7.136 billion , there is little concern for the natural evolutionary advantage it does provide.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200418 Jan 7, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Alcatraz is not a prison. It is a National Historic Landmark.
So, in fact, you are wrong, unless you claim a landmark is an institution. Do you?
maybe you should define the word, because it is clear you are not familiar with its meaning.
Oh my God, dude. It's a joke.

"Marriage is an institution."
"Ya? So is Alcatraz."

Then you gotta get all literal and mess up the joke.

Ugh to the nth degree.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200419 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What church is as interested in sex as you claim?
The Christian church does that.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
As a Christian, I believe that the definition marriage comes from God, not man. It isn't up to man to redefine what God has already clearly defined. See Matthew 19:1-6.
I didn't see anything about banning gay marriage there
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Which church tramples over Jesus' law?!
The Christian church. Keep asking me the same question and you'll keep getting the same answer. Your persistent denial of the existence of a Christian "bride of Christ" as the church refers to itself is an interesting phenomenon, but changes nothing.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200420 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
OK then, line up your crayons from big to small.
You're as worthless as a white crayon.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200421 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

No. I admitted to being a little racist and a misogynist.
No bigotry was conceded. You're lying.
Catcher1 wrote:
A little bigotry here, a little bigotry there.
You spice up your life with bigotry.
Red herring.

You claimed that I admitted to being a bigot.

That is a lie and you damn well know it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200422 Jan 7, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
Don't you agree that both Jainism and Taoism should not be classified as religion since they have no God figure to worship? I do believe that by definition a religion involves a belief in, and worship of, a superhuman controlling power.
Yes, in the most literal sense of the word. Here's the definition I use most in a post that directly addresses that matter:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#200423 Jan 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see. Straight marriage is superior because it is "traditional". So I suppose the flat earth theory is superior to the round earth theory because it was the traditional view for thousands and thousands of years?
I can point to a host of things that were considered right and proper for almost all of history (slavery for example) that we now come to reject. We no longer view them as superior, and even with huge traditions behind them we reject them today.
Your argument from tradition fall flat on its face.
As for benefits to society, are you trying to tell me that loving stable relationships between two people are not a benefit to society? I think your bias is showing here, along with a closed mind...refusing to actually think about the subject by considering the other side.
And as for health effects...I'm not going to argue whether your "health effects" statement is true, but consider...
Are you going to ban heterosexual sex since it is the main source of STDs? And it is the sole source of the bad health effects that can arise from pregnancy.
And while you are at it are you going to ban smoking and alcohol because they have severe health effects?
And are you going to ban playing football? Because that certainly has bad health effects.
Are you going to tell people that they can't do something solely on the basis that it might have a bad health effect?
I think that you too are merely parroting your religious authority figures without really thinking about the subject. Your preacher tells you "gays is evil" and gives you a bunch of bad arguments and you buy it hook, line and sinker.
The poster referred to "traditional marriage" in a descriptive manner. He did say straight marriage was superior because it was "traditional.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200424 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Riverside Redneck says that that law was overturned. He may say that it was reconfirmed somewhere in the New Testament, but you should probably quote that instead. He says that the Old Testament is dead.
OMG you're turning in to Ben.

I never said the OT is dead, overturned, or anything of the sort.

I said that the ceremonial and judicial laws of the OT were fulfilled by Jesus and Christians don't need to follow them.

Are we clear?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200425 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

You invited Dave to the bathhouses?
And wouldn't a catcher be on 'bottom'?
I mean, your name isn't Pitcher1.......
Catcher1 wrote:
There you go.
A little more bigotry-- you gotta demean homosexuality.
HA HA! I was demeaning you, ya dumb ass.

As far as I'm aware, homosexuals created their use of the words "top" and "bottom". Why is it bigoted to mention them?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200426 Jan 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
What people are trying to tell you is that Alcatraz is NOT a prison.
And this, after I just paid you a compliment?
Joke
A story with a humorous punchline.

Look it up.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200427 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Prove it. <quoted text> By discotute i assume you mean discovery institute. There is no religious test. This is simply false.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
----------
3. Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?
Click here for video
Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
LOL.

The Discotute is a "secular think tank". BWAHAHAHAHAHA

This is a PRIME example of the Discovery Institute lying. And is an example of why I have no respect for the organization.

I suggest you read the Wedge Document, an internal document of the Discovery Institute that states their purely religious objectives.
lightbeamrider wrote:
----------
<quoted text> So? Those know the source. They know it is from Discovery
Being a Discovery Institute fellow does not mean that everything you do is ID related. Occasionally, one of them actually turns out a real piece of research.

Being a fellow does not automatically make what ever you write an ID paper.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It does not have to mention ID.
If it is going to be considered a paper about ID, then yes it does.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No, you lie as demonstrated above.
<quoted text> How about going to the source as opposed to going to the critics. That is like going to left wing Democrats for definitions of Conservative Republicans.
Right. Because the source never ever lies to you?

