Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239524 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: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150127 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150128 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Cool.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150129 Jan 25, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.
Your sweet,:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#150130 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sweet,:)
Her sweet?

Huh?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150131 Jan 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sweet,:)
I'm like a Candy Cane. Beware the hook.

Catcher will find your Engrish fraws :)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#150132 Jan 26, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Ah, so you've met. Have you seen the movie Dinner for Schmucks?
Yes. Funny.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150133 Jan 26, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Derp derp, blah blah, derpity derp.
Excellent translation.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150134 Jan 26, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>Your sweet,:)
Her sweet what?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150135 Jan 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, it's funny how some hang out in church's too.

One of the most foul-mouthed posters here attends this one:

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Ave.... ;
This is an atheist forum.

At least it is on my phone and pc.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150136 Jan 26, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for proof.
Not conjecture.
You have no proof of god. That means you can stop lying about it now.

Seriously, stop lying about a god you have no proof of.

Try talking about something you do have proof of so that you can avoid being an immoral liar, there's a good creationist troll.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150137 Jan 26, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no proof of god. That means you can stop lying about it now.
Seriously, stop lying about a god you have no proof of.
Try talking about something you do have proof of so that you can avoid being an immoral liar, there's a good creationist troll.
Santa was a pedophile until I crushed his larynx in 1999 with my foot. Two hands on throat, sputtered twice and I've never seen him again.

Some gods go away.
Imhotep

United States

#150140 Jan 26, 2013
The promotion and perpetuation of a myth is often more important to believers than what the Bible teaches.

The Christian "free" gift myth is a prime example of this.

Many Christians demonstrate that the teachings of the Bible are irrelevant when they conflict with a popular myth that serves to advance the religion.

These believers are not subject to the moral
principles that they claim their religion symbolizes.

They have no problem bearing false witness to others concerning the most important issue in their religion, which is that of personal salvation.
NeuroRev

Ashburn, VA

#150141 Jan 26, 2013
Stating that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is misguided. Religious people believe in their gods and religious stories based on cultural upbringing, religious childhood indoctrination, psychological conditioning, emotional conditioning, confirmation bias etc. None of this is evidence on any level. All these techniques condition the mind to believe and 'feel' that the proposed concepts (god and religion) are true. However strong the belief and feeling, this is still zero evidence for it being true. To be convinced of the validity of something with no evidence is to be misguided. One could postulate that a magic pink frog lives in the sky, and that this frog created the universe, earth, sun, people etc etc. Over the ages people have created amazing stories about the frog, written books on the frog, perform rituals for the frog, have a range of beliefs about the frog, organise funerals and weddings based on beliefs about the frog, have special frog-worshipping days, frog festivals etc. Over time these ideas about the magic pink frog have spread down the generations to millions and millions of people. There are huge frog-worshipping buildings, frog statues etc. People worship the magic frog by hopping, croaking, puffing up their cheeks etc. They do this often and in mass numbers. All this reinforces the idea that the magic pink sky frog is real. After all, surely millions of people can't be wrong?? But is any of this mass performance and spectacle evidence for the magic pink frog? No. Not at all. It is a false belief. Therefore it qualifies as a delusion. The strength of the deluded belief is so great that an adherent concludes that it must be true, so such people claim that a lack of belief in the magic sky frog is in itself a belief. This is misguided. A belief should be in proportion to the evidence, not the mass numbers of people and stories clinging onto an unsupported idea. So, to claim that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is nonsense. An atheist is merely one who discards a belief due to a lack of proper supporting evidence. The term atheist is not even necessary, just like how we don't have a term for people who don't believe in ghosts, palm reading or astrology. Before taking beliefs literally, take a look at whether the strength of the belief is based on evidence (causation) or merely a range of psychgological conditioning (brainwashing) techniques over time...
NeuroRev

Ashburn, VA

#150142 Jan 26, 2013
For example we could have people believing that the moon is made of cheese. Millions may believe it, but is this evidence? No. We could have millions of people screaming and chanting that the moon is made of cheese. This would be a mass spectacle, and it would be tempting to assume that because so many people believe it, it must be true... Even if 500 million or 2 billion people are simultaneously chanting and strongly believing this, it does not have any impact on reality. It simply distorts perception of reality, which most people get easily taken in by. All you would need to disprove this massive 2 billion strong delusion is a small moon rock that will fit on the palm of your hand. That's it. It is a sample from the moon. It is chemically and structurally compared to cheese and has no resemblance to it. Therefore the moon is not made of cheese. 2 billion people chanting and screaming "the moon is made of cheese! The moon is made of cheese! I believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe it!!! We believe it!!!" means nothing and fails in any way to change reality. It is just a mass (2 billion strong) mega-delusion. The tiny moon rock is still closer to truth than 2 billion deluded screaming people...
Imhotep

United States

#150143 Jan 26, 2013
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.

