Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#218346 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason there's a Columbus Ohio is so Cleveland people have one city they can look down on.
Okay, I see what you did there...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218347 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, here's my take, Skom.
When the society in which the writers of the canon controlled their environment, stuff like Numbers 31 was produced.
When they were dominated by outside forces, such as Rome in the first and second centuries, God's punishment was not immediate; it would have to wait until the afterlife.
Hyades would cure all then.
i probably should just wait for your answer but now I'm wondering if you are exposing why they made the switch from Mosaic law?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218348 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I said the three types of Biblical laws are Ceremonial, Cultural and Moral. The OT slave laws would be the Cultural kind.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
They're the immoral kind.
To you & I, yes. But not to them.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218349 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
Who?
Me?
No, someone else.

Don't sweat it, they'll be along shortly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218350 Mar 11, 2014
Dang autocorrect got me good there!

Meant to say 'explaining' not 'exposing'

Dang it!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218351 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Still?
No.

Motion.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#218352 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. That's not what I said.
I said the three types of Biblical laws are Ceremonial, Cultural and Moral.
The OT slave laws would be the Cultural kind.
Sort of like today's slave laws in America and how they mean nothing in Thailand.
Just like the sexual laws are cultural. OK

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218353 Mar 11, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly
Those men were pedophiles long before joining the priesthood. Which in all likelihood they either infiltrated to hide in plain sight and have access to children or at one point hoped it would help them control their perversion but gave way to it anyway
For someone to suggest a group of pedophiles hiding within the church were created by the church is like saying a group of rapists in public office were created by the Constitution. If people come in somewhere and do the opposite that the place stands for, how can someone blame the ideology?
Ya, that's IANS' idea, that the RCC produces pedophiles.

Pretty retarded...
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218354 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were, they'd push it off in the river.
Which river would that be, goofy?

Oh, wait.

The *Ohio* river.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218355 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And yet another fine rebuttal from you.
Can we assume that when you belly up like this that you have no defense?
You can assume whatever you want.

That's what you're best at.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218356 Mar 11, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. ya, but where are my scarves ??..
I'm 6'3", depending on what liquor store I'm walking out of.

Buck's something like 6'6".

Safe to say, we destroyed the scarves...

Don't worry, you still have Catcher's AMEX card, yes?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218357 Mar 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sense has nothing to do with it.
It's about faith, regardless of sense.
To me, it's all silliness, except for the damage it causes.
Damages?

Now we're talking your language!

Maybe you could litigate some poor widow out of her homestead?

And use it to buy soccer bloomers!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218358 Mar 11, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The Midrash and its function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash , also http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encycl... (1913)/Midrashim
More about slavery in the OT from Judaic Midrash halakha, "VE-eileh ha-mishpatim" (AND these are the statutes). It was a deeper explanation kept by the Rabbi's concerning OT text. An exegesis of the Torah.
Quoting: "Your slaves and maidservants that you shall possess from the nations that surround you, from them you may purchase slaves and maidservants. Also, from the children of the sojourners who reside with you from them you may purchase [slaves], and from their families that live among you that were born in your land.[All these] shall be your permanent possession. You shall will them as inheritance to your children after you as hereditary property; you shall keep them in servitude permanently. However regarding your bretheren, Bnei Yisroel, man over his brother, you must not rule over him to crush him." - Vayikra 25:39-46
Commentary: A non-Jewish servant, however, can be passed on to descendants through inheritance! The possession of a non-Jewish slave is eternal. But note another difference: A Jewish slave may not be subjected to “hard labor”(b’farech); a non-Jewish slave has no such condition. Seemingly, a non-Jewish slave may be worked to the bone with the most menial of work.
As mentioned above, a Jewish servant must be released after six years of work. Not so, however, is the case for a non-Jewish slave.
How are we supposed to understand that they are kept forever? How are we to allow hard labor for someone who was purchased like property? How can we understand the purchase of another human being at all?
The institution of slavery represents a blurring of the line dividing human personhood from property. This blurring is reflected clearly in some of the laws recorded in the parasha (Note that I am treating the institution of slavery in toto, without reference to the important distinction between Hebrew slaves and Canaanite slaves, as in Vayikra 25:39-46):
(a) When a master strikes his slave and the slave subsequently dies (after 24-48 hours), the master is exempt from punishment "because he is his property" (21:21-22. Rashbam: "and the law allows him to strike him in order to chastise him.")
(b) An ox that gores and kills a slave subjects its owner only to a 30-shekel fine and not to "ransom money" designed to redeem the master from a death penalty (21:29-32).
(c) The master may (sometimes) compel his slave to cohabit with a slave-girl and the children will belong to the master (21:4). http://www.yu.edu/ http://www.slideshare.net/steiny100/jewish-sl...
"the children will belong to the master"
I'm disgusted, are you?
Biblical verse that relate directly to the Midrash exegesis.
Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:27, Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:1-4, Exodus 21:7, Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:16, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:44-46, Leviticus 25:48-53, Numbers 31:28-47, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, 2 Samuel 9:10
The NT didn't abolish slavery or change anything stated in the OT, it only stated that all people, slave, Gentile etc., were open to following the NT/OT - religion. Mark 14:66, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 3:11,1 Timothy 6:1-2
There are more verses in the OT/NT that speak of slavery in the sense that it was natural, and condoned by the deity.
Good post, and thanks. I appreciate all of your research. I have saved this intact in my records, now about 378 pages of quotes, lists, and links.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#218359 Mar 11, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about slaves, not free men. Another Israelite. You keep changing what you think a slave is so you can win the argument. The bible condones slavery, indenture, but wont let you capture a neighbor and make a slave of him. We all agree on that part.
But you simply refuse to admit that there were bought and sold slaves, that were the property of the slave master. He could buy him, sell him, beat him, keep his children and kill him if necessary. All condoned by the bible.
RR thinks that law still applies to 'monkeys'.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218360 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry. The bible claims that its content was authored by a deity.{SNIP}
No it doesn't.

