Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257133 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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199283 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>I do not find lying to be moral. I don't claim to speak for God though.
So you think lying is immoral, why?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199284 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
It is a personal issue for me. I never said it is an absolute.

Once again you ar putting words in my mouth. Having been made aware of that fact a few posts ago you are now providing evidence that you are either stupid or lying. That isn't a moral judgement just a statement f facts. I personally find it a valid reason to dismiss anything you write as doubtful.

Is lying wrong?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199285 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>For the same reason I don't pick my nose in public. A personal belief. I don't claim to be God.

Why do you believe lying is moral ?

Is lying wrong?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199286 Jan 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw it, and didn't get the answer, dammit.
One guy, the winner, did.
It may have triggered my post to RR....
Good morning, Feltcher1.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#199287 Jan 5, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
To me, ownership has to be established before there is theft. So I wouldn't consider it stealing if someone didn't own it or was in possession of it illegally
But if someone does have legitimate ownership, then .I woulds say regardless of the necessity that may make it understandable, stealing would be wrong
Do you mean wrong as in immoral, or wrong as in the wrong decision to make?

Would you choose to steal and live, or not and die?

A better question might be: Is morality your servant or your master?
Skombolis wrote:
Although i can think of an exception and that is if someone commits the act to avoid worse acts of immorality. For example a local university has been slaughtering dogs for 20 years and has never come up with a single applicable scientific find from it. They have been chided by other scientists saying their methods are out-dated and a joke and begged with to stop using dogs. People call, go on the news, picket. Local officials have tried. But they get millions in federal funding for this so they go thru the motions and pocket the money. In that case even though they own the animals, the theft of those animals would be an act of mercy
<quoted text>I do think there needs to be some way to purge old laws and adjust current ones to represent modern thinking
Some of the laws on the books are outrageous. And essentially while people don't have the right to follow the ones they want, the government has the right to selectively prosecute only the ones they still care about
While ironically the law is often behind the times, it also can be horribly antiquated. There really should be a system in place to prevent that from happening IMO
America is fcked.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199288 Jan 5, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, so now you've resorted to lying.

I have never - never - said that no proof is acceptable. Not. Ever.

I have stated repeatedly that no proof has ever been provided that any deity ever existed. If there were proof, I'd love to see it.

Anyway, its obvious that you can't answer the simplest question. Carry on, liar, carry on.
Why are you upset by the idea of lying? Is it because you we're created with an awareness of its immorality?

The fact you appeal to that morality is evidence which you say does not exist for God, if not where do you get the idea that lying is absolutely morally wrong?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#199289 Jan 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More Topix Atheist! ignorance.
More RR bible cherry picking...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#199290 Jan 5, 2014
mtimber wrote:
Moral absolutes can only exist if God exists.
Without God there is no right and wrong, there can be no absolute moral values.
Yet everyone lives as though there are absolute moral values, they just don't want to accept the logical conclusion that entails...
Are you staying at the Fallacy Hotel and Casino?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#199291 Jan 5, 2014
Bongo wrote:
Juici, I was thinking, if your dad was obedient to the bible, you wouldn't have suffered and be so pissed. Same for millions of others.
You mean the nice parts of the bible, right? The church doesn't really teach those, at least not by example. Does the church treat gays and atheists as it would like to be treated in accordance with the Golden Rule? And what is love according to the bible and/or the church?

Incidentally, just about every ethical system would frown on abandoning your family, not just Christianity, which bring us to this:

Humanist values and Christian values overlap in many places, and are in contradiction in others. Which area in which they differ do you think that Christianity offers the superior value, and why do you think that it is superior? If your only answer is because you believe that a god said so, you can give that, but I probably don't have to tell you that it won't be persuasive.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#199292 Jan 5, 2014
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you upset by the idea of lying? Is it because you we're created with an awareness of its immorality?
The fact you appeal to that morality is evidence which you say does not exist for God, if not where do you get the idea that lying is absolutely morally wrong?
Sorry, ace, you don't get to ask me anymore questions.

You have proven that you are not interested in an actual discussion because when pressed for an answer to simple questions, you resort to lying - which makes having a discussion impossible.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199293 Jan 5, 2014
Just Think wrote:
More RR bible cherry picking...
No, that's the Topix Atheist! job.

You cherry pick.

I correct and teach.

Some don't listen.

Usually the Topix Atheist!s. Their minds are hell bent on thinking that what they read on evilbible.com is correct.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199294 Jan 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Off to the gym.
YAY and golly gee!

