Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256086 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.

Outrage

Texarkana, TX

#193970 Dec 19, 2013
I love the South,nuts like you don't exist down here,we have a way of driving your ass back up north,you bunch of stinking idiots.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193971 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Now look up the word power
Matter can exert energy and matter can become energy however power is not matter,
Everything in this universe is either energy or matter so because power is not matter then it can only be energy
So yes power is the same thing as energy,
What you think you know bares no relation to fact
Because I was taught maths in school, so perhaps it’s because I am not American?
Wrong again, Christinemc^2.

Power is not limited to energy. Power can be matter. It can be lots of things.

Wealth or money can be power. My physique and handsome looks are power.

Power is not the same thing as energy. So your proof is worthless.

But we already knew that.

power; n.noun

The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural.
"her powers of concentration".
Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might.
The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.
A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others.
"the western powers".
The might of a nation, political organization, or similar group.
Forcefulness; effectiveness.
"a novel of unusual power".
A large number or amount.
The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated.
turbines turned by steam power; a sailing ship driven by wind power.
The capacity of a system or machine to operate.
a vehicle that runs under its own power.
Electrical or mechanical energy, especially as used to assist or replace human energy.
Electricity supplied to a home, building, or community.
a storm that cut off power to the whole region.
The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower.
The product of applied potential difference and current in a direct-current circuit.
The product of the effective values of the voltage and current with the cosine of the phase angle between current and voltage in an alternating-current circuit.
The number of elements in a finite set.
The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis where it is false.
A measure of the magnification of an optical instrument, such as a microscope or telescope.
The sixth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.
An armed force.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193972 Dec 19, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
,, the state of marriage has always been in flux ..
.. in regards to matrimony, Jesus preached egalitarianism, denounced hierarchy and endorsed complementarianism ..
,, instead of following Christ's teachings, the Roman Catholic Church established a marriage model that favored the male. The women's movement changed all that and there's no turning back ..
.. the Christian rhetoric about 'traditional marriage' is archaic, the revolution has already occurred, women no longer obey, men no longer rule the roost and gays are demanding the same social and legal support system that heterosexual couples enjoy ..
.. some church leaders are trying to quell the GLBT insurgency through shenanigans, political intrigue and religious condemnation. This entrenched regime has supporters and it will not exit quietly ..
.. change is difficult and, for some, it's a hard pill to swallow. I can even empathize with your position, something you treasure is changing, social evolution is happening and you probably feel powerless to stop it ..
.. may I suggest you take a moment, pray to your God, meditate and reflect. Ask Him if He thinks gays deserve the support of society. In a quiet moment, you might find the answer ..
I think I already know the answer.

Yes, gays deserve the support of society.

I also think they can have that support without legal matrimony.

And losing marriage as we know it, I think something important is lost - the idea that the best foundation for families raising children is where every child has one parent of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex, so that the examples of what it's like to be a man and a woman can be conveyed.

I also know that view is losing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193973 Dec 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
According to Puck Frick, all is finite.
<quoted text>
And I am right.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193974 Dec 19, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>

By all means, let's return the holiday to its "rightful owners".
Pagans.
Great, MacNuggets.

We will give them their holiday back.

Then we will start us a new one - celebrate it on December 25th, have gifts and a tree, and reindeer and shit. Christian people can designate it as a celebration of the birth of Christ.

Then all will be set right. Right?

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaahah.. .

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193975 Dec 19, 2013
Outrage wrote:
I love the South,nuts like you don't exist down here,we have a way of driving your ass back up north,you bunch of stinking idiots.
Hey Outage.

Don't include me. I'm southern born and raised.

By the grace of God.

Roll tide.

"Get your heart in Dixie, or get your ass out"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193976 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The mistake lies in a bible that claims divine authorship by a perfect god for itself, then describes an imperfect god, and is full of self-contradictions,failed prophecies, unkept promises, and errors of scientific and historical fact.

Pointing out that people worshiping that god are worshiping an impossible fiction - an imperfect perfect god - is not the mistake. You have told us yourself that when a Christian refers to "God," s/he means specifically god of the Christian bible, not a similar god. If you change the description, you might be describing something that actually does exist, but not the same thing. So, if you are arguing that a god of no specific description may exist, every agnostic atheist like me will agree with you, but will add that that god hasn't contacted us, has no commandments for us, and has made no request to be worshiped. If you want to argue that the specific god of sin and damnation that the bible claims exists - the one you and other Christians call "God" - sorry.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Your error begins with your first sentence. The Bible does not claim to be authored by God. It claims to be authored by men, inspired by God. Let's work on that before jumping to the supposed contradictions, m'kay?
"Inspired" is ambiguous. The issue is whether men composed any of the words or just took dictation. Do you consider the bible to be inerrant as has been claimed for it for centuries, or to contain errors? Calling the bible "god inspired" is a relatively modern innovation that has become increasingly necessary as more and more of the bible has been shown to be wrong, an innovation that gives apologists that are willing to admit that the bible contains errors a little wiggle room to say that men made them, not the god.

