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.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192193 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
If rights come from men, they are at the discretion of men, to be assigned arbitrarily, or taken away.
You may assert that <"rights"> - of morality, freedom etc.- are granted by deity(creator), and yet those "rights", have always been always been meted out by man in application to humans, no?
Buck Crick wrote:
The ways that would be worse are obvious and unlimited.
Certainly. The "deity", has obviously decided that those rights it asserts to men are non existent when a Grizzly Bear is present.

The "rights" of the Grizzly are of paramount importance, then. He gets his way, his morality prevails, and his decision overrules man.

Unless man decides to fight for his rights, which is what has always been the case with man it seems.
Buck Crick wrote:
For one example, certain men could justify the right of enslaving other men by their position as a priveliged class of men.
Or the Grizzly, or any superior predator. That deity you speak of has obviously decided the most capable predator in any given situation has the most important, assertable or prevalent rights.

A natural disaster even enters into the equation for this purpose. The deity appears ambiguous or capricious in application of what the deity incorporates...errrrr...doesn' t incorporate as far as any guarantee is concerned.

Whatever that is.
Buck Crick wrote:
It is the inherent nature of the rights of all men that preclude this.
"Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left."
-Chief Justice John Jay
The deity must want competition. The deity must prefer conflict resolution as the means for rights and codes of morality to prevail.
Buck Crick wrote:
Lost in this discussion is the initial point - creation by a Creator is, factually, the basis asserted by the founders for our rights - including those protected in the Constitution.
The term, "creator", is vague and up for subjective interpretation.

What is it? Deism? Another concept? How can you believe in something for which, by the very nature of what is purported to be, is based upon no evidence?

I don't think belief or assertion qualifies as evidence.
Buck Crick wrote:
What that means is a different argument than whether it is, indeed, the basis.
Yeah.

Subjectively applied by whomever it may be, at that moment.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192194 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong.
In America, rights are not "provisions of government".
This illustrates your problem understanding America's concept of rights. It is typical of the deficit in education that is pervasive today.
I'd help you, but I suspect you have a compelling desire not to see the truth of it.
This post was brought to you by Magic Beans.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192195 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Slavery represented in the Bible is a profoundly different animal, and centers around Hebrew tradition of debt repayment. I am not the authority on such customs, nor the Hebrew language used to describe it, but I have studied a bit with those who are.
The Midrash and its function within Judaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash , also http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encycl... (1913)/Midrashim
More about slavery in the OT from Judaic Midrash halakha, "VE-eileh ha-mishpatim" (AND these are the statutes). It was a deeper explanation kept by the Rabbi's concerning OT text. An exegesis of the Torah.

Quoting: "Your slaves and maidservants that you shall possess from the nations that surround you, from them you may purchase slaves and maidservants. Also, from the children of the sojourners who reside with you from them you may purchase [slaves], and from their families that live among you that were born in your land.[All these] shall be your permanent possession. You shall will them as inheritance to your children after you as hereditary property; you shall keep them in servitude permanently. However regarding your bretheren, Bnei Yisroel, man over his brother, you must not rule over him to crush him." - Vayikra 25:39-46
Commentary: "A non-Jewish servant, however, can be passed on to descendants through inheritance!

The possession of a non-Jewish slave is eternal.

But note another difference: A Jewish slave may not be subjected to “hard labor”(b’farech); a non-Jewish slave has no such condition. Seemingly, a non-Jewish slave may be worked to the bone with the most menial of work.
As mentioned above, a Jewish servant must be released after six years of work.
Not so, however, is the case for a non-Jewish slave. How are we supposed to understand that they are kept forever? How are we to allow hard labor for someone who was purchased like property? How can we understand the purchase of another human being at all?
The institution of slavery represents a blurring of the line dividing human personhood from property. This blurring is reflected clearly in some of the laws recorded in the parasha (Note that I am treating the institution of slavery in toto, without reference to the important distinction between Hebrew slaves and Canaanite slaves, as in Vayikra 25:39-46):
(a) When a master strikes his slave and the slave subsequently dies (after 24-48 hours), the master is exempt from punishment "because he is his property" (21:21-22. Rashbam: "and the law allows him to strike him in order to chastise him.")
(b) An ox that gores and kills a slave subjects its owner only to a 30-shekel fine and not to "ransom money" designed to redeem the master from a death penalty (21:29-32).
(c) The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master (21:4). http://www.yu.edu/ http://www.slideshare.net/steiny100/jewish-sl...

