Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 comments on the Jul 18, 2009, Webbunny tumblelog story 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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#130116 Oct 16, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I played for a couple months in Venice Beach last year for "donations".
Have you ever been to New Orleans?

I lived there for a few years and there is no other place like it. The cost of living isn't cheap there, but it is amazing how you can survive on so little, especially if you are just hanging out. It has its issues, but one of the neatest collections of people around. A good place to get your head together. Very mellow. Saved my ass.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#130117 Oct 16, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>rubbish
So you clearly cannot refute my points, I see.

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Everyone's DNA takes them back to a person..." Yes, but what of before this? Our DNA is almost the same as apes, thus it stands to reason we are related.
Our DNA is closer to apes than any other species. This is evidence. Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130118 Oct 16, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Once you specify operationally what a god is, the hypothesis that there is no god is scientific, since it is falsifiable by producing a god.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Your Atheism takes sides. Science is neutral. That is the difference.
The main difference between atheism and science is that one is the result of applying rational skepticism - the requirement for evidence - to theological matters, and the other is the result of applying the same requirements to the study of nature.

The third musketeer is secular humanism, which arises from the application of these same principles to ethics and daily life.

Did I mention that once you specify operationally what a god is, the hypothesis that there is no god is scientific, since it is falsifiable by producing a god?
lightbeamrider wrote:
You should not be allowed to justify your anti theism by wrapping it in Science.
What science tells me is that the Christian bible is mythology, and therefore, that the religion arising from it is false. That makes it safe to ignore it.

The justifications for my atheism and antitheism are different, and have nothing to do with science. I just gave you the justification for atheism: rational skepticism.

My justification for the latter arises from familiarity with the Christian church, and with the damage it does to both individuals and to society collectively. My ethics tell me that that is wrong, and that it should be vigorously resisted.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130119 Oct 16, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
Do you believe that your god has the power to end starvation? Yes or No?
lightbeamrider wrote:
That power is delegated to us. Starvation is our problem.
You evaded the question, since you know that both answers - yes and no - are embarrassing.

Your god really couldn't be any more useless or indifferent to humanity, could it? As I mentioned to another Christian poster on this thread yesterday, you have settled for too little - too small a god. It won't protect your children from leukemia, starvation, or hurricanes. How useless does a god have to be before you won't worship it any more - before you will dare question its existence?

ďHumanity's first sin was faith. The first virtue was doubt.Ē- Mike Huben

BTW, if starvation is our problem, then so is population control.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#130120 Oct 16, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The main difference between atheism and science is that one is the result of applying rational skepticism - the requirement for evidence - to theological matters, and the other is the result of applying the same requirements to the study of nature.
The third musketeer is secular humanism, which arises from the application of these same principles to ethics and daily life.
Did I mention that once you specify operationally what a god is, the hypothesis that there is no god is scientific, since it is falsifiable by producing a god?
<quoted text>
What science tells me is that the Christian bible is mythology, and therefore, that the religion arising from it is false. That makes it safe to ignore it.
The justifications for my atheism and antitheism are different, and have nothing to do with science. I just gave you the justification for atheism: rational skepticism.
My justification for the latter arises from familiarity with the Christian church, and with the damage it does to both individuals and to society collectively. My ethics tell me that that is wrong, and that it should be vigorously resisted.
I remember an alleged doctor posting on these pages telling a story about the rural folk in SE Missouri. He took over as the admin of a medical center, and one of his employees was a young woman with an accent from the area that she grew up with, amongst her own people. This alleged doctor related how he MADE her stand there for some time, which surely humiliated her in front of her peers, until she pronounced "rural" to his satisfaction, and not the way she and everyone else knew she pronounced it, which was something like "rule".

This alleged doctor allegedly grew up into some sort of moralist that could even judge gods and those that worship them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130121 Oct 16, 2012
Gate Keeper wrote:
Atheism has killed over 200 million people in the last 90 years alone, exceeding all the Holy Wars combined.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Those people died because of religions like Christianity, Stalinism, Islam and Maoism. Worship is always a mistake.

Secular humanists have repudiated all such ideologies of violence, religions of despair, and cults of personality worship. Whereas Stalin, Jehovah, Hitler and Mao all advocated genocide, humanists deplore such violence.
lightbeamrider wrote:
So now you connect Stalinism and Maoism to religion. How convenient for you.
Yes, I do. Such ideologies of violence are predicated on blind faith, personality worship, fear, and obedience.

