Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258465 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.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175617 Aug 27, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh. Well, I guess we're breaking up then, T-T. You take care. Maybe read some books or something.
The bible is my book

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175618 Aug 27, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are like Jim Jones!
you are like Richard Simmons

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175619 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are showing the destructive power of a certain *polical, economic* system: Communism. What interests me is the way that Communism has many of the characteristics of religion (while obviously not being a religion). It regarded anyone who *didn't* believe as evil. It regarded the spread of their ideas as of hgih importance. It often made claims about the real world that were diametrically opposed to the conclusions of science (Lysenko anyone?). It felt that anyone who was heretical deserved death.
So how about the massive numbers of deaths from the slave trade: done by Christians. How about the genocide of the native american peoples: done by Christians. How about the religion-based ways in the former Yugoslavia?
The point is that both atheists and Christians can *also* be power hungry mad men. Both can kill because they are interested in control and will kill any who stand in their way.
But now let's refine this search a bit. How many mass killings have been done by Secular Humanists? You know, those who support a rational and scientific enquiry to decide morality? How many killings have been done by people who are open to new ideas rather than holding domatically on to some prescribed beliefs in either religion or politics? How many poeple have been killed in the *name* of atheism as opposed to the *name* of Christianity?
Christianity can be abused because there is an objective basis to do a comparison. Under atheism or Darwinism there is no real objective basis. Slave trade was opposed by Christians based on the Bible. You are selective as usual.

1.Under what objective basis does an atheist oppose slavery? It appears non believers only speak out against slavery as depicted in their warped understanding of Scripture. They ignore the fact slavery depicted is the result of man abandoning God which is exactly what the non believer does! In Scripture context slavery is a result of unbelief!

2.Under atheism is it objectively wrong for one person to own another in all circumstances?

3. Are you saying mass killings is objectively wrong? Under what objective basis?

4. Would not the laws of nature render obsolete the arbitrary laws of man? Survival of the fittest?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175620 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>The bible is my book
It is a good idea to read more than one book. For that matter, it is a good idea to read more than one book at a time.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175621 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a good idea to read more than one book. For that matter, it is a good idea to read more than one book at a time.
there are sixty six books in one bible.. So I agree with you.. start out in John then hit Proverbs...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175622 Aug 27, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity can be abused because there is an objective basis to do a comparison.
1. That's a nonsensical sentence. How can the objective be abused?

2. Christianity has no access to objectivity or objective truth. It's entirely subjective, interpreted subjectively and changes throughout history to suit contemporary culture(s).
Under atheism or Darwinism there is no real objective basis.
1. Atheism is disbelief in deities, based on available evidence and subjective reasoning.

2. What you label Darwinism is the framework theory for all biological sciences. You cannot get more objective than science, despite science being unable to be completely objective.
Slave trade was opposed by Christians based on the Bible. You are selective as usual.
Throughout Western history, the vast, vast majority of slave owners were Christian and used the Bible to support their slavery.

You are being selective, as usual.
1.Under what objective basis does an atheist oppose slavery?
1. The argument from analogy. It goes like this "I'm human. I feel. I enjoy freedom and would not want to be a slave. Other people are human, they are like me. So it is immoral to make them slaves."

2. The belief that, as social and thinking beings, we should seek to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. Slavery is suffering, therefore it is immoral.

2a. The belief that, as social and thinking beings, we should seek to maximize human potential. Slavery destroys human potential and therefore it is immoral.

3. Societally agreed upon declarations of human rights. These prohibit slavery - again, for the betterment of humankind.
It appears non believers only speak out against slavery as depicted in their warped understanding of Scripture.
That's senseless. Your Bible supports slavery just as easily as it can be interpreted otherwise. In fact, the OT deity forces people into slavery.
They ignore the fact slavery depicted is the result of man abandoning God which is exactly what the non believer does! In Scripture context slavery is a result of unbelief!
Comparing real slavery to atheism is utter trash thinking. Slavery has nothing to do with atheism. The greatest slavers in Western history were Christians.
2.Under atheism is it objectively wrong for one person to own another in all circumstances?
Same as I presented above. You don't seem to understand where morality comes from. It comes from the social. The basis for all human morality is preservation of civil society - allowing people to get along in larger than kin groups. Religion pretends otherwise, but you simply place imagined fictions overtop of normal human morality - and often twist human morality when it suits your religious leaders.
3. Are you saying mass killings is objectively wrong? Under what objective basis?
4. Would not the laws of nature render obsolete the arbitrary laws of man? Survival of the fittest?
No. You are here failing to understand what "fit" means. You seem to be using it as "strong" or "might over weak" etc. That's false. Fit specifically refers to successful alleles (genes). Any gene that enjoys many copies in a genome is fit.

