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 (Page 9,574)

Showing posts 191,461 - 191,480 of217,367
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199607
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
The church doesn't really teach those, at least not by example.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I've never been to a church that demeaned anyone, gays and atheists included.
That's nice. I'm sure that there was a point that went with this.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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?
< pin dropping in the next room clearly audible >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What most churches preach is salvation to Jesus, not how "evil" gay sex is and how stupid atheists are.
That's also nice.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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?
ďSecularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief.... We are opposed to Absolutists morality....Ē- Secular Humanist Declaration
If that be the case, where does the morality come from and who's to say what is moral or immoral?
Evolution. It gave us consciousness, a faculty for reason, and consciences - a moral faculty. With them, we decide collectively what is moral.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199608
Jan 6, 2014
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
Freebird USA wrote:
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.
I have no argument with any of that in the main, although I might quibble with a few details..

Did you want to address any of the points I made, or are you in agreement with them?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199609
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
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?
mtimber wrote:
Gods own testimony is the only testimony that counts...
Oh, OK.

You've provided your faith based opinion, which I reject for lack of supporting evidence.

Is there anything else to discuss here?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199610
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Bongo wrote:
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.
Which is it then, a bad rap or deserved criticism of bad behavior?
Bongo wrote:
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.
You seem to be saying that unbelievers are magnifying the bible's flaws. Is that correct? Or maybe you meant that we magnify the flaws in believers.

I don't think much of Jesus' message. It's wrong in many places, and where it is correct, it isn't really his message - not originally. But why would that attitude lead to me hating Jesus or magnifying faults in either the bible or its followers?

You probably have the same attitude for L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics that I have for Jesus and the Christian bible. Do you hate Hubbard for that? Do you feel any need to exaggerate the faults of Scientologists or Scientology because of that rejection?

I don't, and doubt that you do either. And it's the same for me and the Christian equivalent. There is no reason to exaggerate anything.

There may be a reason for you to call it exaggeration, however.

And Is quixotic the word you really meant? That word implies fantasy and futility.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199611
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
Bongo wrote:
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.
Im not sure how your comment relates to my post.

Are you good with my claims then?

And no, I don't wonder why there is so much military spending, but my answer might not be the same as yours. Follow the dollars, and add a little jingoism and unquenchable fear, and you can explain most of it. From Bill Maher a year ago. You probably won't like it:

"And finally, new rule, America needs to show it's the home of the brave by acting like it. Did you know that the defense budget of the United States is bigger than the defense budgets of the next thirteen countries combined, most of whom are allies and none of whom are enemies? So, lemme ask you: If a guy on your block was so frightened of mostly non-existent prowlers that he spent all of his resources on alarm systems and guns and cameras --- so much so that he didn't even have enough money left to maintain his home or send his kids to college --- would you call him brave? Well, tonight I'd like to take a few minutes to try and answer that question, and find out just how we became such a nation of dickless armchair warriors."
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199612
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
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
mtimber wrote:
So what is the source for the absolute moral standards you hypothesise about here?:-)
Riverside Redneck is enjoying a cup of coffee. Perhaps you'd like to join him.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199613
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
mtimber wrote:
Goddiddit or a rockdidit, which do you think is more absurd.
I'd call it close, but the rock is closer to correct. Make "rock" matter, understand that to mean mostly gases, dust, add in energy, force, space and deep time, and the "rock" hypothesis becomes viable.

To make the god hypothesis viable, you need to either produce a god, or explain how one could exist uncreated. After all, which is the less likely thing to exist uncreated - a god or a rock?

What is the very least likely thing imaginable to exist uncreated? I say it's a god.

By the way, you have a bad habit of ignoring the material in the posts written to you. It's not really a conversation for me. For me, it's more like talking to a recording. I can work with that, too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199614
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
You believe in a lot of dont knows as the basis of your rejection of God...
If by "believing in" you mean faith based belief rather than evidence based belief, then no, you are incorrect. I believe in nothing.

And not surprisingly any more, your post ignores the points in mine. There is no evidence that you understood mine. There is no evidence that you are not unconscious software.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199615
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

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?
lightbeamrider wrote:
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.
There seems to be an epidemic of this kind of non-responsive posting. You ignored two questions and instead, went on to discuss the risks of blood transfusion and of working with potentially HIV-infected patients.

Yes, you need to trust blood banking methods and personnel if you are willing to take a transfusion. That is also true when the donor is straight.

And yes, there is a risk of contracting the HIV virus from the blood of infected patients. But what does that have to do with blood banking?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199616
Jan 6, 2014
 
Catcher1 wrote:
What's interesting is that there seems to be a consistent "Christian" position on the HIV issue, which shouldn't be a religious issue at all: Lightbeam, RR, Timber, Dave, all blame it on homosexuals. Those of us who aren't Christians don't reach the same conclusion. What does this tell us?
LOL. Good luck with this.

