Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258479 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.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195178 Dec 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Etymology is the most legitimate technique for understanding word meanings.
If a word means something other than the sum of its parts, that is part of its etymology.
In the case of homophobia, it is a concocted word for use as a slur, and it means nothing.
It is a relatively new term, and there is no fallacy in interpreting its meaning by its roots.
From Wiki:
.[11] Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[12] the term homophobia is a blend[13][14][15] of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek &#966;&#972;&#946; &#959;&#962;, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[11]
Ahh, but it describes something which is very real. It's more of a slur to call it poofter bashing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195179 Dec 23, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
I wrote atheism explains nothing and you agreed above.
Yes, I know. I told you that my epistemological, metaphysical and ethical philosophies derive elsewhere.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Atheists are dammed according to Scripture.
I know that, too.

Did you want to make a point about either of those?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#195180 Dec 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
sigh...
There was no inhibition in the church to make a dramatic change in math and science.
Tell that to Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#195181 Dec 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
My friend killed himself.
Dead in a pool of his own blood.
I was talking to him yesterday. Blab, blab, blab and I didn't see it coming
BOOM, dead, fuckyou River.
Oh, damn, River.

I'm sorry.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195182 Dec 23, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not refer to me as a banana bender, it was an army wife move and is now a custody matter, lol, I'm a frikken cockie.
Yeah, today it's going to be a steamy 38, bleh.
Sorry, my fellow Cockroach. Go the mighty Blues next year!!!

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195183 Dec 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the man pretending to be a woman.
What crime was the transvestite charged with?

Mail fraud.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195184 Dec 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Maybe you need to define rape as well. To me, rape is forced, nonconsensensual sex. Would you concede that your bible is filled with examples of your god authorizing or commanding that? How about this one: Deuteronomy 21:10-11 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."
lightbeamrider wrote:
That's not rape, it is more along the line of an arranged marriage where the female is elevated from slave to wife. She has a thirty day period to morn. These are non Hebrew POW females. If things do not work out she is free. That is through verse 14. That is the problem with your interpretation. You do not look at the whole picture and you ignore historical context. You take a couple verses and ignore everything else.
You still haven't defined what you mean by rape. To me, forcing a woman (or man) to have sex against her will is rape, and that passage in Deuteronomy indicates that the bible god sanctions it. Do you have a rebuttal to that, which is where this discussion began, or only deflection to the irrelevant topic of arranged marriages, which may or may not involve rape according to whether the bride consents or is taken by force?
lightbeamrider wrote:
You commit anachronistic fallacy.''Definition: Judging one time period by the standards, mores, truths, or customs of another time, or analyzing a time period as if later customs, information, or standards were known at that time.''
Your moral relativism is a little inconsistent given your earlier insistence that your moral framework is the only valid one because it is objectively true, meaning that the bible god's commandments embody timeless, objective truths. Are you reversing yourself on that now?

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195185 Dec 23, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text> What? That HELL is REAL, and that you're going there unless accept the Lord Jesus Christ??
Here's your song.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195186 Dec 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Bah. You don't know the first beleedin' thing about Middlle Eastern history.
Have you ever even heard of Timur the Lame? Or his descendant Babur?
Babur was an Uzbeki by birth, born in the Ferghana Valley, but he was heavily influenced by Persian history, culturre and science.
He went on to found the First Moghul Dynasty throughout Hindustan - that's India, to you.
Astronomy, medicine, poetry, mathematics, history (even the concept of zero) all came out of that area at about that time.
Did you never wonder why we use "Arabic numbers" rather that Roman?
Never wondered why Acamar, Acraba, Aldemar and Aldebaran are all Arabic names?
Yes, and the Indians called him Babur the tiger. I know a girl who's Uzbeki.

They weren't stupid those Oriental races...maybe a little brainwashed by their religion. Arabic numerals are so much easier to add than Roman, esp when you're trying to work out a year. Happy MMXIV!

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195187 Dec 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, damn, River.
I'm sorry.
His name is Brandon.

He finally made me cry.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#195188 Dec 23, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, my fellow Cockroach. Go the mighty Blues next year!!!
Pmsl.

Cheers Rosa, go the Blues! LOL, you know, I don't get into the footy but I went to a live game once and the atmosphere was amazing.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Punta Arenas, Chile

#195189 Dec 23, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I wrote atheism explains nothing and you agreed above. Atheists are dammed according to Scripture.
How silly and infantile.

Boo!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195190 Dec 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo...
I'll bring it up with them at lunch tomorrow.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195191 Dec 23, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree children want to be loved but they also want and need more than that.
They need a safe home environment and financial stability.
Need parents to make good choices from meal selection to handling finances.
They need to be raised in a good moral home with examples set.
They need rules and guidelines.
Need someone to tell them “No,” when they’re going down the wrong road.
They need parents who will talk to them and know who they are hanging around.
They need supervision until they are on their own.
They need their parents to be a coach and motivate them when necessary.
They need to be taken places and learn to enjoy the great outdoors.
Kids need more than love. They need the whole package.
Too many kids who grow up in the Houso flats get none of that, then junkie parents as a bonus.:-(

But at least their folks are heterosexual.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Punta Arenas, Chile

#195192 Dec 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't. But I think the people have a right to organize society and law around principles like one man and one woman in marriage, if that is their will, and it has been.
People may decide differently, and that's fine. I don't like judges deciding it.
You can move to one of those societies.

And your argument is bogus.

Remember segregation, Buckaroo?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Punta Arenas, Chile

#195193 Dec 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution affords no protection for marrying the same sex.
The prohibition is equally applied to every person.
It's not a judge's job to say the Constitution says something it doesn't.
I can't dignify this sort of argument.

So just stop it.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#195194 Dec 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
He didn't even leave a note.
He was 24 years old.
His smile will live at least as long as I do. It's burned in my brain.
I'm sad.
I can't make you not sad or even hug you, even though I desperately want to.

I can stare at a screen and agonize over what to write because I want to help.

I don't know if you're aware, but I do that a lot. Sometimes I come up empty.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195195 Dec 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Scatolia? Isn't he's on the US Supreme Court?
Well diagnosed, Doc.
;-)

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#195196 Dec 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't even leave a note.
He was 24 years old.
His smile will live at least as long as I do. It's burned in my brain.
I'm sad.
My condolences, mate.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195197 Dec 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
We are talking about two different things. You know very well what I mean when I use the word "atheism" because I have told you, and it isn't what you described there. If you have to forcibly distort my argument to rebut it, then you must have no rebuttal for the argument I actually made
<quoted text>
Actually, you insist on not knowing what it is. You have been told repeatedly by atheists what it is they believe, and you are uninterested.
<quoted text>
Yes I do,
You use the word "atheism" for what is really agnosticism.

I'm safe thinking Stalin didn't slaughter millions for agnosticism.

Thus, I am not the one distorting.

The distortion is calling agnosticism "atheism", then saying atheism doesn't kill.

That is equivalent to saying Christianity doesn't kill, but defining "Christianity" as a casual admiration for dead people of ancient Palestine

Stalin killed for atheism. It was his belief, not a lack of belief.

Library of Congress:

"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools...."

"The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps..."

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) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,252
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr Science 854
Religion sux ? 4 hr Eagle 12 - 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Science 77,044
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 11 hr Dogen 4,321
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) 23 hr Frindly 291
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Sun Eagle 12 - 12
More from around the web