Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255502 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.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157366 Feb 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Without testable hypotheses and repeatable results , all you have is personal opinion, and an ignorant faith based one at that.
Get a phu&king science degree and you will know how to test them.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#157367 Feb 28, 2013
1000 years ago you would be screaming the earth was flat.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah! highly energetic chemistry,ha,ha,ha. This is what passes for science in the evo puddle gooist faith.
Without testable hypotheses and repeatable results,all you have is personal opinion, not actual knowledge.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157368 Feb 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just jump off the boat or something?
Are you making fun of immigrants? That's racist.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157369 Feb 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, defended by Christians naturally. You do know that there are NO contemporary accounts for Jesus outside of the bible, right? Anything written about Jesus was written decades AFTER is supposed death.
Yes there are. Plenty of evidence.

So Christians cannot defend their own sources? How else could they? You are accusing them of lying, being biased?

Think about that logically.

If the events DID happen ... how else is it to be reported? By those that witnessed it. And if they witnessed it, then they would be convinced that Jesus was God, and that it was all true.

What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.

And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?

Please, I dare you to rationalize your position. I dare you.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157371 Feb 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean real evidence? Or more of that psychosuperreligioustitious evidence?
It's not evidence unless it's real. And without a time machine, it's as real as it's going to be.

Real enough to change the world.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157372 Feb 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>There is no such thing as "free will" Thought you knew. Your God thing is omnipotent, all seeing, all powerful, or so they say. He knows all, knows the future, knows exactly what will happen in the future. "Free will" is an illusion, there is nothing you can do but follow the pathway God has chosen for you. Do you really think you could make a conscious decision and do something other than what God has planed for you? Either your God can see the future and knows what will happen or not. If not, and you can actually make a choice, then your God is not omnipotent, if he is, then no "free will." Which is it!!! How about neither, since there is no God thing!!!!
Being outside of time and knowing everything in one great singularity does not negate free will.

Logic fail. And old argument since ancient times that fools like you keep falling for.

Nor are you a theologian. God's plans does not mean we cannot go against those plans. We do all the time.

The real scary part is that you fail logical thought so profoundly, that you do not take your own folly to its conclusion. If we did not have free will, then we are nothing more than machines. Why should we love God if we are machines? Love can only be freely given, not compelled by force.

Fail on all counts. Did you even think before you posted? Or is this just something someone else told you and you passed it along?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#157373 Feb 28, 2013
Jesus Ben Strada an Egyptian sorcerer messiah who had followers did some magic tricks and guess what? We have secular evidence for him. Actual secular historians documented him. Yet this Jesus of Nazareth fellow who raised several dead Jewish prophets and walked into Jerusalem with them didn't get anyone's attention? Not one word? Even his own so called followers couldn't be bothered to write about him for decades later?

A cheesy Egyptian magician gets noticed but your Jesus doesn't? His own followers couldn't be bothered?

Pathetic.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there are. Plenty of evidence.
So Christians cannot defend their own sources? How else could they? You are accusing them of lying, being biased?
Think about that logically.
If the events DID happen ... how else is it to be reported? By those that witnessed it. And if they witnessed it, then they would be convinced that Jesus was God, and that it was all true.
What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.
And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?
Please, I dare you to rationalize your position. I dare you.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157374 Feb 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Holy shit are you people stupid or what!!!!! Science does NOT suggest design. Post the scientific article that has appeared in a reputable scientific journal that support such an idea. Otherwise armpit to blowing shit out your ass. And who ever said life was accidental? The evidence is NOT abundant and humanity has always sought a designer because complexity baffles them. That alone wit the intense fear of death.
What science does suggest is the FACT that the elements that make up the bulk of the human body are the exact same elements found in stars. Oxygen, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon. Given those facts the only logical conclusion an intelligent person can make is that life is most likely abundant in the universe. Life is probably inevitable. The inevitable consequence of complex chemistry. Not much of an "accident" now is it?
You have it partially correct, humanity that is subjected to "religion" are universally stupid and obviously superstitious.
If you want to continue to bandy your God as being the designer of the human body, be prepared to admit that he sucks at design. A rib cage that doesn't fully enclose and protect our most vital organs....eyes wired backwards and upside down.......one orifice for eating and breathing, the cause of countless choking while easting deaths.(Can't be that difficult, he did it for whales and dolphins)....joints that wear out....eyes prone to retinal detachment.....and what designed would put our reproduction hardware in a sewer?.....a body so fragile that a mere slip and fall will kill us...ad it a up and you have a designer that either is terrible at what he does, or as the late great George Carlin said, "just maybe he doesn't give a shit."
Likewise.

The complexity of the universe and life is the absolute scientific argument for design. It has been posted in journals since before they had journals. Are you so daft that you think science is only a recent event in the human experience?

Do you have any scientific journals that provide a valid argument for this all being an accident?

You do not even understand Christianity at all. If death is final, that would be far easier than being a Christian. Fear of death is no motivator at all, my friend. It is fear that it will never end that is the whole point.

