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.

Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#211866 Feb 10, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
This is stupid on so many levels.
For the simple use the simplest expression to describe their shallow thoughts.[tipping hat]

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#211867 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
Here's a quick quote from Franklin's autobiography, "Though I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of it's propriety, and it's utility when rightly conducted...". He elaborates but that's enough for the point. I agree with it's utility on a personal level, for certain personality types.
Most of our needs can be met with multiple solutions. How does religious faith compare with other available options?
HipGnosis wrote:
For instance, faith provides refuge and strength to those in dire emotional straits. You and I might say that they should recognize their own inner strength that "saved" them, and that faith just provided an Uber-Daddy to kick them in the ass, but it would be highly arrogant for us to scoff at the result. When it comes to lifting people from despair and degradation, "It's all good."
The ability to accept a false reality is useful as a temporary shield to protect us from severe emotional trauma. When people experience this ability in this way, their friends and family help them to eventually accept the truth, because clinging to the fantasy is unhealthy.

Does religious faith get a pass because it's a shared delusion?

If a child with Christian parents had an imaginary friend, because they didn't have any real friends, do you think the parents would simply accept it, or respect it? Wouldn't they address the actual problem and provide a healthy solution? I think they would.
HipGnosis wrote:
Beyond that, there is another value to society which I had never realized before topix. When I first heard someone argue, "What's to keep us from stealing, raping, and killing, if there's no God?" I was really taken aback when I heard that. I thought they were being facetious. But they aren't. Long story short, I concluded that, if this punishing God concept was the only thing restraining some people's animal impulses, then by all means, print more Bibles.
There is a problem inherent to hypothetical questions. When you ask someone what they would do if they were in a situation, they have to imagine it, and answer as the person they are at that moment.

If you were asked how you would react if your whole family was killed at the same time, you may be able to imagine it, but you would know that you're imagining it. Your mind would protect itself from having an authentic reaction. You would answer as the person you are now, not as the person you would be when that happens.

A theist has no idea how they would behave as an atheist. Their mind is protecting their faith when they imagine what that would be like. Most of them probably have a distorted view of their life prior to becoming a theist as well.

How many examples do we have of people losing their faith, and going on rampages? I didn't. You didn't. What if someone did go rampaging after losing their faith? Could we rule out their faith based beliefs as the cause of that rampage?

If a belief in God, or other deities, is keeping anyone from rampaging, those people cannot be trusted anyways. We are not protected from them as it is. All it would take is for them to get the idea that their deity wants them to do something, and they would probably do it. Why wouldn't they?

I've never argued that religion is all bad. I have argued that there's no actual benefit to religion or faith that you can't have in its absence. I don't see any reason to keep it around.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#211868 Feb 10, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Disabilities are what we make of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-FFW0JdgRLoXX
He's my favorite character.

"...into the turtle stew!"

I've only seen the first two seasons. I hope he doesn't die.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#211869 Feb 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
“Religion. It’s given hope in a world torn apart by religion.”– Jon Stewart
God gives hope to those seeking hope among the sea of hopelessness that surrounds us.

You have heard the story Jose Salvador Alvarenga's epic survival story. It has been recently in the news. The fisherman and one young man became stranded at sea on a fishing excursion from Mexico.

Alvarenga washed ashore in the Marshal Islands after 13 months at sea. Most of that time he was alone because his partner died early on while lost at sea.

It wasn’t long the skeptics came out doubting his claim. How does Alvarenga prove his story to the skeptics? Many survival experts have sided with Alvarenga, saying his story is indeed believable. Others have their doubts.

A story of belief versus non belief. Alvarenga’s basis the story on his experience for the last 13 months. The skeptics base their skepticism on doubt alone.

So I ask you my good Doctor, had Alvarenga been an Atheist had he still survived?

Alvarenga said while on his journey he considered committing suicide several times, but survived by praying to God, thinking about his family, and dreaming of eating his favorite food - tortillas.

