Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258469 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192372 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The concept of god-endowed rights allowed the abolition of slavery.
After it didn't.

How about the god endowed right to own slaves. It's in their bible,complete with an owner's manual for their care and maintenance.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#192373 Dec 14, 2013
davy wrote:
Bullshit religitard. The bible doesn't mention debts.
Yes it does.
Just selling your daughter into slavery.
There has to be a reason and the reason was debt. I gave you the Elisha reference which you ignored, naturally.
Why does your god condone rape and slavery?
Why do you accuse a God you do not believe exists? Cite your reference where God condones rape? If God condones slavery then why where the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery? Why did Elisha liberate the children of the widow from debt slavery?[QUOTE} Your sick book makes me want to puke![/QUOTE] Despise a book. How stupid is that?
I feed, clothe and screw my wife because I love her.
Well i would like to see where your marriage is at five years from now. You are one sick individual.
Not because I bought her. Why does your idiot god not see that it is wrong to sell your daughter into slavery? Because it was common at the time? What a pathetic excuse!
You still have not provided an objective basis. Just a lot of ranting.
How much do you want for your daughter you sleazy religitard.
You are one sick individual.
I will sell her as a sex slave in Brazil.
I believe you. I would not do that to your daughter.
After all, it's common there so that makes it OK, right?
You would have to take it up with them. According to my beliefs they will answer to God in this life or the next. They put their children in jeopardy because of abuse. According to yours they simply die like their victims. No justice for the victims, just death and nothingness.
I don't hate god, god doesn't exist.
All anyone has to do is read your post. You blame God for slavery. Call God an idiot. You accuse God of condoning rape and in the next breath you say you do not hate God.
I hate religion. It warps minds! Religion kills brains dead!
Yet you will sell my daughter into sex slavery. Whose mind is warped?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192374 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I think we've also reached the end of this discussion. We've each posted our opinions, and there is common starting ground from which to proceed. I am an atheist, and an agnostic, and have taken no leap of faith there.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, you are not an atheist and an agnostic. That's impossible.(married bachelor) You are an atheist. ONE more point. Both the atheist and the theist take a leap of faith past reason and knowledge.
Would you care to repeat that? Maybe a few hundred more times.
Buck Crick wrote:
The advantage in rationality of the theist is the number of ways he can be inaccurate, but his theism still be the more logical choice.
Oh, OK:
Buck Crick wrote:
There is a myriad of ways to be mistaken about perceived qualities of a deity, but still be right about the existence of A deity..
There are even more ways to be mistaken about what the winning lottery numbers will be, but still be right that they exist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192375 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Welcome to Buck School. Have a seat in the back next to the guy that says dinosaurs had no DNA.
Don't say that in Mississippi, Buck. You can't mention DNA to kids there. It's the law.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#192376 Dec 14, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_No...
United States Congress
The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[27]
The interesting thing about the Noahide laws is that they predated any Christian notions of "salvation", and were intended for "gentiles", or non Jews etc...

It really comes across as redundant for Christianity to assert any sort of relevance.

Couple that with the fact the Jesus! didn't fulfill messianic prophecy and Christianity becomes even more laughable and meaningless.

Which is quite a feat.

Thanks for mentioning the Noahide laws.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192377 Dec 14, 2013
River Tam wrote:
Poor Richard :(
Poor me.

That's what I was going for but forgot what it was called.

I remember that my grandpa had a Farmer's Almanac, but I never tried to read it. He kept it with his chewing tobacco.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#192378 Dec 15, 2013
If you sell your daughter as a slave....
Exodus 21:7-11 And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

No mention of debt. Even if you are in debt, why does your sleazy book say selling your daughter to a rapist is moral?
If you can't despise a book tell me your thoughts on Mein kampf.

The bible says rape is OK

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

As a Christian you must agree, right?
The bible says it is OK to sell your daughter to a rapist. As a Christian you must agree that this is a moral thing to do.

God freed some slaves so he is a great guy! Other slaves were supposed to obey their masters. What a sleazy book!

Your sleazy book has destroyed your brain.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it does. <quoted text> There has to be a reason and the reason was debt. I gave you the Elisha reference which you ignored, naturally. <quoted text> Why do you accuse a God you do not believe exists? Cite your reference where God condones rape? If God condones slavery then why where the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery? Why did Elisha liberate the children of the widow from debt slavery? <quoted text> Despise a book. How stupid is that? <quoted text> Well i would like to see where your marriage is at five years from now. You are one sick individual. <quoted text> You still have not provided an objective basis. Just a lot of ranting. <quoted text> You are one sick individual. <quoted text> I believe you. I would not do that to your daughter.<quoted text> You would have to take it up with them. According to my beliefs they will answer to God in this life or the next. They put their children in jeopardy because of abuse. According to yours they simply die like their victims. No justice for the victims, just death and nothingness. <quoted text> All anyone has to do is read your post. You blame God for slavery. Call God an idiot. You accuse God of condoning rape and in the next breath you say you do not hate God. <quoted text> Yet you will sell my daughter into sex slavery. Whose mind is warped?

