Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208832 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think stipulate is the word you want here.
By the way, if people like me are pro-homosexual, what does that make people like you?
<quoted text>

From "Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kath... :
"An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said.“In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage."
It must be terrible seeing the kind of language that you are accustomed to seeing used to describe church outsiders now being used to describe faith itself. It probably doesn't seem fair.
Dr. Taylor would have been right at home in the Third Reich. The good doctor's forebearers are Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Goebbels....

Partial list of other mental illnesses:

1. Democrat
2. Liberal
3. Neuroscientist
4. Husband
5. Wife
6. Lawyer
7. Humanist
8. Jew
9 Humanitarian
10. Capitalist
11. Football Fan
12. Gun owner

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#208833 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor has it made demands of us, nor asked us to pray to it, nor worship it. In my opinion, the words ascribed to gods just aren't of the quality that we would expect from such a magnificent being if it existed and had communicated with us.
Kind of like us and ants. If ants had thought of humans, we would be gods, but they never give us consideration, nor do we demand anything of the ants. We don't ask them to cater to us, we give them no rules to live by. We are so far above them, that we don't interfere with their lives unless they make our lives miserable, like fire ant mounds, when we wipe them out.
Comparing our lives to ants, and our lives to a creator of the vast universe, lets me know that there is no way a creator is communicating with us. We would be so far below it, that any comparison would be us to a virus.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208834 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dark matter.
Black holes.
Dreams.
Feelings.
Observing a thing's effects is different than observing the thing.
Is it. When I observe you, what I "see" are the effects of electrons in your body interacting with photons. We call this "seeing you". But in actuality, all we "see" are effects. We "see" the interaction of photons with cells in our eyes.

If you are going to make this silly distinction, then according to you we observe nothing. But if the interaction of photons counts as observation, then the interaction of gravity counts as observation.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208835 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

You're either implying that people can believe in atheism and science or you're not. Which is it?
HipGnosis wrote:
I don't think so, Alice, Still ain't interested in following you down the rabbit hole. You'll have to get others to play that game with ya.
Believe / believe in. The context informs which is appropriate in which proposition. In other words, it's a non-issue, and a red herring to draw away from that fact that you made a silly.
On topic: you pretend there's some foolish ironic significance to the fact that non-believers are interested in debating religion and god concepts, You toss that out there like it's a slam.
Yet you do the same thing in the other direction, so you have insight into your own question.
Backwash is a bitch, ain't it? ;)
You can choose to not answer the tougher questions.

It's ok.

God gave you free will.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208836 Jan 29, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't it like bumblebees that science can't explain how they fly?
Science...meh. Bunch of slackers! I'm still wait for a cute to the common cold!
:)
Bumblebees didn't exist until a scientist found one.

o.O

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208837 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Religion also evolves.
That's how we got Protestants, for example.
I will grant this to a point. But the evolution of religion is incredibly slow. Religion is very resistant to change. Just look how dogmatic the theists on this thread are. They are unwilling to change even in the light of evidence disproving a point.

Heck, Buck. Just look at yourself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208838 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think stipulate is the word you want here.
By the way, if people like me are pro-homosexual, what does that make people like you?
<quoted text>
You seem to like to dictate what other people can think or compare. That must be frustrating.
Your inability to see the similarities between two things doesn't invalidate my observations. You are a man of faith, which limits what you can see.
Finally, many of us consider faith based thought a kind of disease - an infection of the reasoning faculty if you will. You may find that offensive, and I apologize if you do, but it remains the case that many people see it that way nevertheless:
From "Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kath... :
"An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said.“In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage."
It must be terrible seeing the kind of language that you are accustomed to seeing used to describe church outsiders now being used to describe faith itself. It probably doesn't seem fair.
Here Dr. Taylor lets the cat slip out of the bag.

The reason Darwinists are willing to entertain almost any deflection, including outright lies, to avoid Darwinism being implicated in the works of Hitler and Nazism is they know it prompts the fear that such could happen again.

Dr. Taylor exposes the legitimacy of that concern.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208839 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So if Hitler had won the war, and won agreement with his policies, his morality would be correct?
If not, why not?
Just what part of "does no harm" do you fail to understand. Because you are definitely failing to understand.

How many times do I have to say this? Are you that hard headed?

Oh, excuse me. I'm talking to Buck. Of course you are.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#208840 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Not true. Religion also evolves.

That's how we got Protestants, for example.
But religion is evolving too slowly to survive.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208841 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So if Hitler had won the war, and won agreement with his policies, his morality would be correct?
If not, why not?
And, besides, the point I was refuting was that "society had accepted Hitler". Overall, the majority hadn't.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208842 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that would get you obnoxious incredulity going and is a great indicator of what I was saying about your misrepresentation, misinterpretation and deliberate misunderstanding however was NOT what I said, I did say and I quote
“How can the existence of something be known before it is known to exist? It is rather paradoxical is it not?”
Note the known…
What you appear to be saying is that science is clairvoyant and what I was actually saying was that the “knowledge of its existence” was not known before it was known to exist.
And there is not a scientist in the world that would not agree that the “knowledge” of its existence did not exist before Watson and Crick discovered it in 1953
1953?!

