Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256631 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

#206238 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
Bring in the clowns!
so proclaims the confused pitiful Clownette lol. You look like a clownette even before you apply makeup.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206240 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't exist? Job's kids?
Ok.
Thanks for that startling revelation.
Was that evidence based?
The book of Job is a fictional story according to the people who wrote it.

Feel free to tell the Jews they don't know sh!t about their own books..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206241 Jan 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kindhearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.
Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
And when death comes, you are ready.”
&#8213; Zhuangzi

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206242 Jan 22, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Thats just silly Hip
If that was how they felt they wouldn't be in Africa trying to stop the spread of AIDS
You can try to put whatever spin on it you want. But it's odd someone who adamantly wants prayer out of school is now trying to criticize the church for somehow not taking a bigger social role in public health policy
Their obligation is to teach what they feel is right. They try to feed and clothe and bring vaccines to the afflicted. If you really want to try to make them the bad guys because they feel the best way to teach people is to teach them to have sex within monogamous marriages then knock yourself out
I personally think it looks rather petty
JMO
No, back up. You misrepresent me on both sides of that equation. Nowhere have I said I "adamantly want prayer out of schools". Nowhere. Not even close. It's not even a case of "I didn't use those exact words" - I have never expressed any sentiment that might be fairly construed as "want prayer out of schools", much less "adamantly".

Nor did I say I the church should take a "bigger social role in public health policy". Quite the opposite. In this case, it is the views of "the church" that adversely impacted available solutions. This was not "church money", it was foreign aid, ie "taxpayer" money ie secular money, and "the church" took an active role in restricting how that money could be spent. Sure, teach abstinence, but when people are dying, why not either allow a holistic approach, ie deploy all available weapons, or just get out of the way?

I was surprised to see you so completely misrepresent my words. In any one else, I would consider it a tired but sure "tactic", but with you? Perhaps it was getting late and you were getting frustrated with the various viewpoints you felt compelled to reply to. There's plenty there for us to discuss without derailing the dialogue with digressions like this.

Perhaps also a little balance is called for. I am not among those who condemn "the church's" outreach efforts. I'll say again - the secular world cannot match the churches for mobilizing common everyday people and resources in giving aid where it is needed. I have personally taken part in many such efforts and I can say there was no proselyting whatsoever beyond our work and the witness of our behavior - not even a sign.

But there were no "moral" restrictions either on who, where, or what we did to help. We helped where it was needed within our means, without judgment. In the case of African aid, it was not this generic term "the church" but fundamentalist evangelicals who influenced secular policy, which is a group whose general behaviors (I would think) you would find little in common with anyway.

I appreciate your response, but please be sure to respond to what I write, not a gratuitous bastardization of what I wrote. You're plenty good enough at this game without resorting to those all-too-common misdirection ploys.

Again - my position is, any help is good, no matter where it comes from. Tho' "the churches" historically have a decidedly mixed record as to their "help", nonetheless today there is massive amounts of non-restricted aid pouring outward from "the churches". It's all good, esp. when we partner that with "secular" foreign aid, and every resource, every NGO, and every available weapon, not just the subjectively "moral" ones. I'd tell the churches, "If that is a problem for you, then please just get out of the way."

Be well.
HipG

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206243 Jan 22, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
the god is a pedophile
his boy is gay
You are his boy.