You're not telling me that you don't like to be grouped with the likes of Mao and Stalin, are you?

And you're surely not telling me that Stalinism and Maoism aren't religions, are you? If not, why not?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130122 Oct 16, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
Ignoring the fact your anti theism is the same as [Stalin's and Mao's] anti theism.
Not at all. Mine is nonviolent and socially constructive.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Reading your posts there is not a dime's worth of difference since you engage in hate speech, ridicule, distortion all the time here. Above is an example of propaganda.
I don't engage in hate speech. Hate speech is dehumanizing and marginalizing speech directed at classes of people like gays and atheists, intended to oppress them, and which makes their lives more difficult and dangerous.

Hate speech provokes violence against its target, as when you call atheists us vile, abominations, forsaken by god, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, worthy of eternal torment, unpatriotic, without morals, and unfit to serve in elective office, as coaches, jurors, witnesses, teachers, and adoptive parents. People want to harm other people thusly characterized.

My criticism is of a failed ideology, and ridicule is appropriate. It provokes no retaliation against you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130123 Oct 16, 2012
Serah wrote:
I [Francis Collins] am a scientist and a [Christian] believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
I do.
Serah wrote:
As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
He admitted too much here. It's not truth if you have to believe by faith first to see it. If it were the truth, it would convert unbelievers.
Serah wrote:
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God.
If "God" means Jehovah-Jesus, then reason alone can rule it out. The god described in Genesis clearly never existed.
Serah wrote:
Faith is reason plus revelation
No. Faith is unrelated to reason. It is a guess which one has arbitrarily chosen to give fervent assent to, not only without evidence, but despite it.
Serah wrote:
and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
That should raise a red flag.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130124 Oct 16, 2012
From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You don't seem to know what creationism is. It's in your bible, and it doesn't include evolution.
Serah wrote:
How do you know what animals were around at the beginning of the Bible?
What?
Serah wrote:
Evolution is adapting to the changes, extinction is failure to adapt IMO
I know what evolution is. Why tell me?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130125 Oct 16, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
May Popeye have mercy on our souls.
I think Popeye may have been a pothead. From "What's In Popeye's Pipe? The world's most famous sailor-man may be tooting more than just spinach in his pipe" at http://www.alternet.org/story/21206/what%27s_... :

"During the 1920s and '30s, the era when Popeye was created, "spinach" was a very common code word for marijuana. One classic example is "The Spinach Song," recorded in 1938 by the popular jazz band Julia Lee and Her Boyfriends. Performed for years in clubs thick with cannabis smoke, along with other Julia Lee hits like "Sweet Marijuana," the popular song used spinach as an obvious metaphor for pot.

"In addition, anti-marijuana propaganda of the time claimed that marijuana use induced super-strength. Overblown media reports proclaimed that pot smokers became extraordinarily strong, and even immune to bullets. So tying in Popeye's mighty strength with his sucking back some spinach would have seemed like an obvious cannabis connection at the time."

Ack ack ack ack ack!!!

Here's Julia Lee doing "The Spinach Song"

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#130126 Oct 16, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You know it really only matters to scientists and theists. For all I know, it's only 19 1/2 years old. The only thing I heard in the last hour was the sound that came from my violin. When I play, the universe stands still as far as I know.
Nunc fluens facit tempus, nunc stans facit aeternitatum

(The now that passes produces time, the now that remains produces eternity.)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130127 Oct 16, 2012
scaritual wrote:
Don't forget the running around naked part.
As far as the naked eye can see.

How about twins with pony tails?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4xTxyu43Bus/TPOFOfz...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130128 Oct 16, 2012
River Tam wrote:
I've been playing since I was old enough to hold it by myself.
Me, too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#130129 Oct 16, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
Me too. Oh....I meant....nevermind.
Dammit.

I hate playing second fiddle.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#130130 Oct 16, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My rights donít stop anywhere, and just because you want them to stop is not my problem.
That is a stupid thing to say! Do you have a right to hit me? Don't think so. You can swing your arms all you want, but you cannot swing them in someone's face.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>This is true but harming people is nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is usually caused by emotional abnormality or lack of self control, both are highly prevalent in rampant nationalism and the fundamentally religious. Ask Anders Behring Breivik if he had the right to kill 69 people and I am sure his answer will be yes. Ask Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic if they had the right to order genocide and what do you think the answer will be?
Does it matter what one person says, or what the society around them says? muslins kill their wayward children all the time. In their country, we have little to say, but when they enter the U.S., we have something to say about it.
ChristineM wrote:
You have the right not to like that a 14 year old girl was shot for exercising her freedom. I assume, all civilised people feel the same way. That does not change the fundamental precept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. You canít limit it to what you want or to those you like or your country.
That's right. I can stand up and say what I think. If possible, I can try to get her out of that hell hole. Thank goodness some people did act and got her out!

