Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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

#208642 Jan 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I think this might be something interesting to talk about.
What would it take to convince you that a deity exists?
I'm not so sure I could be convinced. First I'd need to know what was being claimed. What is a deity? What must a thing be to be a deity?
Assuming a loose definition for deity that most people would probably say is reasonable, I couldn't be convinced that such a thing exists.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It's also going to be indistinguishable from a deity. This is compelling on two levels. I might actually witness something extraordinary that I think should not be possible. This is something that someone might claim is only possible for a deity, but we cannot know that. I think a natural explanation is always more likely than a supernatural one. Extremely advanced technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.
Even without witnessing something extraordinary that is really happening, our perceptions can be fooled. We may experience the effect of mind altering technology that gives us a complete impression of a reality that is implanted. This kind of technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.
We also know that humans can hallucinate and delude themselves. We know that humans can believe something false with complete conviction. Some people don't just claim to have been abducted by aliens, they believe it as much as they believe anything. I don't believe these claims because I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support them. I suspect many of you are in the same boat about that. I'd still sooner believe those claims than claims for a deity. Technologically advanced aliens that abduct people and then return them seem much more likely to exist than deities. Much more likely than that is the likelihood of a human brain messing up.
For me, deity claims are literally unbelievable. I can't think of anything at all that could be called evidence for a deity that I couldn't link more closely to a non-deity explanation.
Interesting post.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#208644 Jan 28, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Read.
http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm#.Uug...
The whole thing. Objectively.
Then get back to me.
So, you do believe that "the Adam" was "created" roughly 6000 years ago.

Got it.
christINSANITY is EVIL

Fergus, Canada

#208645 Jan 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I think this might be something interesting to talk about.
What would it take to convince you that a deity exists?
I'm not so sure I could be convinced. First I'd need to know what was being claimed. What is a deity? What must a thing be to be a deity?
Assuming a loose definition for deity that most people would probably say is reasonable, I couldn't be convinced that such a thing exists.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It's also going to be indistinguishable from a deity. This is compelling on two levels. I might actually witness something extraordinary that I think should not be possible. This is something that someone might claim is only possible for a deity, but we cannot know that. I think a natural explanation is always more likely than a supernatural one. Extremely advanced technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.
Even without witnessing something extraordinary that is really happening, our perceptions can be fooled. We may experience the effect of mind altering technology that gives us a complete impression of a reality that is implanted. This kind of technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.
We also know that humans can hallucinate and delude themselves. We know that humans can believe something false with complete conviction. Some people don't just claim to have been abducted by aliens, they believe it as much as they believe anything. I don't believe these claims because I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support them. I suspect many of you are in the same boat about that. I'd still sooner believe those claims than claims for a deity. Technologically advanced aliens that abduct people and then return them seem much more likely to exist than deities. Much more likely than that is the likelihood of a human brain messing up.
For me, deity claims are literally unbelievable. I can't think of anything at all that could be called evidence for a deity that I couldn't link more closely to a non-deity explanation.
I could,all god has to do is come down and prove its real,,how?
If it CAN do ANYTHING Id ask god to make ME more powerful then all gods for as long as I want,,,LLLL

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#208646 Jan 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in favor of same-sex couples having the benefits of legal marriage.
I agree. Religious beliefs should have nothing to do with it.

It is like banning interracial or nonreligious marriages.

Keep religion out of the government, period.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#208647 Jan 28, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why do you assume God isn't natural?
If the Bible is defining what "God" is, "God" can't exist.

If you removed all the contradictions you'd still be left with a definition that falls outside what we would call natural. Until such time as the extraordinary claims are demonstrated as possible, they must be considered supernatural.
christINSANITY is EVIL

Fergus, Canada

#208648 Jan 28, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
The earth isn't 3000 years old and Creationism really is a mental illness that can be treated by logic and honesty.
Advancement of humanity starts with acceptance of reality

Religion is a virus that F s UP people's brains..

www.evilbible.com

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208649 Jan 28, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
they're trying to force us to accept a fundamental change in what marriage is ... You want us to brush our values aside and accept yours but you're not willing to accept our values. Why should we accept your values? Why do you think your values trump mine?
You don't have to accept it. Feel free to reject the idea.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's the ugly fact y'all always dismiss with your "get over it" attitudes.
You don't have to get over it, either.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#208650 Jan 28, 2014
I also have no problem with polygamous marriages.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208651 Jan 28, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry I'm unable to participate.
I'm working on a very thorny case.
If I prevail, drinks are on me.
Another slip-and-fall?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#208652 Jan 28, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>

.. you probably don't realize it but you have a feminine side ..
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You think so? Thanks.
I guess it's my butt.
.. try as you might, you can't hide it from me ..

