Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 242979 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: Mar 11

United States

#152209 Feb 7, 2013
Just the leaders, the sheep like yourself were just easily duped by the delusion.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, is it true then that you would assert that everyone that supported Christianity in its earliest days are liars and frauds?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#152210 Feb 7, 2013
It would warp them and lead to hatred of others. I would never allow that filth to be shown to children.
Thinking wrote:
Some porn is sick. I often see old people looking at this long haired guy in a nappy with blood coming out of his side, head, hands and feet. Really sick stuff. What if kids saw it?
<quoted text>

Since: Mar 11

United States

#152211 Feb 7, 2013
Sweaty rich Roman scribes who never met Jesus nor even spoke his language 50-100 years later that they overheard from street mystics were the apostles?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
The apostles, silly, and everyone that witnessed the event, and later put it down to paper, and wrote about it. What exactly do you think the New Testament is? It's a collection of historical records, of course.
No witnesses, no people that saw Jesus and witnessed His Resurrection, no Christianity.
Imhotep

United States

#152212 Feb 7, 2013
Turkey wrote:
<quoted text> you're just another pompous fool. Get a real job misfit.
Turkey
Summation: child, throwing tantrum due to total inability to sustain a lucid argument. Resorts to insults, a clear indication of desperation.

I refuse to argue with idiots, they reduce me to their level then beat me with experience.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152215 Feb 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative. All of history is the data and the supporting evidence.
No, it isn't, as I've already explained. That isn't supporting evidence of Christianity's claims at all.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And no, the Renaissance (Spiritual Rebirth?), Age of Reason and Enlightenment were religious endeavors.
The Age of Reason and Enlightenment OPPOSED religion, superstition, and faith in favor of reason and evidence.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Were do you get your sources of history? Not only do you outright lie and claim I provided no details, you then accuse me of what you yourself are doing?
You didn't provide any details.

- What evidence and arguments did early Christians use to convert "atheists"?
- What claims were subjected to the scientific method?
- What scientific training did any of those early Christians have?
- What parts of the Bible include the scientific method or promote scientific/skeptical thinking?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
There is no such thing as secular. Prove that there is.
Secular refers to anything not inherently religious. Reason is secular. Science is secular. Math is secular. Eating a hamburger is secular. Making a post on Topix is secular.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And if you want proof, then you'd have to ask those that witnessed events 2000 years ago.
The idea that they HAD any proof is your claim and you must support it.

It's baffling that you think this is a good argument for believing something that has no evidence to support it.

"People believed it back then. Prove them wrong!"

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152216 Feb 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
But then I put my big boy pants on, and got a reality check. Rape is up. Objectification of women is up. Men are more piggish than ever, me being no exception until I grew up.
So fess up.
Rape has been going down for 20 years.

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/17/2summe...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152217 Feb 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Primitive?
By what standard?
We are very primitive now, are we not? Is not the notion of being "primitive" subjective and relative?
Very arrogant indeed if you think you are smarter than ancient peoples.
We are smarter than ancient peoples. And more educated. And have infinitely greater access to knowledge. And have superior reporting. And have more free time.

~90% of the people in Palestine couldn't even read. They had no little knowledge of math and virtually no science. They knew what they needed to know to survive, like farming and maybe a trade skill.

Jesus' time was an era of superstition and credulity.

Do you think Romans praying to Ceres were doing scientific analysis on the affects of prayer at her temple to crop growth? No. They prayed, they got some crops, they thanked her.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152218 Feb 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, is it true then that you would assert that everyone that supported Christianity in its earliest days are liars and frauds?
Or delusional, or credulous, or mistaken.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152219 Feb 7, 2013
Speaking of scumbags and viruses, out of the 18 years or so I have been on the net, I have had only one virus.

I was cruising the net for a particular song. Found it and downloaded it. However, the title was inordinately long. So long you couldn't see the file type at the end. I downloaded it and clicked to play only to discover it was an exe with a virus. It was a gospel song.

