Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256084 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212884 Feb 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
At its base, yes.
You forget. I'm an atheist. "Sanctity" is not part of the equation. Sanctity does not exist.
Respect, however, does exist. And you have no respect for the love that certain people show each other.
Sanctity exists whether you use the word or not. You can't sit there and say "sanctity does not exist" and expect to be treated as a smart feller.

Respect exists, does it? Where's your respect for my views of the sanctity of marriage?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212885 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
So everyone that doesn't believe in YOUR God is dumb?
Correct.

That was easy.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212886 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Coots died because, and ONLY because of his belief system which told him he was protected from harm by a mythical being he thought was real. But you are right, he died because he was ignorant of reality, ignorants caused by his belief in something unproven. He was ignorant of the fact that being protected from the deadly bite of a snake by a fictitious being was unproven. he relied on "faith" the belief in something without evidence, and this false belief killed him. More proof of how religion poisons everything.
Eagle was correct. Coots died because he was Biblically ignorant.

Mark 16:17-18 doesn't contain any commands. It does not say,“Go out and handle snakes.” It says,“They will pick up snakes with their hands.” It's describing something that might happen, not commanding that something needs to happen.

If churches like the snake-handling ones REALLY paid attention to Scripture, they'd know that. They'd also read ALL of Mark 16:17-18 and drink deadly poison and heal the sick. They don't because they've cherry picked their way into an income.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#212887 Feb 17, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment on Genesis 1:30
Your interpretation is not valid.
The scripture is talking about the cycle of life.
Herbivores eat the plants.
Carnivores eat the Herbivores.
Omnivores eat both.
Without the plants there can be no life cycle.
Using your method of "Free interpretation" I suppose you can make the bible say anything you want, however it's kind of a dishonest and desperate tact.

I examined very closely 19 different translations of Genesis 1:30 and nowhere does it even hint at the cycle of life. Is your God so stupid he can't be clear about something this important? He leaves it up to brainwashed delusional Christians to makeup whatever they want it to say?

The actual doctrine dealing with this issue is that up until the "fall" no animal ate another. Of course science, biology and fossil records, along with DNA, prove this to be wrong.

“Resources For The Future”

Since: Feb 14

Los Angeles, CA

#212888 Feb 17, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I own my home free and clear.
How about you?
I am still paying off my tuition from USC. Unfortunately, I will owe the establishment for awhile with the hope of future income offsetting and then surpassing my current debt.....finger's crossed - LOL
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#212889 Feb 17, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
You're living in the world of the past musically.
Of course there's nothing wrong with this but electronic music is the future.
The technology is still in its infancy yet we have human voice coming out of electronic instruments.
You must not get out very much there's a whole world of electronics that have been bypassed.
So feel free to pick your banjo remember the good old days of Carlos Montoya and Andre Segovia on the acoustic guitar. For rock Yngwie Malmsteen.
Revel in the magic of Maynard Ferguson and Arturo Sandoval on your much beloved trumpet.
But in the end run... electronic music will dominate.
That is a nonsensical statement, there is no such thing as "world of the past musically." You're obviously not a musician, or at least not one entrenched in the business. No real creative musician would or could make a comment like that. There is no such thing as an old diamond. Thats why the music of the great composers is considered "timeless."

I get out quite a bit and know all about electronic music, the college I teach at is very active in electronic music, teaching and creating innovations in that medium.

Electronic music will only dominate with those who care little about human expression, and the nuances that only a human playing an instrument can achieve. Electronic music strips all of humanity out of music, it becomes nothing more than a robotic exercise devoid of all human emotions. It is the performer that breaths life into the music that bring any real passion and meaning to music. I have heard the "techno" stuff in the clubs and bars frequented by younger people, and it is just that, "robotic sounds" I even hesitate to call it music, completely devoid of any human qualities. If you think this is the future of music, and I'm sure it just might be, considering what the general public laps up as music, then good luck to you. There will always be people who care about human emotions, about human qualities in music, and about passion that can only come from humans. Good luc wit your musical robots.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212890 Feb 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
I wonder if RR would walk up to Michael Sam and tell him he is a wimpy effeminate cross-dresser.
I don't know who that is, but I wouldn't walk up to any wimpy effeminate crass dresser and call them a wimpy effeminate cross dresser. I'm not a dick.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212891 Feb 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanctity exists whether you use the word or not. You can't sit there and say "sanctity does not exist" and expect to be treated as a smart feller.
Respect exists, does it? Where's your respect for my views of the sanctity of marriage?
That's your opinion. It is wrong from everything I have seen.

Nothing is sacred...

http://discardedlies.com/images/35sm%5B1%5D.j...

