Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258047 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

#218356 Mar 11, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. ya, but where are my scarves ??..
I'm 6'3", depending on what liquor store I'm walking out of.

Buck's something like 6'6".

Safe to say, we destroyed the scarves...

Don't worry, you still have Catcher's AMEX card, yes?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218357 Mar 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sense has nothing to do with it.
It's about faith, regardless of sense.
To me, it's all silliness, except for the damage it causes.
Damages?

Now we're talking your language!

Maybe you could litigate some poor widow out of her homestead?

And use it to buy soccer bloomers!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218358 Mar 11, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The Midrash and its function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash , also http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encycl... (1913)/Midrashim
More about slavery in the OT from Judaic Midrash halakha, "VE-eileh ha-mishpatim" (AND these are the statutes). It was a deeper explanation kept by the Rabbi's concerning OT text. An exegesis of the Torah.
Quoting: "Your slaves and maidservants that you shall possess from the nations that surround you, from them you may purchase slaves and maidservants. Also, from the children of the sojourners who reside with you from them you may purchase [slaves], and from their families that live among you that were born in your land.[All these] shall be your permanent possession. You shall will them as inheritance to your children after you as hereditary property; you shall keep them in servitude permanently. However regarding your bretheren, Bnei Yisroel, man over his brother, you must not rule over him to crush him." - Vayikra 25:39-46
Commentary: A non-Jewish servant, however, can be passed on to descendants through inheritance! The possession of a non-Jewish slave is eternal. But note another difference: A Jewish slave may not be subjected to “hard labor”(b’farech); a non-Jewish slave has no such condition. Seemingly, a non-Jewish slave may be worked to the bone with the most menial of work.
As mentioned above, a Jewish servant must be released after six years of work. Not so, however, is the case for a non-Jewish slave.
How are we supposed to understand that they are kept forever? How are we to allow hard labor for someone who was purchased like property? How can we understand the purchase of another human being at all?
The institution of slavery represents a blurring of the line dividing human personhood from property. This blurring is reflected clearly in some of the laws recorded in the parasha (Note that I am treating the institution of slavery in toto, without reference to the important distinction between Hebrew slaves and Canaanite slaves, as in Vayikra 25:39-46):
(a) When a master strikes his slave and the slave subsequently dies (after 24-48 hours), the master is exempt from punishment "because he is his property" (21:21-22. Rashbam: "and the law allows him to strike him in order to chastise him.")
(b) An ox that gores and kills a slave subjects its owner only to a 30-shekel fine and not to "ransom money" designed to redeem the master from a death penalty (21:29-32).
(c) The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master (21:4). http://www.yu.edu/ http://www.slideshare.net/steiny100/jewish-sl...
"the children will belong to the master"
I'm disgusted, are you?
Biblical verse that relate directly to the Midrash exegesis.
Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:1-4, Exodus 21:7, Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:16, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Numbers 31:28-47, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, 2 Samuel 9:10
The NT didn't abolish slavery or change anything stated in the OT, it only stated that all people, slave, Gentile etc., were open to following the NT/OT - religion. Mark 14:66, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 3:11,1 Timothy 6:1-2
There are more verses in the OT/NT that speak of slavery in the sense that it was natural, and condoned by the deity.
Good post, and thanks. I appreciate all of your research. I have saved this intact in my records, now about 378 pages of quotes, lists, and links.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#218359 Mar 11, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about slaves, not free men. Another Israelite. You keep changing what you think a slave is so you can win the argument. The bible condones slavery, indenture, but wont let you capture a neighbor and make a slave of him. We all agree on that part.
But you simply refuse to admit that there were bought and sold slaves, that were the property of the slave master. He could buy him, sell him, beat him, keep his children and kill him if necessary. All condoned by the bible.
RR thinks that law still applies to 'monkeys'.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218360 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry. The bible claims that its content was authored by a deity.{SNIP}
No it doesn't.

Apology accepted.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218361 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Which river would that be, goofy?
Oh, wait.
The *Ohio* river.
Yeah. The one Pittsburgh pipes their shit into, and Ohio drinks it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218362 Mar 11, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
We were talking about slaves, not free men. Another Israelite. You keep changing what you think a slave is so you can win the argument. The bible condones slavery, indenture, but wont let you capture a neighbor and make a slave of him. We all agree on that part.
Then you should also agree that most of the slavery in history goes against Biblical teachings.
But you simply refuse to admit that there were bought and sold slaves, that were the property of the slave master.
I have never denied that. Ever.
He could buy him, sell him, beat him, keep his children and kill him if necessary. All condoned by the bible.
Yup. And in those days, slavery was common practice.

And those Scriptures are not intended for Christians to follow, they're intended to be seen as history.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218363 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Here's your irreducible complexity of a mousetrap argument deconstructed in three minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Q4DJ3Uf-5mQXX
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Negative. He removed a few pieces of the mousetrap and it's no longer a mousetrap. It's designed purpose was made impossible. Try again.
Why? You didn't bother looking at the link.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Incidentally, this is why the argument for irreducible complexity doesn't win converts from the evidence based community. Just because you can't imagine functionality in less complex forms doesn't mean that they can't have function, perhaps of a very different nature than the larger mechanism, or that this function couldn't have been selected by nature by virtue of it conferring a competitive advantage.

