Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258478 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218444 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
And all of those Christians you mentioned fought against slavery in direct contradiction to what their own Bibles say.{SNIP}
You went there...

The Bible does not tell anyone that they should (or need to) own slaves.

Christianity tells us that all men are equal under God, this is why so many Christians gave their lives in support of abolishing slavery.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218445 Mar 11, 2014
Off to the Jim.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218446 Mar 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I was leaving the morality out of it and looking at it from a viewpoint of practicality. Future generations may judge us because we have McDonalds workers who are encouraged to apply for food stamps by their employer. I submit to you McDonalds worker much more efficient than slavery in the ancient world where they had to be housed , fed, and their children cared for by the masters.
It was costly. Israel being an agricultural society had to let the fields go fallow every 7 years.(I think?) Slaves had every Sabbath and religious holiday off. Little details like that shed some light on the subject as a whole. Abuse of slaves on a massive scale usually meant revolt. Solomon used whips on foreign slaves during his building projects and his son promised scorpions. That lead to revolt which lead to a divided kingdom. A total realignment happened. I forgot the context of the rest of your post so I am going to have to go back and look and if I do it here as opposed to Mozilla I might lose it all.
I don't see how buying and selling people as if they were property, holding them against their will, and giving their owners the ability to physically abuse and even kill them can be rationally compared to an employee of McDonalds. At all. Whether slavery was/is practical or not is entirely irrelevant to me. I'm looking at it strictly from a moral perspective, which Christianity keeps insisting is it's purview BTW.

My other question was why Jesus went out of his way to say that he "fulfilled" the Mosaic laws rather than "abolish" them. What is the difference when the end-result is the same?

Matthew 5:17-20:

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Have heaven and Earth disappeared? Nope. Seems like everyone except for the Ultra-Orthodox are being called the least in the kingdom of Heaven.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218447 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Japanese people have heard Jesus' message, too.
I don't believe in any mythology, whatever are you talking about?
Please pay attention. The Japanese did not hear about Jesus until 1,500 years after the fact. What happened to all those people in the intervening time? Or for all the native people in the Americas before the Christian Europeans came to rape and pillage from them? They never heard about Jesus, nor is there any indication that Jesus know they existed either. And when they were introduced to Christianity, it didn't work out all that well for them, did it?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218448 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You went there...
The Bible does not tell anyone that they should (or need to) own slaves.
No? What about the passages where God orders some group of Hebrews to attack and enslave their neighbors?
Christianity tells us that all men are equal under God
If that were the case, how do you explain God calling out the Hebrews as God's special favorites? How do you explain the consistent misogyny, and insistence that women should be subjugated to men? And how do you explain, again, all the slavery? All of those things greatly undermine your claim that Christianity has any more to do with the concept of equality than it does with the concept of democracy.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#218449 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Naaaah..... The insults pass over me like a...
Um....
Well, like something profound passing over something else.
I can see that you do enjoy playing on this thread.
As far as profound passing. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

Its that 'something else' that worries me - how about you?

Dare to be different.

What do you call 6.9?
A 69 interrupted by a period.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218450 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And all of those Christians you mentioned fought against slavery in direct contradiction to what their own Bibles say. Just as they later had to contradict the misogyny in the Bible when women's suffrage came into cultural fruition. And just as we are currently seeing the massive cultural shift to do away with irrational bigotry against gay people, and many Christian sects, even many conservative ones, are having to scramble to explain how all that stuff in the OT doesn't really mean what it says.
Christianity always has to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge social progress, just as Christianity itself was a re-invention of Bronze-age Hebrew morality.
.. my, oh my, how I've missed you, the handsome, young version of Tom Cruise with the intellect of Oscar Wilde and the athletic prowess of Russell Wilson ..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218451 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Or for all the native people in the Americas before the Christian Europeans came to rape and pillage from them? They never heard about Jesus, nor is there any indication that Jesus know they existed either.
.. oooppppssoo. According to Mormon theology, Jesus visited Native Americans 500 years after his physical death. Why didn't He warn them about the blankets ??..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218452 Mar 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
~What you or I believe Jesus did is not the issue. I've already exposed the idiocy of your opinions about God numerous times.
~Childish word games. If I fulfill all the 'requirements' of a law, then I have fulfilled the law.
~However, you bring up an interesting distinction. A law that dictates repetitive actions, to be fulfilled over and over, and a law that fulfills a requirement in a single act.
~So when the Bible says Christ 'fulfilled the Law', what specific single requirement is it referring to?
~And when Paul writes, "The entire Law is fulfilled in this one commandment." What repetitive act is he referring to?
Or are once again these questions too difficult for a 'rational atheist' oxymoron to answer?
Smile.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking nonsense.
The issue is that the phrase 'fulfilled the law' is meaningless, which is why neither you nor Riverside Redneck can provide a clear definition of what that means or how it is distinct from saying that a low is abolished, and why you would rather dance around with references to people and scriptures.
"If I fulfill all the 'requirements' of a law, then I have fulfilled the law." How does that pertain to laws like not to blaspheme (Ex. 22:27) and to not suffer witches to live (Ex. 22:17)? It doesn't.
This the kind of thing that faith and faith based thinking make one do. You spin these ridiculous apologetics. It should serve as a red flag to people thinking about abandoning skepticism and embarking on a faith based life.
Here we go again...