This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150144 Jan 26, 2013
NeuroRev wrote:
For example we could have people believing that the moon is made of cheese. Millions may believe it, but is this evidence? No. We could have millions of people screaming and chanting that the moon is made of cheese. This would be a mass spectacle, and it would be tempting to assume that because so many people believe it, it must be true... Even if 500 million or 2 billion people are simultaneously chanting and strongly believing this, it does not have any impact on reality. It simply distorts perception of reality, which most people get easily taken in by. All you would need to disprove this massive 2 billion strong delusion is a small moon rock that will fit on the palm of your hand. That's it. It is a sample from the moon. It is chemically and structurally compared to cheese and has no resemblance to it. Therefore the moon is not made of cheese. 2 billion people chanting and screaming "the moon is made of cheese! The moon is made of cheese! I believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe the moon is made of cheese! We believe it!!! We believe it!!!" means nothing and fails in any way to change reality. It is just a mass (2 billion strong) mega-delusion. The tiny moon rock is still closer to truth than 2 billion deluded screaming people...
Then you also have those that believe this material existence we are experiencing just popped out of nowhere. No ultimate cause, just a cloud of smoke that condensed and "poof!", here were are.

Still waiting for the proof such can be done on the physical level, and not in the imagination using numbers.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150145 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you also have those that believe this material existence we are experiencing just popped out of nowhere. No ultimate cause, just a cloud of smoke that condensed and "poof!", here were are.
Still waiting for the proof such can be done on the physical level, and not in the imagination using numbers.
Hey look, its that annoying creationist with no proof of god back again, to get crush in debate until he dissapears again back to the discovery institute.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150146 Jan 26, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.
This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
You were taught the history of mankind, and a very wide variety of other things in this existence alleged to exist, and how they came about. All based upon books and oral histories. Including "scientific" thought.

See a psychiatrist.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150147 Jan 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You were taught the history of mankind, and a very wide variety of other things in this existence alleged to exist, and how they came about. All based upon books and oral histories. Including "scientific" thought.
See a psychiatrist.
Says the person who wants us all to believe that Jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.
bohart

Newport, TN

#150148 Jan 26, 2013
NeuroRev wrote:
Stating that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is misguided. Religious people believe in their gods and religious stories based on cultural upbringing, religious childhood indoctrination, psychological conditioning, emotional conditioning, confirmation bias etc. None of this is evidence on any level. All these techniques condition the mind to believe and 'feel' that the proposed concepts (god and religion) are true. However strong the belief and feeling, this is still zero evidence for it being true. To be convinced of the validity of something with no evidence is to be misguided. One could postulate that a magic pink frog lives in the sky, and that this frog created the universe, earth, sun, people etc etc. Over the ages people have created amazing stories about the frog, written books on the frog, perform rituals for the frog, have a range of beliefs about the frog, organise funerals and weddings based on beliefs about the frog, have special frog-worshipping days, frog festivals etc. Over time these ideas about the magic pink frog have spread down the generations to millions and millions of people. There are huge frog-worshipping buildings, frog statues etc. People worship the magic frog by hopping, croaking, puffing up their cheeks etc. They do this often and in mass numbers. All this reinforces the idea that the magic pink sky frog is real. After all, surely millions of people can't be wrong?? But is any of this mass performance and spectacle evidence for the magic pink frog? No. Not at all. It is a false belief. Therefore it qualifies as a delusion. The strength of the deluded belief is so great that an adherent concludes that it must be true, so such people claim that a lack of belief in the magic sky frog is in itself a belief. This is misguided. A belief should be in proportion to the evidence, not the mass numbers of people and stories clinging onto an unsupported idea. So, to claim that atheism requires as much faith as religious belief is nonsense. An atheist is merely one who discards a belief due to a lack of proper supporting evidence. The term atheist is not even necessary, just like how we don't have a term for people who don't believe in ghosts, palm reading or astrology. Before taking beliefs literally, take a look at whether the strength of the belief is based on evidence (causation) or merely a range of psychgological conditioning (brainwashing) techniques over time...
Have atheists discarded their beginning of life theory? It sure isn't supported by any proper evidence.

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) 26 min Aura Mytha 19,101
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr Pete-o 7,504
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr woodtick57 7,500
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Pahu 2,219
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 11 hr Rosa_Winkel 134
News New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 18 hr Knowledge- 6
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... Fri Thinking 2
More from around the web