Good grief, you are a moron.

"You have it partially correct, humanity that is subjected to "religion" are universally stupid and obviously superstitious."

Then you argue against evolution. It is evolution, the very essence of natural selection, and that we are among the top 1% of all living things on earth. But you say we are collectively morons?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

You'd better get your story straight. Either we are evolved, and therefore the most highly advanced species ever in the long chain of events ... or we are actually a dumb species because of Adam and Eve's fall.

Which is it?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157375 Feb 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus Ben Strada an Egyptian sorcerer messiah who had followers did some magic tricks and guess what? We have secular evidence for him. Actual secular historians documented him. Yet this Jesus of Nazareth fellow who raised several dead Jewish prophets and walked into Jerusalem with them didn't get anyone's attention? Not one word? Even his own so called followers couldn't be bothered to write about him for decades later?
A cheesy Egyptian magician gets noticed but your Jesus doesn't? His own followers couldn't be bothered?
Pathetic.
<quoted text>
You did not offer an answer to the question at hand. Here it is again:

"What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.

And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?"

How do you plead for such contempt and disrespect to all those men and women 2000 years ago?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#157376 Feb 28, 2013
Why thousands of people? Give their names. Give secular proof they existed. Show their writings. Hurry up now give the names of these people and secular proof they existed and documented as you claim. It ain't the gospels or anything in the NT because not a word of that was written until 50-70 years later.

Nazareth didn't even exist until the second century.

The Jesus and the adulterous woman isn't placed in the myth until the year 1100!!

Your faith is built on a hollow lie.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not offer an answer to the question at hand. Here it is again:
"What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.
And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?"
How do you plead for such contempt and disrespect to all those men and women 2000 years ago?

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#157377 Feb 28, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially since my relatives tried to kill his army.
and my relatives killed commies that tried to steal our land

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#157378 Feb 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, I had to argue with someone who said there was no such thing as freedom from religion. Imagine that , some people even think
these no freedom from religion.
to only have freedom to choose between different religions isn't a freedom

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#157379 Feb 28, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not offer an answer to the question at hand. Here it is again:
"What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.
And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?"
How do you plead for such contempt and disrespect to all those men and women 2000 years ago?
It isn't a matter of "telling the truth" or otherwise, it is a matter of perception of that truth in a given time period. The bible sought to explain what at the time was unexplainable and put in in the context of faith. It is not a book of science, nor can it "prove" anything. It is a book of faith. Nothing wrong in that, until people attempt to use it to prove something. Then, it falls down. And given that Christianity is a minority religion in the world, why must the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus or all the other myriad of faiths be wrong and the bible be right?

The bible is selective - if you study the texts left out of the bible (which are numerous - it was drawn together many years after Jesus's death by men who did not know him), the mis-translations that have occurred from the Greek, the re-writes that have been undertaken, it has to be a book of faith: no other explanation exists for its survival. It is not to denegrate men of less than 2000 years ago to suggest that their vision of the religion was less than perfect. Half of the New Testament is Paul's, not Jesus's word.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#157380 Feb 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the same thing as saying christianity is married to monarchism.
and Nazism and fascism ....

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157381 Feb 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why thousands of people? Give their names. Give secular proof they existed. Show their writings. Hurry up now give the names of these people and secular proof they existed and documented as you claim. It ain't the gospels or anything in the NT because not a word of that was written until 50-70 years later.
Nazareth didn't even exist until the second century.
The Jesus and the adulterous woman isn't placed in the myth until the year 1100!!
Your faith is built on a hollow lie.
<quoted text>
Secular proof they existed?

World history and the rise of Christianity as a major movement.

Then prove it is based on a lie, and that this movement was born from liars. It should be easy. I am not the one calling thousands of people liars that witnessed various events in the first century AD.

You are.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157382 Mar 1, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there are. Plenty of evidence.
So Christians cannot defend their own sources? How else could they? You are accusing them of lying, being biased?
Think about that logically.
If the events DID happen ... how else is it to be reported? By those that witnessed it. And if they witnessed it, then they would be convinced that Jesus was God, and that it was all true.
What you are really saying if that you do not trust all the thousands of people during that time period of telling the truth. You are saying you don't trust people. You are saying they are primitive, and superstitious, and backwards. That is what you are saying.
And that tells me that you are a very bad person, and very contemptuous, and that you, yourself, cannot ever be trusted. If you do not see the folly of your own utterly irrational mind and total lack of logic ... the very notion that those that had been there 2000 years ago are not qualified to tell the truth, but you are? You know better than all those people back then?
Please, I dare you to rationalize your position. I dare you.
But nobody, not one single person, wrote anything down while he was supposedly alive. If he was such an important figure SOMEBODY would have figured out how to get his works written down at the time. I'm sure there were scrobes that would have done it.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157383 Mar 1, 2013
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't a matter of "telling the truth" or otherwise, it is a matter of perception of that truth in a given time period. The bible sought to explain what at the time was unexplainable and put in in the context of faith. It is not a book of science, nor can it "prove" anything. It is a book of faith. Nothing wrong in that, until people attempt to use it to prove something. Then, it falls down. And given that Christianity is a minority religion in the world, why must the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus or all the other myriad of faiths be wrong and the bible be right?
The bible is selective - if you study the texts left out of the bible (which are numerous - it was drawn together many years after Jesus's death by men who did not know him), the mis-translations that have occurred from the Greek, the re-writes that have been undertaken, it has to be a book of faith: no other explanation exists for its survival. It is not to denegrate men of less than 2000 years ago to suggest that their vision of the religion was less than perfect. Half of the New Testament is Paul's, not Jesus's word.
LOL!!!