Too bad you're not a man.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206244 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They can have all the lifejackets they want. The church is just saying you won't get them from us, and if you don't have one and can't swim, you might want to stay out of deep water.
Assume your own risk.
It ain't "the church's" money.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206245 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
Skum and RRetard;
<quoted text>
In 2010, when Pope Benedict XVI opened the door to approve condom use to prevent the transmission of HIV, he opened it just a crack, in a statement so laden with conditions and insult that it was hard to tell whether this was the groundbreaking news many took it to be. Was it an historic change to the church’s longstanding ban on contraceptive use, or waffling rhetoric that altered little more than a headline?
At first, it seemed like big news when Benedict told German journalist Peter Seewald, in his book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, that condoms might be permissible in limited situations. But the situations he had in mind were limited indeed: use by male sex workers, for whom trying to prevent HIV transmission could be “a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.” If the condemnation implicit in this statement wasn’t apparent enough, Benedict went further to suggest that illicit sexual relations weren’t quite human, and that condom use was only an option for those so debased that protected sex could constitute “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”
Benedict clarified further that condoms weren’t “really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality,” he said.
Even the further clarification to the news media by the Vatican’s spokesperson, Rev. Federico Lombardi, that the provision was not solely for male prostitutes, was less than fulsome. He said that condom use is “the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship. This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point.”
Conservative Catholics rushed to emphasize that Benedict had made no statement addressing condom use within marriage, and thus his statements had no bearing on most Catholics’ sexual lives—that the status quo still reigned. Nonetheless, headlines trumpeted the news as a revolution for the church. Two years later, what it has meant on the ground in countries dealing with epidemic levels of HIV & AIDS is far from clear.
HIV & AIDS advocates have long maintained that the Catholic ban on condom use, though largely ignored in the West, has led to devastating results in developing countries dependent on humanitarian aid, which is often filtered through Catholic or other religious groups. Because Catholic leadership discourages the use of condoms, or religious relief organizations block their distribution, hundreds of millions are left more exposed to disease. Just the year before Seewald’s book was published, in 2009, the pope himself asserted that condoms don’t solve the AIDS crisis, but make it worse by encouraging promiscuity. It’s an attitude shared by many other faith-based NGOs working on the ground in HIV & AIDS hotspots.
ARV drugs photographed on a kitchen table.(Photo by Steve Simon)
One development worker who has tracked the distribution of condoms in African countries, and who requested to speak off the record, illustrated what the ban can mean in countries like Zambia. There, a generalized AIDS crisis has left approximately 13.5% of the adult population HIV-positive according to 2009 estimates. In 2003, AIDS reduced the life expectancy of Zambians to the lowest in the world, at just 33 years old. While the recent availability of antiretroviral (ARV) medical treatment has been transformative, Zambia is still a country where public awareness campaigns note the obvious: every family is either “infected or affected” by the crisis.
http://chur
You need to make your posts longer and more inane.

Now I'm stuck with all this spare time on my hands.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206246 Jan 22, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes it did.

Its ruins are across the river from the modern-day city of Mosul.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206247 Jan 22, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
="RiversideRedneck"]
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The one Catcher believes doesn't believe in .....
<<quoted text>
Evidence abounds that "Christian God" does nothing, especially given that there is no evidence of such god despite overwhelmingly ample "faith" in same by some, even many.
Believers in it are responsible for the "bad" done in its name. Yes, you may include yourself in that revelation.
That way, they (and you) can avoid taking responsibility for their own behavior and actions.
While I'm at it, just a curious aside: If you truly have a paying job and a family, is there a good explanation why you don't give them as much time as you give to Topix? "Quality time", especially? Treading water suffices for you, does it?
If you truly have a boss who doesn't care that you usurp so much of the time you're paid to work (and don't), and a wife and kids who truly don't mind you piddling away so much of the time you could otherwise spend with them (assuming they're not at all unhappy that you ignore them in favor of some other activity [Topix]), and bearing in mind you have laid out your excuses for not advancing your education..........why won't/don't you now take advantage of all this free time you have (evidenced by your time devoted to Topix), and go ahead and further your education for the betterment of yourself AND your family?(I know, I know, MYOB.)
Of course, I've assumed you are filthy rich and have no need for anything of value to usurp your time (other than the time you spend trying to prove to us there's a god while failing to prove to us there is one, indeed, by demonstrating anything other than lip service to it while proving by your behavior that you're a complete and utter asshole with no discernible redeeming qualities while doing so).
You're a fraud. Based on the number of your posts, and the audience you've engaged, a compelling one (maybe even interesting/entertaining one); but a fraud, nonetheless. It's somewhat sad that you've found it necessary to project the asshole persona that you do (and even sadder since it probably is what you really are).
I anticipate a smart ass reply, if any at all. I have a reasonably good idea what to expect from you (not much of consequence). I'm not prone to exchanging much conversation with compulsive, windbag know-it-alls, so an acknowledgment (or not) of my post really isn't important to me. What was important for me was to present you with what I have.......fait accompli.
Thanks for letting me introduce myself. You may even assume I'm an atheist if you wish (which would be an incorrect assumption; I've simply not concluded which god to believe in, if any, and have reserved the right to deliberate the matter further to my satisfaction - although I have deduced that yours doesn't measure up to my requirements).
Rocco
Windbag Competition Update:

