Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258515 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206284 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I don't really care what you think it means.
TA-DAAA!

I accept your concession.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206285 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, as I pointed out before, faith is not a reliable epistemology.
The only person who peddles faith is a charlatan.
And you take that on faith.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206286 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I would go further and add that I don't believe that the church is interested in whether those people live or die, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
AAAAAAND........ Nobody answered.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#206287 Jan 22, 2014
1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>

Experience and experiment (empiricism) can be a path to knowledge. If every time I heat ice to 32įF it melts, I know something. Conflicting ideas cannot be supported by evidence.
Pure reason (rationalism) can be a path to knowledge. It tells us that 7+4=11, and unless we redefine what those symbols mean, no opposite opinion can be supported by reason.
But faith (fideism) can't possibly be a path to truth or knowledge since any position and its opposite can be held by faith.
.......... The defacto wise people acknowledge that they are mortal and hopeless sinners and need atonement. The defacto wise people also know that there is much more than meets the eye. Their anecdotal evidence is empirical. Just like water frezzes at 32 everyone , after approx. 24,000 days meets their maker. Some with joy some with gnashing of teeth. Its all a matter of time, life spans are a blip , in real time.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206288 Jan 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are technically correct, that's indeed what you wrote.
But you are Buck Creek, well known in these here parts.
And I know that, if you disagreed with me, you would have so stated, in no uncertain terms and without further requirement.
If you recall, Counselor, I told you that I was unfamiliar with the details of the case, and had no opinion.

I neither agree nor disagree. And I don't take the opinions of liberals at face value.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206289 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Abstinence works in practice. 100%.
It doesn't work if not in practice.
Correct, and that is what Christianity teaches.

The Topix Atheists! want Christianity to teach "Abstinence works and is the best thing to do, but if you decide to follow your temptations, here's some rubbers to make sure you don't get an STD."

Dumb asses.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206290 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Whatever the Court says is NOT necessarily what the Constitution means.
That is logically impossible. Since a subsequent Court can and does reverse what a Court said the Constitution means, your reasoning makes both conflicting rulings correct.
The Constitution cannot mean both "A" and "non A".
Aside from the flaw of being impossible, your view is unconstitutional. The Court would be free to legislate, and the judiciary would be supreme, not co-equal.
Your view is both impossible and wrong.
Of course it can, because it's not a static document. Justice Marshall established that in the very beginning with Marbury v Madison (as I recall).

Do we still count certain property as 3/5 of a man for representative purposes? It was a necessary compromise at the time, unthinkable now. The Constitution and the Court reflected both views, and were legally "right" both times.

It was >>designed<< to be dynamic and flexible. That's the genius of it. That's why it has lasted through crises that collapsed nations under more rigid documents. That's why it has endured through social and political changes impossible to imagine by the founders. That's why it's basic structure formed the foundation for many new Constitutions since.

Times change. People change, Perspectives change. The Constitution is dynamic enough to absorb them all, and that wasn't by luck.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206291 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with HipGnosis, who I believe is saying that the church's ability to help is severely limited by its doctrine.
I would go further and add that I don't believe that the church is interested in whether those people live or die, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
That attitude runs rampant through Christianity, as when we discuss the deaths of anybody
http://lh6.ggpht.com/--hXMr-dc2Xs/Tin6AAPoKtI...
Why would these Africans be viewed any differently?
I would say that the church actually does harm by drawing people to a solution that is sure to fail, just as a charlatan with a quack remedy that diverts patients from effective therapy does worse than nothing. He does harm.
You wrote about the church that, "Their obligation is to teach what they feel is right." Do you agree that our obligation is to do the same, which for us means to contradict the church and criticize its ways, as with posts like this one? For people who put no stock in the values of the church that part from rational ethics, we see these values as not only wrong, but deadly.
I don't believe my former church cares if I live or die.

In fact, the majority would likely prefer I die.

I am certain they have taken pleasure in my suffering.

Well, I'm not dead, and they can kiss my big ass. Amen.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#206292 Jan 22, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>It was obvious, funny face. And you still never supported your ridiculous claim that you could sue the school if someother kid was caught praying in front of yours. Youre just another malcontent lost soul
If by "support" you mean answer you because you demand it then you're right, I never did tell you if I would sue the school for money.

If you're still waiting for me to answer you, don't hold your breath.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#206293 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Determinism is very similar to fate int that your future is predetermined and you aren't the cause of anything because it's already set.
Determinism doesn't state that people don't cause anything. We play a part in causality.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's a direct opposite to free will, which is why I think people like you & Harris dig it. Anything to go against Christianity turns you guys on.
No, that isn't why I "dig it".
RiversideRedneck wrote:
But it's funny that an "evidence-based rational skeptic" would believe in something like that...
Why is that funny?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206294 Jan 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can readily understand what is being said there, but I have a much less romantic view of the situation.
I have spent some time trying to figure if I'm in a zoo, a prison, or a psychriatic ward here. I kinda gave up and resigned myself to whatever because of my military experience. This has been one hell of a long duty assignment in not exactly the choicest of them. The locals leave a lot to be desired. I have orders to observe and not interfere. Just suffer them.
Dave has got kinda tired.
This thread has helped, though. It has attracted several heavy hitting intellects on the theistic side. Very impressive and heartening. Almost all of those theistic thinkers on here fit that category. I used to stand off these howling crazies by myself for a long time, especially in that PTAG(shudder) thread.
I will say you made a tremendous difference with your appearance. Your force of personality and intellect really turned a tide on these forums.
It is so nice to see some sanity emerge in this chaos. Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Not in the best of heads this morning. Got up and read the overnight posts. Usually this is a game of sorts, but the Topix atheist attempts to look intellectual and "in the know" didn't strike me so funny this morning. It was more pathetic, like a mortally injured animal struggling to get up. Bummer.
You are a good man, Dave.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206295 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, and that is what Christianity teaches....
Wrong.
That is what SOME denominations of Christianity teaches, not all.