As you stated, the civilized world, the majority, will not tolerate such actions; if enough of their people request our help, I am sure we will intervene. Much like France intervened in the American Revolution and America intervened in WWI and WWII.
ChristineM wrote:
Nor does it mitigate the responsibility you must exercise to nurture that freedom. The people I mentioned above have either already been tried or are in the process of being tried for excising what they considered their freedom to do what the f*ck they wanted. They are responsible to themselves, to those they hurt and humanity in general for exercising their freedom. All of which is something I have the freedom to say and am responsible for saying.
Well how about just above where you tell my that my rights stop where yours begin.
Try punishing someone and then tell the judge that you were just exercising your rights. Let me know how that works out for you.

You have the right to say whatever you like, but you cannot make me listen. Your right to talk cannot and will not trump my right to listen or not listen. In other words; Your rights stop were mine begin.
ChristineM wrote:
How about your contempt for the Muslim faith? You deliberate confusion of Islam and terrorism?
And back to square one, you donít have the right to suppress anyone elseís rights.
I am not and you know it. I know full well that most muslims are like most christians, who are like most jews, who are like most Atheists, so on and so forth. The average joe does not commit terrorist acts.

If you are going to continue saying stupid shit like this; then I really have no need to talk with you.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#130131 Oct 16, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
He's Popeye the Saviorman.
*helpless laughter*

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#130132 Oct 16, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you would agree ~ I just posted more info from Francis Collins but you would have already read what he has had to say because you have seen it all before!! Glad you condone swearing.... it suits your style
1st: Because you find a hand full of people, who support your claim, doesn't mean that your claim is correct. When there is enough proof, the rest of the science world will follow. If there is not, they won't. They have nothing to gain or lose by denying the truth.

2nd: Swear words are words that some people deem unsavory. Some people say that they are just words. Others say that they simple convey emotion. I would rather use foul language than lie.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#130133 Oct 16, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know what animals were around at the beginning of the Bible? Evolution is adapting to the changes, extinction is failure to adapt IMO
I wish you christians would get it together! Is evolution fact? Is it a lie? Did your god use evolution for all creatures or all but man?

Each one of you, all claiming to be touched by the same holy spirit, has a different idea of how thing happened! And you all tell me that I cannot understand because the holy spirit hasn't touched me! LOL! How does that work? Does the holy spirit tell everybody something a little different? LOL!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#130134 Oct 16, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can see you condone lying.
Personally I find lying more abhorrent that swearing although I suppose it depends how you were raised as a child. If you are used to lying as a way of life then perhaps you have an excuse.
Damn! Time after time, you and I say the same thing!! I don't know how we got so far off on the topic of muslims and rights!

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#130135 Oct 16, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I do.
<quoted text>
He admitted too much here. It's not truth if you have to believe by faith first to see it. If it were the truth, it would convert unbelievers.
<quoted text>
If "God" means Jehovah-Jesus, then reason alone can rule it out. The god described in Genesis clearly never existed.
<quoted text>
No. Faith is unrelated to reason. It is a guess which one has arbitrarily chosen to give fervent assent to, not only without evidence, but despite it.
<quoted text>
That should raise a red flag.
We each believe that which we believe and that which is inherent within us. As I seek to become closer to GOD, some clearly don't even know him. Francis Collins is a brilliant scientist, and clearly believes in GOD ~ Faith is definitely in the equation; no red flag needed. Cheers, I do believe that your belief in atheism requires as much Faith as to believe in GOD ~ no red flag needed :)

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 The rise of militant atheism (Sep '09) 59 min prophecydotorg 9,235
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr prophecydotorg 7,407
News The Consequences of Atheism 4 hr QUITTNER Apr 26 2015 1,318
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 4 hr Freebird USA 9,329
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,691
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 22 hr Liam R will return 31
News Confessions of a black atheist 22 hr Peaks 399
More from around the web