Morality, in social animals, especially intelligent ones with extremely high populations, is the "fittest." Our largest struggle right now is getting along with other cultures and accepting difference - that's something religions do very poorly at.

You believers constantly express that you have the "one, true reality" and that everyone who doesn't share your views is wrong. That won't work in our current time - there's too many people with so many different ways of understanding reality. You're going to have to change and accept others for who they are.

They're not trying to be like you.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175623 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>The bible is my book
You need more than one book. Get out of the fiction section.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175624 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>there are sixty six books in one bible.. So I agree with you.. start out in John then hit Proverbs...
The different books should be *actually* different books: different covers, different topics, different points of view, different basic assumptions, etc.

You are creating a closed world with no contact with reality.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175625 Aug 27, 2013
actually, it is closer to being a cause than to being a faith or a religion. promoting rational thinking is a sort of cause, I think. but of course, to be rational, it would need to clearly be agnostic atheism. a rational thinker is most likely not to believe in a God that is like any that are generally promoted, but is also more likely not to assert that he/or she has proof or knowledge that there is no such being.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Then why do you sell "atheist" t-shirts if it's not a "cause", Bob?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175626 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The different books should be *actually* different books: different covers, different topics, different points of view, different basic assumptions, etc.
You are creating a closed world with no contact with reality.
begin with book of job, then read play JB by Archibald MacLeish.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175627 Aug 27, 2013
interesting reply to a true believer type. I think there is a specific passage in the NT - probably from Saul/Paul regarding "wives obey your husbands, slaves obey your masters." I would place more emphasis on kindness to living beings, rather than just on mankind, however. I think some animals are better creatures than some humans, and would consider it more evil to kill a good animal than to kill a bad human being.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That's a nonsensical sentence. How can the objective be abused?
2. Christianity has no access to objectivity or objective truth. It's entirely subjective, interpreted subjectively and changes throughout history to suit contemporary culture(s).
<quoted text>
1. Atheism is disbelief in deities, based on available evidence and subjective reasoning.
2. What you label Darwinism is the framework theory for all biological sciences. You cannot get more objective than science, despite science being unable to be completely objective.
<quoted text>
Throughout Western history, the vast, vast majority of slave owners were Christian and used the Bible to support their slavery.
You are being selective, as usual.
<quoted text>
1. The argument from analogy. It goes like this "I'm human. I feel. I enjoy freedom and would not want to be a slave. Other people are human, they are like me. So it is immoral to make them slaves."
2. The belief that, as social and thinking beings, we should seek to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. Slavery is suffering, therefore it is immoral.
2a. The belief that, as social and thinking beings, we should seek to maximize human potential. Slavery destroys human potential and therefore it is immoral.
3. Societally agreed upon declarations of human rights. These prohibit slavery - again, for the betterment of humankind.
<quoted text>
That's senseless. Your Bible supports slavery just as easily as it can be interpreted otherwise. In fact, the OT deity forces people into slavery.
<quoted text>
Comparing real slavery to atheism is utter trash thinking. Slavery has nothing to do with atheism. The greatest slavers in Western history were Christians.
<quoted text>
Same as I presented above. You don't seem to understand where morality comes from. It comes from the social. The basis for all human morality is preservation of civil society - allowing people to get along in larger than kin groups. Religion pretends otherwise, but you simply place imagined fictions overtop of normal human morality - and often twist human morality when it suits your religious leaders.
<quoted text>
No. You are here failing to understand what "fit" means. You seem to be using it as "strong" or "might over weak" etc. That's false. Fit specifically refers to successful alleles (genes). Any gene that enjoys many copies in a genome is fit.
Morality, in social animals, especially intelligent ones with extremely high populations, is the "fittest." Our largest struggle right now is getting along with other cultures and accepting difference - that's something religions do very poorly at.
You believers constantly express that you have the "one, true reality" and that everyone who doesn't share your views is wrong. That won't work in our current time - there's too many people with so many different ways of understanding reality. You're going to have to change and accept others for who they are.
They're not trying to be like you.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#175628 Aug 27, 2013
when you use the phrase, in point 2 "under atheism" you completely misunderstand atheism. It is not a set of beliefs about various matters, the way most religions are. It is merely non-belief in the existence of a God. Atheists share that one lack of belief, but beyond that there is no required set of opinions or actions or rules. Atheists are even free to disagree about whether they claim to know that there is no God, or whether they simply do not believe in a God but make no knowledge claim. Generally, the reply you got from the previous responder to your assertions was sensible enough, certainly in comparison with your nonsense.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity can be abused because there is an objective basis to do a comparison. Under atheism or Darwinism there is no real objective basis. Slave trade was opposed by Christians based on the Bible. You are selective as usual.
1.Under what objective basis does an atheist oppose slavery? It appears non believers only speak out against slavery as depicted in their warped understanding of Scripture. They ignore the fact slavery depicted is the result of man abandoning God which is exactly what the non believer does! In Scripture context slavery is a result of unbelief!
2.Under atheism is it objectively wrong for one person to own another in all circumstances?
3. Are you saying mass killings is objectively wrong? Under what objective basis?
4. Would not the laws of nature render obsolete the arbitrary laws of man? Survival of the fittest?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175629 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you are like Richard Simmons
Can't be him because I'm taller and younger

