Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204816 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Whether the principles predate Christianity is irrelevant to the question of whether the union was founded on those principles.
True, but it is relevant to whether we call them Christian principles.
Buck Crick wrote:
Those who did the founding obviously thought they were Christian principles, which they were.
Which principles that you called Christian do you consider to have been used to craft the US Constitution and the American government? That man is fallen? Jesus is the only salvation? God is a trinity? Blessed are the meek? To repent sin?

Or perhaps you meant biblical principles of governance, such as man ruling the wife, masters ruling slaves, kings ruling subjects, and the deity ruling all of them? Was America founded on those principles -?

Or maybe you meant biblical law such as rest on the Sabbath, honor your parents, and have no false gods?

The principles that America was founded on include limited government (divided with checks and balances, transparent), secular government, representative democracy, personal rights and individual political freedom, laissez-faire economics and free enterprise, egalitarianism, and the like

Where is the overlap?
Greens - tuf

Australia

#204817 Jan 19, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In California we call it the HOV lane--reserved for high occupancy vehicles. Usually requires two people in the car, sometimes three. No-emission vehicles are ok with just a driver.
People sometimes put a blow-up doll in the passenger seat, to fool the cops.
It's always a bonus when the blow up dolls go down on them at the traffic lights.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204818 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Adams is perfectly consistent with Barton.
Do you need me to explain the difference between being founded as a Christian nation, on Christian principles, and government being founded on the Christian religion?
John Adams: "The general principles of which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature".
-Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1792
Barton still batting 1000.
That quote seems apocryphal to me. I Googled "The general principles of which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity" and got just 4 hits - two from a guy called Dutch Sheets, and two blogs, one in Indonesian http://snipurl.com/28gtlx6

Why do you suppose that is? Can you find any reputable source to confirm Barton's claim that Adams penned or spoke those words? I'm not convinced yet that Barton can be trusted, especially given the problems he has had with the academic community and his former publisher.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204819 Jan 19, 2014
Bongo wrote:
The bible tells the saved, elect, believer that he/she is bought with a price, youre not your own.
You would need some pretty good evidence to make me believe that I don't belong to myself and those that I give myself to. I would recommend that you use a little skepticism yourself before accepting such a claim and cede your sovereignty to people speaking for a god.
Bongo wrote:
It says that God comes to live in the person, right? So if homo people who are believers and want Gods benefits insist on behavior that God does not approve of they are making him partake in their deviant actions by proxy. That's unfair to God and he deals with it by, well, that's foreboding.
Foreboding?

I also can't accept that a transcendent being would concern itself with human sexual practices, that it could feel unfairly treated, or that it would react in anger at anything you or I do. Who gets angry at lesser organisms? Do you? Even when you exterminate termites, do you go out of your way to punish them? If you had the power to keep them alive just to make them suffer torture for eternity, would you do it? If not, why do you imagine a god would do that to us?

I can't help but believe that you're being lied to, and wonder why you still accept such claims.

Worse, if you were correct, we would all be screwed. If such a creature existed, you would never be safe from it whatever you did.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204820 Jan 19, 2014
destroy atheism wrote:
Have you ever seen a "myth" get so much attention?
Yes. From the Muslims and Hindus. But I think your myth gets the most.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204821 Jan 19, 2014
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Some of us consider a doctrine that harms both the people that believe it and the victims it scapegoats undesirable. It's also divisive and demeans everybody involved. And for what in return? What does society get of value in exchange for suffering this kind of thing going on every day at the hands of the church?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's none of your business what the rewards are. None whatsoever.
Strongly disagree. Both the costs and benefits of Christianity are the business of everybody affected by it.
Greens - tuf

Australia

#204822 Jan 19, 2014
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always a bonus when the blow up dolls go down on them at the traffic lights.
Sorry RR, but I have to do this .

If RR had to drive around with a blow up doll than it would be of the darker skinned type.

For the black eyes aren't so noticeable.:)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#204823 Jan 19, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>I prefer tuna. Will I go to hell for that?
The great cod will know but I doubt it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204825 Jan 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How can you say that "churches do so little for the poor"?! Churches around the country do a tremendous amount of giving in many various ways.
That changes everything. Your say so is good enough for me.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204826 Jan 19, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Locke makes a clear distinction between natural law and divine law. Divine law is that which is handed down through revelation and prophets, and natural law is that which can be deduced universally through reason and logic. This is Locke's "spin", not mine.
<quoted text>In the entire piece, you will not find the words "sin", "grace", or "Christian". Madison states his influences in crafting his concepts of government from examples of confederacies going back to the Greeks.
There's a copy of the Federalist Papers, and Locke's writings, both on the shelf here to my left. I mean this only to illustrate that you also can get copies for your own education, and thus avoid looking the fool. Read them, and you'll realize that your author is a fake, and he's leading you like a ring-nosed bull.
Thank you for posting this.