God gives hope to the hopeless among the sea of hopelessness. Atheism gives nothing because it is a belief in nothing. If Alvarenga had been Atheist he would have died at sea, in total hopelessness.

He will never be able to prove his story to the skeptics. But to those who base their opinions on experience, Alvarenga is a survivor and his story is true.
andet1987

Chicago, IL

#211870 Feb 10, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of our needs can be met with multiple solutions. How does religious faith compare with other available options?
<quoted text>
The ability to accept a false reality is useful as a temporary shield to protect us from severe emotional trauma. When people experience this ability in this way, their friends and family help them to eventually accept the truth, because clinging to the fantasy is unhealthy.
Does religious faith get a pass because it's a shared delusion?
If a child with Christian parents had an imaginary friend, because they didn't have any real friends, do you think the parents would simply accept it, or respect it? Wouldn't they address the actual problem and provide a healthy solution? I think they would.
<quoted text>
There is a problem inherent to hypothetical questions. When you ask someone what they would do if they were in a situation, they have to imagine it, and answer as the person they are at that moment.
If you were asked how you would react if your whole family was killed at the same time, you may be able to imagine it, but you would know that you're imagining it. Your mind would protect itself from having an authentic reaction. You would answer as the person you are now, not as the person you would be when that happens.
A theist has no idea how they would behave as an atheist. Their mind is protecting their faith when they imagine what that would be like. Most of them probably have a distorted view of their life prior to becoming a theist as well.
How many examples do we have of people losing their faith, and going on rampages? I didn't. You didn't. What if someone did go rampaging after losing their faith? Could we rule out their faith based beliefs as the cause of that rampage?
If a belief in God, or other deities, is keeping anyone from rampaging, those people cannot be trusted anyways. We are not protected from them as it is. All it would take is for them to get the idea that their deity wants them to do something, and they would probably do it. Why wouldn't they?
I've never argued that religion is all bad. I have argued that there's no actual benefit to religion or faith that you can't have in its absence. I don't see any reason to keep it around.
tide with b***itch

God is God. don't you ever call him a deity. ok ? your brain is so small. you have no capability of knowing the true God.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#211871 Feb 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
“Religion. It’s given hope in a world torn apart by religion.”– Jon Stewart


"Maybe a second splash will reduce some of the effects."

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#211872 Feb 10, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. recently, I read an article in THE SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE on the muriquis monkeys of Brazil which challenges the theory that all primates, including humans, are essentially aggressive ..
.. female muriquis select their mates and the males are peace-loving primates. This behavior shatters the idea that stealing, raping and killing is the default position of all apes ..
.. the muriquis do not own bibles nor can they read ..
Ok, I should have put in a disclaimer about the various species not prone to aggressive behavior.....;)

Which begs the question, is aggression a manifestation of a higher, or lower, impulse?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#211873 Feb 10, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words are folly and meaningless as is your belief in nothingness.
Soooo, you don't know of any prophecies come true either, huh?
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#211874 Feb 10, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
God gives hope to those seeking hope among the sea of hopelessness that surrounds us.
You have heard the story Jose Salvador Alvarenga's epic survival story. It has been recently in the news. The fisherman and one young man became stranded at sea on a fishing excursion from Mexico.
Alvarenga washed ashore in the Marshal Islands after 13 months at sea. Most of that time he was alone because his partner died early on while lost at sea.
It wasn’t long the skeptics came out doubting his claim. How does Alvarenga prove his story to the skeptics? Many survival experts have sided with Alvarenga, saying his story is indeed believable. Others have their doubts.
A story of belief versus non belief. Alvarenga’s basis the story on his experience for the last 13 months. The skeptics base their skepticism on doubt alone.
So I ask you my good Doctor, had Alvarenga been an Atheist had he still survived?
Alvarenga said while on his journey he considered committing suicide several times, but survived by praying to God, thinking about his family, and dreaming of eating his favorite food - tortillas.
God gives hope to the hopeless among the sea of hopelessness. Atheism gives nothing because it is a belief in nothing. If Alvarenga had been Atheist he would have died at sea, in total hopelessness.
He will never be able to prove his story to the skeptics. But to those who base their opinions on experience, Alvarenga is a survivor and his story is true.
Atheists give us reality.

