Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128420 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Like me?
Aw, yer sweet...
Look atcha.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128421 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
This happens at night.
If you talk to Dave real nice, he might give you some softly glowing EMs. It really sets the mood.

;-p

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128422 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You explain it.
To Galileo.
"The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concern...

Read those with a less jaundiced eye.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#128423 Oct 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like when people burn the American Flag, but I don't murder people over it.
That's you. Neither would I. How about a mob of angry, agrieved people?
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

Agreed. Disgusting as it may have been; it cannot justify violence.
Certainly. Violence is never condoned, and I think you misunderstood Christine. We don't condone violence, but we do advocate responsible people making responsible statements.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
If caught, they would or should be punished.
Of course. But had I been the one spouting supremacist BS/anti-semitism to the wrong crowd and got hurt, I will have to take some of the blame.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly disagree with you, here. Feeling an emotions is normal, acting on it, in an unjustified/illegal way, is not.
Not normal or not legal?

Unjustified/illegal reaction to emotion is almost expected. Ever here about violence at sporting events? Road rage? Surely, it is not condoned, but one must remember that people are really easy to incite.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Bad example. Health laws surely are in place for that!
Nope. Not against the customer.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate the KKK, but if I tried to take away their rights and succeed, I can be sure of one thing; One day, someone will take away my rights.
I would love to take away, or worse, the right of the westboro baptist church. My family has a long history of serving our country and those assholes and the wbc deserve to be __________ But I cannot. My service was to ensure that all of us are as free as possible. I cannot justify harming even the lowest scum for exercising their rights.
Then good, you are a human being with empathy. Good for you - really. However, many people lack that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128424 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea how emotion based your logic is.
Science has flourished under Christianity. Almost non-existent under pagan civilizations such as Rome. Explain that.
Counter-example: Greece. Ancient Greeks were both pagan and originated the idea that the universe could be understood in non-mystical ways.

In the Arab world, science flourished until the hard-liners too over around 100 AD and continued in Mongol regions until about 1400 AD.

In Europe under Christianity, science was practically non-existent from about 325AD (when Christianity took over the Roman empire) to about 1350AD (when Nicolas Oresme was active). It didn't really start gaining strength until the power of the Catholic church was challenged by the Protestants, which allowed a few brave people (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler) to challenge the prevailing dogma. Even then, it wasn't until about 1650-1700 that it could be said to start to flourish and it really wasn't until the rise of a secular philosophy that the biggest advances were found.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128425 Oct 8, 2012
Aagh,,,

the hard-liners in the Islamic world took over about *1000 AD*, not 100 AD

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128426 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concern...
Read those with a less jaundiced eye.
Galileo had the ability to make enemies out of friends. Of that, nobody disagrees. On the other hand, the church at the time had a philosophical position that disagreed with the facts (Aristotelian physics) and was perfectly willing to persecute (and kill) those who disagreed. Of course, this was also when its power was being challenged by the rise of Protestantism, so it was, as always, simply attempting to hold onto power and not get a black eye.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128427 Oct 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Counter-example: Greece. Ancient Greeks were both pagan and originated the idea that the universe could be understood in non-mystical ways.
In the Arab world, science flourished until the hard-liners too over around 100 AD and continued in Mongol regions until about 1400 AD.
In Europe under Christianity, science was practically non-existent from about 325AD (when Christianity took over the Roman empire) to about 1350AD (when Nicolas Oresme was active). It didn't really start gaining strength until the power of the Catholic church was challenged by the Protestants, which allowed a few brave people (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler) to challenge the prevailing dogma. Even then, it wasn't until about 1650-1700 that it could be said to start to flourish and it really wasn't until the rise of a secular philosophy that the biggest advances were found.
Greeks had gods.

Rome was being overtaken by those it conquered and educated before the Church took over. The Church collected and collated the educational materials that allowed for the blossoming later. They encouraged education, even if it did have a theological bent to it. Your atheist secularism of today is doing the same thing. The denial of the supernatural as a basis for objective reasoning has become a religion. Even though it is obvious something started this existence. Perhaps those that advocate such have an ego desiring to fancy themselves the pinnacle of evolutionary development.