Buck won't listen to a word of it, however. It contradicts his hero.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204827 Jan 19, 2014
mtimber wrote:
So you are not comfortable defending your worldview?
From what? As I recall your last visit, you asked questions, made unwarranted assumptions about the responses -something about appeals to absolute morals that never occurred, answered no questions, then disappeared.

Defend your own world view if you can. You can start by defending religious faith.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204828 Jan 19, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Mr. Crick's guiding principles aspire to nothing more than Contrarianism For Shits And Grins.
Agreed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204829 Jan 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I still gotta draw the line there, though. I think that baker was justified in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Just as it was the gay couple's right to fight back. One thing I hate is being force fed morality. Idiots something I don't believe in or agree with, my attitude is fuck you and I don't care, I ain't making you're damned cake. That's my political incorrectness again.
That's fine, And I'm pleased that you feel the same way about the pubic reaction, much of which was to call those bakers an abomination, and insist that they repent or see their business go to hell from bad press and boycotts.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204830 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It says what Barton says,... and other things.
Wow. Your rebuttals are getting weaker and weaker.
Do you have something else? Find a substantive disagreement, and let's talk about it.
You're losing my interest.
"Yes. It says what Barton says,... and other things."

Ah, so you are admitting that Barton lied. Thank you.

It has been said that the most effective way to lie is to tell only part of the truth.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204831 Jan 19, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a bad idea before I knew all that.
The decision must have been ruled by self interest on the part of Mr. Guy.
Nye's reasons are rather altruistic, but I think misguided. He seems to think this will be a good way of exposing children to the theory of evolution. However, I think it doubtful that many children will be exposed to what he says. Certainly not the children that most need to hear it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204832 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is your best rebuttal to John Adams saying the nation was founded on Christian principles?
You claimed he said it wasn't.
Here he says it was, and adds other principles.
And you thought the full letter changes that?
You are a moron.
Think of something soon. If not, we will have to declare Barton 100% vindicated, and you a proven liar. Again.
I'll be waiting.
So you must agree then that Adams said...

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204833 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth. I want the truth told.
Foreign concept?
"You can't handle the truth!"

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204834 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you object to me calling Darwin your Jesus?
Because you wanted me to refer to him as God Almighty?
OK.
And you follow up the extremely stupid with something even stupider.

You are devolving, Buck.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#204835 Jan 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's not Christianity that's responsible, it's the ignorant people that can't grow as individuals and than are incapable and scared of learning anything new.
They're a big part of Christianity, as is their ignorance and immaturity, both of which are promoted by the church.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Christianity does not teach us to hate gays, it doesn't teach us to hate anyone. Quite the contrary, actually.
Disagree, as do millions of others.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Bring me your favorite definition of abomination and lets see how different it is from 'something worthy of hate' and discover how wrong you are
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Finding something to be abominable means you find it unpleasant. Hating setting is very different. "This is an abominable cup of coffee" "I hate coffee"
I meant a dictionary definition. Let me help:

[1] abomination - something that causes disgust or hatred
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abo...

[2] abomination
1. a person or thing that is disgusting
2. an action that is vicious, vile, etc
3. intense loathing
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abomination

[3] abomination
1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abomin...

I didn't find "unpleasant" there anywhere - just words like disgust, hatred, vile, intense aversion or loathing, abhorred, and detestable

That's hatred.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#204836 Jan 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Show the post.
I disagreed with the poster who claimed 97% similarity.
I would not disagree with 95%, and link to an article showing 95%.
That's the kind of move you would make.
You posted the rebuttal to me. And I said the following (though in different words I am sure)...

The similarity in protein coding genes between chimps and humans is 98%. If you look at the entire genome, which includes large amounts of inactive DNA, the similarity is 95%

You said this was wrong. You posted the article stating the 5% difference as "proof" the difference was larger.

As I said, you directed your post to me, and said I was wrong.

And, as usual, all we get from you is overblown bluster and "I didn't say that!!!"

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 48 min Baffled 1,176
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 5 hr Ben Avraham 100
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web