Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213452 Feb 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for proving my point about your use of petty nicknames.
You just insist on walking into the punch, don't you.
You are caught in 3 lies in the past 20 minutes.

Nice work.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213453 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Snake Boy neglects to adhere to what the Bible says, he's either ignoring parts of it or is ignorant of parts of it.
I think you need to read the whole bible and not just cherry pick scriptures
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Prayers don't work" The Topix Atheist! has many beliefs..
Yes, we do. That one is based on reproducible experiments. You can also believe but opposite, but it takes faith
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"We should not test Christ, as some of them did--and were killed by snakes."
I can see why that would be advised.

By the way, when I make a claim or a promise, feel free to test me or check me in any way possible. I can afford to say that because I'm honest, reliable, and most important, real.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213454 Feb 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Those are nicknames? Thanks.
What is Sam Harris' real name?
Mouse Pecker.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213455 Feb 20, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Few people can twist history as well as you. Hitler never read Darwin - he read Herbert Spencer. That's Social Darwinism, not Darwinism. Darwin was quite against the Social Darwinists. But we both know you're going to ignore that and push your attack on Darwin because of your strange religious bias against evolution. I'm not surprised someone of your weak mental stature doesn't understand the difference, but the "Social" there is quite meaningful.
Hola! How's life?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213456 Feb 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You are proven more honest than Darwin's Step n' Fetch.
The mind of the Topix Atheist! is truly an amazingly retarded thing.

It's funny how they pound on any and every person of religion for even the smallest white lie, but when one of their own do it they remain eerily silent.

That's their morality.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213457 Feb 20, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Not reaching at all. It follows directly from your assumptions about this God character. According to you he created ALL creatures...even the ones that cause terrible diseases. And if he did, then he deserves the blame for the misery they cause.
Your analogy is idiotic, merely an attempt at deflection.
Then Henry Ford is to blame for all automobile-related deaths.

Loggers and lumber mills are responsible for those who jump off wooden buildings.

Hostess is responsible for all your friends who go insane trying to finish eating an infinite donut.

You are the dumbest poster on Topix. And I'm including in that Yellowdog, Christinemc^2, and that guy who said dinosaurs had no DNA.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213458 Feb 20, 2014
Six_of_One wrote:
This is a repulsive post and a horrible way to speak. Have you ever watched someone die from AIDS? A straight person? A child? You are scum.
You don't have a sister named 7 of 9, do you?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes I have. You can thank the sexually immoral for that.
I thought that your god made AIDS in its wrath? I think that you should thank it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213459 Feb 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
No, we do not dismiss accurate information from any source.
You just wrote you reject Christian apologetics websites for reasons stated here.

----------

Those of us with any familiarity with Christian apologetics sites have long since given up looking to them for reliable information. Most skeptics reject Christian apologists because we are familiar by now with their motives, ethics, and tactics.

Reputation and past performance matter. If you can only find something on a Christian site, it's likely faith based, meaning unsupported by evidence, and therefore not convincing to a rational skeptic.

If you want to cite a reference to an audience that isn't all faith based thinkers, choose one that isn't Christian. There is nothing known only to Christians, meaning that anything true on a Christian apologetics web site was imported from a secular site. Please link to that if you want your reference to be taken seriously.

----------

Now you are doing a flip flop.

The reader has to decide if the information is accurate.
Accurate information is not reader dependent. What part about that are you not getting?
Knowing the standards and history of the source is a good place to start.
As I said, reputation matters.
The article in question was written by a college professor from Texas as I recall.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/103...

Mark Regnerus is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin.- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/103...
----------

That is where you got my quote from indicating the source not mattering if the info is correct. Rosa dismissed the article on page 10240 Post 213194. as a part of Christian apologetics.
I don't call anything faith based except ideas believed without sufficient support, which are generally ideas about the supernatural.
Faith is anything that is trusted.
I have concluded that Christian apoligetics sites are unreliable based on the evidence of prior experience. You seem to trust them on faith.
The article was by a college professor writing within his field. It was not vindictive and if you have problems with the article then the proper thing to do is reference them and explain why you disagree. But to outright dismiss like Rosa did and you did by extension because it has some Christian connection is prejudice pure and simple. Which is fine. You need to take responsibility for what you write and not do flip flops or introduce alien material as justification.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#213460 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Mouse Pecker.
It figures.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213461 Feb 20, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
No, we do not dismiss accurate information from any source. The reader has to decide if the information is accurate. Knowing the standards and history of the source is a good place to start.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Information being accurate is not dependent on who reads it. It is either accurate or it is inaccurate.
Yeah, I know. Thanks anyway.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213463 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
God doesn't infect anyone with AIDS, people do that on their own accord using their God-given free will.
Don't forget the god-given lethal virus.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
As far as Hell goes, you've been duly warned. You know what to expect and you choose to do nothing about it. You'll send yourself there, God won't.
Then I'm not going. He'd have to send me there to get me there.

This is a real nice religion you have here. I like how it's got you thinking.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213464 Feb 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your only off by hundreds of millions dead.
Missed it by () that much.
Buck, inasmuch as you rarely make grammatical errors, I'll give you a pass on this one.

But watch you'reself.

And don't Get Smart with me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213465 Feb 20, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
I wrote the source does not matter is the info is correct. You refuted which was probably knee jerk. Now you appear to introduce an alien concept to try and save face. Out of time.
I'm satisfied. If you are as well, let's move on.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213466 Feb 20, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
*Data
*7 of 9

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213467 Feb 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't say it was God's punishment.
Another Dogwooden Head rebuttal to a point not made.
Nice work.
Now you may proceed to make up something I said here and then argue with it.
Buck/Redneck tag team?

You can do better.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#213468 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
You can blame the sexually immoral for knowingly spreading the virus....
......
Hep C is not a sexually transmitted virus you fucktard.

You are still a lying POS like the rest of the Christ-stains here.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213469 Feb 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are caught in 3 lies in the past 20 minutes.
Nice work.
Where's Dave, Buck?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213470 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
*Picard
Dammit!

[I tied mine in with a previous post, though]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213471 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I believe that God created AIDS.
And beset humanity with it. That deserves the death penalty if anything does..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#213472 Feb 20, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You can blame the sexually immoral for knowingly spreading the virus. Then you can blame the medical industry that messed up. God did neither of those. So you can't blame the God you claim not to believe exists...

You can't make this god look good. You can only make yourself look bad trying.

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) 6 hr Darsey 95,384
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 18 hr Elganned 174
man Mon blacklagoon 3 1
The atheists mind Jun 15 Elganned 63
Why creation? Jun 14 Elganned 55
News Atheism and Wonder Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 50
A question for Christians... Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 115