Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258038 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: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#170885 Jul 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a net and a cage you can borrow?
lol i may take you up on that and then they can be studied for the mentaly incapacitated individuals that they are
Favorite Adversary

Brooklyn, NY

#170886 Jul 5, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Your analogy is sound however, as both Adam and Eve were basically children with no growing up experiences to govern their actions. Hence no concept of right or wrong. Now if God had instilled into them the concepts of Good and Evil, right and wrong, then we would have a totally different situation, with Eve willfully disobeying a command, and knowing it was in fact WRONG. But the bible gives no information about their age or what they did of didn't know.
Hello blacklagoon- How was your July 4th? I hope it was a good one for you and your family. Now in reply to your post regarding free will:

This is exactly my point. God did tell them not to, for they would surely die. By doing so, God was telling them that it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit (which I believe is a metaphor) and He also told them what the consequence would be. Once somebody is told what to do or not to do, along with the consequence for disobedience, then it follows logically that this is an instruction in the difference between right and wrong. They were told "why" it was wrong. So hence, they knew. What their actions unleashed was the concept of guilt; of knowing intimately deep and profound regret.

Now with regard to God's omniscience and free will, I understand it to mean that God intimately knows how we will behave on our own because of His experience and infinite knowledge, yet He allows us to choose our own path.

This is how I understand the theological concept of the fall of mankind. If you disagree, that's okay. At least we're talking about it in a civil and intelligent manner.

Favorite Adversary

Brooklyn, NY

#170887 Jul 5, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe there are different levels of skepticism. You are either skeptical or not. All skepticism is healthy. And of course we must be overly critical, that is exactly how we discover the truth. Do we adopt the attitude of, "well maybe you're right, I haven't looked into it that deeply." or do we adopt the attitude of "You may well be right, but I plan to turn over every leaf in order to arrive, the very best I can, at the truth."
I get what you're saying. There is a kernel of truth to looking at evidence for and against any proposed truth with a very critical eye. However, there is such a thing as "hyper-skepticism" in which a person is unreasonably skeptical. There comes a point when the truth is so obvious that it's inconceivable how somebody may miss it or not regard it as truth. Such a person is being "hyper-skeptical" and this is usually a sign of emotional reaction rather than rational understanding.

There's a scene in the movie Bruce Almighty where Jim Carrey is driving his car behind a truck and he is praying "God just give me a sign", and the truck he's following is loaded with road signs of warnings. How often is this parody played out in our own lives? Where we're looking so hard for some sort of confirmation or truth, that we miss the forest for the trees.

I have an interesting question for you.

Do you think you could be a good juror?

Imhotep

United States

#170888 Jul 5, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>> Atheism, agnostics, humanism, non-indoctrinated humans aka "Organized aimless wandering in the wilderness" does not unite those people. Instead it drives them closer to oblivion!
>:/
You are correct - you are wandering in the wilderness of ignorance!

You refuse to examine history, fact, reason
,commonsense and Rudimentary logic.

Instead you prefer others to tell you how to think and what to do.

How does mental slavery and. Subservience feel 21st century?

Are you proud your mind is so weak?

Do you need a sky daddy to get you through the day?

You people are pathetic.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#170889 Jul 5, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Machines and biological processes follow the same physical laws. Just different in how they are configured to transfer energy.
You seem to think organic life is removed from those laws. Odd for an evolutionist to think that.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't they abide by different sets of laws, one abides by mechanical and mineral laws, the other by biological laws.
I read that last night about 20 minutes after you posted it.

Let's say I was too stunned by it to post then.

KK, everything physical follows the laws of physics in this physical world.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#170890 Jul 5, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Beats the hell out of your grandmothers pic.
Not that she wasn't a looker in her time.
Weren't we all?
Some things are better left framed on the wall.
That was the real me, little one. In a stiff cold breeze and in a serious need of a haircut. Which is a condition I am in again now. I have to drive 20 miles to get a haircut.

None of the women in my family were "lookers". They had brains, but not the looks.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#170891 Jul 5, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct - you are wandering in the wilderness of ignorance!
You refuse to examine history, fact, reason
,commonsense and Rudimentary logic.
Instead you prefer others to tell you how to think and what to do.
How does mental slavery and. Subservience feel 21st century?
Are you proud your mind is so weak?
Do you need a sky daddy to get you through the day?
You people are pathetic.
LOL!

You read that in a textbook or someone told you, eh?