Try the 1860s, puddin pop.

See: Friedrich Miescher.

You can't even get THAT right.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208843 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You make the word useless when you use it like that.
That's how I roll...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208844 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Immeasurable.
Excuse me, but one CAN measure the mass of a snowflake. Take a large sample of snowflakes, and one gets an average mass for snowflakes...the larger the sample the closer one comes to a true average.

One can then take the mass of a pile of snowflake, divide by the average mass, and one gets a very close measure of the number of snowflakes in the pile.

No, not immeasurable.

Your thinking is limited.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208845 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, I am not a funnymentalist godbot who assigns philosophically irrelevant meaning to specific words just to big up my belief. And I know and understand the meaning of the words Darwinism and Atheism, seemingly unlike creationists who want the two concepts to be one because it makes their image of the way they think things should be look better
Darwin was not an atheist so why should Darwinism be branded atheist? Why because it suites creationists fundamentalism, no other reason.
Pope Pius XII stated that “there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces”
The soul is irrelevant to evolution,(at lest 3 popes have seen this) and of course there is no scientific or empirical evidence to show that a soul exists anyway.
As for your go at the catholic church, the entire kit and caboodle of religion, all religion, is about control, the god or creed does not matter. However there is no way that the catholic church can be classed as atheist, their entire reason for being is belief in a god.
You don't know the meaning of either Darwinism or Atheism.

I could explain them to you, but you still wouldn't know, because you are incapable of learning.

Here's one hint: The Pope is not atheist as you claimed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208846 Jan 29, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
But religion is evolving too slowly to survive.
You think? Have you checked Osteen's book sales?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208847 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, but one CAN measure the mass of a snowflake. Take a large sample of snowflakes, and one gets an average mass for snowflakes...the larger the sample the closer one comes to a true average.
One can then take the mass of a pile of snowflake, divide by the average mass, and one gets a very close measure of the number of snowflakes in the pile.
No, not immeasurable.
Your thinking is limited.
That's not measuring, Stepped-In-Shit.

That's sampling and extrapolating.

According to you and Polymath, this means snowflakes are infinite.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208848 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Again, observing a thing's effects is not observing a thing.
Observe a wake all you want, that won't tell you much about the boat.
But it DOES tell you there was a boat. It is still an observation. It still gives information.

There is no observation of any sort concerning your God. There is no information.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Dreams themselves cannot be observed of measured.
Even though they exist.
Then how do you know dreams exist if you have not observed them?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to your fellow Topix Atheist! blacklagoon's idiotic statement.
"There is ONLY one way to determine if something is real or not, and thats reliable demonstrable evidence, and only science can supply us with that." -BL
That statement is utterly false.
Then please inform us of something we know exists that has not been demonstrated by some evidence. Dreams have been. Black holes have been. Dark matter has been.

We know virtually nothing about dark matter. We DO know it is there. The gravitational effects tell us that. And all of our experiments rule out the matter that we know. What it is exactly, we don't know yet. But we DO know something is there.

But though we know very very little about dark matter, that is vastly more than we know about this God of yours. For him, we know absolutely nothing.

Your claim is that this God of yours is natural, part of the natural world. If so, demonstrate it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208850 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I will grant this to a point. But the evolution of religion is incredibly slow. Religion is very resistant to change. Just look how dogmatic the theists on this thread are. They are unwilling to change even in the light of evidence disproving a point.
Heck, Buck. Just look at yourself.
Are you saying things cannot thrive if they evolve slowly?

Hmmm....

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208851 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here Dr. Taylor lets the cat slip out of the bag.
The reason Darwinists are willing to entertain almost any deflection, including outright lies, to avoid Darwinism being implicated in the works of Hitler and Nazism is they know it prompts the fear that such could happen again.
Dr. Taylor exposes the legitimacy of that concern.
You have been listening to the lies of the Discovery Institute again.

You really should be more selective in what horses you back. The DI is a very bad choice.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208852 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what part of "does no harm" do you fail to understand. Because you are definitely failing to understand.
How many times do I have to say this? Are you that hard headed?
Oh, excuse me. I'm talking to Buck. Of course you are.
You don't get to decide on "do no harm".

That's a moral principle, and it's up for grabs, if the others are.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Aura Mytha 88,384
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Crow 977,437
"I LOVE YOU Eva' 4 min Doctor REALITY 3
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 12 min Insults Are Easier 627
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min AussieBobby 284,624
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 37 min X Pendable 184,770
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min truth 665,473
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 3 hr Lonestar 255
More from around the web