Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244720 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218586 Mar 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
So I bought a Toshiba Kira 7i to use on the bus to and from work.
Not a cheap date.
But a hell of a machine, even if I find Windows 8 invasive.
Only about a week after buying it, I fell on the way to the bus stop.
The Kira went flying out of my bag, hit the pavement, and lost a small chunk out of the corner of its case in the process.
It was like getting a ding from a shopping cart in the door of a new car.
No real problem -- but dang.
Then steps in Kira Platinum Support -- included with the price of the machine.
I'm ready to pay for replacing the case just cuz it's new and now has a ding.
Toshiba won't here of it.
They'll send a box to ship the little machine to them, replace the case, and ship it back -- no charge.
If you need an ultralight, just sayin'.
I here you.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218587 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery = involuntary servitude. Military service is voluntary.
How about this:
If the federal government requires you to work 4 to 6 months of the year for them (federal income tax), isn't that involuntary servitude, or slavery?
Do you know that the founders prohibited a federal income tax on the rationale that it was involuntary servitude?
How about we compare the level of taxation that prompted the revolt from King George (Boston Tea Party) to the level we pay today under King,...whomever?
Who was more corrupt and tyrannical, King George or the IRS?
.. first, I'm not much of a political animal ..

.. saying that, I generally agree with your contention regarding taxation, especially concerning the future fate of today's children who will be laboring for the Federal Reserve for 8-10 months a year. It's a form of servitude ..

.. that said, there's the social programs, something I advocate. Balance must be found ..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218588 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. practical value? Have you noticed that most atheists on this thread are not misogynist, homophobic or racist, that they disdain the violence perpetrated in the name of religion be it 9-11, the crusades or patriarchy? For me, their campaign, a mindset if you will, championing equal rights has practical value ..
..
Wait, patriarchy? Did you just compare 9-11 and the crusades to patriarchy? Did you just call patriarchy violent?

I just wanna be clear.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#218589 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. practical value? Have you noticed that most atheists on this thread are not misogynist, homophobic or racist,
No i have not. As a matter of fact just the opposite. This thread dispatches the notion atheists are smarter than most.
that they disdain the violence perpetrated in the name of religion be it 9-11,
Whoopie doo....who doesn't?
the crusades or patriarchy? For me, their campaign, a mindset if you will, championing equal rights has practical value ..
If in power they would throw you under the bus in a heartbeat. Watch Killing Fields. That is atheism in power.
.. what practical value does religion have when, instead of medical treatment, a parent believes prayer is the answer and a child dies? Please don't say, "Well, I don't believe that,"
I don't and that is the fact. Scripture explicitly states not to put God to the test.
because, like all the religious, you have other malignant beliefs that cause pain and suffering to humanity ..
So does HIV. Many of the young who get it don'e even know they have it. GTG.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218590 Mar 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

You are correct of course,...
Of course.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218591 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The slaveowners' morality was a gift of their evolution. If our present state is a result of material evolution and nothing more, he had no choice but to own slaves, and his moral choice to do so is equal, neither better nor worse, than the moral sentiment against slavery.
Material evolution? Is that like biological evolution,cultural evolution,both or neither?

And no, the choice to own slaves is less moral than the choice not to.
Buck Crick wrote:
there is the indication the slaveowner is more highly evolved than you. Willingness to enslave men of another race is certainly a survival advantage, feeding the young, allowing more offspring to thrive.
The urge to acquire and subdue surely conferred a survival advantage at one time, which is why it is present in most mammals. In man, this manifest as the propensity to take slaves, among other things - perhaps going to war. Later innovations have modified that, which appears to be the case the way that slavery went from such a widespread human practice to something disallowed almost everywhere today.

As for the slave owner being more highly evolved than me, I disagree. My kind is replacing his.
Buck Crick wrote:
. Dancing to the tune of our DNA - Nazis, slaveowners, terrorists, humanitarians, humanists. All equally moral.
No, not all morally equivalent, and you should be embarrassed to say that you think so.

Or maybe you are projecting onto me what you think humanists ought to believe without a god belief. If so, you are obviously wrong. It's not how we are. It's not how any of the humanists posting here are. If you fear us, you fear a boogieman of your own making.

Why do you keep trying to conflate unbelief in general with sociopathy and psychopathy, as if they were prevented by faith, and inevitable without it? Do you sincerely believe that?

