Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255533 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.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#215130 Feb 25, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text> You could be right, I've considered that, esp, the amalgam idea. i think there's some truth there in the final product. Rabbi Hillel comes to mind as one source. I don't have an emotional investment in the idea of this man being a singular figure so it's all abstract historical discussion to me.
That said, I would suggest again that charismatic speakers, healers, magicians, misanthropes, gadflies, rebels, the whole gamut, were a dime a baker's dozen in Palestine and environs. What else did they have for amusement? Part of Mark Twain's career is based in showing how easily the rubes can be swayed, wowed, bored, and pissed off, lather, rinse repeat ad infinitum. Doesn't get every actor a mention in Variety. How much more so in that god-blasted landscape with no Netflix?
So, this particular guy Jesus only became a big deal after the fact, after his core followers refused to "move on" to the next great thing, and revered his memory, beginning among themselves to spin yarns to liven the boredom of laying low all the time, at the same time creating that unity of shared delusions that intense persecution engenders. Reading James, it's doubtful the core disciples were totally on board with the whole resurrection gag. That's all to come. Along comes Saul/Paul, who falls off his ass, bumps his head, and shazam! For some unknown reason, he wants to horn in on the act, a great rivalry develops, Paul spins up his own mixtape of Jesus' Greatest Hits, and is far more energetic at selling it. It's only NOW this Jesus aka the Christ is worth a mention in the local gazette.
The rest is history. Kinda.
I dunno. Could be, is all I'm sayin'. >shrug< It doesn't add or take away anything in the larger discussion of authenticity, veracity, or authority of fanciful "gospels" to allow a guy very likely lived down underneath all that crusted legend.
The man behind the curtain; Wizard of Oz

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#215131 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
A rate is a measurement, a quantity OR a frequency.
To say "California has the highest murder rate by firearm than any or state" is a 100% thing to say.
What is the significance of that statement?

What are you trying to convince us of?

This is where you drop the ball, immediately after repeating something you've read.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
To say "Washington, DC has the highest murder rate per capita by firearm" is another true sentence.
So?

If you want to be relevant, produce the numbers AND an explanation congruent with statistical theory.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#215132 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I just find it amusing when a lesbian says she had sex with a woman.
Although two women can be sexual with each other, they can't have sex.
Oral and finger play isn't sex.
It is sex.

It isn't vaginal penetration with a penis.

Sex is the greater category of acts that achieve sexual gratification, not one specific act out of hundreds.

Your definition is outdated, culturally preferential, and insensitive. In its place, we will define sex in a way that is inclusive, fair, and logical.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#215133 Feb 25, 2014
River Tam wrote:
He doesn't seem to know what sex is either.
I think he should Ask Alexyss.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215134 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Louisiana does not have the highest murder rate by firearm, California does. In 2011, LA had 402 murders by firearm, CA had 1,220. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in... You don't know that actual gun ownership rates. People who have illegal guns don't register them...
The murder rates in California and Louisiana need to be given as a ratio of murders per capita (or per 100,000) to be useful to ascertain the gun murder rate, meaning that the absolute murder counts need to be divided by the state's populations.

In the 2010 census, California had 37,253,956 people and Louisiana 4,533,372. Assuming that the populations of the two states were roughly similar the next year, that means that Californians experienced murders by firearm at a rate of about 1220 / 372.5 x 100,000 = 3.28 per 100.000 population, and in Louisiana, there were about 402 / 45.33 x 100.000 = 8.87 murders by firearm per 100.000 population - somewhere between double and triple (270%) the murder rate. Any given Louisianan was almost three times as likely to be gunned down.

This is the same mistake you made using absolute numbers of American Christians instead of percentage of the total. It's the percentage that determines the church's political and social clout. When Christians are outnumbered by non-Christians, and their values will stop determining elections, laws, and policies, and will no longer define the majority. opinion wherever they are different from those of the non-Christians.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215135 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You said Catcher contributes and implied that I don't.
I doubt it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Pretty good universal coverage, eh?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You don't have that. Did you want it? Did you support the notion?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, I didn't support Obamacare and I still don't support Obamacare.
Not what I asked.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215136 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Clearly you missed the entire point of the Bible.
Nope. You did.

