Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245255 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

Westcliffe, CO

#206110 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is babble meaninglessly.
I have issues with Hip and others but at least they try to make a meaningful discussion and makes lots of good points. People like you, Buck, Wassup and RR, etc. Just babble meaningless drivel that simply wastes my time.
Your not being able to understand is not my issue.

Perhaps I am not as parochial in my thinking as you are, and express in ways you would have difficulty understanding.

I can pick patterns out of a wide range of this existence event. I can also compare them. I have some skills and experience with a wide range of technologies and concepts. I have never been limited to using the academic lens to follow paths. I have a few to choose from. And of course what I have learned and observed has been spread over a lifetime, so your comprehension of things I take for granted you should grasp rights away. It is hard for either of us to translate logic and observations that took years to develop in just a few words.

Perhaps this is why I can understand you, but you would have trouble understanding me.

Before I go, I discovered I was a practicing Taoist in some ways many years before I found out there was a Taoism. I read about what it is and understood what it represented. Really just an overview of it. I shitcanned the writings about it, including those old timers that we later made into "official" schools of thought, which is in direct violation of the original Tao view. Most people reading those words will see nothing but words frame them in some mystical manner. They are just words. I could read the words and see the electrons flowing and working from my past experiences. I could relate it to the physical.

Calm down, Ben. You proceed down your own path and I won't bother to waste your time.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#206111 Jan 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it.
But of course there will be no prosecution for that.
And other victims are now speaking out.
That is one of the stupidest laws ever made, at least in the blanket form they did.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206112 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
"Life's a bitch! Deal with it!"
That is the message of Job.
It would be difficult not to acknowledge the seemingly cruel nature of test. By human standards particularly. But I do think it will be rewarded.

1 Peter 4:12-13
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

I look at it from two perspectives

1) If Jesus was willing to die for the sins of others, what is asked from us by comparison is understandable

2) What is a the length of human suffering when weighed against an eternity?

And I think part of why Job suffered was to teach those that followed. How many times are believers tempted to react by basically saying "wtf"? We start to almost expect certain protections from life thru God when we are doing the right thing. But nowhere have we been promised an easy life. What we have been promised in dozens of places in scripture is if we turn our suffering over to God we will endure and be rewarded in Heaven

Now some may see that as a rationalization. But who else could God have used to make that point other than someone He knew would not break? So somewhat ironically, perhaps the person least deserving of the test was the very reason they were the one best suited for it

I'm not someone who believes in suffering for the sake of suffering. I don't think people need to suffer to improve their relationship with God or any other type of thinking that might enforce pain acceptance over pain avoidance. But sometimes it happens no matter what we do. And the confidence that we can't be broke can help a lot when it comes to dealing with things

Was Job probably less than thrilled to be tested to make a point? I'd think so. Yet he still stayed faithful. And in the end he was rewarded for that. But even more he showed the rest of us it can be done. There is never a justification for abandoning our faith. And no matter how hard things may seem God will give us the strength to endure if we remain faithful.

It was a crappy task to have to take on. But the example he set was one for the books. God knew Job couldn't be broke. And I believe that faith was rewarded. But I admit, I still would be tempted to say "wtf, was that really necessary?" But part of faith is the trust that reasons why things happen, be it lessons for others or to strengthen us down the road or to set an example or whatever, are not always going to be obvious to us. But we trust it is for a reason. I was kind of all over there but it's a hard thing to try to articulate.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#206113 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a later apologetic addition to the book. No need to replace the dead family.
It is argued that the intent was to realize that we are no better than anything else in the world. While we find it offensive to wipe out a human family we could care less if we exterminate an entire species and not blink an eye. Imagine if God were like humans! You would have the God of Job.
It is, in one sense, an allegorical condemnation of humanity rather than a condemnation of "God".
It amazes me the mental gymnastics some believers go through. Like the story of Jonah. They will point to it and say, "See. True prophecy!!!"

Wait a minute. God told Jonah to prophesy "Nineveh will be destroyed!" And Nineveh...not destroyed. They will say that is because Nineveh repented. But the prophecy was not "Nineveh will be destroyed unless it repents." The prophecy was "Nineveh will be destroyed" and that didn't happen.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#206114 Jan 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one of the stupidest laws ever made, at least in the blanket form they did.
it may not come as a surprise to you that I disagree.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#206115 Jan 21, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The evidence points to a God who fully accepts homosexuality. There are NO species that have been found in which homosexual behavior has NOT been shown to exist. From beetles, and crabs, and worms, to sheep, orangutang's, penguins, bats, birds, dolphins, all have been observed same sex behavior, some 1500 documented cases of homosexual behavior between various species have been observed.
Your God created every living thing, he CHOSE to include these homosexual traits in ALL species. He did have a choice, to include these traits or not, why do you suppose God chose to include these traits?---------Oh, so you have no answer, I thought so.
The evidence is irrefutable, your God fully endorses homosexuality, could it be that the reason he does so is that he may harbor these same homosexual traits?
You are trapped in this dilemma, God condemns homosexuals on one hand, and on the other, he makes a decision to include homosexual traits in ALL living things.
All the evidence points to a homosexual God.
the god is a pedophile

his boy is gay

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206116 Jan 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There is no evidence for destiny.
What is destiny?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Atheists and rational skeptics are supposed to be evidence based people.
Rational skeptics are.