Go and live in your little dream world.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#211875 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, I should have put in a disclaimer about the various species not prone to aggressive behavior.....;)
Which begs the question, is aggression a manifestation of a higher, or lower, impulse?
.. ultimately, I think it revolves around boundaries ..

.. most mammals mark their territories. For humans, it might be expressed by a wedding band or a fence, in the cat family a scent ..

.. in the past, muriqui monkeys formed egaliterian social relationships. Their territory is now endangered and they have begun to exhibit aggressive behavior ..

.. when territories are violated, perhaps aggression is a natural survival instinct? That would make cooperation a higher impulse, aggression the lower impulse ...

.. your thoughts ??..

Since: May 11

Reality, USA

#211876 Feb 10, 2014
andet1987 wrote:
<quoted text>
God is God. don't you ever call him a deity. ok ?
How about a mythical deity related to the likes of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#211877 Feb 10, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Paul was probably basing his assumptions on his own experiences.
<quoted text> Not necessarily a bad thing. <quoted text> Don't know about the bad for being human part. Paul did address what we call original or inherited sin in Romans 5. In that sense there is a rift between God and humans from Adam along with our ancestors. Ofter the offspring suffer the consequences for the offenses of the parents.
<quoted text>
The emotional baggage attached to the term disgusting isn't really a rational basis to reject the claim.
<quoted text> Paul came up with that from the Old as it relates to Adam and Eve. Post fall they hid from God and blamed each other. There was a resulting isolation from God, each other and nature. Before all that there was harmony.
<quoted text> What non logic? If people separate from God who is the source of all life then the result is a type of death. But you have to be careful with word meaning here. Death meaning separation as opposed to annihilation. Satan is always the mitigating factor. They could have eaten without the influence of the Serpent. Then what? Since i believe hell is an actual place then yes it is a reinforcement mechanism to embrace God. That does not necessarily mean it is the only reason.
Of course Paul was basing his ideas on his own experiences. And why wouldn't he? In his mind, he is the sole voice of reason in a world of infidels; *of course* everyone who denies him is a demon. The fact that his ideas about unbelievers were probably borne from his own insecurity makes his ideas less reliable, not more.

What claim? The claim that humans are sinful by nature or the claim that all unbelievers are influenced by satan? I don't need to rationally rebut those, they are absurd on their face.

The non logic that I was speaking of, in particular, was the notion that anyone who doesn't follow jesus is necessarily a lost sinner, and moreover, that this predicament was predicted by paul, thus bolstering the believability of this claim and christianity in general. After all, who could have predicted that people might become just a tad peeved by a religion that calls everyone scum?

The nonlogic of christian dogma in general is a clusterfuck I don't even want to get into right now. You're telling me it's logical that an all knowing god was forced to rape clone himself to sacrifice himself to himself, to forgive his creations for a crime (stretching the definition of the word crime here, as our defendants were akin to literal babies in our current judicial system) that he facilitated and had prior knowledge of? If this were the plot of a crime show, we'd call him the criminal mastermind, not the god.

"Ofter the offspring suffer the consequences for the offenses of the parents."

When does this take place in any but the most backwards societies? If a relatively primitive society such as our own can agree on this basic tenet, why not your god?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#211878 Feb 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Nice. So full of life. I really liked the dancing kids.

I'm guessing that some of the faithful don't approve. Any Christians here find that life affirming, or was it too close to sin?
Dancing with kids is delightful and giggly, very life affirming.

