Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
191,141 - 191,160 of 224,728 Comments Last updated 27 min ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

numbers/23-19

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199321
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199322
Jan 5, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
All sex outside of marriage is immoral.
You didn't respond to the post.
Why?
Smile.
<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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199323
Jan 5, 2014
 
River Tam wrote:
I stand against neither. You are free to articulate your bigotry. I am free to ridicule you when you do.
I'm missing some Persecution Potion I was working on.

Hmmmm. I think Eagle snatched it.

Do you know how hard it is to find Wristwatch of Newt?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199324
Jan 5, 2014
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think lying is immoral, why?
Because that is my opinion as well as almost every human's and culture's for the last 6000 years.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199325
Jan 5, 2014
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Is lying wrong?
It obscures and distorts the truth.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199326
Jan 5, 2014
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in a lot of dont knows as the basis of your rejection of God...
You believe in a lot of don't knows as the basis of your belief in deities.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199328
Jan 5, 2014
 
John wrote:
<quoted text>GOD will burn them all in Hell and I commend you for preaching the message of Jesus.
That sort of passion for revenge or whatever reason that prompts such will probably give you a front row seat to watch the spectacle. For eternity. Kind of like audience participation.

Your mellowness level is very low. You keep running like that and you are going to overheat big time.

Get right with God. He ain't paying you to second guess his plans or how to effec them.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199329
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>**PORTIONS SNIPPED**That is parts of Africa and the causes are multiple. Take parts of Africa out of the equation and the scenario is quite different. In the United States, for example the highest incidence is among blacks and MSM. The only value you have to offer is the tacit admission HIV is a global pandemic in spite of its 30+ years, things are not getting better overall. The fact being most people in the world are indeed poor esp in parts of Africa. It is almost as if you are saying the cause is poverty and the effect is HIV. No. The cause is unprotected multiple partner sex.
.. unprotected sex is not the cause of HIV, it's the line of transmission ..

.. HFY is correct, the probable cause of HIV is an empty tummy caused by rank poverty. Evidence ties the origin of HIV to Africans eating infected Simian bush meat to sate hunger ..

.. why do you want to take Africa out of the picture? Is it just a just pesky little misogynistic continent with no relevance to the world, the spread of HIV? Or, is it inconvenient to your quest to portray gays as immoral sinners ??..

.. did I ever tell you I like women? In theory, that makes me a homosexual, right? My blood type is A-negative. If we match and the only available donors were myself or an African male, whose blood would you prefer ??..

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199330
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh Hiding, you always are a breath of fresh air.
Of course it's only a virus that can infect anyone - even innocent babies before they're born. And we need to deal with it in a logical rational way, epidemiology not morality. We aren't medieval peasants in the days of the Plague, after all.
There was a lot of hysteria in the 80s, I was only a kid but I remember. That's understandable because of fear though.
The way it was dealt with here was practical, not preaching or moralising. We were encouraged to use condoms - whatever your orientation - and they were soon being handed out free. The Australian government set up needle exchanges and made it not a crime for addicts to carry them, only the actual drugs.
This probably slowed transmission here a lot. I hope so anyway.
Wow, good for them!

Well said, Rosa, well said :)

And Happy New Year!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199331
Jan 5, 2014
 
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is my opinion as well as almost every human's and culture's for the last 6000 years.
Only among cultural units such as families, tribes or nations. Also on individual levels for those who are alienated from the group they live in. It is necessary for the function of the whole. But it is employed with outsiders as a means of survival, limiting the means of those outside your group from gaining an advantage on you.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199332
Jan 5, 2014
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. unprotected sex is not the cause of HIV, it's the line of transmission ..
.. HFY is correct, the probable cause of HIV is an empty tummy caused by rank poverty. Evidence ties the origin of HIV to Africans eating infected Simian bush meat to sate hunger ..
.. why do you want to take Africa out of the picture? Is it just a just pesky little misogynistic continent with no relevance to the world, the spread of HIV? Or, is it inconvenient to your quest to portray gays as immoral sinners ??..
.. did I ever tell you I like women? In theory, that makes me a homosexual, right? My blood type is A-negative. If we match and the only available donors were myself or an African male, whose blood would you prefer ??..
I don't think he was portraying gays as immoral sinners, I think he was portraying gays as stupid, especially gay men in America that are FULLY aware and educated of the threat of HIV but continue to have unprotected sex.

But to be fair, it isn't just the gay men that are stupid, it's everyone sharing each other's juices without thought or without a care in the world.

I have comfort knowing that I will never contract HIV on my own account.

“I write too fast”

Since: Mar 11

Hurry up!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199333
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yawn. That is not in dispute. You accuse me of ignorance and at the same time create and argue to a phantom.
<quoted text> Food safety? That is a new one. It is mostly spread through unprotected multiple partner sex, not food.
<quoted text> The they are the source. <quoted text> Donor blood was contaminated and the disease was passed on to innocent victims receiving tainted blood. Naturally there was a backlash. You want to assign victim status to typhoid Marys eventually spreading incurable disease to innocents, through tainted blood, through infected males infecting females. <quoted text> And if you have it your way HIV will only get worse in the United States.
<quoted text> That is parts of Africa and the causes are multiple. Take parts of Africa out of the equation and the scenario is quite different. In the United States, for example the highest incidence is among blacks and MSM. The only value you have to offer is the tacit admission HIV is a global pandemic in spite of its 30+ years, things are not getting better overall. The fact being most people in the world are indeed poor esp in parts of Africa. It is almost as if you are saying the cause is poverty and the effect is HIV. No. The cause is unprotected multiple partner sex.
Yeah. It's like I'm speaking to an angry child.

I'll try to simplify:

1. People without access to economic and food resources have sex for those. Because they have no power themselves, they are unable to bargain for condom use.

(Is the above too complex for you? I don't think I can simplify it more.)

2. You can't "take out Africa." Africa has the highest population of HIV infected individuals, the highest percentages and, this may shock you, quite a few people. It's not like you can just pretend they don't exist to support your uninformed and bigoted claims.

3. If we're just looking at the USA, your statements backed me up entirely. Blacks and MSM. You're forgetting Hispanics, but I'm not worried. I'm sure your source will catch up to reality in a few dozen years.

Blacks and MSM, my dear ignorant Lightbeamer, are, as I wrote, suffering from structural inequalities. It's no surprise whatsoever that they have higher rates of HIV.

Once again, for the slow of mind, HIV travels along lines of social inequalities. Those groups under discrimination are going to be the hardest hit by the disease. MSM and blacks - no surprise there.

Do you even know why it's higher among blacks? I mean, other than the reasons above? Prisons. HIV/AIDS rates are 5X higher in prison populations - again, people without resources in bad situations (yes, you can be all holier than thou and talk about crime, but that has nothing to do with what I'm teaching you).

Always a pleasure to try to educate you, LB. It's an endless uphill battle with you.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199334
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you just agreeing with Skombolis or are you also disagreeing with something I posted?
I don't recall the conversation that was going on. I'm sure it's not important.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••