I understand what the bible is for, and avoided that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215137 Feb 25, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
http://m.blogs.christianpost.c om/biblical-spirituality/scien tific-studies-on-prayer-does-p rayer-really-work-13400/
Don't see "christianpost" and ignore it. That's an amalgamated list of reports of medical doctors on the efficacy of prayer.
I ignored your link after I saw that none of the page's claims , and with cause as explained previously. Find the original research. I need to look at the study designs. In my experience,including my recent experience on this thread, Christians shouldn't be trusted with statistics.

Also, they listed the same data multiple times, such as two entries for "Ladies' Home Journal - December 2004 ... "The Healing Power of Prayer" by Kathryn Casey" and three for "The Healing Power of Prayer - November 29, 1998 by Parker Lee Nash, Staff Writer." After awhile, you just stop trusting the people generating such pages.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215138 Feb 25, 2014
"I ignored your link after I saw that none of the page's claims , and with cause as explained previously"

should read

"I ignored your link after I saw that none of the page's claims COULD BE CONFIRMED, and with cause as explained previously"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215139 Feb 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're a flaming homophobe. What do you think of this?:
[1] "Republican Gov. Jan Brewer faced intensifying pressure Monday from CEOs, politicians in Washington and state lawmakers in her own party to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Senate Bill 1062 has set off a political firestorm since the Arizona Legislature passed it last week, with critics denouncing the measure as blatantly discriminatory and embarrassing to the state."
http://news.yahoo.com/pressure-mounts-over-ar...
[2] "If Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer allows a controversial bill letting businesses refuse to serve gay customers to become law, the NFL should consider moving the 2015 Super Bowl, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell said Monday.“If they pass this law and if she signs it, it would seem to me that the NFL may be looking, or should be looking, to move the Super Bowl out of that state” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/jack-ma...
People seem to be increasingly disgusted by your religion's scapegoating of gays. The church would love to continue to bully them, but apparently, it's losing the cachet necessary to be effective at doing so. Pushing the church out of the public sphere and limiting its influence only to those who choose to submit to it will be a great victory for those who prefer compassion, human decency, and justice to what the church offers instead.
sancho panza wrote:
From your link: "The legislation, SB 1062, would bolster a business owner’s right to defend refusing service to someone when the owner believes doing so would violate their the practice and observance of religion. Supporters call it a "religious freedom" bill."

For anybody who thinks that their religious liberties are being threatened by having to serve cake to gays, I have a quiz (next post):

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215140 Feb 25, 2014
"How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-hea...

Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215141 Feb 25, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Historians conclude by majority consensus Jesus existed . baptised by John , and killed via Pilate caring about majority . Live with it.
No, you live with it.

Besides, when did you start caring about majority consensus? You make your decisions by faith. Does majority consensus affect your opinion when it contradicts your faith based preference? No. So why are you asking others to respect it here? Why are you offering an argument that you wouldn't accept?

Don't bother answering. It was just a rhetorical question. We're all familiar with faith and the way it distorts objectivity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215142 Feb 25, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Shoveled their drive. Your scoffing only exposes the atheistic moral depth. Smile.
You shoveled their drive? LOL. You're such a prince.