Most of humanity wanders the wilderness looking for the skydaddy. You ask the guy next to you what the "truth" is.

Say moo.
Favorite Adversary

Brooklyn, NY

#170892 Jul 5, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
I assume sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.
Why is your first sentence about an assumption? If by your own admission you're making an assumption, then what is the basis for that assumption? Now onto your next point. The Roman senator and excellent historian Tacitus clearly referred to Jesus (albeit indirectly) and His execution by crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Almost everything we know about the historical Roman empire comes from Tacitus. Even secular history scholars concede this point. If we know nothing else about Jesus, we can safely say from historical knowledge that a Jewish Rabbi pissed off the locals and got himself killed by crucifixion.
Imhotep wrote:
NOTE
Feel free to DISPROVE the following...
Please refrain from using Christian apologists as their viewpoints are clearly biased in favor of their dogma.
These alleged 'saviours/prophets' exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.
Yes Apologists (such as myself) are biased in our viewpoints, but it's because of the historical evidence we have found when properly evaluated in the appropriate context. If a doctor is going to argue for a procedure, it's because he or she has a biased interest to help a patient recover. If a police officer is going to argue for a law or method of enforcement, it's because he or she has a biased interest to protect and serve. Your argument against biased interest is not without merit, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be either.

I'll continue, but I'll have to snip some of this to save space.
Imhotep wrote:
Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.
Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.
For example, the Egyptians recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood.
Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus,
there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts."

For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.
Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.

It would spoil the story!
How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?
"Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites."
– John Romer, Testament
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-ex...
Imhotep wrote:
In spite of this evidence you can, in fact, convert me! PTL. hallelujah!
1. Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do.
2. Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs.
May the force be with you!
I cannot convert you, but I can discuss what I believe as I understand it, in a way that may show you truths you had previously had misconceptions about.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#170893 Jul 5, 2013
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
they really have to do something about the trolls on here
then leave

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#170894 Jul 5, 2013
Christians winning
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#170895 Jul 5, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello blacklagoon- How was your July 4th? I hope it was a good one for you and your family. Now in reply to your post regarding free will:
This is exactly my point. God did tell them not to, for they would surely die. By doing so, God was telling them that it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit (which I believe is a metaphor) and He also told them what the consequence would be. Once somebody is told what to do or not to do, along with the consequence for disobedience, then it follows logically that this is an instruction in the difference between right and wrong. They were told "why" it was wrong. So hence, they knew. What their actions unleashed was the concept of guilt; of knowing intimately deep and profound regret.
Now with regard to God's omniscience and free will, I understand it to mean that God intimately knows how we will behave on our own because of His experience and infinite knowledge, yet He allows us to choose our own path.
This is how I understand the theological concept of the fall of mankind. If you disagree, that's okay. At least we're talking about it in a civil and intelligent manner.
Thank you for asking, yes I had a great 4th hope yours was also good.

I do believe Adam and Eve's childlike nature is an important component for this discussion. They, like a 5 year old, were told not to do something, and were informed of the punishment. By the way, God lied, he never killed them for disobeying is orders. To go back to your analogy of the different colored ponies. I tell my 5 year old she must NOT pick the pink pony, her favorite color, and inform her of the punishment. I have NOT instilled in her the difference between right and wrong, she has no idea why she should be punished for picking her favorite color, only that a higher power has told her not to. Now, a good parent will explain in detail just exactly WHY picking the pink pony is wrong. Now the child at least has an idea why she should NOT pick her favorite. God did no such thing.

If you had the power that supposedly God has, and you saw your only son climb into a car with a drunk driver, and KNEW that 10 miles down the road the drunk would swerve off the road and crash, and your son would be paralyzed for the rest of his life. His hopes a dream over for the rest of his life, he becomes extremely depressed and grows suicidal eventually taking his own life. NOW, you could have prevented all of this since you could see the future, would you have allowed this chain of events to happen?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#170896 Jul 5, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
I get what you're saying. There is a kernel of truth to looking at evidence for and against any proposed truth with a very critical eye. However, there is such a thing as "hyper-skepticism" in which a person is unreasonably skeptical. There comes a point when the truth is so obvious that it's inconceivable how somebody may miss it or not regard it as truth. Such a person is being "hyper-skeptical" and this is usually a sign of emotional reaction rather than rational understanding.
There's a scene in the movie Bruce Almighty where Jim Carrey is driving his car behind a truck and he is praying "God just give me a sign", and the truck he's following is loaded with road signs of warnings. How often is this parody played out in our own lives? Where we're looking so hard for some sort of confirmation or truth, that we miss the forest for the trees.
I have an interesting question for you.
Do you think you could be a good juror?
You call it hyper-skepticism, others, including myself, call it willfully ignorant. I see this all the time in creationists and anyone else who rejects the facts of evolution. As you say, when the truth is SO obvious, when the evidential data is so plentiful, it is inconceivable how any one cans not regard it as truth. In the case of the Theists who reject factual information, it's not being hyper-skeptical, they are not able to square what the bible says with evolution. Of course not all Theists fall into this category only the radical one's and that would include all creationists.

