Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244657 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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#149306 Jan 22, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles my mind just how morally challenged theists can be. Ethics are the rules of group cooperation, nothing more. They have nothing at all to do with your sky fairy beliefs. The golden rule is pretty simple. We do not kill witches for the same reason we do not kill theists. We should treat each other as we want to be treated. This is the basic principle that allows civilization to exist. Morals evolved in us because they are a benefit to our survival.
By the way, faith is immoral for it is dishonest. Honest people admit to not knowing things that are not known, theists just fill in all the blanks to all the tough questions with the word god and considered the matter solved. Theists are both mentally lazy and dishonest.
Your group cooperation requires the elimination of threats to said group and its survival as a group. Meaning you kill your enemies, or render them no longer a threat. You may even gain an economic advantage in enslaving them. It also means silencing dissidents within the group.

Strictly a secularist thing.

Any sense of "group" beyond your immediate one is based upon some ideal beyond the physical.

You are a confused person.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#149307 Jan 22, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
They tried this same crap in the sixties; doesn't work. Idealists are so goofy.
The fact that we forget there are different kinds of realities and that our experience of them is entirely dependent upon our perception has nothing to do with hippies. It has everything to do with relinquishing preconceived notions about the self in relation to an infinite universe; not to denigrate the significance of social changes brought about by the 60's. While much of the hippie style and values has been mainstreamed into America,(green movement, eradication of nuclear weapons, an awareness of the destructive nature of a materialistic social status quo etc.), hippies adopted many of the spiritual concepts of eastern philosophy.

I prefer to consider rather than ignore the concept of the "inviolate" nature of the individual spirit before, during, and after physical existence whether or not any theory of reincarnation is involved. I understand the Buddhist teaching that perfect joy can be found in the eventual surrender of self to a supreme force although I have yet to determine how the self who surrenders knows it has done so if it has been so thoroughly absorbed in nirvanic bliss.

With all its distortions, one thing can be said of Christianity, it is not as limiting as Eastern teachings. Though the goal be enlightenment, the path to enlightenment as taught by gurus is not merely self-denial and acceptance of suffering as good, it requires the eradication of your individuality by killing all desire and intent.

For a host of reasons, our religions have emphasized repression, restriction, and pennance rather than benediction, expression, celebration, or love. Nearly all religions, western and eastern alike, have shown a suspicious willingness to surrender the conscious self, either to a bland heaven or nirvanic blessed non-being. If, as I believe, God is individualized in all of us, in all things, then it is precisely that God-given identity, that God-knowing-Itself-as-us that we want to understand.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149308 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
I must say, your atheistic reasoning is really top class in terms of atheistic reasoning.

Some of the others here, should save their time and just post like you, as their arguments basically boil down to the same arbitrarty dismissal of logic and reasoning.

:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149309 Jan 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I cannot say because I wasn't there, but can only say I don't think I would have thought it to be. But In defense of the ignorance of slaveholders, they really thought the slaves were more like animals than humans then. that frame of mind changed, I think when everyone actually discovered that the slaves were just as human and feeling as anyone else. This probably didn't take as long as it did to end the practice, because their was profit involved.
As long as profit is involved there will be greedy men who don't care what feelings get in their way.
Thank you.

Point proved.

Slavery was not wrong then, but is now.

And if tomorrow society decides that slavery of a few will benefit the majority, with your reasoning, you are duty bound to follow that decision.

If you have lived in Germany during the 1930's, with your reasoning here, you would have been a nazi...

Have you really thought this through thoroughly?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149310 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Yes it does. Moreover, morality predates any modern religion.
<quoted text>
You are correct.

Absolute Morality predates the universe, as it is an expression of Gods own Character.

And as Christianity was the first "religion" known to man, then you have just confirmed what I have been saying all along...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149311 Jan 22, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
It was always morally wrong, but an evil society allowed it to happen! Moral people have been fighting against evil since the beginning.
No, because Aura moves with society, he's influenced by society, so if he was in the olden days, he would have kept slaves, too.
LOL, i'm gonna get a telling off from Aura! I love u really, buddy!! I'm just sayin'. Forgive me!!
Exactly...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149312 Jan 22, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think you are finally getting it! Just think a little bit harder and I think we may have a break through!
Let me know when the light bulb shines!
I understand you perfectly.

The problem is you don't understand your own argument.

You cannot define any morality if you do not have an absolute standard to define it with.

In that case, you cannot argue that anything is "right" or "wrong", all you can argue for is expediency.

And if it is expedient for someone to rape someone, then you have no right to condemn that.

You need to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149313 Jan 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm not duty bound to shit. That must be where you're having trouble understanding me. I make my own rules.
Exactly.

And this is what the Bible explains.

Man thinks that through his own finite reasoning, he can reason greater than God, who gave him that reasoning, which has now become perverted.

The problem is that you soon are reduced to absurdity, when you reject the God whos nature is logical.

