Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#166423 Jun 1, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
your actually mixing up two seperate verses lol. one talks about them all going free, the otherone simply talks about the husband gong free from his contracted time, and the wife still needing to finish her time in the service she owes. the kid stays with the mother. the seven year rule affects all people in the land of israel, male and female, old or young, hebrew or foreigner.
Something tells me that you have trouble reading. If you do, go to biblegateway dot com and they will read the bible to you.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166424 Jun 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly! He was always making commandments and laws that if not followed meant death. So why couldn't he say with the blended fiber law say... You shall not own another human being and anyone caught with a slave shall be stoned to death?
Oh I guess we need to save that for rape victims who didn't scream loudly enough eh?
<quoted text>
Yep. I'm sure that killing was quite common back in the day, but god felt it necessary to prohibit that - why not slavery?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166425 Jun 1, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
3 points before i go to work.
1. i agree slavery in the modern sense is wrong. but the problem is im not taking my cultural view on slavery to press it on the bible. often times i believe people see the word slavery and instantly think westetn slavery. the truth is the biblical accounts and the historical accounts better match up to the description of an indentured servant. but more to the point, because he bible has verses on slavery, it isnt commanding it, it is regulating it. its within the fraamework of the peoples wa of doing thngs tht involves more than just freedom. it involves money, land, food. there more to the dynamic of letting a persongo inthe ancient times. there was no fallbackfor these people, they needed crops, herds, materials, etc. so i think when people raise the complaint about ancient slavery, they think its the same and i think its a complaint thats unfounded. the bible is clear, seven yearof work nd the slave is to go free.v is clear. so its not an immedate release,but its still commanded that they go free. you dont see the command, thou shalt buy slave. you do see the command, set them free.
second, we do see the wrongness. we see that its wrong to own another persons body, mind and soul for all his life like cattle, misstreating him as you please. it is terribly wrong. so dont misunderstnd me as defending slavery in all forms or even in the way that it was. i just find it terrible as well that people would lookat these verses and instantly compare culture to culture, often times without taking the time todo the investigation. neither do i think people see the difference between god tolerating a behavior and him approving the behavior. but back to my point, God is under no obligation to make everyone like everything in the bible. but looking at the trend in the bible, we see a progression of changing the culture. do you know of any other culture that would release all there slaves after seven years of work? and they dont leave empty handed, hey could have a family, possesions of their own, maybe even herds. heck, a servant could end up more wealthy than his master lol. now as far as how the people use the bible, no matter how well intetioned any book can be, it can be used to justify any number of things. zGod isnt morally responsible for how people misuse his wordvto hurt others, hes only responsible for the originalintent of the book.so how people use it is on them.
ill get into the cultural thing at another time, im late lol.
I only read about half a paragraph, I will get back to the rest later.
Slavery is always wrong. It is not wrong "in the modern sense." Goodness.

I did not say that the bible commanded it. I said that god gave it his tacit approval, which he did by regulating it. He could have outright prohibited it like he did with many other things. I suppose eating shellfish is worse than enslaving a fellow human being, though.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166426 Jun 1, 2013
My goodness. "God isn't responsible for how people interpret his book?"

Then what is he responsible for? His book is his only testament to his people - why not make it completely unambiguous? He is a deity! He could have worded it *perfectly.* One sentence - slavery is "an abomination." The original attitude of the book regarding slavery is one passive acceptance - he does not condemn it, he does not prohibit it - he offers rules for doing slavery "right." He is completely responsible for future slaveholders pointing to certain verses as justification for their crimes. In fact, being that he is omnipresent and omniscient, he knew from the beginning that his book would be used, quite successfully, to justify slavery on biblical grounds.
xianity is EVIL

