Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247311 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.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#207014 Jan 23, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
So you don't even know where I stand yet decided to take an exchange over the interpretation of a verse (by responding to a post I made that was actually fairly complimentary of you) and for no reason just decides to turn it into why science is better than religion?
A debate about the meaning of a piece of scripture is usually a dead end for me. This time I used it to make a larger and more important point.
Skombolis wrote:
And if I believe Christianity to be true, of course I am not going to think faiths that claim differently are true. What kind of question is that?

Consider it a formality I guess.

[QUOTE who="Skombolis"]
I don't have a personal issue with other faiths. I just happen to believe they are mistaken
Where did they go wrong?

Obviously they are employing faith, and so are you. Does that send up any red flags at all?
Skombolis wrote:
And I don't expect you to understand why someone would trust something about the spiritual world when I know you don't believe in the spiritual world.
I understand the psychology pretty well. I was also once a believer of non-material spiritual stuff.
Skombolis wrote:
But again, I fail to see the point of asking me. You know I am a person of faith yet you are going to ask me if I think trusting in something I believe in my heart to be true is a good thing?
I'm particularly interested in why you think, if you do, that one kind of faith is superior to another, in terms of truth.

Is faith a reliable and consistent path to knowledge? What is the efficacy of faith?

Given what you said about Scientology, Mormonism, and Islam, I could guess the answers, but I'm asking you anyways.
Skombolis wrote:
Do you wonder sometimes what exactly it is you are trying to accomplish?
I don't have to wonder, I know.
Skombolis wrote:
I don't kind addressing critics providing the exchange is relevant, adult, and serves a purpose. But these kind of posts that are nothing more than a dressed up version of "religion is stupid" don't have a lot of potential. There really isn't anything productive to build on and not much that can be discussed if expressing that sentiment is pretty much the reason for the exchange
If religion is not a trustworthy path to what is most likely true, I think that's important, and worth arguing, especially given the influence of religion on the world, past, present, and future.

I'm not going to promise you a conversation, and I'm not asking for one. I do appreciate the effort to keep things impersonal. Nobody would benefit from getting insulty.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#207015 Jan 23, 2014
Off to Hulu.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#207016 Jan 24, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
A debate about the meaning of a piece of scripture is usually a dead end for me. This time I used it to make a larger and more important point.
<quoted text>
Where did they go wrong?
Obviously they are employing faith, and so are you. Does that send up any red flags at all?
<quoted text>
I understand the psychology pretty well. I was also once a believer of non-material spiritual stuff.
<quoted text>
I'm particularly interested in why you think, if you do, that one kind of faith is superior to another, in terms of truth.
Is faith a reliable and consistent path to knowledge? What is the efficacy of faith?
Given what you said about Scientology, Mormonism, and Islam, I could guess the answers, but I'm asking you anyways.
<quoted text>
I don't have to wonder, I know.
<quoted text>
If religion is not a trustworthy path to what is most likely true, I think that's important, and worth arguing, especially given the influence of religion on the world, past, present, and future.
I'm not going to promise you a conversation, and I'm not asking for one. I do appreciate the effort to keep things impersonal. Nobody would benefit from getting insulty.
I don't think you do understand as demonstrated by thinking it I'd a psychology and by give questions you ask.

If I believe Christianity is right, how can it not be obvious where I think other faiths are wrong?

I never expected you to promise a conversation, quite frankly I wouldn't set my expectations that high. And you may believe you know your purpose but I think your own bias is preventing you from seeing the obvious. You want to believe your lack of faith gives you some sort of justification for feeling superior. But that is skimpily a mask or you wouldn't seek validation as much as you do. Your posts all but say "I sure hope other people who are like-minded see how clever I am being" but you don't recognize the difference between intellectualism and pseudo intellectualism

If you went back even over your questions tonight you could see it. And this isn't meant to be insulting but given your affinity for bullshit I figured you would want it straight.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207017 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
When you write shit like "addicts have no choice", I have to believe you don't know what you're talking about. You're pitying them as if they were forced into drug addiction and have no way to stop.

When will you make them responsible for their actions?
How do you do that? Using blame, guilt or shame?

What is it that you object to about seeing addicts as victims rather than perps? What difference does it make except in the way that people feel about them? One mindset leads to empathy, the other to harsh judgment. Do you think that there is a good reason to prefer the latter?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207018 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They never witnessed dark matter. No one has. They only believed that what they were seeing what the effects of dark matter. "It MUST be so!"
It's bizarre the way that religious faith, which is the lack of appropriate skepticism regarding gods, causes some people to overcompensate in other areas such that they reject ideas with compelling evidence. It's just odd to hear these arguments from people that are comfortable believing things without sufficient evidence.

