Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239103 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150101 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
This is an example of a rock of the gaps fallacy, which is a variant of the argument from ignorance. You fill what you do not understand with "arockdidit".
Tide with Beach wrote:
Haven't we went over the strawman fallacy? I do not propose that a rock has ever done anything. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I told him this Wednesday. "Arockdidit" is a Christian straw man:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Apparently, he didn't care.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150103 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Virtually no modern cultures practices that. Why? Because women are not viewed as the property of men. Women are not simply tools for male pleasure and babymaking.
<quoted text>
Yes, any culture which thought it was okay to capture women as property and subject them to marriage and sex without their consent is guilty of mistreating women. That was rape.
It appears that "everyone else was doing it!" is your best defense for the barbaric practices of the Israelites, approved by the Israelite god.
Oh, by many others and their gods, or even no gods, too.

I think you got dropped on the wrong planet. People live here.

BTW, warfare being the thing it is, the destroyed economies and lands, reduced availability of men, etc, it could be very difficult for the ladies to make a living. Other than short term recreational leases of their bodies. They could have starved to death.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150104 Jan 25, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I told him this Wednesday. "Arockdidit" is a Christian straw man:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Apparently, he didn't care.
Ah, so you've met.

Have you seen the movie Dinner for Schmucks?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150105 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an example you would like to put forward?
The Albigensian Crusade was not a very good example of "love one another".

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#150106 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, by many others and their gods, or even no gods, too.
I think you got dropped on the wrong planet. People live here.
So the god of the Old Testament is simply another flawed person stuck in the circumstances of his culture?
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW, warfare being the thing it is, the destroyed economies and lands, reduced availability of men, etc, it could be very difficult for the ladies to make a living. Other than short term recreational leases of their bodies. They could have starved to death.
So the rapists are doing the women a favor by claiming them as sex-wives after they kill their families? What great guys.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150107 Jan 25, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't we went over the strawman fallacy?
I do not propose that a rock has ever done anything.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Well, some rocks do suddenly decide that friction and inertia are insufficient, and succumb to gravity.

I can attest to this from painful personal experience.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150108 Jan 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
Well, some rocks do suddenly decide that friction and inertia are insufficient, and succumb to gravity.
I can attest to this from painful personal experience.
You can get a harder head if you believe in the Jesus.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#150109 Jan 25, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You can get a harder head if you believe in the Jesus.
Isn't that in the requirements?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#150110 Jan 25, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you
Hopefully you find this. Im still using my phone.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150114 Jan 25, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't we went over the strawman fallacy?
I do not propose that a rock has ever done anything.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Helllooo! Dinosaurs....big rock...EXTINCTION...die!!!

arockdidit! I have scientific proof, so there!

Not so clever now, are u Tide?:-p

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150115 Jan 25, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Helllooo! Dinosaurs....big rock...EXTINCTION...die!!!
arockdidit! I have scientific proof, so there!
Not so clever now, are u Tide?:-p

You've dropped your rock.

http://www.hark.com/clips/zsmnpzjvbg-youve-dr...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150117 Jan 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You've dropped your rock.
http://www.hark.com/clips/zsmnpzjvbg-youve-dr...
That's an amazing film!

I watched a really good film, Django unchained!!! Have u seen it?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#150118 Jan 25, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an amazing film!
I watched a really good film, Django unchained!!! Have u seen it?
I Know I couldn't resist shaking his hand.:)

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150119 Jan 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I Know I couldn't resist shaking his hand.:)
What?

U talkin' about leonardo hand shake...gun shot thing?

Was leonardo going to shoot beard guy? why did the beard guy do it? why? i didn't want that to happen!!:-(

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#150120 Jan 25, 2013
Imagine that the universe erupted into existence some fifteen billion years ago. That a shapeless cloud of dust emerging out of that luminous expansion, slowly congealed into a solid orb, worked its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of various chemical elements and gases over billions of years, generated a primordial biosphere capable of not only begetting life, but sustaining and proliferating life.

Now, imagine none of that happened. None of it is true. Are you somehow diminished? Have you morphed into a Christian before your very eyes filled with an intense desire to bow and scrape before a human figure nailed to two pieces of wood? No, of course not! So why not consider other ideas that are equally valid such as transcendent potential? There really is a transcendent dimension and it's not just a theory. The Aspect's experiment verifies that objects really do have connections OUTSIDE of space and time that effect things INSIDE space and time. In other words, matter is not SUPREME. If it isn't, what is? Anyone who does not believe that the answer is worth pursuing is not interested in discovering the truth, but only interested in clinging to old unshifting religious and scientific paradigms.

Quantum physics doesn't depict objects as definite things. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality? If physical laws are solely responsible, then they should explain how this process happens. They don't. Instead they confuse the issue hence the search for a unified theory. Interestingly, all the paradoxes of quantum physics could be easily solved if conventional science accepted consciousness (spirit) as the basis of being, which in no way means accepting the dogma of ANY religion. It is not only entirely possible, but probable that parallel universes radically different from our own lie beyond the domain of physical science.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#150121 Jan 25, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Helllooo! Dinosaurs....big rock...EXTINCTION...die!!!
arockdidit! I have scientific proof, so there!
Not so clever now, are u Tide?:-p
Who was driving the rock?

Which space cop didn't pull it over for speeding?

Who left the keys to the rock in the ignition?

Let's not play the blame game, Clementia. There are a lot of dirty hands out there.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150123 Jan 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the most foul-mouthed posters here attends this one:
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Ave.... ;
I do not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150124 Jan 25, 2013
Wrathbone wrote:
The Aspect's experiment verifies that objects really do have connections OUTSIDE of space and time that effect things INSIDE space and time.
This is wrong. Aspect's experiment shows that classical notions like 'every particle has definite properties at all times' are false. It most certainly does NOT show there are connections outside of space and time. it does show that correlations that are produced are maintained in the future.
In other words, matter is not SUPREME.
Supreme in what sense? Who said that matter is supreme? I tis simply not an adjective that applies.
Quantum physics doesn't depict objects as definite things. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality?
Decoherence. Look it up.
If physical laws are solely responsible, then they should explain how this process happens. They don't.
Actually, yes they do.
Interestingly, all the paradoxes of quantum physics could be easily solved if conventional science accepted consciousness (spirit) as the basis of being, which in no way means accepting the dogma of ANY religion. It is not only entirely possible, but probable that parallel universes radically different from our own lie beyond the domain of physical science.
Nope, consciousness is irrelevant to how things become definite in QM. In fact, the interaction with *any* sufficiently complicated environment is enough.

Nice try, though.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150125 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's substantiated by the verses. Ancient Israelite marriages did not require the consent of the woman. The women who were CAPTURED by soldiers were married by the man's choice alone.
Conjugal relations were an expected part of wifely duties. The Israelites did not consider those sexual encounters to be rape, but I, and any reasonable person who does not view a wife as property of her husband, does.
I asked for proof.

Not conjecture.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150126 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's substantiated by the verses. Ancient Israelite marriages did not require the consent of the woman. The women who were CAPTURED by soldiers were married by the man's choice alone.
Conjugal relations were an expected part of wifely duties. The Israelites did not consider those sexual encounters to be rape, but I, and any reasonable person who does not view a wife as property of her husband, does.
Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"

Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possible—death for the rapist.

There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

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 lozzza 19,037
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 7,391
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr NoahLovesU 7,468
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 2 hr thetruth 115
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Sun hpcaban 30
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web