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.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#231662 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you please make your responses longer and more inane?
I'm pulling 6 more months of home incarceration, and I have all this time on my hands.
I think if I could read a couple more of these gems you write, I would be driven to hack-sawing my ankle bracelet off - leg and all.
Who's paying for your house arrest? I've read that the monitoring fee can reach $600 per month plus. Now that I'm thinking about it, how in the hell do you generate any income? For someone whose hobby is perpetual incarceration, it appears you live fairly well. How do you pay your monthly expenses?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#231663 Jul 2, 2014
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's paying for your house arrest? I've read that the monitoring fee can reach $600 per month plus. Now that I'm thinking about it, how in the hell do you generate any income? For someone whose hobby is perpetual incarceration, it appears you live fairly well. How do you pay your monthly expenses?
He sells his body to grandmothers.

Since: Jul 14

San Jose, CA

#231664 Jul 2, 2014
Add great playmakers like Silva, speed merchants like Pedro who can score and newly nationalized Diego Costa and in-form Llorente and this team is very threatening. The strikers are good on paper, but they have trouble playing with a real number nine and Costa's recent debut wasn't overly promising, which is why the position is listed as a trouble area. Spain not as quick or tricky as http://www.mmoggg.com/ Brazil, which makes them a little less effective in game, similar to how Barcelona's style doesn't translate as well. The defense is top notch (Ramos is a key player in the sense that he also needs to control himself, as he's a yellow card magnet) and as with Real Madrid, Casillas makes superhuman saves in FIFA 14.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#231665 Jul 2, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He sells his body to grandmothers.
I wonder if they leave him doilies as a tip?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#231666 Jul 2, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "original site" means nothing. You quote from a tertiary source - that means you didn't read even the secondary source, so you're quote is out of context. You don't have the faintest clue as to what the secondary source (Katz) said about the primary source. I do, since I've read the book. He put the source into social and historical context. Additionally, you completely ignored the ethnography (Whitehead) of North American Native groups that I posted to you, which goes into much more detail than Katz.
So, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You found a paragraph on the issue, without explanation or interpretation, and are pretending you know something. Well done.
2. For some reason, you're failing to understand what "cultural context" means. Additionally, you're failing to understand how a 21st century English word, used in America to describe contemporary sex, gender and sexuality cannot be applied to non-English, non-Western, non-European cultural groups that existed in the past.
Since I've explained this repeatedly to you, either I'm doing a poor job of explaining or you simply cannot understand. You are being a) anachronistic and b) expressing naive realism. Look those words up.
3. The literal translation of which word? Each cultural group had a different word to describe their 3rd and 4th genders. Additionally, English only recently contains words to describe genders not of 'man' and 'woman'- and, since English speaking culture does gender in a binary, the only way it can make sense of non-binary genders is using descriptors that place them in the middle of two somehow.
So, even if you're correct here, which I have yet to see, it completely and utterly makes sense that English would use a word that denotes "between our two genders" like man-woman. However, that would not and possibly could not express how Native Americans would have thought of their third and fourth genders.
Again, read Whitehead, Katz in his entirety, Foucault and Greenberg. I can supply you with endless sources on this topic.
4. Sex, gender, sexuality, and sexual identity are done differently in different cultures. They are, in the words of one anthropologist, "non-translatable." You are totally incorrect, both in your naive critique of presuming that your culture's version of sexuality is a human universal (it's not) and your naive critique of my writing.
Your culture's sexuality is not a human universal. There were no homosexuals in Native American cultures. Homosexuals are a 20th century Western cultural sexual identity. People who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, even in Western culture, prior to the 19th centuries were not homosexuals.
You, naively assuming that all other cultures are repeating your worldview, your "ways of knowing gender," will fail to understand this.
Had you actually read Katz you'd already understand this.
Honey, you can gay twirl all you want.

I picked one of numerous accounts that depict horrific treatment of LGBT's in the Indian culture. Are you really trying to deny abuse because it was accepted behavior in other cultures???

Even more idiotic, you are trying to assert that a culture's primitive understanding of orientation overrules the scientific understanding of orientation we now know. The hilarious thing is, you turn around and want to use the Indian expression as justification for modern expression of sexuality.

And you still are trying to avoid the original issue, the claim that American Indians held a high view of universally of LGBTs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#231667 Jul 2, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What is really funny is that pew have done research into society and homosexuality. It turns out that 60%(up 10% in 5 years) of Americans asked accept that homosexuality should be accepted in America while 33% said that it should not,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-globa...
WhatÂ’s it like to be a member of a shrinking minority?
Where did you get the idea I don't accept homosexuality? I don't even disagree that most homosexuals are born that way. Surprise.

However, calling it normal is a lie. A mating behavior that always fails when exercised in its innate function is defective.

My primary disagreement is equating mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gender couples with marriage.

Your denial of these facts only further establishes your position as Queen Blondie of the 'rational atheist' oxymorons...