Whether yes or no, it's not much of an argument, and it doesn't flatter you any to make it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218592 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever the people are who support the "butt fooking" of little boys, you sure got'em, Christine. Go girl!
Wait,...
The founder of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) was an ATHEIST. His name is David Thorstad.
The king of "butt-fooking" little boys was an ATHEIST.
Hell, Christine. Are you yapping your mouth at the wrong guys?
Woah. That guy is a fooking lunatic.

"To be an active pederast in the United States today is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany."
-David Thorstad

"The gay assimilationists want to become part of an existing, inequitable capitalist society, not change that society in any fundamental way. Their approach is inherently selfish, not altruistic... They want to "protect" young people from "dirty old men"… They condemn any adult who helps a young person to explore his or her sexuality. They are like parents - only worse, because they pretend to offer a guide to the gay future."
-David Thorstad

He thinks banging children is liberating:

"The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream."
-David Thorstad

What the fook?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#218593 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Christine, why do you still try this shit with me?

No, I did not say God did anything. I said nothing we know about cosmology presently rules out the necessity of a cause for the universe. I am correct. Your response is wrong and stupid.

You are also wrong in saying "cause requires time". No, it does not. There are innumerable examples of simultaneous cause and effect.

Furthermore, the concept of time is a mental construct into which we place observations. The cause and effect creates the time; not vice-versa.

Further still, you are discussing one concept of time - universe chronology. You do not know if that is all time.

You're welcome, and if you want more schooling, just say something stupid about me again.
That was sheer nonsense.

But you knew that, right?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218594 Mar 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Material evolution? Is that like biological evolution,cultural evolution,both or neither?
And no, the choice to own slaves is less moral than the choice not to.
<quoted text>
The urge to acquire and subdue surely conferred a survival advantage at one time, which is why it is present in most mammals. In man, this manifest as the propensity to take slaves, among other things - perhaps going to war. Later innovations have modified that, which appears to be the case the way that slavery went from such a widespread human practice to something disallowed almost everywhere today.
As for the slave owner being more highly evolved than me, I disagree. My kind is replacing his.
<quoted text>
No, not all morally equivalent, and you should be embarrassed to say that you think so.
Or maybe you are projecting onto me what you think humanists ought to believe without a god belief. If so, you are obviously wrong. It's not how we are. It's not how any of the humanists posting here are. If you fear us, you fear a boogieman of your own making.
Why do you keep trying to conflate unbelief in general with sociopathy and psychopathy, as if they were prevented by faith, and inevitable without it? Do you sincerely believe that?
Whether yes or no, it's not much of an argument, and it doesn't flatter you any to make it.
It's not my argument. It's the logical extension of materialist philosophy.

If our biological body and mind is a product of material evolution, as you say it is, slave-holding is just as moral as anti-slavery. As a survival mechanism, it is consistent with Darwin's paradigm, and actually more consistent than the anti-slavery. The evolutionary mechanism would have worked superbly if not for those moralizing religious people insisting on absolute principles.

It's the same old tale - religious people interfering with science.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218595 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Christine, why do you still try this shit with me?
No, I did not say God did anything. I said nothing we know about cosmology presently rules out the necessity of a cause for the universe. I am correct. Your response is wrong and stupid.
You are also wrong in saying "cause requires time". No, it does not. There are innumerable examples of simultaneous cause and effect.
Furthermore, the concept of time is a mental construct into which we place observations. The cause and effect creates the time; not vice-versa.
Further still, you are discussing one concept of time - universe chronology. You do not know if that is all time.
You're welcome, and if you want more schooling, just say something stupid about me again.
You are not correct, It is know that no cause is required and yet you still ramble on that it is. What is so hard for you to understand? In quantum science no cause is required. You cannot argue with that because it is fact.

Yes cause required time to become effect. The nature of time dictates this, I really would love to see the measurements of your claimed examples of simultaneous cause and effect.

Your picture of time may be a mental construct, and still times passed for billions of years before there was mentality in which to place observations.

I am discussing the arrow of time, as you would be if you knew what you were talking about.

How can you claim schooling when all you have is ignorance of the subject you claim to be schooling. A grand case of Dunning Kruger syndrome if ever I saw one.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218596 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever the people are who support the "butt fooking" of little boys, you sure got'em, Christine. Go girl!
Wait,...
The founder of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) was an ATHEIST. His name is David Thorstad.
The king of "butt-fooking" little boys was an ATHEIST.
Hell, Christine. Are you yapping your mouth at the wrong guys?
Yeah these priests and the buck look alikes are pretty sick don’t you think?

