Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200435 Jan 7, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is nothing but opinion. It qualifies as historical fiction, or myth, and nothing more.
What a specious think to say you black sheep bullshitter .

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#200436 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never told me that.
It's also not credible. The link has the post number in it, not a page number.
Even if what you say were true, you could look at the link to see the post number.
Speaking of lazy, I have no intention of spoon feeding you. If you are using equipment that doesn't allow you to participate, then you can't participate.
I think I have told you that. If I haven't, now I have.

I'm on an iPhone, I can't really see the link like you can on a PC.

I don't give afuck if you believe that, I'm just telling you what's be best when you post a Topix link to me.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#200437 Jan 7, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>There is nothing in the human heart except blood. Evidence is something tangible, not just a warm and fuzzy feeling. Skepticism, Reason, and Logic, are the "gifts" you are referring to, and we bestow them on our self and are extremely vital when attempting to verify if something is true.
Skepticism, Reason, and Logic, go and get yours if you dare. I seriously doubt you are capable of any one of these desirable traits.
Except a man be born again he cant see. I have skepticism reason and logic and they all point to Jesus The truth is axiomatic.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#200438 Jan 7, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
Bad New for some Topix posters

January 7, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Topix looks to professionals to become more 'user-friendly'

The social media site known as Topix is plagued by people engaging in what has become known as 'trolling'. One of the biggest offenses has been the saturation of chat-room pages with icons. An icon allows a reader to express their opinion through the use of symbols placed above a post. What used to be an anonymous way for a reader to express their approval or disapproval of a post has now become a fixation for those possibly suffering from psychological disorders. In the near future, Topix hopes to implement a short consent form that will be reviewed by psychiatrists to determine if the poster should be allowed this feature. Spokesman Ben Dover was quoted as saying "We want the best for all our readers and posters. That includes their mental health. Some people simply do not possess the requisite maturity or mental wellness to utilize this feature properly".

www.newsmadeup/byme.com
Lol

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200439 Jan 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I really need to know something, DagwoodSnoopDog.
Did Thomas Jefferson negotiate and sign a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that agreed to use public funds to build them a church and hire a priest?
David Barton says, "Yes, he did".
Your supplied critics say, "No, Barton is a liar".
Would you like to make another wager on this one?
Who is telling the truth, Barton, or your guys?
I say Barton is telling the truth, and your guys are lying.
Pony up. Put some of that blowjob money on the table.
Put your money where your stupid mouth is.
I have $1,000 I will put on Barton.
What says you, DogPup?
Did Jefferson negotiate said treaty. No he did not. Just like it was Kissinger and not Nixon that negotiated with the Chinese.

Did Jefferson sign the treaty. Yes he did, but it wasn't on the religious grounds that he did so.

Just like Barton, you are engaging in conflation and confabulation.

By your logic I would be considered a Baptist because I walking into a Baptist church. "I saw him in a Baptist church. He's a Baptist." Because clearly there could be no other reason for me to be in a Baptist church.

Barton does this a lot. He takes one bit of information and claims his interpretation is the only one possible. And he ignores the mounds of evidence that says his conclusion is wrong.

Barton claims that Jefferson signing this treaty proves Jefferson was a Christian and that the US was founded as a Christian nation. Barton is wrong on both counts.

BTW...being wrong does not make Barton a liar. What makes Barton a liar is he KNOWS he is ignoring the evidence that says he is wrong. He is making a conscious choice to cherry pick his data.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200440 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What does objective mean to you in this context?
<quoted text>
What is the difference between absolute and objective. The meanings of these terms need to be agreed upon. To me, objective means that the things that we are talking about - moral statements - are objectively real, that is, that they exist outside of the heads of men and existed before man. Absolute means roughly the same thing, but implies that they are invariant and unchanging
According to that understanding, I disagree that moral truths are any more absolute or objectively real than love or beauty. They are all denizens of minds only, and cease to exist if consciousness ceases to exist. Furthermore, their qualities are amenable to updating with additional understanding, and vary with the subject. That is, they are subjective, not objective, and relative, not absolute.
To answer your question, it is not a matter of what suggests that these ideas are not absolute or objectively real, but what makes us think that they are? Sure, they could be. They could be the product of a supernatural creator. But the skeptic doesn't look for evidence against that for which there is no evidence for.
<quoted text>
We can agree that moral truths should apply in every case as Kant did (categorical imperatives), but that still won't make them objectively real or evidence for a god. It wouldn't elevate their ontological status to more than ideas in the heads of people.
Here's the gist of it: people are trying to objectify these psychological states - states of the conscience - and use those hypothetical extramental objects as evidence for a god. Fine, but show me evidence of these moral objects out there outside of heads, and I'll consider that they imply gods. Or show me the gods and I'll consider that there might be objective moral truths in their heads. But I won't use two unsubstantiated hypotheses to bootstrap one another into existence. It would be a circular and thus fallacious argument.
Buck is not going to agree with you because Buck has an authoritarian personality (in his case, the follower type). What his authority figures say is law.

BTW...I recently read a book called The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. It was not surprising in what it said, but it did expand upon my experiences here at Topix. What he says about authoritarian followers is spot on. So is what he says about religious fundamentalists and their links to authoritarianism.