And you have no business discussing morality. Your character is in the gutter.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215143 Feb 25, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You are lying. You extolled a culture with religion removed.
"Removed" is your word. Mine were "disempowered such that [the church] cannot impose its values on unbeliever"
KiMare wrote:
We both express what our belief systems create every time we speak or act.
Something has left you intellectually weak, with personality and character defects. You also come off as quite insane.
KiMare wrote:
This exchange is an example of which belief system is honest and deals realistically with reality. Our behavior Sunday revealed how the rubber meets the road.
Smile.
Your lack of insight is spectacular.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215144 Feb 25, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
lbr's "most historians" include mostly Christian historians, who of course would insist on the historicity of Jesus. If he weren't historic, then their whole religion falls apart. While personally I think there was a person named Jesus that was a minor religious leader, I also think that the stories about him became completely overblown. This was likely due to the influence of other religious myths (including Mythra) floating around the Middle East at the time. This would be similar to Daniel Boone, who WAS a real person, having a story about him killing a grizzly with his bare hands. The man was real, but the story myth. Richard Carrier, who has written extensively about the historicity of Jesus, does make a good case that no real Jesus existed. His arguments aren't conclusive, but do present some good food for thought. Here is a talk he presented to a humanist group on the subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XORm2QtR-osXX
Thanks for the link

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#215145 Feb 25, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the link
You are welcome.

I notice that Buck said Carrier is wrong because Carrier is a humanist. Can you say "ad hominem"?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#215146 Feb 26, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>wrong again wanna be expert. A quick research found no less that 97 scholars who highly doubt the existence of Jesus, so you proclaiming that "virtually ALL" modern scholars of antiquity agree on Jesus's existence is false. Here's a partial list of those who DONOT agree on the existence of Jesus:
1.) Michael Kolopoulos 1995
2.) Gerd Ludemann 1998 (25 years of study pointed to Paul, not Jesus who started Christianity)
Ludeman denies resurrection not historicity. Jesus would have to exist if resurrection is the point of contention.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/visions-of-jes...
3.) Valvar Ellegard 1999
4.) Earl Doherty 1999
Doherty not a scholar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty
Doherty has stated he has a bachelor's degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages,[2] but no completed advanced degrees.[3][4][5] His undergraduate studies gave him knowledge of Greek and Latin, to which he has added a basic knowledge of Hebrew and Syriac.[5]
5.) Harold Liedner 2000
6.) Jay Raskin 2006
7.) Thomas Thompson 2006
8.) Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit 2006
9.) Rosen Viklund 2008
10.) Richard Carrier 2012
Thompson and Carrier non tenured. Thompson painting houses last i heard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...

But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
----------

I don't have time. You need to do better than to throw out a bunch of names. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with this rank stupidity for the time being.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#215147 Feb 26, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is that while you found that info, you also found much more that contradicted the conclusion you suggest.
Didn't you.
This is just another example of the depravity your belief system breeds.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-pra...
A moral person would be ashamed. A 'rational atheist' never is.
Smile.
A Christian person should be ashamed for lying.

For the past 30 years, Harvard scientist Herbert Benson, MD, has conducted his own studies on prayer. He focuses specifically on meditation, the Buddhist form of prayer, to understand how mind affects body. All forms of prayer, he says, evoke a relaxation response that quells stress, quiets the body, and promotes healing.

Prayer involves repetition -- of sounds, words -- and therein lies its healing effects, says Benson. "For Buddhists, prayer is meditation. For Catholics, it's the rosary. For Jews, it's called dovening. For Protestants, it's centering prayer. Every single religion has its own way of doing it."

Benson has documented on MRI brain scans the physical changes that take place in the body when someone meditates. When combined with recent research from the University of Pennsylvania, what emerges is a picture of complex brain activity:

Have you turned to Budda?

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#215148 Feb 26, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I would not. I would call it third base. Still cheating, still atrocious, still wrong, still worthy of divorce, but not sex.
Lol, what? If you jerk me off that means we've had sex?!
Absolutely, yes

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215149 Feb 26, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Nice post IANS!
Thanks

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) 3 min renee 35,425
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 52 min Patrick 14,964
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr thetruth 4,488
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr thetruth 23,873
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 2 hr thetruth 42
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr woodtick57 20,174
News a€‹GORMAN: Science is a religion 6 hr thetruth 3
More from around the web