And you promote his cause, you have promoted his cause here on topix, perhaps you didn’t realise he was atheist back then. So strange how you didn’t object to his stance on screwing little chidden but you do object to his lack of religious belief.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218597 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, patriarchy? Did you just compare 9-11 and the crusades to patriarchy? Did you just call patriarchy violent?
I just wanna be clear.
.. gender based violence stems from patriarchy, an ideology based on power and inequality. It can be physically, emotionally and/or spiritually violent ..

.. patriarchal countries like Afghanistan or Uganda have rigid gender models where male dominance is the norm and violence against women is accepted, even expected ..

.. religion fosters the domination of women <wives obey your husbands>, perpetuates the myth of superiority <Eve did it> and encourages submission. Backed by the bible <the word of God> and custodians of the faith <clerics>, in many instances, there is almost unquestionable adherence to the principles espoused. The divinely ordained tenets found in religion have made women second-class citizens ..

.. the negative impact of religion on woman, their health, their veryl being, is historically documented ..

.. yes, I dare compare the violence found in patriarchal systems to 9-11 ..

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218598 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
At least the RCC denounces "butt fooking" little boys.
Your guys, Christine, ENDORSE IT AND ADVERTISE !!
ATHEIST Harry Hay marched in a parade with a T-shirt emblazoned with:
"NAMBLA Walks With Me!"
Bwahahahahahah....
You are wrong, the roman catholic church tries to hide paedophilia under the carpet which is the very reason why the media stink has been so smelly as far as catholic paedophile priests are concerned.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/02/documen...

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2013/02/pope-prom...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/cath...

http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Caught_Orch...

Is he you buddy? You did advertise his cause

Still screwing you little boy?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218599 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's wrong to vilify an entire group of people for the actions of few.
Would you like me to compare all atheists to Stalin or McVeigh?
Yet you vilify atheist based on your own personal views and little of no experience? Go figure your hypocrisy

You can try but Stalin was raised christian, after he consolidated his power he set about rebuilding the christian church. Not really the actions of an atheist eyh?

As were Adam Lanza and James Holmes and the IRA and the KKK and the NTFL

I don’t know about much about the other guy but it seems that he was raised christian and then gave it up

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218600 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know you wrote 10^-34.
I assumed that since you claimed to know what happened 10^-34 seconds after the supposed Big Bang then you'd know what happened 10^-63rd seconds after it, too. Or maybe you know what happened two minutes after it.
Yes, I doubt the event occurred.
I know what happened at 10^-34th a second after the event. The laws that make up this universe began to resolve

And I know what happened at 10^-24th of a second after the event, the laws that make this universe resolved.

As to what happened prior to 10^-34th of a second no one yet knows and BTW, 10^-63rd of a second is a much, much shorter time period, notice the –(minus) sign

And we are talking minute fractions of a second here, millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick on the fastest computer yet devised my man

As to after those times, it got bigger, lots bigger

And as to whether it happened, observations leave little doubt what with the hubble observations (and diagram) and the CMB & WMAP experiment.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218601 Mar 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Then simply state it again.
However, I'm not asking for your opinion, do you know the doctrinal answer?
Sorry, but I feel no need to cater to your reading and comprehension issues. Go back and read for yourself. Or don't. Either way.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218602 Mar 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Odd that not a single fundie, at least on here,seems to understand the rules of debate. Or even that there are any.
And all of them seem to think that "logic" means whatever they agree with.
I know, right? And their idea of rhetorical strategy never seems to develop beyond "let me tell you what you think". No wonder the non-religious often think the religious are stupid.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218603 Mar 12, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
You could say we made gods in our own image.
:-)
Oh I think that is definitely the case. I found quite consistently that if you know what a person's god is like, you know what the believer is like. Angry, bitter god = angey, bitter fundie. Every time.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218604 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I implied nothing, you fooking moron.
Rosa's "joke" involved a nun and a boy (a child) and sex.
That's fooking disgusting.
No it did not, Rosa’s joke involved dressing a nun as an alter boy and leaving it to the priest to do what they do naturally.

And after all you are (or claimed to be) keen of dressing as a child for purposes of sex, the fact the child you want to dress as is a girl is irrelevant to the degree of disgust I feel.

But I agree with you, priestly paedophilia is disgusting, even more disgusting than the everyday buck paedophilia because priests are supposed to be people that can be trusted.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#218605 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
You cherry picking get no better with age does it?

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min It aint necessari... 863,857
The Christian Atheist debate 5 min Critical Eye 1,927
Black people are more evolved then white people? (May '13) 6 min Johnny 119
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min disciple 599,386
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 29 min Classic 2,769
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Charlie Sheen 272,402
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Rider on the Storm 177,608
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,891
More from around the web