The problem with that should be obvious. It's the same problem you run into arbitrarily calling parts of the bible metaphor or allegory. Once you begin saying that parts of the bible shouldn't be believed as written without a clear way of discerning which parts are literally true, then anybody's read is as valid as anybody else's. I am free to call the resurrection allegory, or an incorrect addition inserted by fallible men.

In any event, as you are fond of saying, your claim is just your opinion. All of the following comes from http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/02/did... , and represents what the church has taught for millennia:

=========

"Here are some scriptures that clearly show that it was God who wrote the Bible and not man. God dictated the Bible to man just like a boss dictates a letter to his secretary. Man wrote it down, but God chose the words.

Exodus 34:27
Then the Lord said to Moses “Write down these words….”

Jesus said in John 12:50 “So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1:11 “I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not received it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

The Apostle Timothy said in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 1:21 “For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”

"Here we have five different writers that all say the same thing. It was not man, but God that decided what to write in the Bible. Man just did the writing according to what God told him."

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193977 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Science did not give you skin you fool, that was nature.
It did however provide methods and techniques to prepare whatever basic materials, wool, oil etc… and to weave you a blanket.
I had to revisit this one....

You're saying that science didn't give me skin , nature did.

But science have the sheep it's wool.

See? That's why I say Praise Science! It gave us wool.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193978 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

Don’t know, never tried, you tell me
You can find out. Next time you have a dick in your mouth, just talk and see what it sounds like.

If RR's theory is correct, it will sound something like what you typed.

I hope this is helpful.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193979 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It was an amazing question, though, wasn't it? "Why is there a perception out there that Christians hate gays?"
RiversideRedneck wrote:
A question that was not answered satisfactorily. A question that demands a non-bigoted answer. Care to try?
Already done. Please take a peak and tell me what you think. Incidentally, the question in the first quote was from you, not Buck.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

It's interesting that you deny that Christianity is bigoted against gays, but say that it is bigoted to suggest or argue it.

Would you agree that the Christian bible is bigoted against atheists? It calls us the most horrible things.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193980 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to revisit this one....
You're saying that science didn't give me skin , nature did.
But science have the sheep it's wool.
See? That's why I say Praise Science! It gave us wool.
And science gave us oil, too.

Wonder why they put it so dang deep in the ground?

Must have something to do with E=mc^2.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193981 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It was an amazing question, though, wasn't it? "Why is there a perception out there that Christians hate gays?"
RiversideRedneck wrote:
A question that was not answered satisfactorily. A question that demands a non-bigoted answer. Care to try?
LuciFerr wrote:
Because christians lobby against human rights that homosexuals should have, tell them they're going to the christian imaginary hell
Agreed, but I'm afraid our friend Riverside Redneck considers us bigots for mentioning these things.

Christians have a terrible public relations problem, and the preferred method of dealing with it - denial coupled with mirror image counter-accusations - is probably only compounding the credibility problem. But what's a believer to do?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193983 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Inspired" is ambiguous.
No it isn't, it has a clear-cut definition.

"of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."

You must first understand that before understanding that the Bible was inspired by God.
The issue is whether men composed any of the words or just took dictation. Do you consider the bible to be inerrant as has been claimed for it for centuries, or to contain errors?
Inerrant.
Calling the bible "god inspired" is a relatively modern innovation that has become increasingly necessary as more and more of the bible has been shown to be wrong, an innovation that gives apologists that are willing to admit that the bible contains errors a little wiggle room to say that men made them, not the god.
How do you figure it's modern?
The problem with that should be obvious. It's the same problem you run into arbitrarily calling parts of the bible metaphor or allegory.
Whether you like it or night, parts of the Bible are metaphor, parts are allegory. Some parts are literal.

That's the beautiful thing about the Bible.