Those pagan civilizations were basically secular and superficial. Lip service was paid to the gods, but it was more on the order of gaining the favor of lady luck than deep religious thought. The here and now and your place in society was the major concern. Monotheism such as Christianity caused thinking to develop on a much deeper level, which of course lends to thinking about everything on a deeper level. More than this it is just here and exploit it thinking of secularism. Modern secularism is an offshoot of that development. Eliminate the source of that inspiration and you will revert to the simple exploitation again. Exploitation of people as physical assets, not as souls of equal worth.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#128428 Oct 8, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
If you talk to Dave real nice, he might give you some softly glowing EMs. It really sets the mood.
;-p
LOL

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#128429 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Certainly. Violence is never condoned, and I think you misunderstood Christine. We don't condone violence, but we do advocate responsible people making responsible statements.
...
You are correct

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#128430 Oct 8, 2012
National Lampoon's Exodus.

"No shit, 40 years? Check please!"

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128431 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a district congressman for the state of Georgia, right?
I don't think he's going to China any time soon....
There are plenty of scientists out there that don't think evolution happened OR happened the way we think we know it did.
He just happens to be a politician, too.
1. I didn't say he was going to China. I said China is going to be USA in bio-tech.

2. No. There are not plenty of scientists who don't think evolution happened. There aren't any, actually. There might be some old school medical doctors - but these are not scientists.

3. Evolution is the framework theory of all biological sciences. It unifies all biological phenomena under one explanatory model. No scientist doubts that evolution took place and is taking place. There are plenty of scientists who are Christians, but they're not creationists - they know evolution is ongoing.

4. There are something like 5 trained biological scientists who infer Intelligent Design. They still believe evolution happened and is happening, but they add a designer. They are honest about admitting they do not have a formal scientific theory of Intelligent Design, though. If they were critical thinkers, they'd realize they cannot formulate one - science cannot test the untestable.

5. Evolution the observation is directly, objectively testable.

6. Evolution the theory explains evolution the observation. Do you understand points number 5 and 6?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128432 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Like me?
Aw, yer sweet...
We are all ignorant of something. You just happen to be ignorant of science. I'm ignorant about lots of non-evolution stuff.:)
:)
:)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#128433 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct
Of course I am.

I am Double Fine, after all.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128434 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy.
Pay your own damn way.
'nuff said.
Not my place to decide how you people do healthcare, but it's worth pointing out that the USA has the worst health care system out of all developed nations, has the greatest number of un-medicated TB patients, the most people not under medical care and the greatest number of bankruptcies because of a lack of health care.

Also, the people of other developed nations, like the UK and Japan (yaay!) enjoy a longer lifespan that the people of the US, partly b/c of the mess that your health care system is in.

All other developed nations have some sort of government run health care system. Guess in which country health care costs the most of public money? The USA.

Well done! You built the developed nations' worst health care system and it's bankrupting you, because you insist on keeping it in the hands of parasitic HMOs.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128435 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"disciplines"??
Evolution is a discipline now?
Who's the disciple?
Evolution is the theoretical framework for the discipline of biology.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#128436 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
That's you. Neither would I. How about a mob of angry, agrieved people?
There is inciting a riot and there is appeasement, where are we at with the religious far right? If we have to give up our freedoms, then we are appeasing them and that never has worked yet.
Double Fine wrote:
Certainly. Violence is never condoned, and I think you misunderstood Christine. We don't condone violence, but we do advocate responsible people making responsible statements.
OK, what is his responsibility in this matter? Running into a crowded theater yelling, "Fire!", is one thing, making a movie that pokes fun at a myth is other.
Double Fine wrote:
Of course. But had I been the one spouting supremacist BS/anti-semitism to the wrong crowd and got hurt, I will have to take some of the blame.
How much? We have had the KKK march down the streets, of predominately black neighborhoods, without violence. If you do not tolerate the violence, then there will be no violence. If you allow it, give it credibility, then you are just asking for it.

"I strongly disagree with you, here. Feeling an emotions is normal, acting on it, in an unjustified/illegal way, is not."
Double Fine wrote:
Not normal or not legal?
In most places, we don't act out our emotions, if it is illegal to do so. So, it is not normal to act in an unjustified/illegal way.
Double Fine wrote:
Unjustified/illegal reaction to emotion is almost expected. Ever here about violence at sporting events? Road rage? Surely, it is not condoned, but one must remember that people are really easy to incite.
But it is not tolerated. Just because it happens, does not make it normal or even expected.

People are easy to incite! Especially when their actions are not met with society's disapproval.