All of a sudden you are confused about the issue YOU were discussing???

I mention THE two classic situations it relates to in Christianity and now you are squealing like a piglet to go back to the Old Testament???

Exposes the ignorance you are arguing from... once again, the 'rational atheist' oxymoron idiot...

If you are dumbfounded by those questions honey, you need to step back and let people with at least the basics debate...

Seriously, you are really embarrassing...

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218453 Mar 11, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. my, oh my, how I've missed you, the handsome, young version of Tom Cruise with the intellect of Oscar Wilde and the athletic prowess of Russell Wilson ..
LOL! Thanks HL, completely untrue, but flattering nevertheless. ;)

So who is the new kitty? Does she have a sister named Basil?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218454 Mar 11, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. oooppppssoo. According to Mormon theology, Jesus visited Native Americans 500 years after his physical death. Why didn't He warn them about the blankets ??..
I've been listening to a very funny podcast hosted by two ex-Mormons called Thank God I'm Atheist (if you've never heard them, I highly recommend it), and I've learned quite alot about Mormonism through them. This part about Jesus sneaking off to North America I find particularly hilarious. Truly, as nice as I think most Mormons are, their church really does prove that you can convince people of anything, no matter how ridiculous or implausible. Actually, Scientology is probably an even better example.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218455 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Did you see that assertion anywhere?
I asserted that, "The Roman Catholic Church creates situational man-boy pedophiles with its policies" and that "the "cover" comes later when the RCC commits the crime of obstruction of justice."
These IMPLY that when an entire priesthood is offered no outlet to express sexual instincts except with same sex minors, that there will be a ton of same sex pedophilia. Is that a choice? It's an inevitable and predictable fact.
<quoted text>
Well, we're not talking moral people here, are we? We're talking about the Roman Catholic Church, and you, who is also making excuses for them.
<quoted text>
< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >
Good choice.
Oh get real. The ONLY option for normal guys who CHOOSE to make a vow of celibacy is little boys??? That is just insultingly stupid! YOU made the claim, now live with your 'rational atheist' oxymoron stupidity!

You dig the bigoted ignorance hole deeper? The whole RC is guilty because of a small minority of Priests??? You are one sick bastard! An insult to humanity.

Then you REPEAT blaming the victims to excuse the perpetrator???

You define a reprobate!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#218456 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
I don't see how buying and selling people as if they were property, holding them against their will, and giving their owners the ability to physically abuse and even kill them can be rationally compared to an employee of McDonalds.
From an atheist POV what is objectively wrong with owning people? It has universal historical precedent. Even today people are owned. The problem we have with modern atheists is their hypocrisy. People are owned today. Yet atheists will only view ownership of others within the context of the Bible and for all practical purposes ignore it in the present. I think your real problem is with the Bible, not with ownership of people. It is a valid assumption since your side demonstrates an uncanny aloofness when any kind of context is provided. Anyone can select quote from Scripture and misuse it to justify anything. I noticed you praised Scar...reference. Did you read his third link? The 9 page lesson for teen Jews?
At all. Whether slavery was/is practical or not is entirely irrelevant to me. I'm looking at it strictly from a moral perspective,
Morals based on what? As an atheist that is a luxury you do not have since you have no objective basis for morals nor can you adequately explain human sense of right and wrong. The most brutal slave owner can go on killing and raping his slaves year after year and after he dies there is simply nothingness according to what you believe.