Make sure people are watching...
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#199295 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
""We must exterminate these people, root and branch… We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexuals must be entirely eliminated.” Heydrich Himmler 1938
Such a good and righteous Christian!
Not a Christian, a CINO, you oaf

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199296 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Faith based beliefs have no meaning or merit to unbelievers. If you want to discuss issues with us, you should probably try to find an area of agreement to begin - shared values. Are you interested in justice, compassion, kindness, or love? Maybe we could start there.

mtimber wrote, "But please explain what absolute moral standard you are currently appealing to when you say intolerance of homosexuality is absolutely morally wrong?"

None, There is no such thing. See above.

mtimber wrote, "Are you not an atheist that holds there are no absolute moral standards? "

Yes.

mtimber wrote, "So why are you appealing to them?"

I'm not. Where did you get the idea that I was?
When you introduce them into the discussion you are appealing to them...

So tell me, is justice absolutely necessary?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199297 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I've heard.The church teaches it as well. It's a problem for gay people, and I predict that it will become a problem for the church.

The solution is to teach people to ignore that bible. And you know how we have to go about doing that. We have to teach that the church damages people based on faith in an ancient book that describes a harshly judgmental god.

The argument against homophobia becomes an argument against faith and an argument against the likelihood of the god of brutal, nomadic ancients, and an appeal to rational, compassionate ethics instead. I think you know how that is likely to play out.

By the way, where does the bible teach that Christians should demean,demonize or marginalize gays? Where does it teach that you should interfere with their ability to marry?
It is interesting that you keep making absolute moral statements particularly against Christianity, but you cannot explain where you get your absolute moral standards from?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199298 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You mean the nice parts of the bible, right? The church doesn't really teach those, at least not by example. Does the church treat gays and atheists as it would like to be treated in accordance with the Golden Rule? And what is love according to the bible and/or the church?
I've never been to a church that demeaned anyone, gays and atheists included.

What most churches preach is salvation to Jesus, not how "evil" gay sex is and how stupid atheists are.

Maybe the atheist churches bitch about Christians all Sunday morning, but Christian churches rarely (if ever) talk about you.
Incidentally, just about every ethical system would frown on abandoning your family, not just Christianity, which bring us to this:
Humanist values and Christian values overlap in many places, and are in contradiction in others. Which area in which they differ do you think that Christianity offers the superior value, and why do you think that it is superior? If your only answer is because you believe that a god said so, you can give that, but I probably don't have to tell you that it won't be persuasive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Humanist value suggest that we build a better society built on natural values and human values?

“Secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief.... We are opposed to Absolutists morality....”- Secular Humanist Declaration

If that be the case, where does the morality come from and who's to say what is moral or immoral?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#199299 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be implying it is safer to live in a society that is predominantly Christian than in one that is predominantly non-Christian, such as the one America is becoming, as if the church inculcates a better system of morals than humanists. I disagree.
Of course, you probably don't acknowledge that the church actually teaches such things as homophobia and atheophobia. Most Christians point to biblical passages that really don't represent the values that the church actually promotes when describing Christian values.
And at the same time, American atheists are called genocidal. Here you are suggesting that we would murder the elderly.
If that's how you have to make your argument - denying the church's transgressions while trying to saddle the humanist alternative with Stalinist proclivities - then you have no argument.
Humans are prone to barbarism no matter what the prevailing culture is.
In the blink of an eye your safe environment can become a slaughterhouse if the right conditions happen to emerge.Human nature is the issue. Not whether one is secular or christian.Humans have a seemingly innate need to control others.The conformity gene perhaps? If Christian or Secular Humanists did not exists something else would take their place to encourage and promote that deep seated need.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199300 Jan 5, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Give an example.

mtimber wrote, "Does that not make them God?"

You haven't defined the concept of whatever it is you are referring to when you say >god< and/or how truth only comes from that poorly defined theistic god concept.
I accept the definition God Himself supplied in the scriptures, all knowing, all powerful, all present, absolutely loving.

To have an absolute moral standard requires an expression of an intelligent absolute moral being...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199301 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>I don't appeal to gods singular or plural. Where are they? All I see are words alleged to have originated with gods but written and spoken by men. Do men ever lie about such things?
Gods own testimony is the only testimony that counts...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199302 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Only if "God" exists. If not, it will be the other way around.
Only God can judge...

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) 1 hr ATHEOI 21,403
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr Eagle 12 436
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 1 hr Moon Pie 9
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 2 hr ATHEOI 326
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Eagle 12 10,344
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 20,285
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr ChristineM 45,559
More from around the web