What are your standards for believing something?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207019 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There has to be a god to have sin? How do you figure? Please, be objective. Use empirical evidence for your reply.
LOL.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207020 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good.
You've stated that the Catholic Church supports Darwinism.
What you've posted here says otherwise.
And you probably don't even know it.
No it doesn’t…

What is happening here is you are interpreting the wording to your own wish, what the wording actually says is completely different, rather like the wording of the babble and your interpretation of the babble are two completely different things.

Eg – 1st part of 1st section - For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution

i.e POPE Pius XII accepted that evolution could be taught

eg next paragraph - POPE John Paul II - my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation,

and

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.…

We have a confirmation of the original statement followed by an affirmation that of evolution as more than a hypothesis

And finally - POPE Benedict XVI said - This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.

In other words arguing that the Catholic church does not accept evolution is absurd…
There ya go, POPE Benedict XVI thought you and buck were absurd..

But perhaps you could give your interpretation of where those statements say otherwise rather than simply stamping you foot in an incredulous manner and saying “you were wrong because the university or RR and Buck say otherwise “???

Honey you are wrong and you do know it but you are unwilling to admit it

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207021 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
The flood story is another example of a deity who is both clueless as to consequences of it's own creation, and also it's love of laughable Rube Goldberg solutions to them.
EXPERT wrote:
Clueless
And laughable.

Imagine a god thinking that it had built man improperly, choosing to try again by starting over, but using the same breeding stock. How could that fail?

If they want to convince thinking people to believe in a god, they need to come up with one that is at least as intelligent as they are.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207022 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
Well, to use the same logic you've been applying, there is an unseen force pushing you into your chair, but that doesn't mean it's gravity doing it per se. It might be an invisible deity pushing you down. There is also the pre-Newtonian Aristotelian explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_the... ). You just take the theory of gravity for granted because science has proved it so.


I thought you were going to mention intelligent falling:

"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory - KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence,'God' if you will, is pushing them down"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-...

Have you heard about intelligent freezing?

"Some militant secularists believe that water freezes at 32°. The enlightened know that water freezes whenever God wants it to. This transition from water to ice is too complex to happen naturalistically at some random temperature."
http://s121.photobucket.com/user/your_inquire...

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207023 Jan 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Archbishop says the church rejects "Darwinism", I am pretty certain he means "Darwinism".
Your definition is incomplete:
"Darwinism is the doctrine that all living things are biological descendants of common ancestors that have been modified by unguided variations and natural selection."
"unguided" - the church does not accept that - and there is the materialism.
"Despite the fact that most Americans believe that God created life, the only “origin of life” theory taught in the majority of American schools is Darwinism, which at its core holds that a random undirected process has led from non-life to all of the marvelous complexity we see in the living world."
Show us a Pope who doesn't believe God created life.
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
-Evolutionary Biology, a widely used college textbook.
Show us a Pope who believes that.
"A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject DARWINISM, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone."
Darwinism holds that all life arose by natural processes ALONE.
Show me a Pope who believes that.
From Catholic Answers:
"DARWINISM: the opinion that human beings are the product of a chance, materialistic, non-teleological evolutionary process; and a chance process generally applied to the evolution of the entire cosmos as a whole."
"Darwinism and the theory of Evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions."
-The Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Catholic Church does not have a serious philosophical problem with evolution, but disagrees with Darwinism as the means by which evolution happened."
-Catholic Answers
"The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself ...but rather about the philosophical materialism and non-teleological thought which is the basis of Darwinism."
-Catholic Answers
Let me highlight the Catholic position for you, Chrissy. Read it slowly, try to absorb the meaning. It is not complicated at all. Are you ready? Here it is:
"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH...DISAGREES WITH DARWINISM"
Are you starting to get the impression that the Catholic church does not embrace "Darwinism"?
I see your archbishop and raise you 3 popes

Where did you get that definition from encyclopaedia Britannica for godbots? Certainly not a dictionary, hang on, just looked it up, sorry to disappoint you buck but the discovery institute does not count an academic source of definition

And even at your best attempt there is nothing in your own definition about materialism and atheism in there, more made up BS?

There you go again, I did not say any Pope does not believe god created life. This must be where you are getting confused, abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things, don’t worry though it’s typical of godbots to confuse and combine them.