"We have a new leader!"

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206248 Jan 22, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Send in the clones.
Lol. I didn't mean you btw.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206249 Jan 22, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>so proclaims the confused pitiful Clownette lol. You look like a clownette even before you apply makeup.
This from the irrelevant liar who was meant to leave topix.

*see DS? drongo knew who my comment was about*

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206250 Jan 22, 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.
If you were a sentient being, it might be understandable.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#206251 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You need to make your posts longer and more inane.

Now I'm stuck with all this spare time on my hands.
You're welcome Bucky duck. You have not aged well dude, lay off the roids and get you to some anger management meetings.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206252 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Forgive me, Catcher, for posting such filth, but...
Luke 14:26 KJV
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
That's called an idiom of preference.

It means that if our love for out family interferes with worshipping and obeying God properly, we don't genuine love Him.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206253 Jan 22, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You watched Bugs and Elmer a hundred times in a row?

No wonder you can't read or write sensibly.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206254 Jan 22, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Admittedly the wording is a little peculiar but the point is made more clear in context. Especially when looking at other verses like love your neighbor and the Good Samaritan. But look at the next verses...
27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying,‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’?
The message is nobody should claim other things are preventing them from following Christ. And if someone isn't willing to put heart and soul into their faith and make God the foundation of all they do then they shouldn't even bother and won't be a follower of Christ
Again, I admit it seems like an odd choice of words. But literally every other verse teaches to love everyone including brother, neighbor, and enemy. It just was kind of a weird wording IMO but I get the message and its about making Jesus the foundation, not actually hating other people
Correct.

The Topix Atheists! won't understand.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#206255 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You watched Bugs and Elmer a hundred times in a row?
No wonder you can't read or write sensibly.
I'm sorry. I forgot that hyperbole is beyond your damaged brain's grasp.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206256 Jan 22, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You only had sex with your two wives in your life ?
I detect another of RR's 'pile of BS' in the offering.
I don't wear condoms.

...Something about smelling rubber burn and a woman screaming irks me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206257 Jan 22, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
For Riverside Redneck:
Experience and experiment (empiricism) can be a path to knowledge. If every time I heat ice to 32°F it melts, I know something. Conflicting ideas cannot be supported by evidence.
Pure reason (rationalism) can be a path to knowledge. It tells us that 7+4=11, and unless we redefine what those symbols mean, no opposite opinion can be supported by reason.
But faith (fideism) can't possibly be a path to truth or knowledge since any position and its opposite can be held by faith.
Faith in God speaks nothing to the melting point of ice or mathematics.

I fail to see what you mean.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206259 Jan 22, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to decide with people I don't know, but only hear a bit of gossip about. OK either they're both bisexual, or else "doing their duty". Trying to live up to the expectations of society, their beliefs, etc.
I agree.

I also would say that all people that have been with the opposite sex and the sane sex are neither gay nor straight but bi.

There are countless stories of people calling themselves gay that have been married to the opposite sex, have children, etc.

I think they want the label "gay" when actually they're bi.

Why? I don't know.

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) 3 min THE LONE WORKER 43,408
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 7 min Thinking 794
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Into The Night 18,701
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 36 min Eagle 12 21,243
A Universe from Nothing? 39 min Into The Night 608
News Why I quit atheism 57 min Eagle 12 728
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Patrick 10,088
More from around the web