You really can't look at a natural mechanism and declare it irreducibly complex just because you can't imagine a slightly less complex mechanism with functionality. Many systems have been offered as examples of irreducible complexity only to have it shown that there was functionality in slightly less complex systems. Famous examples apart from the mousetrap include the flagellar motor on some microorganisms, the coagulation cascade, and the eye.

Also, consider this arch:
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/phd_research/Lan...

You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down. Does this mean that it was intelligently designed and constructed?
< sound of crickets chirping >
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218364 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Damages?
Now we're talking your language!
Maybe you could litigate some poor widow out of her homestead?
And use it to buy soccer bloomers!
He didn't write "damages". He wrote "damage".

You must be thinking about that '82 claim involving your double-wide, huh?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#218365 Mar 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sense has nothing to do with it.
It's about faith, regardless of sense.
To me, it's all silliness, except for the damage it causes.
Even as a theist, I have to admit that religion has caused (or been used as an excuse to cause) more harm than good in the world.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218366 Mar 11, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
If Jesus said such a thing it was more likely (as a Jew) that he said "I come to obey the Torah, not abolish it." or "I have come to fulfill the Prophets, not to abolish the Torah."
Ya but He didn't say that.

And no purfesir of University gets to rewrite it.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218367 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. The one Pittsburgh pipes their shit into, and Ohio drinks it.
Flows right into Kentucky, dummy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218368 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Sorry. The bible claims that its content was authored by a deity. Writing in the sense of authorship doesn't mean putting pen to paper or papyrus. It means authoring. It doesn't matter if the bible was dictated, it only matters whose words they were. Milton, who was blind, dictated his works to his daughter. His books were written by Milton, meaning authored, and written down by his daughter, meaning transcribed.
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - II Peter 1:20-21 NIV
Your own bible contradicts you.
Your defense is the faith based dance of verbal sophistry. We see it every day on these threads, as with the fulfilled versus abolished matter. When you are simply wrong, have painted yourself into a corner, and are shown to have done so, your only choices are to choose the conclusion supported by the evidence and reason, or to go on defending your faith based preferences with tortured apologetics that betray the effeteness of your argument.
But it's an improvement over just bellying up.
"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense”- Edward Abbey
You probably won't think this answer is much better but to be specific, the OT is said to have been written by God putting the words in the author's mouth

The New Testament, half the translations for 2Timothy 2:13 say God-breathed and the other half sat scripture is God-inspired

Normally the vast majority of translations will say the same thing or two words with the same meaning. This particular case does kinda fall into a cattagiry I think you think exists a lot more than it does but it does exist and that is where scripture can support two different views. It may not in actuality and if I was an expert in language I could probably say which translation is more likely accurate but I have no clue. In fact I may try to research that verse as I have known about this for a while

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218369 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm 6'3", depending on what liquor store I'm walking out of.
Buck's something like 6'6".
Safe to say, we destroyed the scarves...
Don't worry, you still have Catcher's AMEX card, yes?
I'm right at 6'8. I call it 6'7 just because I'm so modest.

The boy is 7'2". 17 years old. Signed with Purdue. It's not the SEC, but at least it's not in Ohio.

http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218370 Mar 11, 2014
Ians

I'd add I personally think its inspired or why the need for other authors or why let Peter allow Silus to help him write the first book as even many authors needed scribes but gonna look into it

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218371 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Flows right into Kentucky, dummy.
But only after you have drunk Pittsburgh's shit out of it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218372 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't write "damages". He wrote "damage".
You must be thinking about that '82 claim involving your double-wide, huh?
Your wife seemed to like my double-wide.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218373 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But only after you have drunk Pittsburgh's shit out of it.
Doesn't flow past Columbus, fool.

Those Kentucky schools need some improvement, huh?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218374 Mar 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> **PORTIONS SNIPPED**Slaves could complain against their masters and masters were accountable to God for their treatment of their slaves.
.. hence, like in heaven, a religious system of hierarchy developed, right? Slaves obey your masters, women obey your husbands, kings obey God ..

.. what happens to the creatures on the low end of the totem pole, say the frog or the butterfly? Who must they obey? Or, do they have free will ??

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218375 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, that's IANS' idea, that the RCC produces pedophiles.
Pretty retarded...
I think he is too convinced there is some sort of central coordinated cultural ideology and message that all churches agree to perpetuate.

As we know it is much more individual than that. Even the RCC that will pretty much control that what is being taught is consistent with cannon, anything taught outside of scripture is pretty much the personal opinion of the priest

Still not sure how he thinks the church somehow creates deviant behavior but I'd imagine it is somehow connected to the overall idea that bad things are being funneled through the faith into society. In this case I honestly don't even follow the rationale

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min River Tam 23,590
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
What are the best arguments against religion? 3 hr IB DaMann 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr IB DaMann 5,720
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 4 hr Scaritual 92
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 11 hr IB DaMann 7
More from around the web