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
144,021 - 144,040 of 226,341 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149921 Jan 24, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
IF god created ALL
he created your future also,
NO free will
simple indeed
I find this concept very easy to understand, but somehow religious people have a hard time getting it. I have a little pet theory that those who go in for magical thinking really have cognitive problems with certain types of logic, just as religious people claim that atheists lack some special God detector.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149922 Jan 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You some how seem to believe that God must adhere to your line if reasoning. What a hoot!
Pretty funny.
But no so funny that you were able to refute the logical argument! D'oh!

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149923 Jan 24, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes sense, and to emphasize a portion of a phrase you used above:
"allows us to make the best choice possible."
*Allow**Choice*
That indicates, to me, we're only exercising a semblance of free will in an environment that we have very little latitude in the choices available to draw from. The discussion surrounding free will is always thought provoking, because at times you can almost convince yourself we do have free will in what we do from day to day, but upon further examination, we're really at the whim of our environment.
There is one thing we do have 100% free will in.
The choice to die.
Any of us can choose to die in various ways, and that is pure free will if a person chooses that, but, who wants to choose death in order to exercise 100% free will?
If we truly had free will we would never be able to prove it. We could however prove we did not, if someone knew the future, thus negating the possibility of free will.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#149924 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You said particles are fuzzy. Not hard thingies. Perhaps that fuzzy stuff is thought, waves of some sort that then gathers other fuzzy stuff to create "life". Waves shaping waves. Kind of creating its own little world.
Fuzz creates the hard stuff that then creates more fuzz.
We have fuzzy thinking Topix atheists, so it must be possible.
Or something like that.
When you get your graduate degree in physics, I'll give your arguments credence. Until then, you're simply a Topix scientist, and that doesn't amount to very much.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149925 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It does apply, how can you have an absolute standard of evil, without an absolute standard of good?
You are appealing to that as the basis for your argument, my question is, upon what basis do you make that appeal?
Where do you get absolute morality from?
I don't. The question is a subjective one, based on your opinion. No absolute morality required.

"Slavery, rape and putting every infant to the sword isn't evil?"

So, do you think they are evil or not?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149926 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I am troubled by the quality of maturity, rationality, and intellect that has recently gathered on this forum. People such as mtimber and EmpAtheist, among others.
The quality is too high. It's unnatural for this forum.
Something must be happening.
Sock in mouth you do decree.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149927 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Free will is just the ability to take a course of action based upon emotion instead of training and experience. Taking risks one doesn't have to. The soul's desires to experience versus the conscious mind's "knowing" cause and effect.
So if you do something based on "training and experience" you are not exerting free will? Wha?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149928 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
^^Totally circular...
Aside from your head ..what else is new?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149929 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Name something that isn't caused.:-)
In your case thinking.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#149930 Jan 24, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have a graduate degree in physics, I'll give your arguments credibility. Right now you're just a Topix scientist, and that doesn't amount to much.
Damn double post. Look at the time lag. Thought the first one didn't take

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#149931 Jan 24, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the modern term for marrying and having sexual relations with a 'bride' you've taken by force is RAPE.
<quoted text>
Who says he wants to have a loving relationship? The impetus for the marriage in this scenario is physical attraction. The soldier wants to have sex with the woman. If she does not please him, she is ditched.
<quoted text>
BS. World War II "war brides" were not captives forced to marry. They were women who soldiers met during the war or afterwards.
I can't believe you'd compare these two things.
<quoted text>
The 'rubble left behind' solely because of other atrocious laws demanding extermination of enemy males, including the elderly and children.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 IS atrocious. And so is your defense of it.
Just to make it clear as with many Atheist you are making your own assumptions not based in scripture. Rape was a crime punishable by death. If it happened it was illegal and risky for the perpetrator.

Who says a soldier doesnít want to have a loving relationship with a former enemy female?

Your assertions are not scripturally based. If Iím wrong then please supply the scripture that says marriage was a form of forced rape. If you canít supply biblical proof just say you have no proof.

The women were war brides from a defeated enemy. No where does it say they were forced to marry and forced to have sex. Nor does the scripture imply of forced rape.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149932 Jan 24, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>and yet...no god
I keep finding a burning bag of shit.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149933 Jan 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
The typical Topix atheist will challenge you to define rationality. Then they will argue about the definition given in the dictionary, stating flatly they are free to define it for themselves as they see fit. Like the term atheism.
They do that a lot. It helps in their logic development process.
To them such is rational.
In your very limited reason skills, there are many things beyond the scope of.
But lets not dwell on your misfortune or shortcomings . Davey boy.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#149934 Jan 24, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have a graduate degree in physics, I'll give your arguments credibility. Right now you're just a Topix scientist, and that doesn't amount to much.
Someone with a graduate degree in physics would be unlikely to make the word-salads that Dave does.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149935 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. Not even close. Where do you get this stuff?
In his hot tub.