The lure of free money or free what we want makes suckers of us all.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152220 Feb 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
The apostles, silly, and everyone that witnessed the event, and later put it down to paper, and wrote about it. What exactly do you think the New Testament is? It's a collection of historical records, of course.
The Gospels are legends made to lay down a religion. They're no more historical than the accounts of Muhammad talking to Allah or Joseph Smith meeting an angel or Buddha achieving Nirvana.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No witnesses, no people that saw Jesus and witnessed His Resurrection, no Christianity.
Completely untrue. People believe ridiculous things without evidence all the time. You don't apply this standard to any other religion.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152221 Feb 7, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
We are smarter than ancient peoples. And more educated. And have infinitely greater access to knowledge. And have superior reporting. And have more free time.
~90% of the people in Palestine couldn't even read. They had no little knowledge of math and virtually no science. They knew what they needed to know to survive, like farming and maybe a trade skill.
Jesus' time was an era of superstition and credulity.
Do you think Romans praying to Ceres were doing scientific analysis on the affects of prayer at her temple to crop growth? No. They prayed, they got some crops, they thanked her.
You are FOS.

The Second Temple was quite an engineering feat. The Romans, who are quite famous for their engineering skills, had a helluva time dismantling it.

BTW, it was really just a big slaughterhouse and meat market.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#152222 Feb 7, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Speaking of scumbags and viruses, out of the 18 years or so I have been on the net, I have had only one virus.
I was cruising the net for a particular song. Found it and downloaded it. However, the title was inordinately long. So long you couldn't see the file type at the end. I downloaded it and clicked to play only to discover it was an exe with a virus. It was a gospel song.
The lure of free money or free what we want makes suckers of us all.
a virus was spread to a person who simply wanted a song about a virus.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#152223 Feb 7, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are FOS.
The Second Temple was quite an engineering feat. The Romans, who are quite famous for their engineering skills, had a helluva time dismantling it.
BTW, it was really just a big slaughterhouse and meat market.
cool, they moved some earth. Did the make an MRI machine or a car...nope.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152224 Feb 7, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are FOS.
The Second Temple was quite an engineering feat. The Romans, who are quite famous for their engineering skills, had a helluva time dismantling it.
BTW, it was really just a big slaughterhouse and meat market.
Having building skills does not indicate a scientific or skeptical mindset.

The Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids are more impressive than the Second Temple and I don't hear that being used as support for their religions' validity.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152225 Feb 7, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
cool, they moved some earth. Did the make an MRI machine or a car...nope.
You are FOS II.

Big rocks, not just earth.

Look up Baalbek.

Those megalithic buildings were more than just buildings. They produced something that kept people spending extraordinary amounts of money, materials, and labor to construct them over long periods of time. They were not casual endeavors.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#152226 Feb 7, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gospels are legends made to lay down a religion. They're no more historical than the accounts of Muhammad talking to Allah or Joseph Smith meeting an angel or Buddha achieving Nirvana.
+1, nicely put

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#152227 Feb 7, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Having building skills does not indicate a scientific or skeptical mindset.
The Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids are more impressive than the Second Temple and I don't hear that being used as support for their religions' validity.
A simple mind such as yours would see such structures as symbolic. Even though they were very expensive.

You are incapable of seeing them as vehicles or conduits for energy flows. The "priests" did. They were the "scientific" minds of the time.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#152228 Feb 7, 2013
But I some in this building where parents force their kids to go. I think it was called a church or something? Definitely shouldn't show that sick sh!t to children.
Givemeliberty wrote:
It would warp them and lead to hatred of others. I would never allow that filth to be shown to children.
<quoted text>
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#152229 Feb 7, 2013
But I *saw* some in this building where parents force their kids to go. I think it was called a church or something? Definitely shouldn't show that sick sh!t to children.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152230 Feb 7, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple mind such as yours would see such structures as symbolic. Even though they were very expensive.
You are incapable of seeing them as vehicles or conduits for energy flows. The "priests" did. They were the "scientific" minds of the time.
Conduits for energy flows? Please explain.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 52 min Eagle 12 9,155
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 6 hr lozzza 6,160
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Chimney1 19,739
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Mon Thinking 15
Atheists have morals too! Sun par five 3
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Sun QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sun thetruth 2,280
More from around the web