Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 253321 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.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#188539 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would use terms correctly, you would have no dissent from me, Tinky Winky.
Non-believer is fine if that is what you are.
But an atheist is not a "non-believer".
If you believe there is no god, you are not a non-believer, you are an atheist.
You can decide which you are. I don't care. I just prefer people be truthful.
People other than yourself, obviously.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#188540 Nov 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Then explain this.
((((Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.))))
If there was no word for evil then this is BS?
He's trying to say that all translations of the original bible are inaccurate and untrustworthy.

At least, that's what he seems to be saying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188541 Nov 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the "god need" is almost entirely enculturated, based on a much more generic set of sub needs.
Some people satisfy certain needs by watching men drive cars in a circle at high speeds for hours on end. That subculture provides the social support to maintain itself. If a NASCAR race was only being watched by one person, it's likely that this one person would become bored long before the race is over. I don't like NASCAR, but comparing it to religion insults it. The fact is, a lot of what humans do is determined by socially supported cultural components. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it's something we should all understand and be aware of. We should have some idea of how strong an influence other people are on what we do.
I've been looking for reasons that would allow me to go easy on religion and believers, but I haven't found any that even begin to be compelling. Religion is a socially supported delusion. It's dangerous, and I don't see any intrinsic redeemable value in it. I don't even think it's very good at satisfying our psychological needs. Even though we can delude ourselves, we'll always be uncomfortable with beliefs we can't justify with evidence. The psychological damage of suppressing reason and doubt must create even more compelling needs, that then must be dealt with somehow, creating a viscous cycle. It's a sickness.
Is the NASCAR track infinite?

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#188542 Nov 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not BS. Just translated wrong.
A lot of the medieval KJV is.
That's why atheists love to quote it so much.
Think about it, light is the opposite of darkness. Peace is not the opposite of evil.
The Hebrew world 'ra', in that context, should be translated as "calamity" or "disaster", not "evil".
The tree of knowledge of good and calamity?
The tree of knowledge of good and disaster?

You gonna have to eat that bullet on this one Ra Ra. lol

Genesis 6:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The thoughts of his heart was only calamity continually?

The thoughts of his heart was only disaster continually?

I have some maple syrup you can put on your bullet...lol

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#188544 Nov 30, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with your analysis here; there were hundreds of "gospels", but the bible-fabricators picked but 4.
I find that interesting as well-- why just those 4?
And why do the writings of this "paul" character overwhelm the 4 they did keep? More by "paul" than about the jesus character, who was supposedly central to the whole thing...
... interesting, no?
It would be like building a collection of books "about George Washington" and having four biographies on Washington combined with all the works of Jefferson and the Federalist Papers.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#188545 Nov 30, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He's trying to say that all translations of the original bible are inaccurate and untrustworthy.
At least, that's what he seems to be saying.
But then thats the whole problem, if it doesn't say what you want it too, it's translated wrong. It has only been re-translated to mean exactly what we want it to mean a thousand times. Additions and omissions
don't count either.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188546 Nov 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

Nobody feels "God" except for you. Other people feel individual deities that they imagine, which cannot be the same as yours.
How could you possibly know they are not the same?

Why couldn't it be the same deity, and people just think theirs is different?

You know, you cannot know.

Therefore, you are believing it, or imagining it.

But you are against that - right?

Isn't it dangerous and all that shit for you to imagine things and believe them?

Moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188547 Nov 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing religion for what it is wasn't nearly as devastating as seeing America for what it is.
I'd wager that most Americans, whether they are Christian or not, have a world view that is nothing more than a house of cards. I don't know if people can't handle the truth, or just think they can't. Maybe they're not thinking at all. I do know that it is very sad that so many people live their lives in a fog of misinformation.
If you ever become someone who isn't so batshit stupid you wouldn't recognize truth if it hammered you in the face, tell us something about how to handle truth.

We won't hold our breath.

I handle truth all the time. No advice from a bed-wetting little hippie, please.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188549 Nov 30, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.livescience.com/41098-new-scorpion...

Evolution is cool, right?

Cool?

Are you saying it has tattoos and smokes dope?

Yeah. Cool.

Uhhh...do you have any idea what it is?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188550 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If extreme complexity is an argument for design, what is the least likely thing to exist uncreated that you can imagine or describe? A cell? A 747? A universe? Perhaps something else?
Complexity is not an argument for design.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188551 Nov 30, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>As usual you people always miss the important parts of the conversation, purposely leaving out words vital to the entire meaning. I'll try ONE MORE TIME, science CANNOT know about something before it is discovered, so therefore..........Now pay the9uck attention,,,,,as far as science and everyone else on the face of the planet, DNA did not exist. You conveniently left out the AS FAR AS SCIENCE IS CONCERNED, DNA did not exist. Do try harder to comprehend whats being said, and keep your dishonesty down to a bare minimum.
Wrong again, Bert Legume.

Science holds that DNA existed before they discovered it.

Sorry.

This is common knowledge.

If fact, science says DNA existed thousands of years ago.

I'm beginning to think you might not be the best person to opine on the workings of science.

Is there a subject you know something about?

Tiddlywinks? Art? Necrophilia?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188552 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You're much more likeable when you're being funny. In those moments, you are part of something bigger - something communal.
Communal?

If Topix Atheism Forum were a commune I was in, I would have no choice but try to kill every member as quickly as I could.