If you are the arbiter of morality, what happens if someone disagrees with you?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149314 Jan 22, 2013
Cycle wasting cu*ts like you deserve no better.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I must say, your atheistic reasoning is really top class in terms of atheistic reasoning.
Some of the others here, should save their time and just post like you, as their arguments basically boil down to the same arbitrarty dismissal of logic and reasoning.
:-)

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#149315 Jan 22, 2013
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that we forget there are different kinds of realities and that our experience of them is entirely dependent upon our perception has nothing to do with hippies. It has everything to do with relinquishing preconceived notions about the self in relation to an infinite universe; not to denigrate the significance of social changes brought about by the 60's. While much of the hippie style and values has been mainstreamed into America,(green movement, eradication of nuclear weapons, an awareness of the destructive nature of a materialistic social status quo etc.), hippies adopted many of the spiritual concepts of eastern philosophy.
I prefer to consider rather than ignore the concept of the "inviolate" nature of the individual spirit before, during, and after physical existence whether or not any theory of reincarnation is involved. I understand the Buddhist teaching that perfect joy can be found in the eventual surrender of self to a supreme force although I have yet to determine how the self who surrenders knows it has done so if it has been so thoroughly absorbed in nirvanic bliss.
With all its distortions, one thing can be said of Christianity, it is not as limiting as Eastern teachings. Though the goal be enlightenment, the path to enlightenment as taught by gurus is not merely self-denial and acceptance of suffering as good, it requires the eradication of your individuality by killing all desire and intent.
For a host of reasons, our religions have emphasized repression, restriction, and pennance rather than benediction, expression, celebration, or love. Nearly all religions, western and eastern alike, have shown a suspicious willingness to surrender the conscious self, either to a bland heaven or nirvanic blessed non-being. If, as I believe, God is individualized in all of us, in all things, then it is precisely that God-given identity, that God-knowing-Itself-as-us that we want to understand.
You are too intellectual for them to grok.

Christianity does allow for more individual expression than the others. Which is sort of an evolutionary advantage. Much more adaptive to change and new things than the others. Can charge ahead instead of just maintaining the status quo. But these pseudo-atheists don't understand that. They just follow other leaders.

Purely and simply, humankind are just facets of a higher being. You can still accept that and be individual. This existence is a construct you spend some time in. Much like being in the Army. You follow the rules to get a job done, but you can think for yourself and use your individual talents to the advantage of the group when needed.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149316 Jan 22, 2013
Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago.

Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:

Yes.
You torture the person.
You prevent the bomb killing civilians.
Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.
End of moral dilemma.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you perfectly.
The problem is you don't understand your own argument.
You cannot define any morality if you do not have an absolute standard to define it with.
In that case, you cannot argue that anything is "right" or "wrong", all you can argue for is expediency.
And if it is expedient for someone to rape someone, then you have no right to condemn that.
You need to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149317 Jan 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know?
<quoted text>
I'm not duty bound to shit. That must be where you're having trouble understanding me. I make my own rules.
<quoted text>
It gives us a survival advantage as a species.
Personally, empathy influences me to be more tolerant and considerate to others, which makes me feel good, and generally leads to people expressing empathy towards me in return.
<quoted text>
That is true for all people. Disparaging atheists in this way is dishonest.
<quoted text>
The news isn't anything to go by.
<quoted text>
We do not have equality in the word. That is why empathy is not a higher priority in some people.
<quoted text>
Atheism only answers one question, "Do you believe in any gods?", with the answer, "No."
I get the feeling that you would like for my worldview to have a name, but it doesn't. It's personal to me.
Yes, you do want to set the standard for your own morality, that is your sinful condition.

I notice that you demand atheists are not disparaged, but that you have no issue when christians are disparaged. So that high horse is one you should not be riding.:-)

Atheism demands a very limited view of the world based on a biblical truth, that states that men suppress the truth of Gods existance because of their love of sin.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149318 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Cycle wasting cu*ts like you deserve no better.
<quoted text>
You really need to deal with your aggression.

It just makes you look like a fool.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149319 Jan 22, 2013
Pat wrote:
EVERY argument for god is an argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather the absence of it.God = human ignorance.
Now let me apply the same arbitrary argument so you can see how logically absurd it is, back to you:

EVERY argument for arockdidit is an argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather the absence of it. arockdidit = human ignorance.

That rabbit hole isn't worth pursuing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149320 Jan 22, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles my mind just how morally challenged theists can be. Ethics are the rules of group cooperation, nothing more. They have nothing at all to do with your sky fairy beliefs. The golden rule is pretty simple. We do not kill witches for the same reason we do not kill theists. We should treat each other as we want to be treated. This is the basic principle that allows civilization to exist. Morals evolved in us because they are a benefit to our survival.
By the way, faith is immoral for it is dishonest. Honest people admit to not knowing things that are not known, theists just fill in all the blanks to all the tough questions with the word god and considered the matter solved. Theists are both mentally lazy and dishonest.
You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.

You then appeal to subjective morality.

You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.

Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149321 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago.
Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:
Yes.
You torture the person.
You prevent the bomb killing civilians.
Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.
End of moral dilemma.
<quoted text>
So it is ok to torture people as long as you pay for the crime later?

Interesting theology you have there.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149322 Jan 22, 2013
?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to deal with your aggression.
It just makes you look like a fool.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149323 Jan 22, 2013
No, not theology.
It's called doing the right thing.
The default position is to avoid torture wherever possible.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is ok to torture people as long as you pay for the crime later?
Interesting theology you have there.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149324 Jan 22, 2013
Bollocks.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.
You then appeal to subjective morality.
You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.
Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#149325 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No, not theology.
It's called doing the right thing.
The default position is to avoid torture wherever possible.
<quoted text>
But how do you define the right thing.

I have yet to see you present a reasonable basis for morality.

Your last attempt was it is okay to be immoral as long as you pay for the crime later.

The ends justify the means in other words.

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) 8 min dirtclod 20,459
There is no meaning without God 2 hr Thinking 2
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 hr emperorjohn 10,594
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 7 hr Anonymous1386 3
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 16 hr Richardfs 17
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 17 hr Thinking 4
John 3:16 Mon Thinking 65
More from around the web