Bridgetown, Canada

#166427 Jun 1, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
.
As far as I can see it, the 'anointed one' talks only to himself.
His self appointed mission is to have you cavort with atheist messengers, Under the false pretense of being a true believer, promptly avoiding the teachings in the Bible he truly believes in.
Among God's curses on people who won't obey his commandments is the following: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." (Deuteronomy 28:53)
Here we go again. More child-eating. Disgusting!
You don't read too far into your (good book) do you?
Tell us how do children taste ... salty?
good grief ,dont give him any ideas,lol
xianity is EVIL

Bridgetown, Canada

#166428 Jun 1, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge ½parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...
[/QUOTE]
stay away from appologetics BS and read the Truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Imhotep

Knoxville, TN

#166429 Jun 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't proved that Jesus wasn't a homosexual.
Not once.
Until you do; he was.
That was a witty reply!
I'm jealous. ;)
Imhotep

Knoxville, TN

#166430 Jun 1, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
good grief ,dont give him any ideas,lol
No worries he doesn't have a clue!

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#166431 Jun 1, 2013
I notice you keep trying to make slavery in the bible nicer than other forms of slavery. Well let's compare.

Where the biblical slaves owned as property that could be bought, sold or traded? Yes.

Where the biblical slaves to obey their master's every order or face violence? Yes.

Where the biblical slaves beaten cruelly? Yes.

Where the children of biblical slaves also property of the slave owner to be used as they wished even bought and sold? Yes.

Did the bible encourage racism by ordering non Hebrew slaves basically had zero rights whatsoever? Yes

Could a Hebrew slave be manipulates into being life long slaves? Yes, easily.

Did Jesus condemn the practice of slavery or command slaves to obey their master?

Did Paul condemn slavery or order a slave return to his master?

How barbaric! Just as bad as western slavery if not worse.
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>3 points before i go to work.

1. i agree slavery in the modern sense is wrong. but the problem is im not taking my cultural view on slavery to press it on the bible. often times i believe people see the word slavery and instantly think westetn slavery.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#166432 Jun 1, 2013
Yahweh is funny like that. Seeing a robe made of blended fibers or a family eating shrimp enraged him and drove him into a murderous fit!

Children being bought and sold into slavery? Meh whatever.

Oh and remember that is a superior ahem morality!
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. I'm sure that killing was quite common back in the day, but god felt it necessary to prohibit that - why not slavery?

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#166433 Jun 1, 2013
Back by popular demand ... it's your personal guiding light, Bro. Clownie! Here to help the totally pathetic lost souls of the world like dumb knuckle dragging atheist, to be able to...
Walk and chew gum at the same time
Think their way out of a wet paper bag
Not to show his stupidity all in one post
Not to pee in your pants while in a bathroom
Not to try and drown a fish
Not to have a brainstorm when your brain is only equipped for a drizzle.
Not to open a Milky Way candy bar looking for planet Earth.
Not to have to look in a mirror to see if your eyes are open.
Not have to ask anyone if you're dead, or alive ... when everyone knows you're dead!
Not to waste your money on a solar powered flashlight.
Not to let you take a rocket ship ride to the Sun at night because you think it wouldn't be as hot as a daylight flight.

...yes, Professor Clownie is here to steer you drifty, brainless twits from self-destruction in the super-massive black hole of Dumb @ss.

Liberty, you can stand and applaud! Yes, stand means to get up off your dead @ss!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#166434 Jun 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The personal hallucinations of theists have absolutely no validity with athiests, scientists and the proven real world in which we all live.
Boy, you are a dip-$#!+
Like I stated before ... you're a liar, a fraud, a fibber, a deceiver, and fabricator of fictitious atheistic bull$#!+. Ah, Clownie the Anointed smiles, knowing his Heavenly sent knowledge, wisdom, and direction in life lets him soak in the warm florida sunshine that God has so lovingly sent, with admiration and thanks. Praise be to God!!!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#166435 Jun 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't proved that Jesus wasn't a homosexual.
Not once.
Until you do; he was.
What I do is let little bumble bee sized brained scumbag idiots like you, make complete asses out of themselves. You're doing a great job of it! Keep up the self-humiliating work, and, have a nice day now ... ya hear!?

