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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208479 Jan 28, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Dave scores a lot of points on the crackpot index.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Pretty funny

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#208480 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>You're a real Renaissance man.
LOL

I was thinking filthy but ok, sarcasm works.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208481 Jan 28, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Mea culpa, Buck. I introduced humor to the thread just a little while ago.
Unfortunately, although I recognized it as humorous, I didn't recognize it was satire. There was nothing in that piece that didn't sound just like what such people actually do say.
LCD

United States

#208482 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Buck, but I still don't see a reason here or elsewhere to deny loving same sex couples sharing a household the psychological and legal benefits of marriage.
You mentioned "principles society deems important for perpetuating itself." I consider justice and compassion such important principles.
The only disruptive element I see here is the church mobilizing its considerable influence against the pursuit of happiness by gay couples in the service of its private values, which unbelievers don't respect.
To me, the church appears mean-spirited and meddlesome, not the guardian of society and protector of the family that it claims it is. If the church wishes to engage the secular community politically, it should be prepared to have its behavior and its motives examined and criticized. The sum of all of its arguments against moving forward in this area amounts to nothing more substantial than unsupported claims based in tradition supported by fear, ignorance, and prejudice.
People who oppose legal same sex marriage have many unreasons, nonarguments, and antipoints.

We should hear them out, then swiftly see them to the door.
LCD

United States

#208483 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, although I recognized it as humorous, I didn't recognize it was satire. There was nothing in that piece that didn't sound just like what such people actually do say.
If Darwin came back from the dead just to tell us all how wrong he was about evolution, you can guess who'd suddenly value his insights.

I follow methods, not men, and not bias. That contrasts dramatically against religious faith.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#208484 Jan 28, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
The antithesis of Cinderella would be a poor heterosexual male of humble origins who meets a beautiful princess,falls in love with her but is impeded by his jealous step brothers. I am not at all sure why a Cinderfella would necessarily have a homosexual orientation .
I think they meant the fairy godmother.
:-)
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#208485 Jan 28, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Back to charges.
And the original spark.
I didn't write the damned BBT, but I understand it from innumerable shocks to my system that were derived from it.
In this universe charge causes motion. No charge, no motion. You couldn't even push a pack of cigarettes away from you without the localized charges opposing each other.
You don't get a charge unless you create it.
The expansion of the universe per the BBT created a charge. It made space. That is distance that has to be traveled for it all to return to the "singularity" it sprangeth from.
A void does not divideth itself.
When you read your modern physics books you are concentrating on objects, and not really grasping the process. You are trying to link words and not what is happening on the material level.
You are a construct, an artifact of something somewhat larger than yourself, yet something that can feedback to the original source.
There is no such thing as a "void" that can occur on its own. It has to be manufactured, but then it isn't a true void. It's a bubble in something bigger.
Take a drop of water and zap it with a bolt of lightning. That is the process the BBT describes.
Or something like that.
The above post is a great example of why godbots should not have anything to do with science education.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#208486 Jan 28, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
The southern one. Why do you ask?
I figured that, River. Otherwise we would never have heard of you on here, you'd be too busy paying lip service to the Great Leader.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#208487 Jan 28, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
No starving kids here but our idiot 'devout christian' prime minister wants to destroy the Great Barrier Reef for profit.
I'm in a good spot.
Go on then, feed the children.
Tony Abscess strikes again.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#208488 Jan 28, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Several light years in nanoseconds is an explosion. Read your physics books. I will venture to say that is faster than nitroglycerin exploding. Or light travels.
I didn't name them black holes. Astroohysicists did. Why would they do that?
Darwins Stupidson, go back to reading your comic books. You ain't gonna make it in the real world.
And don't forget your remark about reading things too literal when you talk about religious texts in the future. Someone will call you a hypocrite.
"Several light years in nanoseconds..."

You really know how to make a fool of yourself.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208489 Jan 28, 2014
Here is a new movie that I personally dedicate to Dave N.

Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#208490 Jan 28, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
I wonder?
Can an asexual be a pervert?
You are the self appointed expert tell us.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#208491 Jan 28, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>Tony Abscess strikes again.
Abel Point drilling is delayed, for now.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208492 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Buck, but I still don't see a reason here or elsewhere to deny loving same sex couples sharing a household the psychological and legal benefits of marriage.
You mentioned "principles society deems important for perpetuating itself." I consider justice and compassion such important principles.
The only disruptive element I see here is the church mobilizing its considerable influence against the pursuit of happiness by gay couples in the service of its private values, which unbelievers don't respect.
To me, the church appears mean-spirited and meddlesome, not the guardian of society and protector of the family that it claims it is. If the church wishes to engage the secular community politically, it should be prepared to have its behavior and its motives examined and criticized. The sum of all of its arguments against moving forward in this area amounts to nothing more substantial than unsupported claims based in tradition supported by fear, ignorance, and prejudice.
Quite so.