Not all atheists are rational skeptics.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
For one to believe in destiny is a hypocrite.
What is destiny?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206117 Jan 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's idiotic.
An atheist that believes in shit like destiny, aliens, ghosts, intuitions, etc is a hypocrite. They claim to only believe in what is factual and evidence based.
Rational skeptics necessarily value evidence.

An atheist may not.

By the way, what is destiny?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206118 Jan 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your not being able to understand is not my issue......
Yes. It is. You are just to insane to realize that.
It isn't my problem. You are free to babble incoherently to your hearts content. I just stopped trying to make sense of your gibberish. I decide trying to understand dolphins was less challenging.

BTW, The dolphins think you are an ahole, too.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206119 Jan 21, 2014
Skum and RRetard;

<quoted text>
Most religious groups are opposed to premarital and extramarital sex, but messaging varies between groups. In Zionist and Mainline Churches, the ‘approach seems to be that promiscuity is bad, but that abstinence is unrealistic, and that pre-marital sex with one partner is admissible’. In contrast, the Pentecostal churches give very clear directives against pre-marital sex:
‘The abasindiswa (Pentecostals) don’t have sex at all before marriage. But we amakholwa (Mainline) are more realistic, we know that we are human. So we do have our boyfriends, but just one at a time. Non-church goers have as many relationships as they want’.

Teaching on condoms
Although Pentecostal and Catholic churches take a stronger stance against condom usage than others, it appears that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is not always adhered to at grassroots level and some priests discuss condom use privately with parisioners. In contrast, the Pentecostal church appears to be strictly against condoms, at both official and grassroots levels. Some Pentecostal leaders described condoms as ‘satanic’ and ‘promoters of sin’. Amongst Mainline churches there is often more openness to the promotion of condoms through the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise) message. However, many leaders feel that these are conflicting messages:
I find it difficult to tell my members to use Chishango (condoms) should they fail to abstain. I tell someone that doing this is sinning. I have disseminated two different messages at once.

http://www.phcfm.org/index.php/phcfm/article/...
<quoted text>
Morons.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206120 Jan 21, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>It would be difficult not to acknowledge the seemingly cruel nature of test. By human standards particularly. But I do think it will be rewarded......
I got to experience and be a part of this amazing Universe for over 5 decades. What more reward do I need ?

Why do people want so much from God ?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206121 Jan 21, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Of course there is but I no longer have the patience to explain to you the difference between a violent, criminal act and an affectionate, loving act. It's becoming boringly repetitive.
Now, I'm off to teach my dining room chair to walk. I think I have a better chance at that.
I asked him to modify his use of language. Apparently the cost is too high.

A better person wouldn't need to understand the objection, just recognize it.

This is a common failure for faith based thinkers. Since they can't imagine that they might be wrong, they make no allowances for that possibility in their calculations.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206122 Jan 21, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I....But who else could God have used to make that point other than someone He knew would not break?.....
Read the story. Job DID "break". This notion that Job has unwavering faith is a myth. It is not in the story. He demanded of God to know "Why". He didn't get the answer he expected either. God (basically) said "Who do you ignorant humans think you are to question ME ? You are nothing in the grand scheme of things."

Note also that according to the authors of the book (the Jews) it is a work of fiction. There was no man called Job and the events in the book never took place. It is as factual as Aesop's fables. It is a made up story to convey a deeper message. Not history.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206123 Jan 21, 2014
Skum and RRetard;