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#192379 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor me.
That's what I was going for but forgot what it was called.
I remember that my grandpa had a Farmer's Almanac, but I never tried to read it. He kept it with his chewing tobacco.
I read the Farmer's Almanac.

I've never chewed tobacco. I've chewed mushrooms once or thrice (Archaic).
Jim

UK

#192380 Dec 15, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> They always win. Good triumphs over evil. Whatcha gonna do on that day?
Christians use these empty threats to convert stupid & gullible people through fear.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192381 Dec 15, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>If Megyn Kelly says it's so, then it's so.

Dude lives at the North Pole. Of course the North Pole keeps moving. Why do you think he has so many slaves, er...elves? Somebody has to pack that shit up.
The North Pole is underwater, too.

At least it was when some guy in a speedo swam across it.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

United States

#192382 Dec 15, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is your opinion. The slave owner who legally owns slaves is of a different opinion and his opinion is equally as valid as yours. If your going to be an atheist Catcher then don't be a punk about it. It is you who believes your rights come from men. Not me. If rights come from men then men can enslave. They can even do genocide.
Slavery is an abomination, like so many other things in your Bible.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192383 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is not the obstacle to systematic slavery that you implied it was.
Christianity orchestrated the greatest, most costly defeat of slavery in world history.

That's a point in their favor, if history matters.

Being a rational skeptic means acknowledging counterfactuals.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192384 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
After it didn't.
How about the god endowed right to own slaves. It's in their bible,complete with an owner's manual for their care and maintenance.
So is the prohibition against urinating against a wall.

The Constitution does not enshrine biblical law, but it does rely on the existence of God for its rationale.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192385 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is important to understand and acknowledge where rights come from: people, not gods, and our ability and willingness to enforce them. In a democracy, rights are the choices of the people,...

!
The source of rights is acknowledged, by Jefferson and company - "nature's God".

I recommend against a nation following your idea of rights coming from people. When this occurs, law is what the people with the most power can impose on the ones without it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192386 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. It may have been a faith based decision arrived at after prayer.
He relied on the admissions committee not being liberal racists.

If they had exercised a faith based decision, he would have been admitted.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#192387 Dec 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>So is the prohibition against urinating against a wall.

The Constitution does not enshrine biblical law, but it does rely on the existence of God for its rationale.
Which god?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192388 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
They were both conditional proofs based on the acceptance of the logical law of non contradiction and the meanings of "married" and "bachelor".
I just removed three unnecessary words to clean it up.
<quoted text>
No.
If you're going to jump scale you need to say "Something that cannot exist does not exist."
Tom does not exist because he cannot, because a married bachelor cannot exist.
Defining Tom as a married bachelor rules out his existence.
<quoted text>
My argument has been consistent. Your understanding of it might not have been.
<quoted text>
No I didn't.
Do you know who gets to decide what I mean by what I say?
It's not you.
<quoted text>
At least you haven't acted out of character.
This is why it's pointless to argue with Topix atheists - when you clearly lose, you never admit it.

You argued that a self-contradictory biblical description of a god proves it does not exist.

You analogized this by saying, "if you say Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".

That is blatantly false and illogical.

Then you changed it to "If Tom is a married bachelor, Tom does not exist".

You eliminated the premise of your original argument, which is, that the self-contradictory description proves non-existence.

Now, you say this is consistent, you just "cleaned it up".

You need to find an opponent with a lower intellect to match yours.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192389 Dec 15, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
They were both conditional proofs based on the acceptance of the logical law of non contradiction and the meanings of "married" and "bachelor".
No. Your second try was based on the law of non contradiction.

But it is irrelevant to your initial assertion - that descriptions of contradictory features renders the object described non-existent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192390 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.
Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?
I couldn't say.

Does he believe in emanations from penumbras?

If so, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192391 Dec 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.
Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?
I think a religious test for office is unconstitutional.

That's what atheists and humanists have told me.

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) 9 min Endofdays 69,800
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 38 min Rose_NoHo 411
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Subduction Zone 30,069
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,774
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 5 hr John 577
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