Yes, I think I would make a good juror. I have a fairly open mind and base all my decisions on factual information. How about you?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#170897 Jul 5, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You call it hyper-skepticism, others, including myself, call it willfully ignorant. I see this all the time in creationists and anyone else who rejects the facts of evolution. As you say, when the truth is SO obvious, when the evidential data is so plentiful, it is inconceivable how any one cans not regard it as truth. In the case of the Theists who reject factual information, it's not being hyper-skeptical, they are not able to square what the bible says with evolution. Of course not all Theists fall into this category only the radical one's and that would include all creationists.
Yes, I think I would make a good juror. I have a fairly open mind and base all my decisions on factual information. How about you?
Plus you enjoy the hell out of judging other people and their actions.
Imhotep

United States

#170898 Jul 5, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
You read that in a textbook or someone told you, eh?
Most of humanity wanders the wilderness looking for the skydaddy. You ask the guy next to you what the "truth" is.
Say moo.
Say Bah bah for the sheep you are!
Most of humanity ain't Christian dipstick.
Two thirds of the worlds population is contained within two countries China and India neither is Christian.

Say bye-bye again and genuflect accordingly
Imhotep

United States

#170899 Jul 5, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is your first sentence about an assumption? If by your own admission you're making an assumption, then what is the basis for that assumption? Now onto your next point. The Roman senator and excellent historian Tacitus clearly referred to Jesus (albeit indirectly) and His execution by crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Almost everything we know about the historical Roman empire comes from Tacitus. Even secular history scholars concede this point. If we know nothing else about Jesus, we can safely say from historical knowledge that a Jewish Rabbi pissed off the locals and got himself killed by crucifixion.
<quoted text>
Yes Apologists (such as myself) are biased in our viewpoints, but it's because of the historical evidence we have found when properly evaluated in the appropriate context. If a doctor is going to argue for a procedure, it's because he or she has a biased interest to help a patient recover. If a police officer is going to argue for a law or method of enforcement, it's because he or she has a biased interest to protect and serve. Your argument against biased interest is not without merit, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be either.
I'll continue, but I'll have to snip some of this to save space.
<quoted text>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-ex...
<quoted text>
I cannot convert you, but I can discuss what I believe as I understand it, in a way that may show you truths you had previously had misconceptions about.
What truth was that?
That your God actually exists that the Bible is true that any holy book is true that's your truth?

Simply put your boy Jesus and maybe your boy Moses and of course the Islam boy Mohammad are all figments of very fertile week imaginations!

The PBS article was interesting what do you think of this one?

http://www.pbs.org/empires/egypt/newkingdom/r...

Or this? ;)

http://youtube.com/#/watch...
Imhotep

United States

#170900 Jul 5, 2013
Favorite Adversary wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is your first sentence about an assumption? If by your own admission you're making an assumption, then what is the basis for that assumption? Now onto your next point. The Roman senator and excellent historian Tacitus clearly referred to Jesus (albeit indirectly) and His execution by crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Almost everything we know about the historical Roman empire comes from Tacitus. Even secular history scholars concede this point. If we know nothing else about Jesus, we can safely say from historical knowledge that a Jewish Rabbi pissed off the locals and got himself killed by crucifixion.
<quoted text>
Yes Apologists (such as myself) are biased in our viewpoints, but it's because of the historical evidence we have found when properly evaluated in the appropriate context. If a doctor is going to argue for a procedure, it's because he or she has a biased interest to help a patient recover. If a police officer is going to argue for a law or method of enforcement, it's because he or she has a biased interest to protect and serve. Your argument against biased interest is not without merit, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be either.
I'll continue, but I'll have to snip some of this to save space.
<quoted text>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-ex...
<quoted text>
I cannot convert you, but I can discuss what I believe as I understand it, in a way that may show you truths you had previously had misconceptions about.
Sorry about that last link looks like it's missing a character or two!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

Tacitus?