<quoted text>
Use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV

Christianity

Catholic
Main article: Catholic Church and AIDS

The Roman Catholic Church opposes condom use between heterosexual couples because it is an artificial form of contraception that does not rely on the functions of the body (and thus also God's will) itself as to whether a conception will occur or not, and the Church believes it also serves to implicitly and inexcusably encourage premarital and extramarital sexuality (and recourse to abortion if the condom fails). The Church therefore promoted the concept of abstinence as the only morally viable course of action. There is still some discussion in the church, particularly in Africa, about whether condoms could be justified, but only if it was already known that one of the partners likely has the virus already. It is considered acceptable for a married couple to use a condom to protect the other partner from infection, but not as a contraceptive.
Dissident groups such as Catholics for Choice disagree with this position.
Pope John Paul II strongly opposed the use of artificial birth control, and rejected the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. Pope Benedict XVI stated in 2005 that condoms were not a sufficient solution to the AIDS crisis, but then in 2009 claimed that AIDS "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems. The Moscow Patriarchate gave support to Benedict XVI's position. In response to Benedict XVI's statements, the United Church of Christ issued a statement encouraging condom distribution at places of worship.
On November 20, 2010, when questioned about the rampant HIV spread in Africa, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the use of condoms in male prostitution is not a moral solution to stopping AIDS, but could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection. Vatican City clarifies, after Benedict's statement sows confusion, that the position of the Church on condoms has not changed. It is merely a statement that in homosexual relations, where unnatural contraception is not the main concern, condoms can be seen as moral responsibility in preventing HIV infections. On November 23, 2010, Benedict furthermore stated that the concept of condoms as a lesser evil in preventing HIV infections can be applied to women as well. The use of condoms is the first step in taking responsibility and attempting to prevent the infection of one's partner. The Pope does not say anything about condoms being acceptable as unnatural birth control, only as a responsible approach.

Protestant

Armand Razafimahefa, former head of the Madagascar's Protestant Church, was quoted as saying: "I am firmly opposed to the use of the condom as a means of fighting AIDS, because it promotes promiscuity.
In contrast, many other Protestant denominations have no objection to the use of condoms within the context of a married relationship. Arguably, an infected partner of a married couple has an obligation to use protective measures to safeguard the health of the other partner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_HIV...
<quoted text>
Eejits.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206124 Jan 21, 2014
Skum and RRetard;

<quoted text>
In 2010, when Pope Benedict XVI opened the door to approve condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV, he opened it just a crack, in a statement so laden with conditions and insult that it was hard to tell whether this was the groundbreaking news many took it to be. Was it an historic change to the church’s longstanding ban on contraceptive use, or waffling rhetoric that altered little more than a headline?

At first, it seemed like big news when Benedict told German journalist Peter Seewald, in his book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, that condoms might be permissible in limited situations. But the situations he had in mind were limited indeed: use by male sex workers, for whom trying to prevent HIV transmission could be “a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.” If the condemnation implicit in this statement wasn’t apparent enough, Benedict went further to suggest that illicit sexual relations weren’t quite human, and that condom use was only an option for those so debased that protected sex could constitute “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Benedict clarified further that condoms weren’t “really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality,” he said.

Even the further clarification to the news media by the Vatican’s spokesperson, Rev. Federico Lombardi, that the provision was not solely for male prostitutes, was less than fulsome. He said that condom use is “the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship. This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point.”

Conservative Catholics rushed to emphasize that Benedict had made no statement addressing condom use within marriage, and thus his statements had no bearing on most Catholics’ sexual lives—that the status quo still reigned. Nonetheless, headlines trumpeted the news as a revolution for the church. Two years later, what it has meant on the ground in countries dealing with epidemic levels of HIV & AIDS is far from clear.

HIV & AIDS advocates have long maintained that the Catholic ban on condom use, though largely ignored in the West, has led to devastating results in developing countries dependent on humanitarian aid, which is often filtered through Catholic or other religious groups. Because Catholic leadership discourages the use of condoms, or religious relief organizations block their distribution, hundreds of millions are left more exposed to disease. Just the year before Seewald’s book was published, in 2009, the pope himself asserted that condoms don’t solve the AIDS crisis, but make it worse by encouraging promiscuity. It’s an attitude shared by many other faith-based NGOs working on the ground in HIV & AIDS hotspots.

ARV drugs photographed on a kitchen table.(Photo by Steve Simon)
One development worker who has tracked the distribution of condoms in African countries, and who requested to speak off the record, illustrated what the ban can mean in countries like Zambia. There, a generalized AIDS crisis has left approximately 13.5% of the adult population HIV-positive according to 2009 estimates. In 2003, AIDS reduced the life expectancy of Zambians to the lowest in the world, at just 33 years old. While the recent availability of antiretroviral (ARV) medical treatment has been transformative, Zambia is still a country where public awareness campaigns note the obvious: every family is either “infected or affected” by the crisis.
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/the-cath...
<quoted text>
Jethros.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206125 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I got to experience and be a part of this amazing Universe for over 5 decades. What more reward do I need ?
Why do people want so much from God ?
Well I think if someone is going to be tested like that than there ought to be a reward for passing

But I agree in general. Even with all the bad stuff, if I died tomorrow I would have very few regrets. It's been an interesting journey. And one with way more blessings than I earned and way less punishment than I probably deserved. It's been a pretty good life all in all.

