Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

SamBee

Summerfield, FL

#173934 Aug 9, 2013
This is for all that don't believe in the Most High and his Prophets.

Shalum,

So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173935 Aug 9, 2013
SamBee wrote:
<quoted text>
Shalum,
So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.
Does God want some to go to hell?
God wants everyone to go to heaven. God wants some to go to hell.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173936 Aug 9, 2013
SamBee wrote:
This is for all that don't believe in the Most High and his Prophets.
Shalum,
So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173937 Aug 9, 2013
SamBee wrote:
This is for all that don't believe in the Most High and his Prophets.
Shalum,
So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.


1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6


2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2


4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19

9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14

10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17

13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28

14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#173938 Aug 9, 2013
SamBee wrote:
<quoted text>
Shalum,
So because you don't know how to read the bible you claim its contradictory. Post what you claim is contradictory and I'll show you the precepts to it.
go for it
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_n...
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#173939 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
no it doesnt

stop embarrasing yourself

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173940 Aug 9, 2013
What do you expect from a book of ancient campfire myths?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed. Under a transparent dome with holes-in, for rain to fall through....

... because the bible also states the sky is blue, due to water overhead....

....!!

'Tis a silly book.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173941 Aug 9, 2013
Are vegetarians on the vegetarian topix threads proselytizing or merely posting their opinions on the appropriate forums?

It seems you think that theists should be able to freely express their opinions and thoughts but atheists should not be given the same opportunity. I suppose your preacher man has instilled that in your head.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173942 Aug 9, 2013
He supposedly did these tricks for ancient sheep herders when 99% of people couldn't read or write. Why not now when his actions could be properly observed and documented? I guess you think it's more likely he vanished as more people could read and write than he is the creation of ancient people as a method of explaining that which they didn't understand.

It's fine that you live your life on blind faith and superstition but some of us actually ask for evidence to back up a claim.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I believe you're sincere Poly, and I admire your honesty in stating your view. However, as I've pointed out before, I think your criteria and expectation for evidence is way too high. It's unreasonable. Such a God who would perform cosmic parlor tricks at our insistence to prove his existence is hardly a god to worship. Such a god that would allow himself to be manipulated according to our whims and demands would not then be all powerful.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173943 Aug 9, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>First off you have NO evidence for the existence of God, none at all. Anecdotal testimony, personal experiences, and the writing in an ancient book do NOT constitute evidence. I've gone through this before, maybe with you. There are ONLY two possibilities, either A exists or A doesn't exist. There is only one methodology to determine if A is or isn't and thats science. We don't have to witness A IF the evidence is strong enough. At this point you'll resort to your rant about the historicity of Jesus, even though it is a FACT that there are no contemporary accounts for Jesus outside of the bible. We know the orbital period of Pluto is 235 days even though we have NEVER witnessed one complete orbit. Now, can you name another methodology other than science in determining if A is or A isn't?
Science cannot prove itself to be true. It's a circular and self-refuting argument. That's like saying the Bible proves itself to be true. Anyone who says scripture interprets scripture is engaging in semantics, as is anyone who says that science proves itself by the scientific method.

Yes I argue for the historicity of Jesus. My argument is based upon the methodology of determining the truth of history. The ten objective tests of reliability that exist.

I think that one of the major issues with accepting the historicity of Jesus is that people aren't aware of the differences in culture which in turn are compounded by the length of time between events and our own present time.

The latest issue from those who deny the existence of Jesus is whether or not contemporary writers of Jesus' own time should have written about him. Those who deny the existence of Jesus are assuming that his contemporaries should have written about him. That's just simply not true. It's an assumption based upon our own modern experience. In our modern Western culture we have the following experience:

Modern media- T.V. Radio, Satellite communications, Internet, mass-printing

Literacy- Is the rule rather than the exception.

Travel- We can travel thousands of miles in less than 24 hours.

Cultural impact- Because of the rapidity of modern media, a school shooting in Connecticut or Oregon is more sensational than a rabbi chasing people out of a temple.

Linguistics- Modern people speak directly more often than not and do not use metaphor as much in their writing. Modern society interprets everything literally. As a musician, you read musical notation literally. Because of the nature of music, there's no room for ambiguity when reading it. But because of that, it has affected the way you read everything else, even if you aren't aware of that.