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.
Favorite Adversary

Brooklyn, NY

#170901 Jul 5, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for asking, yes I had a great 4th hope yours was also good.
I do believe Adam and Eve's childlike nature is an important component for this discussion. They, like a 5 year old, were told not to do something, and were informed of the punishment. By the way, God lied, he never killed them for disobeying is orders. To go back to your analogy of the different colored ponies. I tell my 5 year old she must NOT pick the pink pony, her favorite color, and inform her of the punishment. I have NOT instilled in her the difference between right and wrong, she has no idea why she should be punished for picking her favorite color, only that a higher power has told her not to. Now, a good parent will explain in detail just exactly WHY picking the pink pony is wrong. Now the child at least has an idea why she should NOT pick her favorite. God did no such thing.
If you had the power that supposedly God has, and you saw your only son climb into a car with a drunk driver, and KNEW that 10 miles down the road the drunk would swerve off the road and crash, and your son would be paralyzed for the rest of his life. His hopes a dream over for the rest of his life, he becomes extremely depressed and grows suicidal eventually taking his own life. NOW, you could have prevented all of this since you could see the future, would you have allowed this chain of events to happen?
I understand what you're saying. In our modern society we have a tendency to explain "why" to others in minute detail. We "dumb down" almost everything. In ancient cultures, this wasn't the case. Right and wrong wasn't explained in terms of "why" because it was usually culturally obvious. This is my reasoning behind my line of argument.

In a modern translation (as I understand it) God was saying:

"There is a tree of life (God), and there is a tree of death (knowledge of good and evil) and I am asking you to follow my instructions because I alone will keep you alive if you follow those instructions. If you choose not to follow my instructions, then you will have to suffer the consequences of choosing your own way,(with your limited knowledge and power) and you won't be able to enjoy immortality with me in the same way you do now."

And God didn't lie. He never said that He would kill them. He said they would die. When God removed them from His presence, they lost the life permitting attributes and properties, and became mortal.

Now onto your next analogy.

If God can create life from nothing, then shouldn't He be powerful enough to restore immortality? There's the difference. If our kids should ever be in a life ending situation (I hope never) you and I are powerless to resurrect them or provide eternal consciousness to them. If God can, then He has an ability that we do not. We protect our kids because we don't have that power.

I believe in both creation and evolution. They are compatible. Maybe not in six days according to our understanding of space and time, but I do believe God started the process.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#170902 Jul 5, 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-217...
T-Town Clown wrote:
Christians winning
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#170903 Jul 5, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Plus you enjoy the hell out of judging other people and their actions.
When mentally ill Theists reject factual information it an "observation" on my part. Anyone who rejects factual information has every right to be judged. The worst human trait is being willfully ignorant. Anyone falling into this category opens themselves up to being judged by others and yes, scorned. And when done for the reasons of delusional beliefs, it becomes an even worse trait. I certainly do NOT enjoy seeing others so brainwashed that they reject factual information, or promote their delusions as real. I think it's a severe mental illness and they should be pitied.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#170904 Jul 5, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Say Bah bah for the sheep you are!
Most of humanity ain't Christian dipstick.
Two thirds of the worlds population is contained within two countries China and India neither is Christian.
Say bye-bye again and genuflect accordingly
Such an intellect and freethinker you.

I bet you believe everything governments tell you. Everything a trade association, political party, infomercial, or anything someone with some letters after their name tells you as "the truth". This includes certain sections of "science". Those are all groups of men just like religions.

Hey, pea brain. What is the first rule of evolution?

Survival.

How are one's "beliefs" determined?

By how they make their money.

Fortunately for some there are disillusioned and disaffected young and simple minds like yours ready to be exploited. And they are.

You will find they all have their axes to grind, and you will be providing their suppers.

You have given no real thought to an afterlife or a deity or any such thought. You are in a reactive state from disillusionment and being led by your ears.

Sucker.

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) 8 min Regolith Based Li... 48,387
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... 13 hr Scaritual 14
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 17 hr Amused 4,906
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 17 hr Amused 21,861
Jesus Christ and Wisdom, Knowledge, Understandi... Nov 29 Richardfs 5
News Delta Schools Will Get Satanic Coloring Books o... (Apr '16) Nov 29 Amused 7
News Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns (Sep '14) Nov 28 hpcaban 441
More from around the web