.. it's your depth of spirituality ..

.. and, of course, your butt ..

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208653 Jan 28, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in a myth, RR.
<quoted text>
The government doesn't define marriage, it defines legal marriage.
I thought your objection was rooted in a belief that allowing legal same sex marriage would change how people would conceptualize marriage.
If you have objections to same sex marriage, what's your best argument against it?
Marriage and legal marriage are the same thing.

When the government defines legal marriage, it defines marriage.

You advocate same-sex couples wanting government to define marriage, but criticize others for doing the same.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#208654 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would that matter? Praying is behavior. Should people be made to suffer for indulging in it?.
.. shouldn't prayer be a personal endeavor ??..

.. often when people pray before eating, it's rote, something they feel obligated to do, a tradition ..

.. it makes no sense to me ..

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208655 Jan 28, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
I also have no problem with polygamous marriages.
Multiple wives would raise your odds of getting laid.

Marginally.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208656 Jan 28, 2014
christINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
Advancement of humanity starts with acceptance of reality
Religion is a virus that F s UP people's brains..
www.evilbible.com
Your lobotomy didn't help, either.

“Skeptic/Atheist”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#208657 Jan 28, 2014
froggy wrote:
Support those who seek "truth" ---- doubt those who claim to have found it.
I love this comment!!!!

“Skeptic/Atheist”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#208658 Jan 28, 2014
I sure am no smarter than the next person but the difference with me and religious people is I adapt to new information and choose to be open to new information and ideas. You cannot say that for religion

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#208659 Jan 28, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
LCD wrote:
I wasn't trying to say, nor did I say, that your sexism was against men. Your sexism is against the feminine quality.
<quoted text>
.. good morning my little comequick ..
.. it seems you misread LCD's comment. Your prejudice is against men who have a feminine quality ..
.. wouldn't that indicate a disdain for women ??..
Sigh

If someone doesn't like men that act like little kids, dies that mean they have distain for children?

It has been made abundantly clear that it was the combination of what was said AND who said it

And even if someone can't grasp that, not looking men who act like women is because they ARE men. If you want an indicator on how someone views women, try looking at how they view women. It's simple logic. The opinion someone has on a man acting like a woman has nothing to do with how someone views woken.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208660 Jan 28, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry I'm unable to participate.
I'm working on a very thorny case.
If I prevail, drinks are on me.
We were all wondering where you were...

O__O

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#208661 Jan 28, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh
If someone doesn't like men that act like little kids, dies that mean they have distain for children?**PORTIONS CUT**
.. regardless of gender, it's always fun being a kid ..

.. want to go on a Merry-Go-Round ride ??..

.. debate with Buck ..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#208662 Jan 28, 2014
LCD wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I wasn't trying to say, nor did I say, that your sexism was against men. Your sexism is against the feminine quality. I might be wrong that it's sexism. You might be opposed to all non-conformity.
2. You claimed that there was nothing biological about a straight man being effeminate. How do you know this? Why is that important? I would argue that causality is only relevant if you think that being effeminate is a lesser state, or immoral.
3. I have no idea what your criteria is for parsing qualities as masculine of feminine. This is something you would need to explain.
4. You need to explain how a man showering with other men and commenting on their diversity is being effeminate, and why that is something worth mocking a person for.
5. Why does anyone comment on observed diversity at any time? Should one not notice, or just not comment, if that observation is made while people are not wearing clothes? Is this something that women generally do often, that men generally wouldn't do?
6. What is funny about it? It seems juvenile and ignorant. If it is funny, you should be able to explain why it's funny.
You keep trying to use terms you don't understand and are showing a ton of ignorance for east to grasp concepts so I don't know how much further I can take this

1) Yes you are wrong to call it sexism. It also had nothing to do with conformity. Please learn what terms means and then when they are applicable

2) Don't backpedal now. You said I was speaking out of ignorance when I said it wasn't biological. Prove it or look like an idiot that calls people ignorant for things he doesn't actually understand himself I guess

3) I don't need to explain anything. You made incorrect assumptions and spoke out of ignorance. Kind of ironic right,

4) Again I don't need to explain anything. And I didn't say that particular example was effeminate. I actually don't know what to call that. I was simply responding to two different claims. Both against a guy being effeminate and the claim people have tried to imply someone is gay as an insult. As for why I mock him about it, it's because he repeatedly lies and claims a poster on here abused his child.

5) Too stupid to address

6) Again I don't need to explain anything. Humor is subjective.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 55 min blacklagoon 3 64
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 79,997
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 9 hr old_moose 94
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 104
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sep 15 Me _ Myself _ I 8
More from around the web