That's the only way I could prevent members from ganging - up and killing me, raping me,...or worse.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188553 Nov 30, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> https://www.google.com/search... 't+two+sides+to+every+story%2C +there+are+three.+His+side.+He r+side.+The+truth&oq=There +aren't+two+sides+to+every+sto ry%2C+there+are+three.+His+sid e.+Her+side.+The+truth&aqs =chrome..69i57&sourceid=ch rome&ie=UTF-8
I don't understand this post.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#188554 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Communal?
If Topix Atheism Forum were a commune I was in, I would have no choice but try to kill every member as quickly as I could.
That's the only way I could prevent members from ganging - up and killing me, raping me,...or worse.
You're disturbed and a borderline psychotic, You're not carrying any toothbrushes are you? hahahahah

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188555 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA.
It was synthesized exactly as you described - the de novo assembly of a chemical from its elementary constituent to mimic a natural product.
Don't tell Buck. He'll post a few unsourced opinions, insult somebody, and tell us how smart and correct he is.
No synthetic DNA was created.

The claim is exaggeration for a specific purpose.

The purpose is philosophical, not scientific.

All three of my assertions are based on the scientific facts and evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188556 Nov 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Are you admitting to a completed infinity?
Buck Crick wrote:
Not in time.
Are you suggesting that there is a completed infinity out of time? You seem to be.

If so, what does it mean to exist out of time?

I realize that you consider Wittgenstein absurd, but this is exactly the kind of language he is addressing when he said,“Whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality, cannot be meaningfully spoken about.”

The idea of existing out of time is self-contradictory, since existence implies persistence through some temporal duration, even if that is just an instant.

Perhaps it's the strong challenge to the language that supports god concepts that makes you feel hostile to this kind of philosophy of language that insists that words refer to some aspect of reality to be considered meaningful. It's value is in identifying and expunging illusory concepts that only seem to be about something.

Skeptics notice supernaturalists leaning heavily on this kind of language, which is as sterile as one would expect if people actually talking about nothing when using it, which the inability to point to anything real or actual when using such language suggests.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188557 Nov 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The tree of knowledge of good and calamity?
The tree of knowledge of good and disaster?
You gonna have to eat that bullet on this one Ra Ra. lol
Genesis 6:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The thoughts of his heart was only calamity continually?
The thoughts of his heart was only disaster continually?
I have some maple syrup you can put on your bullet...lol
Evil is self and ego. Separation from the whole and judging and functioning from that basis.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

You need to read things like that in context.

Adam and Eve realized they were naked and developed fear. The fruit opened their eyes and they saw themselves. Not as facets of the God that created them, but as separate beings suddenly aware of the powers of the universe and their puny selves in it. Before then they just did and enjoyed without "thinking", protected by their Creator. They separated themselves, and they were then ejected from the premises as they were now foreign bodies. You can visualize that as star material along with its material organization being tossed out on the material level. That is what the cherubim and flaming sword is about. The energy prevents return in material form and organization. You can't come back as a physical human being.

Adam and Eve had a function there. They were caretakers of the Garden, a place the Creator made for himself to enjoy. Note Adam and Eve heard the sounds of the Creator, they didn't see it.

Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves for covering. The Creator made them coverings from skins. Before kicking their asses out.

Reading Genesis and you read an allegorical history of the origin of man that is not too far from the accepted "science". The real issue is that Spirit and material beginnings. Spirit is poo poohed by atheists because they can't see it. You can't see electricity, either, but it is the very basis of your scientific knowledge of today. Follow the source of that and you will find the door back to Eden.

There is not a bit of sense in denying the existence of something when you haven't got a clue as to what started the process that wound up making yourself. But that doesn't stop the Topix atheist. They like to screech like monkeys.

Topix atheists blind themselves with their imaginations of education and intelligence. Which further removes them from "reality".

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#188558 Nov 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci encetech/article-2515637/Does- prayer-help-resist-temptation- Talking-God-boosts-self-contro l-emotional-stability-claims-s tudy.html
Points to the problem Topix atheists have with self control and maturity.
http://www.depend.com/mens-solutions/products...

Points to the problem The Dave Nelson has with bladder control and senility.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188559 Nov 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
I've been looking for reasons that would allow me to go easy on religion and believers, but I haven't found any that even begin to be compelling. Religion is a socially supported delusion. It's dangerous, and I don't see any intrinsic redeemable value in it. I don't even think it's very good at satisfying our psychological needs. Even though we can delude ourselves, we'll always be uncomfortable with beliefs we can't justify with evidence. The psychological damage of suppressing reason and doubt must create even more compelling needs, that then must be dealt with somehow, creating a viscous cycle. It's a sickness.
I agree with you about not going easy on religion, but I think we can give the believers more of a pass. In my opinion, if we attack them, it should not be just for belief, but things such as manners and attitude.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188560 Nov 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I suppose that now you expect me to engage in another semantic quibble with you over the meaning of "unborn" and "born"? How hard do you think it will be to defeat your position using dictionaries, your preferred method?
Buck Crick wrote:
It isn't me who invests the morality of allowing life or death on the distinction between born and unborn. I got you to admit that is "quibbling". Good.
When you make a straw man argument, what you are saying is that you think you have a better chance against an argument of your own making than the one presented to you.

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) 8 min ChristineM 18,780
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 27,270
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Richard 8,074
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Richard 3,076
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Richardfs 5,971
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 5 hr ATHEOI 3,967
News Speaking for God 16 hr hpcaban 1
More from around the web