Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 comments on the Jul 18, 2009, Webbunny tumblelog story 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#206102 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
"Life's a bitch! Deal with it!"
That is the message of Job.
And that this loving God is perfectly willing to dump a sh*t load of evil onto his worshiper over a bet.

Oh, and one other lesson. Don't worry about killing the children. They'll make more.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#206103 Jan 21, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
An epistemology is a study of the nature knowledge. So in other words, faith is not a reliable way of determining knowledge or truth.
For example, using faith, how would one determine which religion is "true"? They obviously can't all be true, because they all contradict each other in various ways, and thus at least some of them are false. Using faith, how to we determine which are true or false?
The Redneck don't need no knowledge.

God touched him, and that's all the truth he needs.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#206104 Jan 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. I shudder to ask why.
Cold and windy down there at 5 a.m.

The conditions affect sensitive areas of the body.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206105 Jan 21, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
At least Buck is amusing. I find it hilarious that any (supposedly) sentient being could say the things Buck says.
Buck is like children's cartoons.
After watching Bugs and Elmer for the hundredth time in a row you just want to shoot the TV.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206106 Jan 21, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And that this loving God is perfectly willing to dump a sh*t load of evil onto his worshiper over a bet.
Oh, and one other lesson. Don't worry about killing the children. They'll make more.
That is a later apologetic addition to the book. No need to replace the dead family.

It is argued that the intent was to realize that we are no better than anything else in the world. While we find it offensive to wipe out a human family we could care less if we exterminate an entire species and not blink an eye. Imagine if God were like humans! You would have the God of Job.

It is, in one sense, an allegorical condemnation of humanity rather than a condemnation of "God".

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#206107 Jan 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the rich victims in an earthquake?
No one ever thinks of them.
Imagine if the Big One hits Cali? Folks like Catcher are gonna have to manually open their garage doors and everything.
Jesus will open my garage doors.

All of them.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206108 Jan 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Redneck don't need no knowledge.
God touched him, and that's all the truth he needs.
I agree, he's 'touched' alright. < taps temple with index finger >

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#206110 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is babble meaninglessly.
I have issues with Hip and others but at least they try to make a meaningful discussion and makes lots of good points. People like you, Buck, Wassup and RR, etc. Just babble meaningless drivel that simply wastes my time.
Your not being able to understand is not my issue.

Perhaps I am not as parochial in my thinking as you are, and express in ways you would have difficulty understanding.

I can pick patterns out of a wide range of this existence event. I can also compare them. I have some skills and experience with a wide range of technologies and concepts. I have never been limited to using the academic lens to follow paths. I have a few to choose from. And of course what I have learned and observed has been spread over a lifetime, so your comprehension of things I take for granted you should grasp rights away. It is hard for either of us to translate logic and observations that took years to develop in just a few words.

Perhaps this is why I can understand you, but you would have trouble understanding me.

Before I go, I discovered I was a practicing Taoist in some ways many years before I found out there was a Taoism. I read about what it is and understood what it represented. Really just an overview of it. I shitcanned the writings about it, including those old timers that we later made into "official" schools of thought, which is in direct violation of the original Tao view. Most people reading those words will see nothing but words frame them in some mystical manner. They are just words. I could read the words and see the electrons flowing and working from my past experiences. I could relate it to the physical.

Calm down, Ben. You proceed down your own path and I won't bother to waste your time.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#206111 Jan 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it.
But of course there will be no prosecution for that.
And other victims are now speaking out.
That is one of the stupidest laws ever made, at least in the blanket form they did.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206112 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
"Life's a bitch! Deal with it!"
That is the message of Job.
It would be difficult not to acknowledge the seemingly cruel nature of test. By human standards particularly. But I do think it will be rewarded.

1 Peter 4:12-13
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

I look at it from two perspectives

1) If Jesus was willing to die for the sins of others, what is asked from us by comparison is understandable

2) What is a the length of human suffering when weighed against an eternity?

And I think part of why Job suffered was to teach those that followed. How many times are believers tempted to react by basically saying "wtf"? We start to almost expect certain protections from life thru God when we are doing the right thing. But nowhere have we been promised an easy life. What we have been promised in dozens of places in scripture is if we turn our suffering over to God we will endure and be rewarded in Heaven

Now some may see that as a rationalization. But who else could God have used to make that point other than someone He knew would not break? So somewhat ironically, perhaps the person least deserving of the test was the very reason they were the one best suited for it

I'm not someone who believes in suffering for the sake of suffering. I don't think people need to suffer to improve their relationship with God or any other type of thinking that might enforce pain acceptance over pain avoidance. But sometimes it happens no matter what we do. And the confidence that we can't be broke can help a lot when it comes to dealing with things

Was Job probably less than thrilled to be tested to make a point? I'd think so. Yet he still stayed faithful. And in the end he was rewarded for that. But even more he showed the rest of us it can be done. There is never a justification for abandoning our faith. And no matter how hard things may seem God will give us the strength to endure if we remain faithful.

It was a crappy task to have to take on. But the example he set was one for the books. God knew Job couldn't be broke. And I believe that faith was rewarded. But I admit, I still would be tempted to say "wtf, was that really necessary?" But part of faith is the trust that reasons why things happen, be it lessons for others or to strengthen us down the road or to set an example or whatever, are not always going to be obvious to us. But we trust it is for a reason. I was kind of all over there but it's a hard thing to try to articulate.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#206113 Jan 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a later apologetic addition to the book. No need to replace the dead family.
It is argued that the intent was to realize that we are no better than anything else in the world. While we find it offensive to wipe out a human family we could care less if we exterminate an entire species and not blink an eye. Imagine if God were like humans! You would have the God of Job.
It is, in one sense, an allegorical condemnation of humanity rather than a condemnation of "God".
It amazes me the mental gymnastics some believers go through. Like the story of Jonah. They will point to it and say, "See. True prophecy!!!"

