Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220975 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.
You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.

I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220976 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
The Sumerian texts aren't books, they are tablets.

Hail Marduk !

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220977 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity is a theory, too.
Care to test it?
Christards can't tell a theory from a fairytale. They think fairytales are reality.

One would think if you were going to choose a fantasy world to live in you would pick one more pleasant than the violent and perverted world of the Torah.

Christian Creationists are nothing more than Bronze age Jews.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220978 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.
I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.
If Kalimare has a university degree, it seems all he can do with it now is wipe his ass with it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220979 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.
I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.
She departed from no standard. She simply noted a connection between the science and the Bible. Considering the audience she was addressing, perfectly proper. Again, your bias was unintentionally exposed.

I hail from a time when science did not hail the Big Bang theory. It was a theological doctrine that God created the universe out of nothing, and mocked by science. As noted in the article, the Bible is not intended as a scientific book. And yet, in the very first chapters, it contains the Big Bang, life coming from the ground, and originally existing genderless.

I have no need to validate the Bible. A legitimate God is perfectly capable of taking care of that Himself. I do enjoy pointing out the 'logical atheist' denials of those who have a desperate need to deny and discredit a God they don't believe exists...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220980 Mar 23, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
If Kalimare has a university degree, it seems all he can do with it now is wipe his ass with it.
Your posts tell us all we need to know about your education...
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220981 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem with that question is that it assumes that all atheists think alike. Individual atheists may or may not have an answer for you, but each one will reflect the thinking of only that one person. Those who care about explaining the universe (not all do) will tend to turn to science, but only those who have chosen astrophysics for a career will be able to answer with any real confidence. Odds are you won't be able to understand any of those answer (don't fret--neither would I).
The short answer is that few of us have ideas about the origin, history, or current state of the universe that we can successfully defend. We're too busy earning our livings, fixing our cars, cleaning our houses, and pursuing our other interests to put the time into understanding the science beyond a fairly basic level.
And ultimately, as you intuited, atheists have no duty to explain themselves to you or anyone else, no more duty to defend their lack of belief than you have to defend your beliefs. It is, quite frankly, none of your business.
true

brilliant
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220982 Mar 23, 2014
tricki wrote:
He is all powerful.
So, what's your best guess.
Then I'll show the answer!
<quoted text>
no guess

how'd i know?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220983 Mar 23, 2014
Although I accept "atheist" as a designation to avoid pointless argument, technically I am merely a skeptic, dismissing many religious claims as inconsistent with known science or, unsubstantiated, or indeterminate, but not ruling all of them out altogether. I define my skepticism by my reaction to many ideas: "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true."

I apply that skepticism to more than just religion and more than just outlandish claims like bigfoot, extraterrestrial visitations, chemtrails, unreferenced statistics, and conspiracy theories in general. I'm especially skeptical of ideas that resonate with what I would like to believe because giving attractive ideas a pass can lead to endless chains of errors and misconceptions.

I would love to believe, for instance, that I am inherently superior to most other people. Alas, no evidence supports that. Same with the ideas that I an immortal part of myself will survive my physical death or that the good that I do can ever compensate for any unintentional harm that I may have done in the past.

Even at my advanced age, for instance, I still feel bad that I accidentally hurt one of my brothers at the age of four and that I may have broken or dislocated the arm of someone who tried to pick my pocket on a Boston subway when I was in my teens. That I have also saved a few lives and once protected a young girl from three rapists changes none of that. There's no balance sheet for things like that, nor can I be forgiven by any except the few whom I have wronged. None of us can.

So there it is. I am a skeptic. Call me atheist if you like, though--I really don't mind.
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220984 Mar 23, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
true
brilliant
It is, quite frankly, none of your business. atheist

thanks for the rebuke

i should a known better
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220985 Mar 23, 2014
how do you restrain yourself girls?

one half hour w/o an interruption. happens all the time, too.

(way ahead of you babe. WAY WAY ahead)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220986 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Although I accept "atheist" as a designation to avoid pointless argument, technically I am merely a skeptic, dismissing many religious claims as inconsistent with known science or, unsubstantiated, or indeterminate, but not ruling all of them out altogether. I define my skepticism by my reaction to many ideas: "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true."

I apply that skepticism to more than just religion and more than just outlandish claims like bigfoot, extraterrestrial visitations, chemtrails, unreferenced statistics, and conspiracy theories in general. I'm especially skeptical of ideas that resonate with what I would like to believe because giving attractive ideas a pass can lead to endless chains of errors and misconceptions.

I would love to believe, for instance, that I am inherently superior to most other people. Alas, no evidence supports that. Same with the ideas that I an immortal part of myself will survive my physical death or that the good that I do can ever compensate for any unintentional harm that I may have done in the past.