I used to be petrified of dying through like middle school. Used to freak me out thinking about how if I died I might not even have another conscience thought again and even though I wouldn't know that was no consolation as ceasing to exist just freaked me the heck out. But I have lived a lot of life since then. Whenever the end comes, I have no complaints regardless of what happens after

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206126 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the story. Job DID "break". This notion that Job has unwavering faith is a myth. It is not in the story. He demanded of God to know "Why". He didn't get the answer he expected either. God (basically) said "Who do you ignorant humans think you are to question ME ? You are nothing in the grand scheme of things."
Note also that according to the authors of the book (the Jews) it is a work of fiction. There was no man called Job and the events in the book never took place. It is as factual as Aesop's fables. It is a made up story to convey a deeper message. Not history.
Well I see questioning as simply a natural human reaction

But he remained faithful and that was the test. Not that he wouldn't so much as ask why. If anything the answer should have made it more difficult yet he didn't abandon his faith

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206127 Jan 21, 2014
Skum and RRetard;

<quoted text>
MADAGASCAR: Protestant church against condoms in AIDS battle

Johannesburg, 4 October 2004 (IRIN)- Religious leaders threaten to hamper Madagascar's plans to distribute 15 million free condoms in 2005 as an HIV/AIDS prevention method.

Agence France-Presse quoted Armand Razafimahefa, former head of the island's protestant church, as saying: "I am firmly opposed to the use of the condom as a means of fighting AIDS, because it promotes promiscuity."

Razafimahefa suggested that the money used on condom promotion be used for HIV vaccine research instead.

With research showing a rising prevalence rate of 0.16 percent in 2000 to just over one percent currently, AIDS experts are concerned that Madagascar has entered a phase where AIDS will become generalised.
http://www.irinnews.org/report/37565/madagasc...
<quoted text>
Buffoons.
ROCCO

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#206128 Jan 21, 2014
="RiversideRedneck"]
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The one Catcher believes doesn't believe in .....
<[QUOTEquoted text>
Y whoup.
It's the age-old tale of the hypocritical atheist that claims not to believe in deities but blames the Christian God for "bad things".
It's amazing.[/QUOTE]

Evidence abounds that "Christian God" does nothing, especially given that there is no evidence of such god despite overwhelmingly ample "faith" in same by some, even many.

Believers in it are responsible for the "bad" done in its name. Yes, you may include yourself in that revelation.

That way, they (and you) can avoid taking responsibility for their own behavior and actions.

While I'm at it, just a curious aside: If you truly have a paying job and a family, is there a good explanation why you don't give them as much time as you give to Topix? "Quality time", especially? Treading water suffices for you, does it?

If you truly have a boss who doesn't care that you usurp so much of the time you're paid to work (and don't), and a wife and kids who truly don't mind you piddling away so much of the time you could otherwise spend with them (assuming they're not at all unhappy that you ignore them in favor of some other activity [Topix]), and bearing in mind you have laid out your excuses for not advancing your education..........why won't/don't you now take advantage of all this free time you have (evidenced by your time devoted to Topix), and go ahead and further your education for the betterment of yourself AND your family?(I know, I know, MYOB.)

Of course, I've assumed you are filthy rich and have no need for anything of value to usurp your time (other than the time you spend trying to prove to us there's a god while failing to prove to us there is one, indeed, by demonstrating anything other than lip service to it while proving by your behavior that you're a complete and utter asshole with no discernible redeeming qualities while doing so).

You're a fraud. Based on the number of your posts, and the audience you've engaged, a compelling one (maybe even interesting/entertaining one); but a fraud, nonetheless. It's somewhat sad that you've found it necessary to project the asshole persona that you do (and even sadder since it probably is what you really are).

I anticipate a smart ass reply, if any at all. I have a reasonably good idea what to expect from you (not much of consequence). I'm not prone to exchanging much conversation with compulsive, windbag know-it-alls, so an acknowledgment (or not) of my post really isn't important to me. What was important for me was to present you with what I have.......fait accompli.

Thanks for letting me introduce myself. You may even assume I'm an atheist if you wish (which would be an incorrect assumption; I've simply not concluded which god to believe in, if any, and have reserved the right to deliberate the matter further to my satisfaction - although I have deduced that yours doesn't measure up to my requirements).

Rocco

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206129 Jan 21, 2014
To the whack job posting links, try reading them all the way thru!

LOL they support what we said

And further illustrate how the conflicting message in trying to teach the faith and accept certain realities is where the challenge is. And that they have softened their stance on it but the main way of battling it is to humanize the problem as they disagree with the morality of people going around sleeping with whomever out of wedlock

Did you spin your 'belief wheel' today? What did it land on? I am curious what you are claiming to be today

:)

Too bad your "mental health" wheel just says whack job in every slot!

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) 7 min Nobraina Waxman 1,264,983
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr STO 310,377
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr IBdaMann 6,513
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sun stewart scott 29,854
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Sun Brian_G 1,716
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jul 31 bernarlyn 33
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 29 RiccardoFire 201,844
More from around the web