Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255314 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.

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.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#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.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#166444 Jun 1, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, slavery is always wrong. Why would your god be influenced by the morality of a specific culture anyway?
You bring up a very good point, why is an all powerful entity restricted to the culture of a bunch of illiterate sheep and goat herders?

Why didn't he go to oriental lands where people could already read? Why didn't he influence the entire world, instead of one backwards pocket of people? Either he's multi-lingual or he's not so omnipotent as people have been led to believe.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166445 Jun 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to explain anything to you.
You can't.
You are a brainwashed godbot who doesn't respond to logic.
What logic? Personal attacks is all you got. Not rational or logical.
And, as I said earlier, you have no concept of human dignity.
Your appeal to human dignity carries no more weight than your opinion under your atheism. Slavery can benefit the ruling class and even benefit slaves since it provides a place to live and a purpose. Owners can be humane to their slaves. Treat them with dignity. That is how the South justified slavery before the Civil war. Dred Scott depicted slaves as non Americans and property. This was a function of the United States Supreme Court and was the law of the land. It was no church function and was condemned by the Catholic church and other churches in the North for biblical reasons. The civil war was not a religious war. Again you have no objective basis to oppose slavery.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#166446 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You can't.
<quoted text> What logic? Personal attacks is all you got. Not rational or logical.
<quoted text> Your appeal to human dignity carries no more weight than your opinion under your atheism. Slavery can benefit the ruling class and even benefit slaves since it provides a place to live and a purpose. Owners can be humane to their slaves. Treat them with dignity. That is how the South justified slavery before the Civil war. Dred Scott depicted slaves as non Americans and property. This was a function of the United States Supreme Court and was the law of the land. It was no church function and was condemned by the Catholic church and other churches in the North for biblical reasons. The civil war was not a religious war. Again you have no objective basis to oppose slavery.
Do you not understand the concept of empathy?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#166447 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]

Basically, you are saying that indentations are intelligently designed to hold a precise amount of water in interesting variations regarding depth, width and shape.

I just call them mud puddles. C'est la vie.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#166448 Jun 1, 2013
Empathy is my reason to reject slavery.

You are living in an apologetic fantasy land.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>First off what is your objective basis to oppose slavery.?
[QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE] 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?
[QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE] 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?
[QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE] 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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166449 Jun 1, 2013
The following arguments were put forth in Southern books, pamphlets and newspapers to defend the institution of slavery:
Slavery was good for the slaves; the slaveowners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction.
In a comparative sense, Southern slaves were better off than many of the immigrant workers in Northern factories who were confined in unhealthy workplaces for long hours.
Slavery was the key to national prosperity—for both the North and the South; nearly 60 percent of U.S. exports of this era were cotton; the slavery advocates argued that if their economy were tampered with, the great industrial cities of the North would crumble; many Southerners viewed the North as a parasite, nourishing itself on slavery while at the same time criticizing it.
Slavery was vital for the continuance of a superior Southern lifestyle which emphasized good manners and graciousness; they did not want to become like the fast-paced, money-grubbing North.
At the constitutional convention held in Virginia in 1829, a debate took place whether to abolish slavery in the state. The discussion became more intense after the rebellion of Nat Turner in 1831...
With regard to the assertion that slavery is against the spirit of Christianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion, but deny most positively that there is anything in the Old or New Testament which would go to show that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all events to be abrogated, or that the master commits any offense in holding slaves. The children of Israel themselves were slaveholders and were not condemned for it. All the patriarchs themselves were slaveholders; Abraham had more than three hundred, Isaac had a "great store" of them; and even the patient and meek Job himself had "a very great household." When the children of Israel conquered the land of Canaan, they made one whole tribe "hewers of wood and drawers of water," and they were at that very time under the special guidance of Jehovah; they were permitted expressly to purchase slaves of the heathen and keep them as an inheritance for their posterity; and even the children of Israel might be enslaved for six years.
Subsequently, in 1837, William Harper, author of the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance of 1832, wrote that slavery was not just a necessary evil which the Bible did not forbid, but a positive good for slave, master, and civilization:
President Dew has shown that the institution of slavery is a principal cause of civilization. Perhaps nothing can be more evident than that it is the sole cause. If anything can be predicated as universally true of uncultivated man, it is that he will not labor beyond what is absolutely necessary to maintain his existence. Labor is pain to those who are unaccustomed to it, and the nature of man is averse to pain. Even with all the training, the helps, and motives of civilization, we find that this aversion cannot be overcome in many individuals of the most cultivated societies. The coercion of slavery alone is adequate to form man to habits of labor. Without it, there can be no accumulation of property, no providence for the future, no tastes for comfort or elegancies, which are the characteristics and essentials of civilization.
Writing in 1854, George Fitzhugh, a Southern sociologist and lawyer, put forward the most aggressive defense of slavery possible, that it was not merely justifiable in the South but economically superior to the free society of the North and would eventually dominate through the country. His biting analysis of the manufacturing system of the North was similar to that of Karl Marx, writing about the conditions in England at about the same time. The two of them drew entirely different
Imhotep