He points out that often when you get the two in the same person, the results are not good. You tend to get the worst of both view expressed. Particularly when you get a fundamentalist authoritarian leader.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200441 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/atheism/TUGI0DVLLAKD7M2H N/post200000
<quoted text>
Dude! You hit post number 200,000. Congratulations.
It should have come on page 10,000 had there been no deletions, but it's on page 9600, which tells us that 4% of posts got deleted - almost one a page.
Yeah. A fair number of theists can get pretty vile in their responses. Even many of the ones that don't get deleted are abusive.

Not that there aren't some non-theists that don't engage in vile or abusive language. But I don't see nearly as many as with theists.

You, my friend, are one of the best at staying calm and collected. Congrats.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200442 Jan 7, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what you are saying is that you can't get from "is" to "ought"?
;)
There's been a lot of good posting from you in the past 24 hours.
Thank you sir.

From you, that means a lot.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Danville, VA

#200443 Jan 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are the Jewish people fiction too?
At least one of them is.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200444 Jan 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL There's no denying the evolutionary advantage of heterosexual unions. But in a world with an est. population of 7.136 billion , there is little concern for the natural evolutionary advantage it does provide.
In rat populations the instances of homosexual activity rises considerably with population pressure. With rats, this is a strong indication that homosexuality is developmental and that increasing population is a trigger.

I am not saying the same is happening with humans. Judging from observations of primate populations, homosexuality has a lot more to do with social bonding, particularly among bonobos (the species that along with chimps are our closest relatives).

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Danville, VA

#200445 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as worthless as a white crayon.
Do you think all paper is white? White crayons are useful.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200446 Jan 7, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster referred to "traditional marriage" in a descriptive manner. He did say straight marriage was superior because it was "traditional.
Yes he did. For one, the term itself, "traditional marriage", says it is traditional. On top of that he mentioned that it was the standard view for many thousands of years.

That, btw, is the definition of "traditional"...ie, the way it has always been done.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#200447 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you do understand that your morals are your own and that not everyone will share them.
So why the debate?
There are morals that all humans share, so no, it is not always relative, it depends on what you're talking about. Would you not agree that torturing another human being to death is accepted by all as not only cruel, but immoral? Can you think of any society were torturing another to death is NOT immoral? Is it not accepted that life is preferable to death, good health better than pain and suffering? There is no debate over what humans accept as wellbeing.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#200448 Jan 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't a church, lil lady.
That was a man, a chaplain, posting his opinions on Facebook.
You cannot call that 'the church'.
Yeah I can and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#200449 Jan 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Human mating behavior is not my opinion. If you think I have misstated it, please be specific.
The only thing you are considering is the reproductive aspect. Sexual contact in many species is not solely made for the purposes of reproduction. This is particularly true in humans.
KiMare wrote:
What purpose 'far more than reproduction' are you referring to?
Social and emotional bonding.

Do you have sex solely for the purpose of having children? Well, maybe you do. There are some weird religious beliefs on the subject. If this is the case, I pity you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#200450 Jan 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did. For one, the term itself, "traditional marriage", says it is traditional. On top of that he mentioned that it was the standard view for many thousands of years.
That, btw, is the definition of "traditional"...ie, the way it has always been done.
Traditional relates to a pattern in a single culture.

Marriage is cross-cultural. Far more than 'traditional'. In fact, it has been present in every single culture in human history.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#200451 Jan 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are the Jewish people fiction too?
I didn't say that.

This should be easy for you to understand.
http://www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com/reading...
Lnc

United States

#200452 Jan 7, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>There is nothing in the human heart except blood. Evidence is something tangible, not just a warm and fuzzy feeling. Skepticism, Reason, and Logic, are the "gifts" you are referring to, and we bestow them on our self and are extremely vital when attempting to verify if something is true.
Skepticism, Reason, and Logic, go and get yours if you dare.

I seriously doubt

you are capable of any one of these desirable traits.
Marxist-Leninist Materialism seems to agree with this.:-)

Most thinking atheists value non materialist concepts such as
friendship,
love,
loyalty,
and beauty.

Her serious doubts
and a nickel may
get you a five cent cigar?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#200453 Jan 7, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> What a specious think to say you black sheep bullshitter .
shhhh, Tom Tom, it's true.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#200454 Jan 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you are considering is the reproductive aspect. Sexual contact in many species is not solely made for the purposes of reproduction. This is particularly true in humans.
<quoted text>
Social and emotional bonding.
Do you have sex solely for the purpose of having children? Well, maybe you do. There are some weird religious beliefs on the subject. If this is the case, I pity you.
Mating behavior is primarily for reproduction. It is so powerful, it motivates behavior even when it is futile. Hence, a straight man restrained in prison will revert to ss sex.

Social and emotional bonding occurs in many ways distinct from sex. A prostitute would be one example of arguing my point. While most women prefer intimacy, most men have no such restriction.

If mating behavior were based in social and emotional bonding, we would not be restraining it by marriage. It would make perfect sense to establish multiple social and emotional bonds. Most sexual mates don't like that idea...

Why are you always looking for the religious angle with me? You do understand it says more about you than me?

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) 32 min 15th Dalai Lama 32,287
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 77,078
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 hr John 888
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... 5 hr Roec 1
Religion sux ? Tue Eagle 12 - 4
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Tue Dogen 4,321
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) Tue Frindly 291
More from around the web