There was no reason for contemporary writers in Jesus day to write about him. I've already shown that the list Liberty gave me listed 16 authors (one who was doubled- his name was reversed later in the list), and none of them were likely to have been in Jerusalem in 30-33AD. He pulled that list from a skeptic website and ran with it without checking the reliability of the list. That's intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173944 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
He supposedly did these tricks for ancient sheep herders when 99% of people couldn't read or write. Why not now when his actions could be properly observed and documented? I guess you think it's more likely he vanished as more people could read and write than he is the creation of ancient people as a method of explaining that which they didn't understand.
It's fine that you live your life on blind faith and superstition but some of us actually ask for evidence to back up a claim.
<quoted text>
I don't have blind faith. My trust and confidence is based upon the historical evidence. I am able to understand the evidence. My mind is open. You're unable to understand. Your mind is closed.

I can tell your mind is closed because you label the miracles as "tricks." Your presupposition has your interpretation of him as an ancient Harry Houdini. Your lack of theological understanding is a key element in your misconceptions. Yet, if you ask me to clear them up, you won't believe my explanations anyway. Let me ask you a question? What advantage or benefit do I gain from your belief or unbelief?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#173945 Aug 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Are vegetarians on the vegetarian topix threads proselytizing or merely posting their opinions on the appropriate forums?
It seems you think that theists should be able to freely express their opinions and thoughts but atheists should not be given the same opportunity. I suppose your preacher man has instilled that in your head.
<quoted text>
Butch, the topic is "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?".

To advocate a "non-belief" becomes a belief, which in turn requires a faith in that belief.

Thank you for proving it does.

Now go grab your Johnson out of the drawer, put in fresh batteries, and go show "wifey" again what a man you are. You can never stop proving yourself, otherwise she will just see you as just another one of the girls.

.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#173946 Aug 9, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may be just a non-belief, but when it is advocated, or proselytized as on here, it becomes a belief.
You can't convert someone to be an atheist...either you are, or you aren't.

Satan is the one true god

Since: Aug 13

Las Vegas, NV

#173947 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have blind faith. My trust and confidence is based upon the historical evidence. I am able to understand the evidence. My mind is open. You're unable to understand. Your mind is closed.
I can tell your mind is closed because you label the miracles as "tricks." Your presupposition has your interpretation of him as an ancient Harry Houdini. Your lack of theological understanding is a key element in your misconceptions. Yet, if you ask me to clear them up, you won't believe my explanations anyway. Let me ask you a question? What advantage or benefit do I gain from your belief or unbelief?
hostorical evidence?..BWHWHHWHHHAHAHAHHAH AHAHHAHAhah... a book of unknown authors, full of errors and contradictions, and impossible supernatural entities and events, and no originals and he can't demonstrate a single supernatural event.....and claims he has historical evidence..BWHHWHHWHhahahhahaha hhahahhahaHhhahahahhahah

YOU ARE A RETARD...end of story...

I can show you video of flying saucers and ghosts and testimony of alien abductions..... I can show you video of the LochNEss monster and BigFoot too... so what...you believe that as well... MORON
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#173948 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have blind faith. My trust and confidence is based upon the historical evidence. I am able to understand the evidence. My mind is open. You're unable to understand. Your mind is closed.
I can tell your mind is closed because you label the miracles as "tricks."
there are NO miracles,when you see one take a video,
its all trickery
http://youtu.be/NNsGGTt9CTs
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173949 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Science cannot prove itself to be true. It's a circular and self-refuting argument. That's like saying the Bible proves itself to be true. Anyone who says scripture interprets scripture is engaging in semantics, as is anyone who says that science proves itself by the scientific method.
Yes I argue for the historicity of Jesus. My argument is based upon the methodology of determining the truth of history. The ten objective tests of reliability that exist.
I think that one of the major issues with accepting the historicity of Jesus is that people aren't aware of the differences in culture which in turn are compounded by the length of time between events and our own present time.
The latest issue from those who deny the existence of Jesus is whether or not contemporary writers of Jesus' own time should have written about him. Those who deny the existence of Jesus are assuming that his contemporaries should have written about him. That's just simply not true. It's an assumption based upon our own modern experience. In our modern Western culture we have the following experience:
Modern media- T.V. Radio, Satellite communications, Internet, mass-printing
Literacy- Is the rule rather than the exception.
Travel- We can travel thousands of miles in less than 24 hours.
Cultural impact- Because of the rapidity of modern media, a school shooting in Connecticut or Oregon is more sensational than a rabbi chasing people out of a temple.
Linguistics- Modern people speak directly more often than not and do not use metaphor as much in their writing. Modern society interprets everything literally. As a musician, you read musical notation literally. Because of the nature of music, there's no room for ambiguity when reading it. But because of that, it has affected the way you read everything else, even if you aren't aware of that.
There was no reason for contemporary writers in Jesus day to write about him. I've already shown that the list Liberty gave me listed 16 authors (one who was doubled- his name was reversed later in the list), and none of them were likely to have been in Jerusalem in 30-33AD. He pulled that list from a skeptic website and ran with it without checking the reliability of the list. That's intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? Science can't prove science!! Science is NOT an entity, it's not a physical presents, it's simply a methodology used for a number of things, specifically Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structures and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is NOT like saying the bible proves itself toy be true, because science deals with the naturalistic realm, the bible with the supernatural realm, a non-existent realm. I can't understand why you can't see then obvious difference. Science can't prove itself? What an idiotic statement this is, as though science was a physical entity.