If I was cheered for every time I smack some drive around for being a dumbass, I would be smacking people all day long! Both society and the law highly frown upon that, so I don't. I want to, but I don't because I want to be a part of society.

Radicals do not want to be a part of our global society and every time we let them get away with the murders and the bombings, we are giving their ways credence and the power to be even more deadly.
Double Fine wrote:
Nope. Not against the customer.
I don't know all the laws, but I am pretty sure that shitting, pissing, spitting, and flicking a boogie at someone, who does not want it, is against the law. We had a guy fart on a cop and he was charged with something over it.
Double Fine wrote:
Then good, you are a human being with empathy. Good for you - really. However, many people lack that.
There is a lot that I did not know, until I was shown.

Bottom line for me:

No one has the right to murder, especially just because they were offended.

Everyone has the right to speak their mind. No one forced them to watch the movie.

No country has the right to mark one of our citizens for death over a movie.

Religious laws mean nothing in my country.{Yeah, I know. We still have some, but we are working them out.}

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#128437 Oct 8, 2012
I bet I can scroll past his useless spam faster than you.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost read two of Bob's posts. Then I didn't.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128438 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my place to decide how you people do healthcare, but it's worth pointing out that the USA has the worst health care system out of all developed nations, has the greatest number of un-medicated TB patients, the most people not under medical care and the greatest number of bankruptcies because of a lack of health care.
Also, the people of other developed nations, like the UK and Japan (yaay!) enjoy a longer lifespan that the people of the US, partly b/c of the mess that your health care system is in.
All other developed nations have some sort of government run health care system. Guess in which country health care costs the most of public money? The USA.
Well done! You built the developed nations' worst health care system and it's bankrupting you, because you insist on keeping it in the hands of parasitic HMOs.
Japan is a lot more homogenous than the USA. You have people from all over the world, and their diseases and bad habits, converging on the USA. Probably the biggest mix in one Petri dish in the world. China, Japan, and most others don't have that issue of so many foreign introduced diseases.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#128439 Oct 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is inciting a riot and there is appeasement, where are we at with the religious far right? If we have to give up our freedoms, then we are appeasing them and that never has worked yet.
<quoted text>
OK, what is his responsibility in this matter? Running into a crowded theater yelling, "Fire!", is one thing, making a movie that pokes fun at a myth is other.
<quoted text>
How much? We have had the KKK march down the streets, of predominately black neighborhoods, without violence. If you do not tolerate the violence, then there will be no violence. If you allow it, give it credibility, then you are just asking for it.
"I strongly disagree with you, here. Feeling an emotions is normal, acting on it, in an unjustified/illegal way, is not."
<quoted text>
In most places, we don't act out our emotions, if it is illegal to do so. So, it is not normal to act in an unjustified/illegal way.
<quoted text>
But it is not tolerated. Just because it happens, does not make it normal or even expected.
People are easy to incite! Especially when their actions are not met with society's disapproval.
If I was cheered for every time I smack some drive around for being a dumbass, I would be smacking people all day long! Both society and the law highly frown upon that, so I don't. I want to, but I don't because I want to be a part of society.
Radicals do not want to be a part of our global society and every time we let them get away with the murders and the bombings, we are giving their ways credence and the power to be even more deadly.
<quoted text>
I don't know all the laws, but I am pretty sure that shitting, pissing, spitting, and flicking a boogie at someone, who does not want it, is against the law. We had a guy fart on a cop and he was charged with something over it.
<quoted text>
There is a lot that I did not know, until I was shown.
Bottom line for me:
No one has the right to murder, especially just because they were offended.
Everyone has the right to speak their mind. No one forced them to watch the movie.
No country has the right to mark one of our citizens for death over a movie.
Religious laws mean nothing in my country.{Yeah, I know. We still have some, but we are working them out.}
Almost off home, so I can't really type out the lengthy reply that your post (and this topic) deserves.

My point: Violent reaction may not be legal, but it happens.

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) 1 hr Denisova 18,848
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 18 hr Amused 25
News Confessions of a black atheist 18 hr thetruth 465
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) Sun thetruth 6,124
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sun thetruth 2,094
News The Consequences of Atheism Sat Koala_Gums 1,340
News Gary Gutting and Alvin Plantinga "Is Atheism Ir... Sat geezerjock 1
More from around the web