BTW...definitions of "Conservative Republicans" made by Conservative Republicans aren't reliable either. They tend to include words like "patriot" which are quite inappropriate.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200428 Jan 7, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Pitiful to know that there are people who have no dignity, that freedom is not the most important thing, and totally accept being beaten. Not a very good example of a human being.
So then you do understand that your morals are your own and that not everyone will share them.

So why the debate?
christINSANITY is EVIL

Fergus, Canada

#200429 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
As a Christian, I believe that the definition marriage comes from God, not man. It isn't up to man to redefine what God has already clearly defined. See Matthew 19:1-6.
As a Christian, I believe a marriage is of one man and one woman, as God represents it in the Bible. If the laws change to say otherwise, that won't change a thing for me.
what you believe is Irelevant ,
this country is not united states of Jebus and bible is not our guide book
comprende?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#200430 Jan 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary mating behavior is my opinion?
I think anal sex is 'icky'? Where did I say that?
You can't even specifically respond to what I said without distorting it.
Get real 'dude', you are a fraud.
SMile.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
What you THINK is evolutionary behavior is you opinion. Was is considered evolutionary behavior by scientists includes a lot more than what you point to. Sex (particularly among primates) has far more purpose that reproduction.
And same-sex-sex is not only practiced by humans. It is seen in a great number of mammal species. So your idea that homosexuality isn't "natural" is just false. The idea is a product of your biases and not a fact.
And while you may not have said so directly, your constant rants on anal sex show you DO think anal sex is icky. And that you are just looking for rationalizations to justify that view.
If you think I have misunderstood you, perhaps you need to explain yourself more clearly. What I have seen you present on the subject of gay marriage is no more than deep seated religious bias. Not facts.
Human mating behavior is not my opinion. If you think I have misstated it, please be specific.

What purpose 'far more than reproduction' are you referring to?

Yes same sex sexual behavior is natural in the sense that it shows up in the animal kingdom. Do you know the variety of reasons WHY it shows up?

Mutation is natural too. However, some is beneficial, some is pointless and some is harmful.

However, you are once again misrepresenting what I say. I never said anal sex is 'icky'. Nor have I ever said anal sex isn't natural. I did say it is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. That is simply a scientific and medical fact. Moreover, some animals 'naturally' use anal sex to show domination.

I use anal sex as a simple, indisputable point of reality that exposes homosexuality as a sexual defect. Not a choice, but as appears more and more likely, an epi-genetic marker mistake. Moreover, I resent the demand that society accept the behavior as normal, and worse, equate it with natural mating behavior.

You wish I simply held a 'deep seated religious belief'. The fact that I don't raise religion as a factor leaves you stumped because you don't understand your own condition. But worse, you are afraid to honestly address the aspects of homosexuality that you do understand.

Frankly, gays should be thanking God that I am confronting their denial.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200431 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> To add to my above.
----------
7.....Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.
Oh, man, you have really bought into the Discotute's propaganda haven't you.

BTW...no conflation...ID is creationism dressed in a lab coat. It tries to take on the mantle of science but fails completely. It is only people like you that know nothing of science or that have an overwhelming religious agenda (or both) that fall for their schtick.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#200432 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
America was founded on Christian laws.
Really? Which Christian laws are those? The ones commanding you to worship a god? The one forbidding you to blaspheme? The one commanding children to honor their parents? How about banning work on the Sabbath? Does the Constitution embody those, or does it prevent anybody from forcing you to do or refrain from doing any of that?

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution banning murder. lying or theft, which is about all that American law and Christian law have in common, and none of which are founding principles.

Where in the bible do you find the actual American founding principles, such as limitation of government and personal political freedom?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#200433 Jan 7, 2014
Bongo wrote:
them dang homersexshulls are livid because the supreme court revoked ssm in Utah. They court said it was unconstitutional. What state is next.
No it didn't.

Doesn't lying violate one of your commandments from Teh God?

You may now commence with your self-flagellation.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#200434 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No. I admitted to being a little racist and a misogynist.
No bigotry was conceded. You're lying.
<quoted text>
Red herring.
You claimed that I admitted to being a bigot.
That is a lie and you damn well know it.
Yes.

You have admitted to your racial prejudice and to misogyny, and you regularly exhibit bias against homosexuals, albeit in a jocular but nevertheless bigoted fashion. You are also a xenophobe.

I have told you before: when you disclose personal matters on these threads, it may well come back to haunt you. You should have learned by now, what with your hitting a six-month-old baby and smacking a wife confessions, your violence by smashing a club against a car windshield, in a rage, and with the driver inside, your relationship with your former wife, etc.

You're a real prince of a guy there, redneck.

Good thing you have your god and your rooster.

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 VetnorsGate 1,762,527
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Max Nikias 35,956
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Susanm 341,275
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 19 hojo 12,405
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May 16 Go phartse 4
News PBA: Columbian parades new import vs Aces May 4 AndPhartse 2
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar '18 Lonnie Peters 201,480