As for the rest, all fluff and earwax and by you own definition unrelated to my statement

And you can use capital letters as much as you like, it makes no difference to the fact that I have seen your archbishop with 3 popes…

Did I say embrace??? Or is that another buckism wot u jus thunked up.
I said “accepts” so you lying BS just makes you even more of a liar.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207024 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Evidence, you say? Is the wake of a boat evidence of the wake or the boat? Are rabbit paw prints in the dirt evidence of paw prints in the dirt or evidence of a rabbit?
Is sunlight evidence of sunlight or of a sun?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207025 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Kinda like dark matter is just a fill in the blank for the unknown.
You want a better explanation than that. Goddidit, right?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207026 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm
Maybe E=MC2 created Latinos then they used lightsabers to cut a hole in the fence and the US gub'ment got all pissed about it, fed them marijuana and created anti-marijuana laws.
I mean. That's just a guess, but I believe it has merit.
Why are some godbots always so childishly stupid?

Could it be that they have nothing else so feel the need do make cr/\p up to make life seem bearable to themselves?

So sad…

Honey I have had such idiotic mockery from frigging idiots like you all my life and guess what, all it boils down to is unsubstantial and idiotic mockery, surely your god knows better?

But then again the way you and buck repeatedly go at it then it seems your gods don’t know any better.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207027 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
E=MC2 is proof that the Oprah show sucks.
Provide evidence to the contrary.
G'head.
More childish godbot idiocy?

If such evidence can be provided by physical results then the Oprah show is far better at what it does than you are at what you do, It certainly made much – MUCH more money out of doing it than you will ever make out of doing what you do.

Therefore if follows that if the successful Oprah show sucks then you as a comparative financial failure are the biggest sucker there can be.

Is that enough evidence for ya?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#207028 Jan 24, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to have a problem with the operation of God? Maybe you could advise him on a better way to do things with his creation.
I would advise more face time with his creatures.

I would also recommend that he turn the other cheek when it comes to sin and treat sinners as he would like to be treated. It's not that hard to put up with. Also, mercy is a virtue, whereas revenge is not. Sadistic revenge demeans anybody who indulges in it, even gods.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207029 Jan 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you have seen the evidence numerous times.
Just like you see the proof that the Catholic church does not accept Darwinism.
What is missing is any evidence you have a functioning mind.
Stick with your E=mc^2 proof. It's the dumbest argument for atheism I have ever seen, barring none.
What evidence? You have provided nothing other than babble belt and discovery institute clap trap and been out bid by three Popes against your archbishop. You have never provided any falsifiable evidence, The whole ‘you are wrong because I say so’ approach may work in the bar where you can threaten your p|ssed up buddies but it just does not cut it in the evidence stakes.

And still you have provided NO evidence to counter the statement that E=MC^2 proves that the god described in KJV Revelation 16:2 cannot exist in this universe.

Absolutely NONE

Of course you have played the buck twist and tried every which way using the typical misrepresentation, pedanticism and buck lies and deceit to claim that I am wrong but you have NEVER provided any evidence to prove that I am wrong – EVER…

You consider one of the biggest, most cited and powerful equations ever conceived, one that defines and is utilised in almost every aspect of your life, an equation that has to date never been proven to be wrong, an equation so profound that you cannot even comprehend the implications of to be dumb? Wow that explains so much…

And so now you will go back to the beginning all over again like a good circular godbot and hope for a different answer next time round…

And what is so humorous is that you think you are being original

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207030 Jan 24, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>More like a full body aggravating rash for which there is no explanation, if however, you completely ignore this aggravating rash, it will go away.
Point - but It’s so enjoyable scratching it

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207031 Jan 24, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Every once in a while I'll see one standing on top of a fence post on someone's farm.
They're like Satan's surveillance cams.
I have a couple and they don’t surveille, me, they are really quite sweet and the milk is lovely but they do have a tendency to eat my sweaters.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#207032 Jan 24, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Your standard for "incredible" explains a few things
Ah...So yo are saying that it is very credible that "religion is not needed to have the Self take action."

Glad to know that.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#207033 Jan 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were going to mention intelligent falling:
"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory - KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence,'God' if you will, is pushing them down"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-...
Have you heard about intelligent freezing?
"Some militant secularists believe that water freezes at 32°. The enlightened know that water freezes whenever God wants it to. This transition from water to ice is too complex to happen naturalistically at some random temperature."
http://s121.photobucket.com/user/your_inquire...
Say what???

Say what???

Wow

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 15 min dollarsbill 12,557
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 1 hr thetruth 59
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 2 hr thetruth 47,778
Proof of God for the Atheist 5 hr Amused 101
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 10 hr Amused 5
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... Sat thetruth 19
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Fri Reason Personified 14,712
More from around the web