Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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.


Patchogue, NY

#199303 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Who do you think is concealing negative feelings about the church?
I assume that you are implying that such feelings are unfounded. If so, you are among the majority of Christians. Few acknowledge that there is any justification for the negativity the church receives. It isn't necessary that you do.
Do you ever wonder why so many people are so down on the church for no reason, or through no fault of the church? Can you name another example of a large institution experiencing a similar degree of public disapproval through no fault of its own?
Buck has well articulated the motives of atheists and their rhetoric many times. If the Church were perfect they would still be getting a bad rap by the haters of God . The church may well deserve some reactions to their wrong behavior. The gospel is in many ways quixotic because not many can obey perfectly and any fault is magnified by those who hate or don't care for Jesus and his message.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#199304 Jan 5, 2014
mtimber wrote:
So man is the definer of morality, not God?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199305 Jan 5, 2014
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>"Thou shalt not lie." That's the hardest one for any of you christians to keep.

But then, you tell yourself that it's good to lie for your god and your jesus.

How just is a cause that you need to lie for?
You seem to agree lying is wrong, why?

Patchogue, NY

#199306 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.
Im suggesting that Christian or not, when push comes to shove, the weaker are gonna lose.!7 trillion debt and its going to geometrically progress. Ever wonder why we spend so much on military? Those apes are gonna conquer whenever they get a chance, that's why. So much for secular humanism.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199307 Jan 5, 2014
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>Calling a liar a liar is a statement of fact, not a moral judgement.

You christians feels it's okay to lie, as long as you do it in the name of your jesus and your cause.

Bloodthirsty muslims are more honest than most christians.
Lying is morally wrong, bible is clear about that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199308 Jan 5, 2014
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, no - my insistence that there is no evidence for any god's existence stems from the fact that no one has ever provided any proof of any god's existence. Its really quite simple.

So, again, since you've never been able to prove that the god you worship is real (whichever one that is) why would his or her opinion on homosexuality be relevant?

Still waiting...

Translation: "No, I can't prove my god; but I demand that you believe in it because *I* believe in it."
Your own behaviour is evidence, the fact you can reason, appeal to morality and understand life has a purpose is evidence you live in Gods universe...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08


#199309 Jan 5, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
It doesn’t matter to me if you are or if you’re not [gay].
OK, but you did ask. You gave me and others the impression that you thought it was demeaning. It's OK if that was your purpose and you are now repenting it.

It's also OK if you were merely curious, in which case I am curious about why you would ask me about my sexual preference. I don't think you answered me when I asked if you found it unbelievable that I would post the things I do about gays without hoping to benefit personally, or that I could empathize with a group that I don't belong to. Those are both pretty common things for people to do.

So why did you ask?
Eagle 12 wrote:
I still love you as an Atheist and as a fellow world citizen. I love Atheist perhaps because my late Father was an Atheist. I feel a kinship with you. Hate solves nothing and love is far more powerful of a force than hate.[tipping hat]
Good attitude. Thanks.

Do you think you could love atheists if you hadn't (literally) loved one as a father first?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199310 Jan 5, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>That's right. There is no god in existence and there never was.
So morality did not exist until man created it?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#199311 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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's in the Book of Taint.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199312 Jan 5, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>No. Humans are.
Which ones?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199313 Jan 5, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Really? That's the first I've heard of that.
Easy to verify....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199314 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you stuck on this? Learn this first: there are no absolute moral standards, even for you, since it a subjective choice which moral standards you choose to have faith in and call absolute or objectively true. If absolute and objectively true morals existed, unbelievers would know about them, and people of faith wouldn't argue about what they are.

mtimber wrote, "You can only appeal to an ethical transcendent entity for those absolutes, but you claim there is no God. So you are caught in a contradiction, unless you resolve that you have no basis for an epistemology and therefore no basis for making an argument about morality."

When you are ready to learn about what we think and why rather than tell us what it is, let me know. You need to broaden your horizon. Start with my last post, then consider this:

What if it is later discovered that every sufficiently evolved extraterrestrial culture has arrived at the roughly the same ethical standards, and that there is no god? We can then conclude that there are universal standards of morality ascertained by diverse cultures, but no divine source for them.
So what is the source for the absolute moral standards you hypothesise about here?:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199315 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>"you have to know all things to say there is no evidence"

This is incorrect. Evidence has to be evident to be evidence. If it is hidden, it is not evidence.