Smile.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#231668 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's my ole' buddy.
How 'bout that Supreme Court?
4 justices voted against religious freedom.
...exactly as I would have predicted.
If we could get one more liberal on board, we could have a party and make a bonfire of the Constitution, just dispense with the charade.
You're supposed to read the Supreme Court's decisions right side up.

In my next life, I want to come back as a corporation.

BTW, how are you enjoying the World Cup?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231669 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I'm sorry it falls short of the mental flopsum you imbibe and puke for us.
No, no, you succeeded brilliantly in that regard.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231670 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you please make your responses longer and more inane?
Sure. Is anthropology hard for you?
I'm pulling 6 more months of home incarceration, and I have all this time on my hands.
That sucks. What happened?
I think if I could read a couple more of these gems you write, I would be driven to hack-sawing my ankle bracelet off - leg and all.
I suggest thinking and engaging with the material instead. But, hey, the choice is yours.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231671 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Resistance to homosexual behavior also pre-dates humans.
Why are you atheists so bigoted?
Yeah, it does in some cultures - and some Native American cultures. As I wrote above.

However, calling same sex sexual behavior outside of Western cultural context "homosexuality" is naive.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231672 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Girls have an in-ee and boys have an out-ee.
They are complementary.
It's not my fault.
You also have a prostate. It's also not your fault.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231673 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man. Its hell for both of us.
Smile.
Unless it gives you access to more women!

:)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231674 Jul 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Ask Puck Frick about heirarchies of infinities, Puck is sure they don't exist.
Because god told him so.
<quoted text>
Yup. Polymath tried. DS tried. No point in going there :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231675 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinities do not exist; with or without heirarchies.
You can imagine infinities. You can even imagine heirarchies of infinities.
Great, if that's your thing.
But you should educate yourself enough to know it's an imaginary idea you're imagining.
I can't do everything for you, Tinkling.
It takes a greater fantasy to imagine deities and intelligent design.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231676 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, i am a genetic chimera and a heraphrodite. With three nipples.
Big difference.
Smile.
Hey, it happens. Pay it no attention.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231677 Jul 2, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
yes - the 'cognitive' part that only saw 2 feet in front of me and trusted the 'scientists' with everything else, but they only see 2 feet in front of them too!
it was the blind leading the blind until i got born again!:-)
You don't know enough about science to critique it. So in your case, it's more like the blind looking at the unknown.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231678 Jul 2, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's my ole' buddy.
How 'bout that Supreme Court?
4 justices voted against religious freedom.
...exactly as I would have predicted.
If we could get one more liberal on board, we could have a party and make a bonfire of the Constitution, just dispense with the charade.
Religious freedom?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231679 Jul 2, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
Only atheists can vote against religious freedom, since they are against religion
I believe he's talking about gay marriage. So...he means that the Supreme Court ruled against religious bigotry.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231680 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you can gay twirl all you want.
I picked one of numerous accounts that depict horrific treatment of LGBT's in the Indian culture. Are you really trying to deny abuse because it was accepted behavior in other cultures???
Even more idiotic, you are trying to assert that a culture's primitive understanding of orientation overrules the scientific understanding of orientation we now know. The hilarious thing is, you turn around and want to use the Indian expression as justification for modern expression of sexuality.
And you still are trying to avoid the original issue, the claim that American Indians held a high view of universally of LGBTs.
1. Naive realism = you
2. It was not accepted in some cultures, and accepted in others
3. Science deems same sex sexual behavior normal in humans and primates, so you're incorrect here
4. Calling Native American cultures "primitive" is so ignorant, it's hard to know where to lay into you on that one
5. Oh. I've already stated that different Native American groups treated their in between genders differently. That was in the direct quote from the research article I posted.
6. There were no LGBTs in Native American cultures. This is you being naive again.

For the 4th time, Native American cultures were not failed Western cultures. They had very different ideas of sex, gender, sexuality, masculinity and femininity than you do. If you can't understand that, you're never going to understand humanity.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#231681 Jul 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the idea I don't accept homosexuality? I don't even disagree that most homosexuals are born that way. Surprise.
However, calling it normal is a lie. A mating behavior that always fails when exercised in its innate function is defective.
My primary disagreement is equating mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gender couples with marriage.
Your denial of these facts only further establishes your position as Queen Blondie of the 'rational atheist' oxymorons...
Smile.
Same sex sexual behavior is found in almost all primate species - it predates humans.

It didn't evolve "for" reproduction. That's about the most ridiculous argument ever made, full of Western bias and shows a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Why are we discussing this here and not on the "homosexuality is a sin" thread?

What's your obsession with homosexuality anyways?

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 Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 1 hr superwilly 181
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Into The Night 95,399
Why creation? 13 hr Elganned 60
Atheism saved me Wed Amused 27
man Jun 18 blacklagoon 3 1
The atheists mind Jun 15 Elganned 63
News Atheism and Wonder Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 50