"The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master"

I'm disgusted, are you?

Biblical verse that relate directly to the Midrash exegesis.
Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:1-4, Exodus 21:7, Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:16, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Numbers 31:28-47, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, 2 Samuel 9:10

The NT didn't abolish slavery or change anything stated in the OT, it only stated that all people, slave, Gentile etc., were open to following the NT/OT - religion. Mark 14:66, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 3:11,1 Timothy 6:1-2
The OT/NT that speaks of slavery in the sense that it was natural, and condoned by the deity in both the NT and OT.

Something that was a part of daily life.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#192196 Dec 14, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> BLASPHEMY LAWS
The IHEU, which has member bodies in some 50 countries and supporters in many more where such organizations are banned, said there was systematic or severe discrimination against atheists across the 27-nation European Union.
The situation was severe in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Malta and Poland where blasphemy laws allow for jail sentences up to three years on charges of offending a religion or believers. GENEVA — In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.
And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West's apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.
We atheist know just how many brainwashed idiot's there are in the world , without you having to point it out. But even you knowing how stupid belief is, you are still a believer.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192197 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Slavery has existed in virtually all cultures, still existing in some today.
The most spectacular revolution against it was that of white Christians in America, led by a white Christian president, and rooted in the authority of the natural rights endowed by God embodied in our founding principles. This is in no way a matter of opinion. It is the historical fact.
Not really.

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192198 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Jefferson's view on the source of rights:
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
That is simply a statement on what the belief of people may happen to be, as it applies to a "god", and the existence of a deity being a literal reality.

That doesn't mean the existence(creator) is literal.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192199 Dec 14, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito believe the Constitution is real. They just don't like what it says.
Sure. That's why they are called "Constitutionalists" .

The ones who don't think it's real are the justices like Souter, who stated that he knows more about what the authors meant than the authors did.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192200 Dec 14, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> Not really.
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln
OK, a theist president.

Happy now?
LCNLin

United States

#192201 Dec 14, 2013
I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion.
--July 31, 1846 Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> Not really.
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln
Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.
--October 24, 1863 Remarks to the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192202 Dec 14, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
That is simply a statement on what the belief of people may happen to be, as it applies to a "god", and the existence of a deity being a literal reality.
That doesn't mean the existence(creator) is literal.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192203 Dec 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

We atheist know just how many brainwashed idiot's there are in the world ,...
How many? You can round it off to hundreds.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#192204 Dec 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
At 34.55.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jXYlrw2JQwoXX
The shaking a a plastic bag will tend to produce static.

Now, note two important aspects of that experiment.

One, they were in a plastic bag.

Two, they were in a plastic bag within a metallic structure shielding them from the solar wind and that provided a metallic and gravitational envelope within a larger gravity field to do their thingy in. They were caught within the momentum of the structure.

They weren't out in the environment of wild ass space all by their lonesomes.

They were protected and insulated.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#192205 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. That's why they are called "Constitutionalists" .
The ones who don't think it's real are the justices like Souter, who stated that he knows more about what the authors meant than the authors did.
Please, Buck.

Your buddy Scalia even believes there's a Satan dude out there, actively pursuing evil.

Get real.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192206 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Thomas Jefferson's view on the source of rights:
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
Our rights are secured by our want to have them and acting on it.