So many have argued that give gays rights infringes on the religious freedom of others.

But freedom has limits. My freedom does not give me the right to take my neighbor's car. In a similar fashion, your religious freedom should not give you the right to impose your religious principles on others. You can believe whatever you want. That is religious freedom. But you do not get to take religious actions if those actions interfere with the rights of others, and particularly if they harm others.

No one is trying to force these religious groups to engage in gay sex. They will not have to accept gay members. They will not have to perform gay marriages (one of the ridiculous claims of the fundamentalists).

But just as Seventh Day Adventists have to live with people who choose to go to church on Sunday instead, fundamentalists will have to live with gays in the community around them. They don't have to like them, but they don't have the right to ban them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208493 Jan 28, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Dave is waiting for your explanation of how magical holes in a finite and contiguous universal collection of stuff can grind up matter and spit it out.
Don't forget the condom.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208494 Jan 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
<quoted text>
The child rearing matter is irrelevant to the issue of whether a gay couple with or without children should be forbidden to marry.
<quoted text>
Of course not. Neither does allowing a gay couple that is raising children the benefits of marriage. Would you prefer that those children be raised in a home that society has branded as somehow unacceptable by virtue of the fact that the couple is forbidden to marry?
<quoted text>
Sure. I'm all for keeping heterosexual marriage legal.
<quoted text>
That sounds good. Let's have civil society produce same sex marriage laws. I suspect that most of us outside of the church would consent, and maybe a few kind and just people within the church as well.
One of the Republican nimrods in the Oklahoma state legislature disagrees with you.

Recently, a federal court has struck down the provision in the state constitution defining marriage as one man - one woman.

The Republican has written a bill that would, rather than allow gay marriage, stop all marriages in Oklahoma. Just to be fair, of course.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208495 Jan 28, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
The sexual act of homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible
Why would that matter to a non-Christian?
Eagle 12 wrote:
they’re not entitled to trump our religious belief.
Why should your beliefs limit another person's life?

You seem to have this idea that your religion applies to everybody. It doesn't.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208496 Jan 28, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Did you notice that that FemiNazi broad thinks a woman more deserves a congratulations for backpacking in Asia instead of having children or being married?!
I think that 250 births a minute (world statisitic) is enough, don't you?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#208498 Jan 28, 2014
I think this might be something interesting to talk about.

What would it take to convince you that a deity exists?

I'm not so sure I could be convinced. First I'd need to know what was being claimed. What is a deity? What must a thing be to be a deity?

Assuming a loose definition for deity that most people would probably say is reasonable, I couldn't be convinced that such a thing exists.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It's also going to be indistinguishable from a deity. This is compelling on two levels. I might actually witness something extraordinary that I think should not be possible. This is something that someone might claim is only possible for a deity, but we cannot know that. I think a natural explanation is always more likely than a supernatural one. Extremely advanced technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.

Even without witnessing something extraordinary that is really happening, our perceptions can be fooled. We may experience the effect of mind altering technology that gives us a complete impression of a reality that is implanted. This kind of technology seems more likely to exist than a deity.

We also know that humans can hallucinate and delude themselves. We know that humans can believe something false with complete conviction. Some people don't just claim to have been abducted by aliens, they believe it as much as they believe anything. I don't believe these claims because I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support them. I suspect many of you are in the same boat about that. I'd still sooner believe those claims than claims for a deity. Technologically advanced aliens that abduct people and then return them seem much more likely to exist than deities. Much more likely than that is the likelihood of a human brain messing up.

For me, deity claims are literally unbelievable. I can't think of anything at all that could be called evidence for a deity that I couldn't link more closely to a non-deity explanation.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208499 Jan 28, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Remember that question that irritates you so much?
"Which god?"
Your "God"<(capitalize d for you) is the same as any other. Whether it be the Jesus, the Yahweh, Vishnu, Kokopelli, Derzelas, etc...
Screw'em. They can all go suck imaginary lemons with their imaginary mouths, held with whatever imaginary hands theists imagine they have(or whatever it is they "speak" to you or "touch" you with).
An imaginary screw?

o.O

I leave that in your experienced hand....

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) 14 min 15th Dalai Lama 77,077
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 32,285
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr John 888
Atheists are subhuman filth that need to be exe... 2 hr Roec 1
Religion sux ? 4 hr Smartass 5
What "science" will NEVER be able to prove 8 hr Smartass 2
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Tue Dogen 4,321
More from around the web