I asked you as question and receive NO answer. what other methodology besides science can be used to determine if A is or if A Isn't? It's a very simply question, I'm not sure just why you have avoided it.

How convenient for you that you ASSUME that no one during Jesus's time wrote about him. here we have a person who performed miracles, loaves in fishes, walked on water, cured the blind, caused the cripple to walk again, was so important to so many people, but no one thought to record anything about what they had seen. I'm not surprised as Jesus's mother makes NO mention of being visited by an angel, or what it was like to be impregnated by a God thing. No one seemed to care about the plague of zombies that roamed the city after Christ was supposedly crucified. You argument is weak, that is is simply NOT TRUE that anyone should have written about the amazing things that Jesus was supposed to have done.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173950 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you're sincere Poly, and I admire your honesty in stating your view. However, as I've pointed out before, I think your criteria and expectation for evidence is way too high. It's unreasonable.
Of course, I disagree. You are claiming the existence of phenomena for which there is NOT measurable evidence and which actually violates or severely stretches many of the known laws of physics. To demonstrate that would require *very* high quality data. Historical data doesn't even come close.
Such a God who would perform cosmic parlor tricks at our insistence to prove his existence is hardly a god to worship. Such a god that would allow himself to be manipulated according to our whims and demands would not then be all powerful.
In that case, the evidence cannot be enough to demonstrate the proposition. If anything, it seems way too convenient for those who want to believe.

Oh, and I was not dealing with the question of an all-powerful creator. All I was dealing with was the possibility of a creator of our universe. To demonstrate an all powerful creator would take *much* stronger evidence than what I pointed out.

The difference? Imagine a race of intelligent multidimensional beings who know how to create universes with properties they can determine. Is it out of the realm of possibility that our universe is simply a class project? I can see no reason how it can be ruled out. In that case, the creator of our universe could well be a 'C' student that made and then forgot about 'his' creation. It is quite possible that there are *other* beings that are much more knowledgeable or phenomena that are more powerful than that student. Would such a student be a reasonable object of worship? Of course not.

This also shows the inability of the 'first cause' argument or even the 'design' argument to prove the existence of an all powerful creator.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173951 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have blind faith. My trust and confidence is based upon the historical evidence. I am able to understand the evidence. My mind is open. You're unable to understand. Your mind is closed.
I can tell your mind is closed because you label the miracles as "tricks." Your presupposition has your interpretation of him as an ancient Harry Houdini. Your lack of theological understanding is a key element in your misconceptions. Yet, if you ask me to clear them up, you won't believe my explanations anyway. Let me ask you a question? What advantage or benefit do I gain from your belief or unbelief?
Which is more likely? That they were tricks practiced by a charismatic leader and witnessed by a superstitious populace or that the laws of physics and chemistry were violated?
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#173952 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Science cannot prove itself to be true. It's a circular and self-refuting argument. That's like saying the Bible proves itself to be true. Anyone who says scripture interprets scripture is engaging in semantics, as is anyone who says that science proves itself by the scientific method.
you have NO clue what science is do you?

prove me wrong and explain what is Science!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173953 Aug 9, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Yes I argue for the historicity of Jesus. My argument is based upon the methodology of determining the truth of history. The ten objective tests of reliability that exist.
Could you provide a reference for your ten tests of reliability?

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) 21 min Science 81,551
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 55 min Science 32,953
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Tue Science 2,188
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web