"If your church won't accept homosexual pastors, priests or ministers, it's teaching you that homosexuals aren't good enough. If your church won't accept women pastors, priests or minsters, it's teaching you that women aren't good enough. If your church won't marry gay couples, it's teaching that gays aren't good enough. Why haven't you figured this out yet? You claim to understand discrimination but seem to find it quite invisible despite it's obvious presence." - Hidingfromyou
Jim

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199617
Jan 6, 2014
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians don't have to follow Levitical law...
I think this is something you refuse to learn.
They don't even follow the laws of logic or honesty either.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199618
Jan 6, 2014
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Why are you stuck on this? Learn this first: there are no absolute moral standards
Buck Crick wrote:
Including this one?
That wasn't a moral standard, Buck. Moral standards include words like "wrong" and "should."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199619
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Divinity Surgeon wrote:
The Exorcist?
Yes, Juice. Very good.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199620
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That wasn't a moral standard, Buck. Moral standards include words like "wrong" and "should."
Buck doesn't seem to understand the difference between a statement about morals and a statement of morals. There is nuance there and Buck doesn't grasp nuance very well. To Buck, they both contain the word "morals" and therefore must be the same. At least, that certainly seems (to me) the way Buck's mind works.

On a similar note, Buck doesn't seem to grasp the concept of synonyms either. They are two different words, therefore they have two different meanings (or so it seems to me.). An example of this happened not long ago. Hiding used the term "discrimination", while I used the term "social inequality". Buck chided me for saying something completely different from what Hiding said. But excuse me Buck, those two terms have very similar meanings in the context that was used.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199621
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot prove any such thing.
And if you could, you would not be disproving a creator god.
Those are not facts you offer.
They are musings - products of your silly ass arrogance.
Your small bit of education has served to make you an arrogant, know-it-all, bumbling bundle of crap.
Yes I can, you exists because of the rule implied by that equation, if you exist then infinite power cannot exist, itís a simple matter of balance. There is evidence that you exist, a court record for example, just because you are not willing to accept that evidence is not my problem

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199622
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, you are really mad at God....
What god? You implied the singular so which one of the 3700+ gods that are known to have been the foundation of various religions and befits over the last few thousand years are you claiming I am mad at?

It was not me claiming gods did everything good but denying or ignoring the bad that exists in exactly the same way. You donít like a fact then thatís just tough, facts exists.

Honey, gods are a mythical and it never worthwhile getting mad at myths.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199623
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Juice. Very good.
Two good friends of mine went to see The Exorcist in the theater when it first came out. They were so spooked, they opened the trunk of the car to check it was safe before driving home. Have to admit, that was one spooky movie.

I do so enjoy a good horror movie.

Which, BTW, do not include the Saw movies, which are nothing but gratuitous gore.

Aside on that last, some of the best horror effects came from Hitchcock. They gave you the sense of horror without the graphic and gratuitous depiction of it. The shower scene in Psycho was a prime example. Some directors have grasped this, most haven't. I loved one brief scene in Highlander. The Kurgan had kidnapped the heroine and was driving with her down a sidewalk at high speed. Through the windshield you would see brief flashes of terrified faces, followed by the sound of a loud THUD! But you would see no body, no blood, no gore. Not even the violence of the car striking the pedestrian. And yet it was very terrifying in the best tradition of Hitchcock.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199624
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I can, you exists because of the rule implied by that equation, if you exist then infinite power cannot exist, itís a simple matter of balance.
The equation says nothing about power.

You are an idiot.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199625
Jan 6, 2014
 
Kit 56 wrote:
<quoted text>
First the Holy Spirit has been with us since the day of Pentecost,so I guess your translation of Revelation 19:6 is wrong,but the devils followers have never got anything right yet,but you never will get it right,also you never answered my question wise one,why are there still monkeys,I got it,they were last in line so poor things couldn't become human.You are the one who ignores facts.Revelation19:6 speaks of Gods judgements,and that He reigns,yea you need to read that,I'm thinking it might do you some good.Alleluia for The Lord God Omnipotent reigns that is Revelation 19:6
Evidence of said holy spirit would be appreciated and may even give credence to your claim. In the meantime I shall continue believing in proven falsifiable evidence while you continue to believe in bronze and iron age mythology.

My wording is not a translation, my use of Revelation 19:6 KJV is direct word for word.

Oh you dumbo, of course I answered your question, you just chose to ignore that answer, not surprising that you really have no comprehension of time or what evolution actually is and so you can only fill in the blanks with ignorance and sarcasm.

Yes I know exactly what Revelation 19:6 sayís and you have not the slightest clue of what the word omnipotent means do you?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199626
Jan 6, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy E=mc^2 to you!!
May you have infinite of them.
Thank you, not infinite but enough to savour. Happy New year to you

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 191,461 - 191,480 of217,367
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••