...because there is nothing to make it sacred. "Sacred" or "sanctity" is a human invention.

You have the right to believe in your superstitions. You do not have the right to force them on everyone else.

BTW...did I say that everything had to be respected? No. I am not trying to force you to respect gay people. I am just pointing out that you don't, and that I think you are wrong. Your beliefs and opinions are not free from criticism.

I will respect your right to hold your opinions. I will, however, criticize them when I think they are wrong. But that is a subtle distinction. I doubt you will understand it.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#212892 Feb 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
That was easy.
So it's your contention that anyone who doesn't believe specifically in YOUR God, is unable to speak? Very strange belief you have there skippy!!!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212893 Feb 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know who that is, but I wouldn't walk up to any wimpy effeminate crass dresser and call them a wimpy effeminate cross dresser. I'm not a dick.
So you haven't been following the news?

Micheal Sam...University of Missouri football player...All-American...came out as gay.

Kinda blows a hole in your contention that all gays are wimpy effeminate cross-dressers doesn't it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212894 Feb 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<
That's your opinion. It is wrong from everything I have seen.
Nothing is sacred...
http://discardedlies.com/images/35sm%5B1%5D.j...
...because there is nothing to make it sacred. "Sacred" or "sanctity" is a human invention.
You have the right to believe in your superstitions. You do not have the right to force them on everyone else.
BTW...did I say that everything had to be respected? No. I am not trying to force you to respect gay people. I am just pointing out that you don't, and that I think you are wrong. Your beliefs and opinions are not free from criticism.
I will respect your right to hold your opinions. I will, however, criticize them when I think they are wrong. But that is a subtle distinction. I doubt you will understand it.
Uh-huh.... Smart feller, indeed... "Sanctity is a human invention".....

What word isn't a human invention, man?

And where are you getting off telling me that I disrespect gays? In what ways do I disrespect them?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212895 Feb 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know who that is, but I wouldn't walk up to any wimpy effeminate crass dresser and call them a wimpy effeminate cross dresser. I'm not a dick.
BTW...just how much effort would it have taken you to Google "Micheal Sam"? Probably less than to type "I don't know who that is, but I wouldn't walk up to any wimpy effeminate crass dresser and call them a wimpy effeminate cross dresser. I'm not a dick."

No wonder you guys don't know anything about anything.

“Don't try to goad me...”

Since: Nov 07

... I'm a goadless heathen.

#212896 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>That is a nonsensical statement, there is no such thing as "world of the past musically." You're obviously not a musician, or at least not one entrenched in the business. No real creative musician would or could make a comment like that. There is no such thing as an old diamond. Thats why the music of the great composers is considered "timeless."
I get out quite a bit and know all about electronic music, the college I teach at is very active in electronic music, teaching and creating innovations in that medium.
Electronic music will only dominate with those who care little about human expression, and the nuances that only a human playing an instrument can achieve. Electronic music strips all of humanity out of music, it becomes nothing more than a robotic exercise devoid of all human emotions. It is the performer that breaths life into the music that bring any real passion and meaning to music. I have heard the "techno" stuff in the clubs and bars frequented by younger people, and it is just that, "robotic sounds" I even hesitate to call it music, completely devoid of any human qualities. If you think this is the future of music, and I'm sure it just might be, considering what the general public laps up as music, then good luck to you. There will always be people who care about human emotions, about human qualities in music, and about passion that can only come from humans. Good luc wit your musical robots.
Just a comment / question from the musically illiterate peanut gallery, but aren't you both making some pretty broad sweeping (and thereby unfair) statements?

In the office I always have a jazz station playing, because I can enjoy the music without finding it distracting.

On the other hand, any time Vivaldi is played I am in a complete trance until the piece ends... not conducive to working... or dancing.

If I want to dance, there is nothing like that "emotionless" electronic music to get me jumpin' and hootin'.

Shouldn't music, like any other art, be appreciated for the emotional reaction it inspires in the listener, regardless of genre, era or instrument?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#212897 Feb 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Eagle was correct. Coots died because he was Biblically ignorant.
Mark 16:17-18 doesn't contain any commands. It does not say,“Go out and handle snakes.” It says,“They will pick up snakes with their hands.” It's describing something that might happen, not commanding that something needs to happen.
If churches like the snake-handling ones REALLY paid attention to Scripture, they'd know that. They'd also read ALL of Mark 16:17-18 and drink deadly poison and heal the sick. They don't because they've cherry picked their way into an income.
Wrong, you and eagle just love to assign your own particular interpretations of the bible, thereby making it say or NOT say anything you like, and like Eagle 12 you're not only desperate, but dishonest.