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175630 Aug 27, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't be him because I'm taller and younger
OK then you're a young Fred Mertz LOL

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175631 Aug 27, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drunk? Can you restate that coherently, with some kind of point?
It was answering the statement you made. And I stand by it and most likely would have to repeat it as you repeat the cause of the effect.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175632 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>OK then you're a young Fred Mertz LOL
How is the kool aid going ?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175633 Aug 27, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are getting it. Make your life worth living today.
<quoted text>
So your belief is based on the fact that you cannot handle reality? That's quite infantile.
I will give you credit. If all atheist posted with your etiquette. I would have a higher respect for THE ONLINE ATHEIST, which are Atheist, different from atheist. I do find an Atheist like yourself in about 20% of conversations. Here at topix, I blogged with one I liked. Yes just one. This includes many on youtube, which are more closed minded if you could imagine that. Just read for yourself. The issue I have with you here in this message tread is why aren't you directing your issues of etiquette with The Atheist sort. Honestly when I saw Christians blog with you guys on youtube the Christians did some policing of their own. As I mentioned there was one I liked and he did go both directions, when complaining about online manners. It does not bother me I do expect worm meat to behave like this. I wouldn't dream of complaining about how you guys post, when it is in response to comments that could also be considered heated. It is hypocrisy, but perhaps that is the goal of the self thought to have zero beliefs.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175634 Aug 27, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the proof you need for you, and that is great, but there are other people who need more proof than you have.
OK agreed, but could we stick to this message tread? "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" The answer No question. You could type your great essay if it makes you feel better. It just can not be proven that there was NO CREATOR. I'll give you the opposite is true. Ask me to prove when I all ready admit I have faith in a belief. From a person that claims they believe in facts only. That could be as backwards as it gets, and yet I am sure there are people her that have done that for over 15 years.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#175635 Aug 27, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>OK then you're a young Fred Mertz LOL
You're just like a killer klown from outer space.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175636 Aug 27, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the kool aid going ?
I have a big ole orange ring around my mouth right now I enjoy my Kool-Aid ....

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 18 min Eagle 12 384
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Subduction Zone 30,043
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min Subduction Zone 69,736
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr yehoshooah adam 3,768
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 18 hr John 575
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) Mon Eagle 12 12,668
News The rise of militant atheism (Sep '09) Sun online reality bu... 9,236
More from around the web