He's been contemplating his fart bubbles again.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149936 Jan 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>A total evasion.
Yah.

Right.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#149937 Jan 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>You are so far behind the times it's scary, scientists at Arizona state have begun new investigations into lifes origin rejecting the premise that life is like baking a cake,..all you need is the right chemicals in the proper amount and walla! life! It's a 19th century concept.
Walla?

Now who the heck was it that always said "walla"?

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#149938 Jan 24, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the modern term for marrying and having sexual relations with a 'bride' you've taken by force is RAPE.
<quoted text>
.
Part I
Judges 21:10-24
No reverence to rape, None.
http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape...
The writer presumes to think for its readers, entering in opinions about just how bad of a crime rape really is. It says "How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me." Now, after butchering the English language, it again attacks the Bible using its own opinions, that the Bible condones rape, without looking at the actual text. Again it fails to realize that the Bible frequently tells stories of the Israelites' wrongful acts, but that by no means shows that the Bible is condoning what they are doing. Let's take at look at their so-called "examples":
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24): First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from EvilBible in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone repeatedly. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (Deut 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:
Provide them with housing (taking them in)
Allowing them 1 month to mourn.
Then allow marriage
If they divorce, no mistreatment.
Where's the rape? You should know by now.
2) Murder, rape, and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31.7-18): Almost the same thing as above. Again, they say "Clearly Moses approves of rape of virgins". Apparently EB sees the word virgin and immediately thinks rape. Rape, or even sex, is never mentioned in the entire verse. The process above still applies, as well.
3) More murder, rape, and pillage (Deuteronomy 20.10-14): Let's make a little checklist, shall we?
Murder: This is war, and peace was rejected, God even commanded to offer peace.
Rape: Still only says as much as the above two, rape's been inserted by EB.(Evil Bible)
Slavery: The word that here was translated as forced slavery can also be translated to simply mean work, which here could easily be a form of indentured servitude. Also, I already talked about how slavery in the Bible's time, not the same as America's early history: http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slav...

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#149939 Jan 24, 2013
Part II

4) Laws of rape (Deut 22.28-29): Here Mariano was a great resource by providing the etymology of the verse. The word used here, translated as rape, is the Hebrew word shakab, meaning lying down. Taphas is the Hebrew word for catching, handling, taking hold, and isn't used. If you look at most other translations it merely says "a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he lays hold of her and lies with her." Where in the verse does it say the intercourse was forced? The verse even ends with "and they were found". It doesn't say he was caught, THEY were caught. This shows that they were engaging in fornication, not rape. This made them have to get married because the woman was not even previously betrothed.
5) Death to the rape victim (Deut. 22. 23-24): Here it is interesting to note than EB has been citing the NLT, and now switches to the NAB for the remainder of the article. The NLT's verse is even farther away from citing rape, while the NAB is closer, and therefore suits EB's purpose, deliberate misinterpretation, better. The NLT says "suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin engaged to a man, and has sexual intercourse with her..." Again, no rape. This is fornication, and both are punished for it. They cannot get married like #4 because she is already engaged, so they must be punished, and God has rules set for that. Also, there is a part EB conveniently left out in the very next verse. It says "But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, than only the man must die." Sound like condoning rape to you?
Also, for those who would point out the "but" to mean it meant it in the first part as well, literal translations of the first one say "but she did not cry out", and in the countryside crying out is far less likely to help at all. This shows that the woman was in fact raped, while if she didn't cry out people would know it wasn't rape.
6) David's punishment- Polygamy, rape, baby killing, and God's "forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12. 11-14): To start God is punishing David for polygamy and adultery, so condoning that is out of the question. Deuteronomy 17:15, 17 says: "You shall set a king over you...He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." Let's try another checklist:
Rape: Absent. Lying with the neighbor is his wives committing adultery, no rape.
Polygamy: Present. God punished David for it.
Baby Killing: Present. God judged David because David had made followers of God look like hypocrites for committing adultery with Bathsheba. Capital punishment, explained here: www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/murder-...
Forgiveness: Present. The punishment for adultery is death, but God forgave David. Funny thing is, for EB this should be a bad thing.
7) Rape of female captives (Deut 21. 10-14): This was cited earlier in order to show that there wasn't rape, see the process at the end of #1. The process showed that they must be married in order to have sexual relations. None of this was forced, including the marriage. There's not rape, once again EB inserts a very disturbing misinterpretation.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#149941 Jan 24, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you do something based on "training and experience" you are not exerting free will? Wha?
Certainly not. Training means you were taught. Experience is what shapes that teaching into something different if such occurs. How do you think cultural differences came about?

You are taught not to do some dangerous things, but you do them to get a thrill or knowledge. That is free will.

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
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 57 min Patrick 13
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Patrick 21,502
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr CunningLinguist 422
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 6 hr Jaimie 46
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 9 hr Patrick 27
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 9 hr Patrick 172
100% Faith Free 13 hr Thinking 11
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••