"They aren't 'Real Christians'! " in 3... 2... 1...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#206296 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
I've always been an avid student of Philosophy and History as well as a reluctant observer/participant of religion. I'm really getting into studying religion more, as time allows.
I hope you count your time here as part of your education. It's not formal education like a classroom is, but you can learn things here that you can't learn there about the effects of Christianity in particular and of faith based thinking in general on people.

I consider this more valuable, especially since we have many students of religion among the unbelievers here to supplement that with theology and church history. For example, by now, we all know about Paul, Josephus' accounts, and Constantine (church history), as well as the arguments for and against the creation story, the Flood, and lately Job (theology).
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#206297 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with HipGnosis, who I believe is saying that the church's ability to help is severely limited by its doctrine, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
.
Its limited, rightly so. Even a pastor is told to give a person over to their sin , if they refuse to receive admonishment. Jobs kids may not have gone to heaven. Jobs constant worry and praying for them suggests they were involved in lifestyle not approved of by God. God had no problem killing all flesh in the flood because of the way man turned out. Hes not going to have that problem again either saying, the next time its going to be by fire.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#206298 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot. The Catholic church, in some quarters, accepts certain aspects of evolution.
They do not accept Darwinism.
I supplied you with air-tight proof of that. Not doing it again.
Just live stupid.
No you have not supplied me with anything however I have supplied you with several links (including a papal edict)

But hey, buck and his buddies donít agree with the Vatican over the catholic faith so lets all assume itís the Vatican is wrong and buck is right Ė OK

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#206299 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't worry too much, if one goes by their myth, there won't be any christians in heaven.
LOL, yes very true,

But then again, what heaven?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206300 Jan 22, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it can, because it's not a static document. Justice Marshall established that in the very beginning with Marbury v Madison (as I recall).
Do we still count certain property as 3/5 of a man for representative purposes? It was a necessary compromise at the time, unthinkable now. The Constitution and the Court reflected both views, and were legally "right" both times.
It was >>designed<< to be dynamic and flexible. That's the genius of it. That's why it has lasted through crises that collapsed nations under more rigid documents. That's why it has endured through social and political changes impossible to imagine by the founders. That's why it's basic structure formed the foundation for many new Constitutions since.
Times change. People change, Perspectives change. The Constitution is dynamic enough to absorb them all, and that wasn't by luck.
I see. The 'dynamic document" argument.

Let's play poker, Gomphosis. The rules will be dynamic, and I'll determine them. How do you like your prospects of leaving with any money? Would you consent to those rules? No.

The problem, as you can see in this illustration, is that yours is a view where there are no rules, and there is no Constitution.

Times change, perspectives change. That's why the founders included the amendment process. That way, changes to the rules would be consented to by the people.

"Consent of the governed". Ever hear of that? The basis of the formation of this nation is that a human should not be ruled without his consent.

And you are trying to tell me that they set up a system which intended for the Supreme Court to do exactly that - change rules without the people's consent.

It doesn't work with me. Peddle it in the ranks of the ignorant.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#206301 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the claim for "Darwinism", not evolution.
And you said "the entire Catholic church" accepts it.
Both are lies.
Darwinism encompasses evolution, it may be a century or so out of date but it was a damn good starter

By the entire Catholic church I did actually mean the church (Vatican) that dictates catholic dogma, not the throwbacks in the congregation who do not want to follow the doctrine of the Vatican. Sorry I should have explained that to you.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#206302 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "support" you mean answer you because you demand it then you're right, I never did tell you if I would sue the school for money.
If you're still waiting for me to answer you, don't hold your breath.
You said you could, funny face. You wouldn't say why you could. Youre just another atheist prevaricator. Youre to insignificant to care about anything you do. Your life , as ive heard about it the last few years is a cookie cut example of failure.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#206303 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know.
Down goes the death penalty, up goes the murder rate.
California is a prime example of that.
Thatís progress for ya

Civilisation and human rights are wonderful things are they not?

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) 8 min VetnorsGate 1,745,314
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr June VanDerMark 336,757
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Chosen Traveler 35,803
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar 28 Lonnie Peters 201,480
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 24 Wisdom of Ages 12,331
News Purdue and IU? On Valentine's day? Not anymore (Feb '07) Mar '18 Painter Phartse 73
News Walker IV hits 5 3s, scores 19, Miami beats Not... Feb '18 ScoresPhartse 2