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 (Page 7,824)

Showing posts 156,461 - 156,480 of223,285
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162754
Mar 28, 2013
 
Unable to answer my questions I see. Childish retorts is all you have left.

What made you think you could debate with your betters?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Super!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162755
Mar 28, 2013
 
Yes best change the subject when you are unable to answer questions posed to you eh?

Keep dancing of us puppet.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Hey cool.

The USS Voyager was an Intrepid class starship.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162756
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
They are internal experiences caused by an exterior force.
It's pretty hard to fall in love with nothing or be jealous of nothing.
On the contrary, it is very common for people to feel the emotion of love when the object of their emotion has a completely different emotion. This is even more true of jealousy, when imagined trespasses are quite common. This shows the emotions are NOT caused by an exterior force, but are internally induced (although sometimes triggered by external events).

I'd even go so far as to say that people many people are 'in love' with partners that have little to do with the *actual* person. Instead, they are imagined entities conforming to some ideal that the real person would not recognize as being themselves. Now, this type of self-delusion probably decreases with experience, but I do think it is quite common. The phenomenon of 'putting someone on a pedestal' is a classic example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162757
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand.
But my default position is that I didn't hallucinate.
I doubt anyone could convince me otherwise.
And this is also the default position of most people that hallucinate.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162758
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
I doubt it.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162759
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I've answered those questions already, several times.
It's not my fault you don't pay attention.
It was probably your mythical Satan! that touched you.

How would you know?

You wouldn't. It may have been Quetzalcoatl.

You really can't say if it was or wasn't.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162760
Mar 28, 2013
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>It was probably your mythical Satan! that touched you.

How would you know?

You wouldn't. It may have been Quetzalcoatl.

You really can't say if it was or wasn't.
If it was a long haired, white guy it was Jesus.

Unless, of course, Jesus really looked like a middle easterner.

“FAITH IN MANKIND”

Since: Mar 13

AT PEACE WITH NATURE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162761
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They knew they shouldn't eat the fruit, if tehy don't want death. It is enough knowledge.
"The woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said,'You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
Genesis 3:2-3
But maybe it was not question of good/bad. The result in both ways can be seen as good. But as God had said, with that fruit comes also death. And death seems to be good sometimes, at least many atheists think it is better than eternal life :)
Many people speak of eternal life. What do you expect that eternal life to be? How would you define it? Is it just a continuation of your current life maybe without all the rest of us that you don't agree with?

I think that I would be bored spending eternity with the same group of people. Especially if they just want to stand around and sing "Shall We Gather At The River".

RIVERSIDE REDNECK SALOON

Would make a great name for a dive! LOL
Realist

Rome, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162762
Mar 28, 2013
 
Have any of you "believers" actually ever sat down and had a one one converstaion with your so call "God"?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162763
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Unable to answer my questions I see. Childish retorts is all you have left.
What made you think you could debate with your betters?
<quoted text>
Swell!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162764
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes best change the subject when you are unable to answer questions posed to you eh?
Keep dancing of us puppet.
<quoted text>
Far out...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162765
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it is very common for people to feel the emotion of love when the object of their emotion has a completely different emotion. This is even more true of jealousy, when imagined trespasses are quite common. This shows the emotions are NOT caused by an exterior force, but are internally induced (although sometimes triggered by external events).
I'd even go so far as to say that people many people are 'in love' with partners that have little to do with the *actual* person. Instead, they are imagined entities conforming to some ideal that the real person would not recognize as being themselves. Now, this type of self-delusion probably decreases with experience, but I do think it is quite common. The phenomenon of 'putting someone on a pedestal' is a classic example.
Right, that's pretty much what I said. It's perfectly normal for a person to fall in love with another person without the other person's consent or even knowledge.

But there's still an external source.

Oooohhh, I hate the "putting someone on a pedestal" syndrome. And I agree with your take on it.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162766
Mar 28, 2013
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It was probably your mythical Satan! that touched you.
How would you know?
You wouldn't. It may have been Quetzalcoatl.
You really can't say if it was or wasn't.
Ya, it also could've been the ghost of Henry Ford...

But it wasn't. It was God.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162768
Mar 28, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it.
Because you're not a freethinker, you're a slavethinker.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162769
Mar 28, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was a long haired, white guy it was Jesus.
Unless, of course, Jesus really looked like a middle easterner.
LOL, I'll agree with ya there.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162770
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, it also could've been the ghost of Henry Ford...
But it wasn't. It was God.
But you don't know that.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162771
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Because you're not a freethinker, you're a slavethinker.
What exactly am I a slave to?

You're the one that's hopelessly locked into a mindset that's thousands of years old with little or no tolerance for new or contradictory knowledge, no tolerance for doubt, no use for reason, and you say *I'm* a "slave thinker"?

Seriously?!

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162772
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Agnostic atheist is an oxymoron.
A true atheist does not believe in the existence of deities. They just don't.
So how could someone that doesn't believe in the existence of deities also not "know for sure" if deities exist?
How is the term “agnostic atheist” an oxymoron?

Nothing in the rest of your post supports its first sentence.

The second sentence is precisely correct. An atheist does not believe in the existence of deities... and that's it. That's all that's required to be an atheist >>> A lack of belief that deities exist; Rejection of the theists' assertions that deities exist.

Agnostic means “without knowledge”(pertaining to the existence of deities).

Atheist means “without belief”(ditto).

As much as a person may shy away the label, if they don't believe at least one deity exists, then they ARE an atheist... no ifs, and, or buts about it. What they don't know has nothing to do with it and goes without saying... everyone's agnostic.

Your question isn't logically stated. Belief and knowledge are two different things. The latter can be considered a subset of the former. If someone knows something, then they must also have a belief about it. Conversely... they don't have to know something to have or not have a belief about it.

Like you...

You don't know there's a god... but, you believe one exists.

And me...

I don't know there isn't a god... but, I don't believe any exist.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162773
Mar 28, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I know.
How do you know when you're in love?
How do you know when you're jealous?
*shrugs*
You just do.
But go on, prove you love your mother.
I'll wait.
Both, love and jealousy, are demonstrable.

Your god isn't.

Mothers exist. Mothers are proof that mothers exist. Sons and daughters are proof that mothers exist.

You have no proof your god exists.

You are comparing your god to an emotion... and NOT to one capable of demonstrating an emotion >>> a mother or a son or a daughter.

It's a false analogy... and one that *doesn't* work in your favor.

B'cuz...

What you're saying is that your god is nothing but an emotion... a feeling.

And...

I *know* that isn't your intention.

Even though...

I wouldn't disagree.
Largelanguage

Holywell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162774
Mar 28, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Both, love and jealousy, are demonstrable.
Your god isn't.
Mothers exist. Mothers are proof that mothers exist. Sons and daughters are proof that mothers exist.
You have no proof your god exists.
You are comparing your god to an emotion... and NOT to one capable of demonstrating an emotion >>> a mother or a son or a daughter.
It's a false analogy... and one that *doesn't* work in your favor.
B'cuz...
What you're saying is that your god is nothing but an emotion... a feeling.
And...
I *know* that isn't your intention.
Even though...
I wouldn't disagree.
But damaged goods like you, for your own good, need to pretend that your love mother loves you! HAHAHAAHAH!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 156,461 - 156,480 of223,285
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••