Where is your (evident) evidence for your god or any other god? Even if some exists somewhere, if you can't produce any of it, you have no evidence to offer.
The fact you appeal to an absolute moral standard only accountable for with God is plenty of evidence.

The suppression of that logical conclusion is also evidence, the contradictions you express also clearly show your worldview is in conflict with the obvious.

Patchogue, NY

#199316 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If youre saved, you win. Winners are pardoned , the others, no matter how great, are not. His sheep hear his voice. Being saved is superior.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199317 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Goddidit is no more of an explanation than Gog did it, dog did it, or it did it itself.

Just as evidence is evident, an explanation explains.
Goddiddit or a rockdidit, which do you think is more absurd.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#199318 Jan 5, 2014
"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


Interesting differences in translations.

Lying has been justified in the Bible when it suits a purpose. Like Abraham getting his wife in a government whorehouse to make some cash. Or in other instances to advance the interests of a group.

It's a survival thing. Part of the mechanism as a material being. Even Peter did it.

Man discovered he was naked and defenseless. Lying for cause became a means of survival after getting kicked out of the house.

I am willing to bet that in spite of all the ranting and raving against religion on here by Topix atheists and their secular humanism, that if caught in a mob seeking atheists to burn they would deny being one and whip out their little New Testaments to prove it. This would also apply to politics and any other ideology.

They are only human, right?

However, there are many instances of the religious and spiritual admitting to and dying for their beliefs. That is called commitment to one's beliefs, and transcending the material paradigm you are caught in here,

God, or the creative force behind this movie doesn't have to lie. What it decides, it does. It happens. When it comes harvest time what use does it have for those that deny the existence of that higher consciousness? Those are just impediments.

A little doubt is a good thing because it helps coalesce the bigger picture. Makes you think. But flat out denying on insufficient information gets you tossed into the incinerator.

The Grand Consciousness wants facets of its existence to think with it, not against it. The difference between a constructive existence and a waste of time.

Argue your material things in your material existence. Reserve judgement on the grand scale to the grand scale.

People that want things to be exclusively their way are in contravention to the grander scheme of things.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199319 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Disagree.

It could be discovered that deist-type gods created the first cell, and evolutionary theory would not need to change to accommodate that discovery.

Likewise, the abiogenesis hypothesis (unguided chemical evolution resulting in life) is independent of any subsequent biological evolution that may have occurred.
You believe in a lot of dont knows as the basis of your rejection of God...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#199320 Jan 5, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
Evolution is no more of an explanation than dilution did it, attribution did it, or it did it itself.
Just as evidence is evident, an explanation explains.
These are the opinions I like to see from a person with a name tag that says, "Hi, I'm a Christian!"

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#199321 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Are you aware of any diseases that are transmissible with blood transfusions that are not detectable before the blood is given to a recipient? I'm not, although I am not current in medicine any more.
If there is no increased risk of harming recipients, then there is no justification for refusing blood from gay donors. Do you disagree with that?
The trend seems to be moving towards a one year wait which effectually isn't any different than the current lifelong ban since most in the MSM category are not going to stay celibate for a year to donate blood. I do think disease transmission through blood is a reality given human error. But again society as a whole will have to put ''trust'' in the profession which deals with these matters. They do their job right etc.

You can't tell me those in the medical profession who are around disease ever day are all that comfortable working, for example with HIV or AIDS patients all the time. Not to mention the opportunistic diseases that take over and may be far easier to catch. These may put on a happy face in public but in private and in their own circles they may have a different sentiment.

United States

#199322 Jan 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
All sex outside of marriage is immoral.
You didn't respond to the post.
<quoted text>
How do you determine what is moral or immoral?
Do no harm?
GOD will burn them all in Hell and I commend you for preaching the message of Jesus.

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) 4 min IB DaMann 61,492
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Dogen 2,699
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Dogen 28,323
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Mar 24 IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web