Much better for them too, than filling their heads full of fears.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#211879 Feb 10, 2014
andet1987 wrote:
<quoted text>tide with b***itch

God is God. don't you ever call him a deity. ok ? your brain is so small. you have no capability of knowing the true God.
Which deity do you think(?) is the really real "god"?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#211880 Feb 10, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>For what, the runestone
Here's something that makes it simple - the faker signed it, and attempted to disguise his signature with a cryptogram.
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2011...
“Öh mans fan vi ved hade ved sten”, or in English,“The Öhmans found. We kept/collected firewood at the stone.”
“… this is not strictly a case of forgery, but of a practical joke gone wrong through the gullibility of others.…Öhman himself may have been both surprised and a little disappointed to find that his hints about who made the inscription were never noted, and as time passed it became successively more difficult for him to confess. After his rune stone gained acceptance in wider circles through skilful marketing by others, it became almost impossible for him to come clean with his honour intact."
Larsson, M.G.. 2010. Vem ristade Kensingtonrunstenen? Saga och sed 2010. Uppsala.
If you want something else, like sources that explain why the language is all wrong and other problems, I'll be happy to provide them, but I think this is quite definitive.
Thanks for the link - I'll make a note of it.

To add to your post - this link also states the runestone could also be a hoax - but it has nothing to do with your "numbers" explanation, but relative to actual history out of Norway/Sweden.

Thanks again for the link.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/...

Just because one artifact is dismissed as true, it doesn't mean that the efforts Wolter is doing is only "chasing rabbits down holes", as you would like to imply.

I guess the Narragansett Rune Stone isn't in this category yet - until the origin facts are discovered about this stone, huh?

http://narragansett.patch.com/groups/politics... ,

Just to state, and in defense of Wolter - IMO Wolter has not mentioned or actually stated that this history is true, but is out to try and prove it to be.

It seems you are jumping the gun with implying I believe all that he is doing is all factual. I don't and am have skepticism in many aspects with these discoveries.
- are they researched enough by scholars to deem "untrue"
- are there plausible scenarios that can depict a find as true. What are the objections?
- Can an artifact be hoaxed? As we have seen throughout time, many people try to hoax different things. We've seen it with the "James Ossuary", "Bigfoot", as well as "The Shroud of Turin" and other "historical" items.

BTW - either you or DS asked me for a sign of skeptism.....here you go....

Animal mutations disprove "God".
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#211881 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Soooo, you don't know of any prophecies come true either, huh?
I’m just wondering why you would even ask that question if you were a Christian for 40 years. Here is just one of many prophecies that was fulfilled.

You said you were a Christian for 40 years. Why do I have to teach a former Christian?

Just one of many.

Old Testament Prophecy:

“Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel–God with us (Isaiah 7:14).

Fulfillment:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place under these circumstances: When His mother Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be pregnant (through the power) of the Holy Spirit”(Matthew 1:18).

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#211882 Feb 10, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. ultimately, I think it revolves around boundaries ..
.. most mammals mark their territories. For humans, it might be expressed by a wedding band or a fence, in the cat family a scent ..
.. in the past, muriqui monkeys formed egaliterian social relationships. Their territory is now endangered and they have begun to exhibit aggressive behavior ..
.. when territories are violated, perhaps aggression is a natural survival instinct? That would make cooperation a higher impulse, aggression the lower impulse ...
.. your thoughts ??..
You may violate my territory any time you like.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#211883 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Soooo, you don't know of any prophecies come true either, huh?
In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10). www.reasons.org
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#211884 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Soooo, you don't know of any prophecies come true either, huh?
I make the prophecy that duck 12 will make another meaningless post and another and another and....
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#211885 Feb 10, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Soooo, you don't know of any prophecies come true either, huh?
Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead. www.reasons.org

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 80,075
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 4 hr Fit2Serve 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Eagle 12 - 32,607
what science will NEVER be able to prove 14 hr Eagle 12 - 10
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 14 hr Eagle 12 - 106
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 69
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web