Even at my advanced age, for instance, I still feel bad that I accidentally hurt one of my brothers at the age of four and that I may have broken or dislocated the arm of someone who tried to pick my pocket on a Boston subway when I was in my teens. That I have also saved a few lives and once protected a young girl from three rapists changes none of that. There's no balance sheet for things like that, nor can I be forgiven by any except the few whom I have wronged. None of us can.

So there it is. I am a skeptic. Call me atheist if you like, though--I really don't mind.
Well said.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220987 Mar 23, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>It is, quite frankly, none of your business. atheist

thanks for the rebuke

i should a known better
Talking to yourself?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220988 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>She departed from no standard. She simply noted a connection between the science and the Bible. Considering the audience she was addressing, perfectly proper. Again, your bias was unintentionally exposed.

I hail from a time when science did not hail the Big Bang theory. It was a theological doctrine that God created the universe out of nothing, and mocked by science. As noted in the article, the Bible is not intended as a scientific book. And yet, in the very first chapters, it contains the Big Bang, life coming from the ground, and originally existing genderless.

I have no need to validate the Bible. A legitimate God is perfectly capable of taking care of that Himself. I do enjoy pointing out the 'logical atheist' denials of those who have a desperate need to deny and discredit a God they don't believe exists...
Then why do you suppose your god won't validate his book.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220989 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not embarrassed by this constant repetition of baseless personal smear of every source that disagrees with you?
You lie about Lonnig. You lie about David Barton. I proved you lied about Michael Behe, and doctored a quotation from him.
Are you embarrassed at all?
You are not just a disgraced liar, you are a living insult to science and math.
Pointing at Barton doesn't help your case one whit.

The last time you ended up convincing most of the posters that he was a lying hack.

Behe is another horse you have hitched your wagon to that fails you. Yes, Behe said under testimony that ID is science, and then was forced to clarify under cross-examination that you had to redefine what is science to make that statement. You dishonestly ignore that last part.

Which puts you in the same category as Barton...a liar.
IPSEC

Irving, TX

#220990 Mar 23, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>What would a non-designed universe look like?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I see one I'll let you know.
The ID is non-falsifiable, and therefore, useless.
IPSEC

Irving, TX

#220991 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is the leader of atheism now that Stalin and Mao are dead?
Sam Harris would seem the logical choice, since he has similar thoughts about killing.
He's not as intelligent as Stalin, however.
Atheism has no need for leaders. You know this. You are just continuing your thread of dishonesty.
IPSEC

Irving, TX

#220992 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not agree with the way Stalin and Hitler promoted their beliefs, but you share many of them.
Their antipathy toward the religious, their Darwinism, it is prevalent among you liberal atheists.
You are Stalinist in many ways.
YOU ASKED FOR IT
You're lying, again. Hitler ordered Darwin's books burned.

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burne...

Stalinism is totalitarianism, the exact opposite of liberalism. You are an uneducated weirdo.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220993 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you suppose your god won't validate his book.
I've given examples where He has.

You have no excuse.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220994 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Although I accept "atheist" as a designation to avoid pointless argument, technically I am merely a skeptic, dismissing many religious claims as inconsistent with known science or, unsubstantiated, or indeterminate, but not ruling all of them out altogether. I define my skepticism by my reaction to many ideas: "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true."
I apply that skepticism to more than just religion and more than just outlandish claims like bigfoot, extraterrestrial visitations, chemtrails, unreferenced statistics, and conspiracy theories in general. I'm especially skeptical of ideas that resonate with what I would like to believe because giving attractive ideas a pass can lead to endless chains of errors and misconceptions.
I would love to believe, for instance, that I am inherently superior to most other people. Alas, no evidence supports that. Same with the ideas that I an immortal part of myself will survive my physical death or that the good that I do can ever compensate for any unintentional harm that I may have done in the past.
Even at my advanced age, for instance, I still feel bad that I accidentally hurt one of my brothers at the age of four and that I may have broken or dislocated the arm of someone who tried to pick my pocket on a Boston subway when I was in my teens. That I have also saved a few lives and once protected a young girl from three rapists changes none of that. There's no balance sheet for things like that, nor can I be forgiven by any except the few whom I have wronged. None of us can.
So there it is. I am a skeptic. Call me atheist if you like, though--I really don't mind.
Ah, now I understand.

A fence rider who judges all on either side. Smacks of both arrogance and cowardice...

And yet, an innate sense of guilt. And the need to compensate.

Where did that come from?

Smile.

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 Huh 982,358
Virginia man charged with espionage for deliver... 8 min Guy from Latonia 11
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 12 min swampmudd 7,805
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 24 min Clearwater 123,807
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 33 min Michael 681,924
Baiting Up Email For Scamming 6 hr Resist the urge 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 hr onemale 286,558
More from around the web