Any other sense of security is a delusion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192207 Dec 14, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> The Midrash and its function within Judaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash , also http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encycl... (1913)/Midrashim
More about slavery in the OT from Judaic Midrash halakha, "VE-eileh ha-mishpatim" (AND these are the statutes). It was a deeper explanation kept by the Rabbi's concerning OT text. An exegesis of the Torah.
Quoting: "Your slaves and maidservants that you shall possess from the nations that surround you, from them you may purchase slaves and maidservants. Also, from the children of the sojourners who reside with you from them you may purchase [slaves], and from their families that live among you that were born in your land.[All these] shall be your permanent possession. You shall will them as inheritance to your children after you as hereditary property; you shall keep them in servitude permanently. However regarding your bretheren, Bnei Yisroel, man over his brother, you must not rule over him to crush him." - Vayikra 25:39-46
Commentary: "A non-Jewish servant, however, can be passed on to descendants through inheritance!
The possession of a non-Jewish slave is eternal.
But note another difference: A Jewish slave may not be subjected to “hard labor”(b’farech); a non-Jewish slave has no such condition. Seemingly, a non-Jewish slave may be worked to the bone with the most menial of work.
As mentioned above, a Jewish servant must be released after six years of work.
Not so, however, is the case for a non-Jewish slave. How are we supposed to understand that they are kept forever? How are we to allow hard labor for someone who was purchased like property? How can we understand the purchase of another human being at all?
The institution of slavery represents a blurring of the line dividing human personhood from property. This blurring is reflected clearly in some of the laws recorded in the parasha (Note that I am treating the institution of slavery in toto, without reference to the important distinction between Hebrew slaves and Canaanite slaves, as in Vayikra 25:39-46):
(a) When a master strikes his slave and the slave subsequently dies (after 24-48 hours), the master is exempt from punishment "because he is his property" (21:21-22. Rashbam: "and the law allows him to strike him in order to chastise him.")
(b) An ox that gores and kills a slave subjects its owner only to a 30-shekel fine and not to "ransom money" designed to redeem the master from a death penalty (21:29-32).
(c) The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master (21:4). http://www.yu.edu/ http://www.slideshare.net/steiny100/jewish-sl...
"The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master"
I'm disgusted, are you?
Biblical verse that relate directly to the Midrash exegesis.
Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:1-4, Exodus 21:7, Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:16, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Numbers 31:28-47, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, 2 Samuel 9:10
The NT didn't abolish slavery or change anything stated in the OT, it only stated that all people, slave, Gentile etc., were open to following the NT/OT - religion. Mark 14:66, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 3:11,1 Timothy 6:1-2
The OT/NT that speaks of slavery in the sense that it was natural, and condoned by the deity in both the NT and OT.
Something that was a part of daily life.
So what?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192208 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good God, Buck.
What does that make me, a Jeffersonian?
A deist?
Stop with the mine quoting. Don't disparage my guy Jefferson.
Right. I should stop disparaging people by quoting their own words.
UIdiotRaceMakeWo rldpeace

United States

#192209 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Jefferson's view on the source of rights:
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
you took his quote out of context to fit your immoral views , you did not include hos WHOLE meaning what he thinks. and it not source of rights, you used wrong wording...

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”(Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237)

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192210 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, Buck.
Your buddy Scalia even believes there's a Satan dude out there, actively pursuing evil.
Get real.
So what?

On the Supreme Court, I prefer someone who believes the Constitution.

Whether they believe in the devil is none of my concern.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192211 Dec 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>At 34.55.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jXYlrw2JQwoXX
"Focules"

Can't wait to use that word in a sentence.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192212 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, a theist president.
Happy now?
I'm always in a good mood, Buck, mostly.

Try it sometime.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 40 min Frindly 3,132
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Frindly 83,762
what science will NEVER be able to prove 12 hr superwilly 59
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sat ChristineM 3,995
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Dec 8 Frindly 1,190
High School Atheism Dec 8 Reason Personified 31
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Dec 7 Eagle 12 - 128
More from around the web