Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247447 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#219990 Mar 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I agree by your own statements you are a lying bastard.
How's that?
You just can't help yourself, can you? You are compelled to lie.

“It's time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

The South Pole

#219991 Mar 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
Versus the FLAMING non-gay homosexual?
Gay still does mean "light-hearted and carefree", you know. Just like my father insisted it did.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/...

A homosexual whose boyfriend left him would hardly be too happy or light-hearted.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#219992 Mar 17, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>What I ignored was you, dumb fellator. Mostly because your whiny little rants aren't worth the trouble.

I was referring to that KiHorsesAss, who is too busy attacking everyone to notice I mentioned a young girl molested by a pedophile murderer, protected by another pastor. But it's all about YOU, self-centred little prat. As for the rest of your tantrum, save it to run crying to Mummy. Get her to change your nappy while you're at it.

Here's the article again. Ignore it to fixate on yourself again I bet, fundie f**kwit.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland...
I wondered if you were even talking about or to Skumbucket. Didn't think so.
Poor, persecuted lil chook.

Hey Rosa :-)

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#219993 Mar 17, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>Gay still does mean "light-hearted and carefree", you know. Just like my father insisted it did.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/...

A homosexual whose boyfriend left him would hardly be too happy or light-hearted.
http://youtu.be/9Pq8TFptKR4

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219994 Mar 18, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And you have a blind faith in whatever a science magazine spits out, don't ya?

What researchers? What are their credentials? Do they have an agenda? Was their funding dependent of "finding" this new evidence? Where's the proof that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a second? Who conducted those tests?
You ask none of that. You think it's in a scientific journal, it MUST be true.
Blind faith would be believing that the Genesis creation story is factual because the bible says so. Believing an article in Scientific American is justified. The difference is their track records, which is evidence. Also, the two types of belief are different in their degree. Faith in the bible is not only not justified by evidence (blind), it is absolute. The trust in Scientific American is tentative, supported by reports in other sources, and would disappear if their standards fell.

You probably should stop comparing the two. It never world out well for religious faith.

=========

Notice that another prophecy of science was just confirmed - the second one this decade (the Higgs boson being the first).

When you find something like gravity waves exactly where you expected to find them with devices designed to look precisely where they were predicted by theory to be found, you have evidence that takes you FAR beyond blind faith.

“Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?”- Carl Sagan

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219995 Mar 18, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
Lets say I provide a quote that says "illegal immigration might provide a short term boost to a local economy but in the long run its a leading cause for the crumbling of a society" Now someone might be somewhat intrigued and inclined to take it somewhat at face value. Now what if after I told you I quoted it from a book called "dirty Mexicans - the termites of society". Would you then be more likely to think maybe that bias should have been expected and that perhaps it is a bias and not objective? Now does it mean definitely all their conclusions are wrong? Of course not. But I would tend to take it with a grain of salt P.S. I'm only using Mexicans because I don't know off hand who would be a bigger demo as far as immigrants in the U.S. It literally has no other implication for why I picked that group
I would agree with that certain habits of thought and manners of expression are reliable indicators that the source is tendentious and therefore not to be trusted even though it is possible that it got it right. We'd both rather see the same thing coming from a trusted source.

I've been making precisely that argument against apologetics sites, and why I tend to reject the opinions of people like Scott Lively and Bart Ehrman. Their writing tries to lead the reader to certain conclusions not with evidence and reason alone, but also with emotional appeals and innuendo.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219996 Mar 18, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If there was evidence, there's be no reason to believe.
LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219997 Mar 18, 2014
Did you ever answer my question about what you think faith and your religion have done for you with regard to your intellect, character and personality? Has it made you a better person in any of those areas? I see a whiny, angry airhead obsessed with anal sex and aliens who repeats the same insults and taunts in in almost every post, and who is pretty universally disliked and disrespected here. Do you care? It doesn't appear so.
KiMare wrote:
I answer your question with just about every post I make.

arrogant, ignorant,'rational atheist' oxymorons who don't like getting back what you dish out with every post.
.
Smirk.
I guess you do.

You should demand your money back.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#219998 Mar 18, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
I like you when you are polite :-).
.
You know, I had a boyfriend who simply had the hardest timing 'finishing' during sex unless I would turn around and suck on his big toe while he climaxed. I don't know WHY he needed that! My point is that what turns people on is different and individual for each person.
.
For some, the natural urge includes anal sex for others having their big toe sucked during sex. And for others, plain old missionary. I don't believe ANY of these are 'unnatural'- they simply are what make sex fun for different folks. And I am pretty sure my mind won't be changed on this. And I also think I am in the majority of opinion on this as well, but agree to disagree works fine for me.
Why thank you!

Agreeing to disagree is your right.

