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.

IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221822 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So this guy really has four arms?
http://www.google.com/imgres...
"photographs did not lie"
I stand by my statement despite your childish attempt at deflection. Just admit you were wrong already. Sheez.

You really should take a break from Topix and write a screenplay. After all, you claimed writers have run out of ideas. Have at it. Show me what you've got, or, is it safer to criticize others and realize you have no fresh ideas of your own.

By the way, cropping the 'the' from my statement changes its meaning and points to further dishonesty on your part. Is it really so necessary to lie for Dear Sky Leader. Apparently that guy has four hands and proved it. Sucks to be you.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221823 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Two of those links were "media" articles, the other two looked like invitations, complete with pricing and everything. None of them said which churches promote this.
And now you say the numbers of Christians that practice daddy daughter kidding is "staggering", but you've yet to identify ONE church that promotes it.
Imagine that.
Yes, I did. Both are attached to ministries, ergo, churches. You are still doing the organ grinder monkey Riverdance. I was hoping for some variety. Just admit you were wrong, again. It's okay. All the honest witnesses to this exchange already know you are wrong and all the dishonest witnesses are unimportant.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#221824 Mar 27, 2014
I have seen enough Riverdancing and Crick without a canoe for one day. Lying for Jesus! Hallelujah!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221825 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>It's an attempt to dismiss modern science by attaching it to a historical figure. Darwin is to evolution as Bell is to the cell phone.
Wrong. The term is used frequently by pro-Darwinian scientists.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221826 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>I fulfilled it. All four links pointed to ministries, ergo, churches. You can backpedal all you want, but you are just looking even more foolish. Is it that difficult to admit that you were wrong and that your immoral dogma is used for nefarious purposes throughout this land and that it does actual, quantitative, qualitative harm?
Nowhere did I write that all Christians practice it, though the numbers are staggering. You are really very dishonest.
"Churches aren't Churches." - RR

What a fuckinloon!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221827 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
I have seen enough Riverdancing and Crick without a canoe for one day. Lying for Jesus! Hallelujah!
Finally.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221828 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it was just like when the 'Baggers claimed Bush's "War on Terrierism" stopped further attacks. Not only was it not true, but it was the Elmer Fudd defense. What do you need an elephant gun. Their ain't no elephants around here. See how good it works!
Exactly.

"No one has ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the people." ME 2:24

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#221829 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Oh. Gott mitt uns means all the Nazis were Christian?

Then "So Help Me God" means that all US military people are Christian.
They wish.

I'm pretty sure that's been taken out of the oath.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221830 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The term is used frequently by pro-Darwinian scientists.
WTF ?

Between you and RR, you almost make a human.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#221831 Mar 27, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
are you both antichrist AND rascist? you must be kkk or black panther....
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That should also tell you that your intolerant bias against Christians holds no water.
waaasssuuup wrote:
too bad that you're so bigoted against the people of God or maybe we could be friends:-)
You people are so abused, and so unfairly maligned despite being so loveable. Crying about how others don't respect your religion any more than it respects anything else is a particularly endearing trait.

Somebody call the waaaaaaahmbulance

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#221832 Mar 27, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Justin Beiber.... I wish everyone would just leave her alone.
I thought we Americans are supposed to pick on the Canadians.

Now you are telling us to stop?

Huh?

:o)

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221833 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
They wish.
I'm pretty sure that's been taken out of the oath.
They will claim that "In God we trust" proves the USA is a Christian nation but "God with us" doesn't prove Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.

The usual Chrsthole double standard.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#221834 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The term is used frequently by pro-Darwinian scientists.
I'm using my phone.

Does that make me a Bellist?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221835 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you arguing against claims I didn't make? Religions have to evolve or they become extinct. Simple. Verifiable. Evidential.
It seemed as if you were making the implication that they changed their teaching for survival reasons. In other words you were not just stating a reality but commenting on their intent.

Religion wouldn't inherently be required to change to survive. If anything, the teachings should stay the sane regardless of society otherwise it is simply teaching what people want to hear and not actually its beliefs

However if you are simply stating that when presented with evidence that contradicts an interpretation that something will not survive if it refuses to acknowledge it because the loss if credibility will contribute to its decline then I would agree with that

But short of that, I don't see a need to evolve its teachings. Just like with the Constitution. Sure some things may get tweaked here or there or something added as it really didn't hold an option on it before. But for the most part it is the foundation and will stay constant.

The church itself does not need evolution to survive. It's members on the other hand may have plenty of areas to change how they interpret scripture or how much they feel faith should interact with society. Or make improvements on how it deals with others inside and outside of the church.

Put it this way, truth doesn't need to evolve to survive. So unless there is a reason to question that, then you leave what you believe to be true alone. You can't improve on truth. But people can always improve themselves

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221836 Mar 27, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>You can't even follow your own writing. Your very first sentence was about the number of people that have believed in gods. An argument from popularity. A logical fallacy. You're not very bright.
It was in response to the comment it was more likely all religions were wrong. And I replied just as it is MORE LIKELY that if they are wrong it would be in the specific ownership than there being a higher power.

I never even implied that God must exist because so many people believe it

You either don't understand the argument you are making and what logical fallacy of popularity means or you read my post wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221837 Mar 27, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
They will claim that "In God we trust" proves the USA is a Christian nation but "God with us" doesn't prove Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.
The usual Chrsthole double standard.
Who says that? I never heard anyone say that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221838 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm using my phone.
Does that make me a Bellist?
No. But it might give you Bell's Palsy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221839 Mar 27, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially for lying to and scaring children.
Do some of you realize how silly you make yourselves look when no matter what adult conversation is going on, instead of contributing to it instead you just constantly throw in some comment as if you think people might forget what 'side' you are on

Yes, I remember you are still anti-Christian

Now....any thoughts on whether or not a belief in an after-life might have on deterrence and morality in this life? I personally don't think it makes a big difference for several reasons:

1) People rarely think about the consequences

2) People would still be just as deterred to try to avoid life in prison for example, regardless of whether or not even more punishment could follow in a life to come. Just as people are into immediate gratification, they also tend to only concern themselves with negatives that will occur soon. The take a "I will cross that bridge when I get there" attitude with anything too far off

3) I believe most act according to their own morality and if not that, then public perception and judgement by their peers. Whatever the reasons people are how they are, good or bad, I think they would be that way regardless of if there was an afterlife

But I do think an afterlife justice system would provide more deterrence if anything, not less. And there is still the justice system from man regardless. So even if God forgives someone, they aren't going to want to open themselves up to man's justice just for practical reasons if nothing else.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221840 Mar 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody claimed he speaks for all of science.
Straw man fallacy.
What we have is my assertion that science is not neutral toward god or the supernatural, and I have a prominent spokesman for science backing up my assertion.
We have your assertion to the contrary.
Right. You have his opinion. And he is entitled to it, of course. And no doubt the fact that his opinion aligns with yours makes it all the more compelling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#221841 Mar 27, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I love returning to a really good movie, after not seeing it for a time, and discovering yet new nuances and depths.
Me too

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