Wait a minute. God told Jonah to prophesy "Nineveh will be destroyed!" And Nineveh...not destroyed. They will say that is because Nineveh repented. But the prophecy was not "Nineveh will be destroyed unless it repents." The prophecy was "Nineveh will be destroyed" and that didn't happen.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#206114 Jan 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one of the stupidest laws ever made, at least in the blanket form they did.
it may not come as a surprise to you that I disagree.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#206115 Jan 21, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The evidence points to a God who fully accepts homosexuality. There are NO species that have been found in which homosexual behavior has NOT been shown to exist. From beetles, and crabs, and worms, to sheep, orangutang's, penguins, bats, birds, dolphins, all have been observed same sex behavior, some 1500 documented cases of homosexual behavior between various species have been observed.
Your God created every living thing, he CHOSE to include these homosexual traits in ALL species. He did have a choice, to include these traits or not, why do you suppose God chose to include these traits?---------Oh, so you have no answer, I thought so.
The evidence is irrefutable, your God fully endorses homosexuality, could it be that the reason he does so is that he may harbor these same homosexual traits?
You are trapped in this dilemma, God condemns homosexuals on one hand, and on the other, he makes a decision to include homosexual traits in ALL living things.
All the evidence points to a homosexual God.
the god is a pedophile

his boy is gay

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206116 Jan 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There is no evidence for destiny.
What is destiny?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Atheists and rational skeptics are supposed to be evidence based people.
Rational skeptics are.

Not all atheists are rational skeptics.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
For one to believe in destiny is a hypocrite.
What is destiny?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206117 Jan 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's idiotic.
An atheist that believes in shit like destiny, aliens, ghosts, intuitions, etc is a hypocrite. They claim to only believe in what is factual and evidence based.
Rational skeptics necessarily value evidence.

An atheist may not.

By the way, what is destiny?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206118 Jan 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your not being able to understand is not my issue......
Yes. It is. You are just to insane to realize that.
It isn't my problem. You are free to babble incoherently to your hearts content. I just stopped trying to make sense of your gibberish. I decide trying to understand dolphins was less challenging.

BTW, The dolphins think you are an ahole, too.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#206119 Jan 21, 2014
Skum and RRetard;

<quoted text>
Most religious groups are opposed to premarital and extramarital sex, but messaging varies between groups. In Zionist and Mainline Churches, the ‘approach seems to be that promiscuity is bad, but that abstinence is unrealistic, and that pre-marital sex with one partner is admissible’. In contrast, the Pentecostal churches give very clear directives against pre-marital sex:
‘The abasindiswa (Pentecostals) don’t have sex at all before marriage. But we amakholwa (Mainline) are more realistic, we know that we are human. So we do have our boyfriends, but just one at a time. Non-church goers have as many relationships as they want’.

Teaching on condoms
Although Pentecostal and Catholic churches take a stronger stance against condom usage than others, it appears that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is not always adhered to at grassroots level and some priests discuss condom use privately with parisioners. In contrast, the Pentecostal church appears to be strictly against condoms, at both official and grassroots levels. Some Pentecostal leaders described condoms as ‘satanic’ and ‘promoters of sin’. Amongst Mainline churches there is often more openness to the promotion of condoms through the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise) message. However, many leaders feel that these are conflicting messages:
I find it difficult to tell my members to use Chishango (condoms) should they fail to abstain. I tell someone that doing this is sinning. I have disseminated two different messages at once.

http://www.phcfm.org/index.php/phcfm/article/...
<quoted text>
Morons.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206120 Jan 21, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>It would be difficult not to acknowledge the seemingly cruel nature of test. By human standards particularly. But I do think it will be rewarded......
I got to experience and be a part of this amazing Universe for over 5 decades. What more reward do I need ?

Why do people want so much from God ?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#206121 Jan 21, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Of course there is but I no longer have the patience to explain to you the difference between a violent, criminal act and an affectionate, loving act. It's becoming boringly repetitive.
Now, I'm off to teach my dining room chair to walk. I think I have a better chance at that.
I asked him to modify his use of language. Apparently the cost is too high.

A better person wouldn't need to understand the objection, just recognize it.

This is a common failure for faith based thinkers. Since they can't imagine that they might be wrong, they make no allowances for that possibility in their calculations.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206122 Jan 21, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I....But who else could God have used to make that point other than someone He knew would not break?.....
Read the story. Job DID "break". This notion that Job has unwavering faith is a myth. It is not in the story. He demanded of God to know "Why". He didn't get the answer he expected either. God (basically) said "Who do you ignorant humans think you are to question ME ? You are nothing in the grand scheme of things."

Note also that according to the authors of the book (the Jews) it is a work of fiction. There was no man called Job and the events in the book never took place. It is as factual as Aesop's fables. It is a made up story to convey a deeper message. Not history.

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) 21 min thertruth 18,673
News The Consequences of Atheism 3 hr QUITTNER Apr 25 2015 1,312
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 7 hr Richardfs 9,319
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 7 hr Liam R will return 31
News Confessions of a black atheist 8 hr Peaks 399
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 22 hr thetruth 2,059
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 22 hr thetruth 165
More from around the web