SLAP TO THE SIDE OF THAT BIG OL PUMPKIN HEAD!!!!
Imhotep

Knoxville, TN

#166436 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Back by popular demand ... it's your personal guiding light, Bro. Clownie! Here to help the totally pathetic lost souls of the world like dumb knuckle dragging atheist, to be able to...
Walk and chew gum at the same time
Think their way out of a wet paper bag
Not to show his stupidity all in one post
Not to pee in your pants while in a bathroom
Not to try and drown a fish
Not to have a brainstorm when your brain is only equipped for a drizzle.
Not to open a Milky Way candy bar looking for planet Earth.
Not to have to look in a mirror to see if your eyes are open.
Not have to ask anyone if you're dead, or alive ... when everyone knows you're dead!
Not to waste your money on a solar powered flashlight.
Not to let you take a rocket ship ride to the Sun at night because you think it wouldn't be as hot as a daylight flight.
...yes, Professor Clownie is here to steer you drifty, brainless twits from self-destruction in the super-massive black hole of Dumb @ss.
Liberty, you can stand and applaud! Yes, stand means to get up off your dead @ss!
The wheels spinning but the hamster died.

You're bloated ego shows.

Whip up a miracle, and some intelligence, Jesus has his eyes on you, and he told me you were a rather pathetic embarrassment for his flock.

He's embarrassed you're one of his followers
and requests that you switch to Islam.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166437 Jun 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice you keep trying to make slavery in the bible nicer than other forms of slavery. Well let's compare.
First off what is your objective basis to oppose slavery.?
Where the biblical slaves owned as property that could be bought, sold or traded? Yes.
Not exclusive property. If forein they could convert which meant an elevation in status. If females they could marry which meant a status change to wife.
Where the biblical slaves to obey their master's every order or face violence? Yes.
Every order? Doubtful. Any order which violates the laws of God is unlawful and should be disobeyed.
Where the biblical slaves beaten cruelly? Yes.
They were not to be beaten cruelly. Corporal punishment common in ancient cultures even for non slaves. What is your objective basis to oppose corporal punishment?
Where the children of biblical slaves also property of the slave owner to be used as they wished even bought and sold? Yes.
Not absolutely. They belonged to their parents although it was the owner who was responsible to house feed and care for the children.
Did the bible encourage racism by ordering non Hebrew slaves basically had zero rights whatsoever? Yes
Wrong. Slavery was regulated for the benefit of the slave, not the owner. Owners were responsible to God for the proper treatment of those in their care. It is a consistent theme in the Old. Abuse of power especially to the lower classes brings the judgments from God. Slaves were to be properly treated and cared for. They could convert which meant status change.
Could a Hebrew slave be manipulates into being life long slaves? Yes, easily.
It was their choice. Relationships develop. Hebrews took care of their slaves and by extension their families. Sometimes slaves were trusted more than family members. How can you be so ignorant?
Did Jesus condemn the practice of slavery or command slaves to obey their master?
Slavery in the ancient world not exactly the same as slavery practiced in 19th century America which was overall far more cruel.
Did Paul condemn slavery or order a slave return to his master?
How barbaric! Just as bad as western slavery if not worse.
<quoted text>
On what objective basis do you define slavery as wrong? The only thing inexcusable is your ignorance. Slavery was the norm in ancient Roman and Greek culture. That was the culture of Paul. Given the large number of slaves relative to the ruling class you needed a large army to prevent slave class revolt which was always a possibility. Anything seen as helping slaves to revolt would have brought swift action to crush revolt and all those who aided. That was the environment of Paul. A snapshot. Get an education.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#166438 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> First off what is your objective basis to oppose slavery.?
<quoted text> Not exclusive property. If forein they could convert which meant an elevation in status. If females they could marry which meant a status change to wife.
<quoted text> Every order? Doubtful. Any order which violates the laws of God is unlawful and should be disobeyed.
<quoted text> They were not to be beaten cruelly. Corporal punishment common in ancient cultures even for non slaves. What is your objective basis to oppose corporal punishment?
<quoted text> Not absolutely. They belonged to their parents although it was the owner who was responsible to house feed and care for the children.
<quoted text> Wrong. Slavery was regulated for the benefit of the slave, not the owner. Owners were responsible to God for the proper treatment of those in their care. It is a consistent theme in the Old. Abuse of power especially to the lower classes brings the judgments from God. Slaves were to be properly treated and cared for. They could convert which meant status change.
<quoted text> It was their choice. Relationships develop. Hebrews took care of their slaves and by extension their families. Sometimes slaves were trusted more than family members. How can you be so ignorant?
<quoted text> Slavery in the ancient world not exactly the same as slavery practiced in 19th century America which was overall far more cruel.
<quoted text> On what objective basis do you define slavery as wrong? The only thing inexcusable is your ignorance. Slavery was the norm in ancient Roman and Greek culture. That was the culture of Paul. Given the large number of slaves relative to the ruling class you needed a large army to prevent slave class revolt which was always a possibility. Anything seen as helping slaves to revolt would have brought swift action to crush revolt and all those who aided. That was the environment of Paul. A snapshot. Get an education.
You ask for an "objective basis" to demonstrate that slavery is wrong?