The passage clearly states that "these signs shall follow them that believe. They shall take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly it will NOT hurt them"

Clearly this is meant to assure anyone that God would protect them from harm, even to the point of being protected from harm after drinking poison. You lose assclown!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212898 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So it's your contention that anyone who doesn't believe specifically in YOUR God, is unable to speak? Very strange belief you have there skippy!!!
Unable to speak?!

No, that's not what I said.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212899 Feb 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
So you haven't been following the news?
Micheal Sam...University of Missouri football player...All-American...came out as gay.
Kinda blows a hole in your contention that all gays are wimpy effeminate cross-dressers doesn't it.
I don't watch the news much. I watch football even less, so it stands for good reason that I wouldn't know who that guy is.

I have never made any contention that all all gays are wimpy, effeminate or cross dressers. Why the accusation that I have?!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212900 Feb 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
BTW...just how much effort would it have taken you to Google "Micheal Sam"? Probably less than to type "I don't know who that is, but I wouldn't walk up to any wimpy effeminate crass dresser and call them a wimpy effeminate cross dresser. I'm not a dick."
No wonder you guys don't know anything about anything.
I don't care who he is, that's why I didn't bother looking him up.

Why the big deal about some football player that's gay? Why the hell is that "headline news"? Who gives afuck?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#212901 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, you and eagle just love to assign your own particular interpretations of the bible, thereby making it say or NOT say anything you like, and like Eagle 12 you're not only desperate, but dishonest.
The passage clearly states that "these signs shall follow them that believe. They shall take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly it will NOT hurt them"
Clearly this is meant to assure anyone that God would protect them from harm, even to the point of being protected from harm after drinking poison. You lose assclown!!
Here's the Scripture, buddy boy:

Mark 16:17-18
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Nowhere in there is a commandment to do anything.

Do you see a commandment or do you wanna just continue elementary school insults?
OG Kush

Orange Park, FL

#212902 Feb 17, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>That is a nonsensical statement, there is no such thing as "world of the past musically." You're obviously not a musician, or at least not one entrenched in the business. No real creative musician would or could make a comment like that. There is no such thing as an old diamond. Thats why the music of the great composers is considered "timeless."
I get out quite a bit and know all about electronic music, the college I teach at is very active in electronic music, teaching and creating innovations in that medium.
Electronic music will only dominate with those who care little about human expression, and the nuances that only a human playing an instrument can achieve. Electronic music strips all of humanity out of music, it becomes nothing more than a robotic exercise devoid of all human emotions. It is the performer that breaths life into the music that bring any real passion and meaning to music. I have heard the "techno" stuff in the clubs and bars frequented by younger people, and it is just that, "robotic sounds" I even hesitate to call it music, completely devoid of any human qualities. If you think this is the future of music, and I'm sure it just might be, considering what the general public laps up as music, then good luck to you. There will always be people who care about human emotions, about human qualities in music, and about passion that can only come from humans. Good luc wit your musical robots.
Nonsensical?

Perhaps you should invest in electronic instruments stock since most Recording studios and bands and entertainers and nightclubs today use them. Does rap - barf - gag - ring a bell?

And you're completely wrong about the quality of musicianship based on trumpet one note playing.

A skilled keyboardist playing a Wersi must play bass with his feet, his hands mix all sorts of sounds together on three different keyboards all at the same time - while you can concentrate on one line. Wow! Dazzling this is not.

Virtual reality and 3-D A/V are right around the corner professor Bunny Berrigan - you are a dinosaur in a new emerging age of exciting sound video technology.

The emotion involved in virtual-reality immersion will surpass anything achieved to date.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212903 Feb 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”
-Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"
Sam Harris exhibits a sloppy, dishonest intellect, whose sentiments would be perfectly comfortable in the Nazi concentration camps or Russian gulag. He makes Richard Dawkins appear intelligent.
I tend to not question that comment from Harris as well, although I would like to know what he would offer as an example of such an idea when he wrote that, and I do appreciate his use of the word "may" as well as his acknowledgment that the claim is extraordinary.

That comment, however, is not grounds for your characterization of him as either dishonest or fascistic, nor does it negate the reams of excellent insights that he has offered.

Would you make the same comment about Jesus? I can find you several comments attributed to him that should make your skin crawl. If not, are applying your standards justly and evenly, or are you invoking special pleading to malign the character of a man because he is passionately opposed to the morals and metaphysics of most or all religions?

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) 4 min DanFromSmithville 40,793
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 min _Susan_ 16,275
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 2 hr Into The Night 274
A Universe from Nothing? 3 hr Eagle 12 81
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Mikko 3,771
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 hr _Susan_ 20,620
There are no such things as gods or fairies 8 hr Amused 108
More from around the web