No justice for the victims under his care he murdered. No justice for the females he raped. Perhaps he raped them and sold them off to another rapist. or perhaps he simple killed them after he was done with them. He simply dies and there is no justice for his victims under your assumptions.
which Christianity keeps insisting is it's purview BTW.
My other question was why Jesus went out of his way to say that he "fulfilled" the Mosaic laws rather than "abolish" them. What is the difference when the end-result is the same?
Matthew 5:17-20:
"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Have heaven and Earth disappeared? Nope. Seems like everyone except for the Ultra-Orthodox are being called the least in the kingdom of Heaven.
Well I think many assume the Messiah had to do it all in one swoop whereas in Christianity Jesus comes twice. Once as a lamb and again as a Lion. IOWs the fat lady has not sang yet. That is the short answer.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218457 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you ignore the much larger and more obvious discrepancy between the Old and New Testaments.
As for Christians being at the forefront of the fight against slavery, LOL! Pick up a history book sometime. Some Christians certainly did do that, but they were very much in the minority, and did so against what the Bible clearly says. No doubt in the near future Christian revisionists will also say they were at the forefront of gay rights. Puh-lease.
PS - I'm looking for the Letter to Philemon in the canon of the Bible and I can't seem to find it. What version are you using?
Christians were virtually the ONLY ones fighting slavery. They still are.

Look between the books of Titus and Hebrews.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218458 Mar 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

I have a question for you;
Is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning behavior an act of love?
Smile.
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a question for you: do you know the difference between your opinions and objective facts?
Yes. I've posted proof. You know that.

Now answer my question.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218459 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And all of those Christians you mentioned fought against slavery in direct contradiction to what their own Bibles say. Just as they later had to contradict the misogyny in the Bible when women's suffrage came into cultural fruition. And just as we are currently seeing the massive cultural shift to do away with irrational bigotry against gay people, and many Christian sects, even many conservative ones, are having to scramble to explain how all that stuff in the OT doesn't really mean what it says.
Christianity always has to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge social progress, just as Christianity itself was a re-invention of Bronze-age Hebrew morality.
Which is why liberal atheists are at the front of woman's rights and abuses.

Go figure.

Smirk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218460 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Your mousetrap analogy failed, what else you got?
Wrong three times:

[1] You introduced it, not I
[2] It was an example, not an analogy
[3 ] It was you and the example that failed. There was no irreducible complexity there
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Here's what you're missing: If you made something "slightly less complex", you'd have a different thing, like with the mousetrap. Remove even a single compliment and it isn't a mousetrap any more.
Wrong and irrelevant

[1] Wrong, because if you had bothered to watch the video, you would know that Miller was able to use 5, 4, 3, 2 and even 1 part as a mouse trap
[2] Irrelevant, because a device doesn't need to function the same way missing a part to be selected for. It only needs to have some function that confers ad competitive advantage.

You're doing great. What else do you have?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218461 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Remove any of their properties and they've lost they're functionality.
Wrong again.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're wrong, you could remove many pieces of that without it coming down.
Not what was claimed. I said that "You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down."
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Besides, that's not something designed, it's natural.
Exactly - just like living cells and the universe.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218462 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
My other question was why Jesus went out of his way to say that he "fulfilled" the Mosaic laws rather than "abolish" them.
You debate Christianity and you don't understand this most fundamental belief???

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#218463 Mar 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> From an atheist POV what is objectively wrong with owning people? It has universal historical precedent. Even today people are owned. The problem we have with modern atheists is their hypocrisy. People are owned today. Yet atheists will only view ownership of others within the context of the Bible and for all practical purposes ignore it in the present. I think your real problem is with the Bible, not with ownership of people. It is a valid assumption since your side demonstrates an uncanny aloofness when any kind of context is provided. Anyone can select quote from Scripture and misuse it to justify anything. I noticed you praised Scar...reference. Did you read his third link? The 9 page lesson for teen Jews?
<quoted text> Morals based on what? As an atheist that is a luxury you do not have since you have no objective basis for morals nor can you adequately explain human sense of right and wrong. The most brutal slave owner can go on killing and raping his slaves year after year and after he dies there is simply nothingness according to what you believe.
No justice for the victims under his care he murdered. No justice for the females he raped. Perhaps he raped them and sold them off to another rapist. or perhaps he simple killed them after he was done with them. He simply dies and there is no justice for his victims under your assumptions.
<quoted text> Well I think many assume the Messiah had to do it all in one swoop whereas in Christianity Jesus comes twice. Once as a lamb and again as a Lion. IOWs the fat lady has not sang yet. That is the short answer.
Morals based on what? As an atheist that is a luxury you do not have since you have no objective basis for morals nor can you adequately explain human sense of right and wrong

BULLSHIT!

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) 1 min Michael 683,846
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min CodeTalker 16,695
Venting Against FAKE Americans 22 min mama pat 4
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 51 min trifecta1 983,125
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Born Again Past JW 619,698
Looking for girls to snapchat 1 hr butterfly10161964 2
Chinese are dishonest, greedy and cold-blooded. (Jan '14) 4 hr Urka Burka Figurka 41
More from around the web