No, it's a matter of telling the truth. Perception doesn't matter, and never will. The world does not changed based on perceptions, but facts. Water can be channeled into aqueducts, that is a fact, not a perception.

Christianity is not based on soft, fuzzy ideas. It either is based on facts, or it is not. Either Jesus was God, or he was a lying fraud and very dangerous. There is no perception, there are just facts.

No, it is not a book of science. It is a TESTIMONY of what was witnessed then, and preserved for future generations, like any other book. Who are you, 2000 years later, to accuse the witnesses and writers of lying and fraud?

If it means so little to you, then I accuse your ancestors of being pedophiles and gas chamber operators. Now ... defend them, or they are guilty. Prove your ancestors did not operate the gas chambers, or rape children. Prove it!

You really don't see it, do you?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157384 Mar 1, 2013
should be <scribes>

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157385 Mar 1, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular proof they existed?
World history and the rise of Christianity as a major movement.
Then prove it is based on a lie, and that this movement was born from liars. It should be easy. I am not the one calling thousands of people liars that witnessed various events in the first century AD.
You are.
What world history?

Christianity as a movement? That's an argumentum ad populam. Sorry.

Nobody is calling the people liars. What they believe is most likely not true. Willfully ignorant for refusing to investigate the sources of what they wanted to believe? IMO yes.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#157386 Mar 1, 2013
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't a matter of "telling the truth" or otherwise, it is a matter of perception of that truth in a given time period. The bible sought to explain what at the time was unexplainable and put in in the context of faith. It is not a book of science, nor can it "prove" anything. It is a book of faith. Nothing wrong in that, until people attempt to use it to prove something. Then, it falls down. And given that Christianity is a minority religion in the world, why must the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Hindus or all the other myriad of faiths be wrong and the bible be right?
The bible is selective - if you study the texts left out of the bible (which are numerous - it was drawn together many years after Jesus's death by men who did not know him), the mis-translations that have occurred from the Greek, the re-writes that have been undertaken, it has to be a book of faith: no other explanation exists for its survival. It is not to denegrate men of less than 2000 years ago to suggest that their vision of the religion was less than perfect. Half of the New Testament is Paul's, not Jesus's word.
To the second part of your post.

Faith means to be persuaded by reason. It is a Greek word, and you are the one mistranslated it today, in this age when faith now means to accept something without evidence. That is not at all what faith meant in the Greek language, which only rational thought was allowed to accept such a bizarre and outrageous claim as Jesus made.

Selective? Indeed, just as any collection of books are selected today. You don't just collect all the stories and assume they are all correct. They SELECTED with great care the ones that made sense. The REJECTED books were not lost, they are still with us, they are just not considered inspired works. You have no understanding of the selection process that was done VERY scientifically and with great care.

And what was Jesus going to write? Nothing he said made any SENSE until after the Resurrection, and He was gone. Obviously, and logically, that was left to us to DOCUMENT THE EVENT AFTER THE FACT. Just like any crime scene, you wait, you investigate, you take your time, you are careful, and then you write your conclusions.

It is absolutely to degenerate men 2000 years ago. It is to show the utmost disrespect and loathing for people JUST LIKE YOU that where THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED, and gave ORAL testimony just like countless cultures have for thousands of years.

To say that oral tradition is a lie is to call people liars, pure and simple. Yet, to satisfy all the naysayers like yourself in the first few centuries, they wrote it down ... and still people like you come along with total contempt for all humanity.

Do you have any idea what God meant when He said to love thy neighbor? Yeah, that meant to trust one another ... it is the lack of TRUST that is tearing this world apart, and has always teared this world apart

You are the reason Jesus had to come. The distrustful, paranoid, and frightened. What are you afraid of?

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) 2 min guest 646,396
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min MUQ2 281,233
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 11 min Brian_G 445,701
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 25 min Rosa_Winkel 971,606
Incest 54 min LetsRoleplayThen 5
topic sex forum gone? 57 min LetsRoleplayThen 17
Bring back thd human sexuality forum? 58 min LetsRoleplayThen 2
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Brian_G 48,210
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Brian_G 618,560
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 hr Annaleigh 105,560
More from around the web