You are the perfect example of what this religion does to people.

You simply don't understand the concept of human dignity.

My only reaction to your post, and your posts in general, is one single word:

Ugh.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166439 Jun 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask for an "objective basis" to demonstrate that slavery is wrong?
Yes. What is your answer?
You are the perfect example of what this religion does to people.
That is a personal attack. It does not answer my question.
You simply don't understand the concept of human dignity.
My only reaction to your post, and your posts in general, is one single word:
Ugh.
My question is valid if there is no God and your response indicates you have no objective basis to oppose slavery since rights are derived from men, not God in the world of atheism. Don't blame us if you atheists cannot live by the natural consequences of your atheism. If slavery is wrong in an objective sense than as an atheist you need to explain why. If you cannot then you really have no objective basis to oppose slavery anywhere since both propositions are equally valid since it is men who determine these things.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#166440 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes. What is your answer?
<quoted text> That is a personal attack. It does not answer my question.
<quoted text> My question is valid if there is no God and your response indicates you have no objective basis to oppose slavery since rights are derived from men, not God in the world of atheism. Don't blame us if you atheists cannot live by the natural consequences of your atheism. If slavery is wrong in an objective sense than as an atheist you need to explain why. If you cannot then you really have no objective basis to oppose slavery anywhere since both propositions are equally valid since it is men who determine these things.
I don't need to explain anything to you.

You are a brainwashed godbot who doesn't respond to logic.

And, as I said earlier, you have no concept of human dignity.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#166441 Jun 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Something tells me that you have trouble reading. If you do, go to biblegateway dot com and they will read the bible to you.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
San Colt ended that sort of bullshit! heheheh

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#166442 Jun 1, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong. hes making a claim that the slavery in the bible is wrong, im asking him to not only defend that claim on a factual level, but also to examine the details, which requires a historical comparison of what was really going on. he doesnt want to delve deeper, and in doing so hes really not defending his claims well. in mot saying that everyone is doing it so its fine. im saying that what he was saying about the history of slavery in cultures is wrong.
No, you are trying to obfuscate,filibuster and try to hide the forest with trees.

1st Samual 15:3

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Now tell me why your gawd wan't advocating the rules of the Geneva Convention (or something similar) and why it was OK in a "historical comparison" sort of way.

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) 14 min Michael 687,165
Clinton Foundation Scandals 1 hr Hiddn Numbrz 2
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr exposingdolts 30,680
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 987,134
I LOVE my new LG V20 smartphone!!! 3 hr Doctor REALITY 3
BING keeps DOMINATING with "Homepage Magic" 5 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 13 hr Here For Now 619,788
More from around the web