Apology accepted.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218361 Mar 11, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Which river would that be, goofy?
Oh, wait.
The *Ohio* river.
Yeah. The one Pittsburgh pipes their shit into, and Ohio drinks it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218362 Mar 11, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
We were talking about slaves, not free men. Another Israelite. You keep changing what you think a slave is so you can win the argument. The bible condones slavery, indenture, but wont let you capture a neighbor and make a slave of him. We all agree on that part.
Then you should also agree that most of the slavery in history goes against Biblical teachings.
But you simply refuse to admit that there were bought and sold slaves, that were the property of the slave master.
I have never denied that. Ever.
He could buy him, sell him, beat him, keep his children and kill him if necessary. All condoned by the bible.
Yup. And in those days, slavery was common practice.

And those Scriptures are not intended for Christians to follow, they're intended to be seen as history.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218363 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Here's your irreducible complexity of a mousetrap argument deconstructed in three minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Q4DJ3Uf-5mQXX
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Negative. He removed a few pieces of the mousetrap and it's no longer a mousetrap. It's designed purpose was made impossible. Try again.
Why? You didn't bother looking at the link.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Incidentally, this is why the argument for irreducible complexity doesn't win converts from the evidence based community. Just because you can't imagine functionality in less complex forms doesn't mean that they can't have function, perhaps of a very different nature than the larger mechanism, or that this function couldn't have been selected by nature by virtue of it conferring a competitive advantage.

You really can't look at a natural mechanism and declare it irreducibly complex just because you can't imagine a slightly less complex mechanism with functionality. Many systems have been offered as examples of irreducible complexity only to have it shown that there was functionality in slightly less complex systems. Famous examples apart from the mousetrap include the flagellar motor on some microorganisms, the coagulation cascade, and the eye.

Also, consider this arch:
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/phd_research/Lan...

You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down. Does this mean that it was intelligently designed and constructed?
< sound of crickets chirping >
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218364 Mar 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Damages?
Now we're talking your language!
Maybe you could litigate some poor widow out of her homestead?
And use it to buy soccer bloomers!
He didn't write "damages". He wrote "damage".

You must be thinking about that '82 claim involving your double-wide, huh?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#218365 Mar 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sense has nothing to do with it.
It's about faith, regardless of sense.
To me, it's all silliness, except for the damage it causes.
Even as a theist, I have to admit that religion has caused (or been used as an excuse to cause) more harm than good in the world.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min waaasssuuup 701,734
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Rednek 80,766
should male cheerleaders wear cheerleading skir... (Mar '14) 48 min Ryan 19
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Big Al 995,826
Tronald Dump's Fascist NAZI Coup d'Etat 2 hr Johnny 6
Judas Iscariot and Mark Fuhrman 2 hr Johnny 45
Heros of the Simpson criminal trial 2 hr Johnny 54