Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
123,901 - 123,920 of 226,367 Comments Last updated 42 min ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128408 Oct 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Bet you'd change your tune if an atheist politician proclaimed that the bible was a fairy tale. Or would you support his right to use his power to undermine your religion?
A politician should not let his personal beliefs, beliefs that are not founded on anything but the bible, affect his behavior. It is even more ridiculous that he sits on the science committee. Now, it would be one thing if he had anything of substance with which to back up those claims, but he doesn't, and you and I both know it. If he had any legitimate evidence to back up his claims, I would have no problem with it. He is coming from the same place that all science deniers do - willful ignorance inspired by their religion and their need to believe in god.
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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#128409 Oct 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing more to add.
Thank god, we Americans are still allowed to own guns! Mussies, or any other nutter group, would certainly be put in their place over here.
Thatís fine by me.

But the point is that not many of them are over there, they are mostly in their own country with their own laws.

Anyway talking about nutter groups it does not always work that way does it? NORAID were never shown the wrath of US attitude were they? Oh wait a minute they were catholic so itís was OK for them to finance murder Ė right?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128410 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution doesn't understand science. Period. So a politician who is on a committee for Science and Technology who doesn't understand science is dangerous. Where do you think such an uninformed, ignorant man is going to take your good country?
Do you believe that kind of man is the right person for the job? Will he be able to push reforms so that you can compete with China?
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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#128411 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has nothing to do with it.
Freedom of speech exists, yes, but one must excercise it with discretion.
Think of the blade falling the other way - how many Muslims burnt the American flag after 9/11? It is a statment they made, and they are free to make it.
Just because they MAY make it, does not mean that they SHOULD. I find the film as disgusting as I found the flag burning after 9/11.
People must excercise common sense. If I am white, going to the black part of town and burning a Malcolm X/ Nelson Mandela poster will probably get me beaten up.
Yes, the boy in question has a RIGHT to air his views, even if it is supremacist BS. But we have to accept that our views may incite anger and in some cases, rage.
Just because there is no law against flicking boogers in a restaurant, is no reason to start doing so.
Well said

Every person is responsible for their own actions

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128412 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Oh, well, back to the fray with arguing with the uneducated, ignorant religious who believe their ignorance can support a belief system.
Like me?

Aw, yer sweet...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#128413 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has nothing to do with it.
Freedom of speech exists, yes, but one must excercise it with discretion.
Think of the blade falling the other way - how many Muslims burnt the American flag after 9/11? It is a statment they made, and they are free to make it.
I don't like when people burn the American Flag, but I don't murder people over it.
Double Fine wrote:
Just because they MAY make it, does not mean that they SHOULD. I find the film as disgusting as I found the flag burning after 9/11.
Agreed. Disgusting as it may have been; it cannot justify violence.
Double Fine wrote:
People must excercise common sense. If I am white, going to the black part of town and burning a Malcolm X/ Nelson Mandela poster will probably get me beaten up.
If caught, they would or should be punished.
Double Fine wrote:
Yes, the boy in question has a RIGHT to air his views, even if it is supremacist BS. But we have to accept that our views may incite anger and in some cases, rage.
I strongly disagree with you, here. Feeling an emotions is normal, acting on it, in an unjustified/illegal way, is not.
Double Fine wrote:
Just because there is no law against flicking boogers in a restaurant, is no reason to start doing so.
Bad example. Health laws surely are in place for that!

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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128414 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
Tomorrow, Columbus Day is observed in some places in the U.S. In California, public offices are closed.
So here's the question: Should Columbus Day be recognized? Were he and his explorers good people who should be celebrated today? Were there good or bad consequences from their discovery/colonization?
I'd say he & his explorers were good for us, who knows if they were "good people".
But yes, we should celebrate his accomplishment & bravery.
America came out of it.
Didn't work out to well for the injuns though

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128415 Oct 8, 2012
Loren Eberly wrote:
Obamacare Alternative:
Easy.

Pay your own damn way.

'nuff said.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128416 Oct 8, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text> Methinks you are enslaved to your atheism which blinds you to reality.
The reality of a skydaddy?

Of a heaven and a hell?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128417 Oct 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps because, if you are going to be on the science and technology committee, you should not be actively against several basic disciplines.
"disciplines"??

Evolution is a discipline now?

Who's the disciple?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128418 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.
You explain it.

To Galileo.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128419 Oct 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
The church has always been an enemy of scientific progress
Right. Which is why the Vatican has one of the oldest scientific research centers on Earth...

Or that religious people were persecuted for saying that the Earth is not flat...

mmhmmm

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

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

“Michin yeoja”

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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 3 min Patrick 7
100% Faith Free 31 min CunningLinguist 14
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 1 hr CunningLinguist 39
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Patrick 60
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr CunningLinguist 429
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 hr Patrick 52
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 7 hr Patrick 173
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••