It's nothing similar to a novel that can be read cover to cover. It has to be read, then reread, then studied, then read again and studied some more.
Once you begin saying that parts of the bible shouldn't be believed as written without a clear way of discerning which parts are literally true, then anybody's read is as valid as anybody else's. I am free to call the resurrection allegory, or an incorrect addition inserted by fallible men.
In any event, as you are fond of saying, your claim is just your opinion.
I would say you are free to call what is allegory and what is literal if you're a biblical scholar. Your not, you're a physician. You have every right to interpret medical journals as you see fit, specifically the ones you're trained in. You are not trained in the Bible, you're not a biblical scholar so you calling the resurrection and allegory stems from ignorance.
All of the following comes from http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/02/did... , and represents what the church has taught for millennia:
=========
"Here are some scriptures that clearly show that it was God who wrote the Bible and not man. God dictated the Bible to man just like a boss dictates a letter to his secretary. Man wrote it down, but God chose the words.
Exodus 34:27
Then the Lord said to Moses “Write down these words….”
Jesus said in John 12:50 “So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1:11 “I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not received it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
The Apostle Timothy said in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 1:21 “For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”
"Here we have five different writers that all say the same thing. It was not man, but God that decided what to write in the Bible. Man just did the writing according to what God told him."
All you've done here is copy and pasted scripture you don't understand. Would you like a lesson?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193984 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Would you agree that the Christian bible is bigoted against atheists? It calls us the most horrible things.
Maybe it was out of kotex.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193985 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Already done. Please take a peak and tell me what you think. Incidentally, the question in the first quote was from you, not Buck.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
I know I asked it.

Buck didn't answer to my satisfaction.
It's interesting that you deny that Christianity is bigoted against gays, but say that it is bigoted to suggest or argue it.


Because I believe Christianity isn't bigoted against gays. I think some Christians are.
Would you agree that the Christian bible is bigoted against atheists? It calls us the most horrible things.
Bigotry is basically prejudiced intolerance.

I would say the negative Scriptures about atheists are merely a warning, to scare people into not losing their faith.

A warning to ignorant people, I might add.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193986 Dec 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And science gave us oil, too.
Wonder why they put it so dang deep in the ground?
Must have something to do with E=mc^2.
Why they he'll did E=MC2 give us frozen burritos?

They take like two minutes to heat up.

Ain't nobody got time fer dat.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193987 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Agreed, but I'm afraid our friend Riverside Redneck considers us bigots for mentioning these things.
Christians have a terrible public relations problem, and the preferred method of dealing with it - denial coupled with mirror image counter-accusations - is probably only compounding the credibility problem. But what's a believer to do?
No, I don't consider you bigots. I consider the fact that you seem to be stereotyping all Christians. Like I said said before, you see some Christians with their "God hates fags" signs and you think we are all like that. That's stereotyping, if you want to call it bigotry that's up to you

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193988 Dec 19, 2013
Dear Topix Modz,

What the hell did you guys do to the ads? I post from an iPhone and you get these ads by Vdopia and new ads is that fill up the entire screen, even when I'm trying to write the post or respond to a post.

Like right now, I'm trying to write this post and there is a huge, half screen size, ad from Disney with a picture of Pluto on it and it's in Spanish. I can't close it and I can make it go away and it's very irritating.

Rant off.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193989 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There is no "Christian homophobic message".
You apparently cannot see it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And if you agree that many Christians have not taken that message, why do you continue the stereotype preconception that Christians hate gays?
Let me be clear: Christian doctrine is homophobic, and individual Christians are as well to the extent that they embrace that doctrine. It is characteristic of Christians to be willing to be unjust and unkind to gay people in defense of their church's teaching. This is not to say that every Christian is this way any more than to say that Americans are this way or that the description applies to every individual.

You can't escape the obvious fact that your church preaches a doctrine that hurts gay people, and that many Christians are happy to accept it, treat gay people disrespectfully, be indifferent to their happiness, and teach their children to do the same. It is a obvious fact not questioned by non-Christians, and your refusal to see it undermines your credibility and objectivity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193990 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Which churches promulgate the supposed message?
No church that I've ever been to promotes hatred to anything or anyone, gays included.
Still? You're still confusing the church with buildings with addresses serving individual congregations?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You cannot say the Christian Church, the overall message of Christianity that is preached at churches around the world, promotes hatred to gays. If you do, you'll have to support that assertion.
I don't have to do it repeatedly or until I get you to agree. I've made my case. Let's move on.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Two. You named two Christians and then you damn Christianity and every church and every Christian doctrine because of the acts of few.
Huh...
That dog don't hunt either. There were a few more steps involved than just looking at two people. My conclusions are sound and are considered general knowledge outside of your church, just like evolution and the self-contradictory nature of the Christian bible.

As I have said before, I am happy to explain myself to you, but not more than a few times, and I don't require you to agree.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Reason Personified 16,288
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 18 min Aura Mytha 40,796
A Universe from Nothing? 32 min ilovedesigirls 82
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 56 min Reason Personified 26
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 4 hr Into The Night 274
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr Mikko 3,771
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 10 hr _Susan_ 20,620
More from around the web