However. There is a vast difference between believing in God who one cannot see, and believing any expression of sexuality regardless of the physical consequences. In fact, one is called faith, and the other denial.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#219999 Mar 18, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a big difference. Atheists want to KNOW they aren't worshipping something made up and false.They are not willing to accept a religion without reasons to do so.
.
Atheist want to know the truth, theists want to believe in a religion. It is a fundamental personality difference of how people approach religion. Atheists are actually more open-minded because they can understand that they could be wrong about what they think they know - theist do not believe they could ever be wrong about their religion of choice.
You are describing an agnostic. An atheist asserts there are no gods.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220000 Mar 18, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a big difference. Atheists want to KNOW they aren't worshipping something made up and false.They are not willing to accept a religion without reasons to do so.
.
Atheist want to know the truth, theists want to believe in a religion. It is a fundamental personality difference of how people approach religion. Atheists are actually more open-minded because they can understand that they could be wrong about what they think they know - theist do not believe they could ever be wrong about their religion of choice.
Just a side note.

I have more respect for an atheist than I do for a long term agnostic.

There are only three possibilities for an agnostic who is searching:

1. They are not really searching.
2. There is no God.
3. There is a God who does not want to know them.

It should not take long for an honest agnostic to reach a conclusion.

Because the Bible asserts that God will be known by those who seek Him, the only question for the atheist is, have they been honest about their quest?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220001 Mar 18, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why theists can be classed as insane...
... we can only hope there will be a cure one day.
... wait...
... there is: quality education.
Guess which country in World War II had the highest quality education?

Hence the label:'rational theist' oxymoron...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220002 Mar 18, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't it Interesting-with-a-capital-I, that every single time when some scientist or group makes a mistake?
That the mistake is **always** caught by ... other ...**scientists**?
And the mistake is **never**ever** caught by religious people?
I find that Interesting.
A scientist is someone devoted to understanding creation.

A Christian is someone devoted to the Creator.

Some people are both, so your comparison is illogical.

People of faith believe the Bible account of a flood. Scientists 'proved' it impossible, based on known information. Now they see the possibility they did not know everything, and a flood was possible.

Who is right?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220003 Mar 18, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Blind faith would be believing that the Genesis creation story is factual because the bible says so. Believing an article in Scientific American is justified. The difference is their track records, which is evidence. Also, the two types of belief are different in their degree. Faith in the bible is not only not justified by evidence (blind), it is absolute. The trust in Scientific American is tentative, supported by reports in other sources, and would disappear if their standards fell.
You probably should stop comparing the two. It never world out well for religious faith.
=========
Notice that another prophecy of science was just confirmed - the second one this decade (the Higgs boson being the first).
When you find something like gravity waves exactly where you expected to find them with devices designed to look precisely where they were predicted by theory to be found, you have evidence that takes you FAR beyond blind faith.
“Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?”- Carl Sagan
When I was young, the idea that God created the universe out of nothing was viciously mocked by atheists.

Yet Christians combined the creation account of Genesis 1:1,2 with the integral presence of wisdom in Creation described in Proverbs 8. Hardly 'blind' faith.

Yesterday, scientists announced a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory.

http://news.yahoo.com/major-discovery-smoking...

How does a ancient fable get the very first words so right?

I would suggest that you have more of an issue with blind denial than you do with blind faith...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220004 Mar 18, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Did you ever answer my question about what you think faith and your religion have done for you with regard to your intellect, character and personality? Has it made you a better person in any of those areas? I see a whiny, angry airhead obsessed with anal sex and aliens who repeats the same insults and taunts in in almost every post, and who is pretty universally disliked and disrespected here. Do you care? It doesn't appear so.
<quoted text>
I guess you do.
You should demand your money back.
Ah, the selective, censored reasoning of a 'rational atheist' oxymoron...

You should demand your money back.

Smirk.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#220005 Mar 18, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Speak for yourself, butthole. I have a need to believe.
Of course you do.

You're a frightened, little child.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220006 Mar 18, 2014
Calling the Universe and its collective phenomena "creation" is an error from any scientific point of view because it presumes all to be the produce of a creator. Unproven and unnecessary assumptions impede the progress of science which, ideally, begins with as few assumptions as possible and those few only because they are necessary to begin the process of further discovery.

Reliance on untested assumptions narrows the scope of intellectual vision and narrows the field of hypotheses to be tested.to such an extent that the correct theories about whatever question is at hand can be missed entirely.

So call the universe "creation" in poetry or religion. Not in a\science.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#220007 Mar 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Sara has redeemable qualities, kia moag does not.
The only redeeming quality Palin has is being fodder for comedy.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220008 Mar 18, 2014
Even in the face of a Universe proceeding from "nothing," a creator-god remains a hypothesis for which there is no need.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#220009 Mar 18, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Did you know Mother Theresa was also an atheist?

Christine claims the entire Catholic Church is atheist, so that would include MT.
Towards the end, she was.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 50 min Knowledge- 12,676
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 53 min Eagle 12 22
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr Eagle 12 8
Proof of God for the Atheist 3 hr Shizle 126
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 3 hr -Stray Dog 47,807
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr ChristineM 2,353
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 11 hr thetruth 14,715
More from around the web