Knoxville, TN

#166450 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You can't.
<quoted text> What logic? Personal attacks is all you got. Not rational or logical.
<quoted text> Your appeal to human dignity carries no more weight than your opinion under your atheism. Slavery can benefit the ruling class and even benefit slaves since it provides a place to live and a purpose. Owners can be humane to their slaves. Treat them with dignity. That is how the South justified slavery before the Civil war. Dred Scott depicted slaves as non Americans and property. This was a function of the United States Supreme Court and was the law of the land. It was no church function and was condemned by the Catholic church and other churches in the North for biblical reasons. The civil war was not a religious war. Again you have no objective basis to oppose slavery.
I seriously doubt you would want to be a slave even though you appear to defend slavery.

This is a fool's errand and you should know better.

Religious loons make up rules for dying - forgetting about how to live.

Even sadder... they accept their cult lunacy that they were worthless the day they were born!

Born into something called 'sin'- forever doomed to a imaginary wicked place unless they follow the specific man-made cults rules.

Whew!
No wonder I laugh at - and feel sorry - for you people.

Theists who believe in a divinely created Earth, and in the literal truth of the alleged 'holy book' aka the Bible containing 'hearsay' stories, written by primitive men, must reinterpret all new things discovered in light of the same source material.

The Secular humanist will read this and then make a judgment if it warrants merit or outright rejection.

We will not seek an apologist - we will use our own methods to determine the validity of the content.

In short... we will question anything and everything.

The literal theist, on the other hand, is forced to say ...

"Either that's a lie, it's wrong, or God is testing my faith by giving Me yet more contradictory evidence that on the surface seems telling but really doesn't mean anything."

“Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.”~George H. Smith

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#166451 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You can't.
<quoted text> What logic? Personal attacks is all you got. Not rational or logical.
<quoted text> Your appeal to human dignity carries no more weight than your opinion under your atheism. Slavery can benefit the ruling class and even benefit slaves since it provides a place to live and a purpose. Owners can be humane to their slaves. Treat them with dignity. That is how the South justified slavery before the Civil war. Dred Scott depicted slaves as non Americans and property. This was a function of the United States Supreme Court and was the law of the land. It was no church function and was condemned by the Catholic church and other churches in the North for biblical reasons. The civil war was not a religious war. Again you have no objective basis to oppose slavery.
Soooo, the Catholic Church and other denominations in the South are not part of your equation?

You're right that "The War of Northern Agression" as it's still called is some parts of the US was not based on religion. It was not based on morals either, each side attempted to assume the mantle of religious morality. Just proves that the bible is such a mish mash of conflicting ideas that anyone can spin it anyway they want.

The war was about King Cotton and States Rights.....money (aka greed) always seems to be the bottom line. Greed is a common human flaw but the almighty dollar is about as objective as you can get. Money doesn't eat, breath or reproduce. It is just a man made concept like time.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166452 Jun 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Empathy is my reason to reject slavery.
You are living in an apologetic fantasy land.
<quoted text>
Your empathy carries no more weight than your opinion and does not justify your distortion of Scripture. If you are like most unbelievers then you do not care one bit about slavery in any ways which seeks to abolish it. Your real agenda has to do with hatred of Scripture and God depicted and slavery is just a means to an end. In short you do not know what you are talking about and are probably regurgitating propaganda from hostile Christian websites.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#166454 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
The following arguments were put forth in Southern books, pamphlets and newspapers to defend the institution of slavery:
Sorry to cut you off.

Please explain your understanding of empathy.

If you understand the concept, it will be easy to show you how slavery is wrong.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166456 Jun 1, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, the Catholic Church and other denominations in the South are not part of your equation?
The Catholic Church condemned slavery and Naziism from Rome.
You're right that "The War of Northern Agression" as it's still called is some parts of the US was not based on religion. It was not based on morals either, each side attempted to assume the mantle of religious morality. Just proves that the bible is such a mish mash of conflicting ideas that anyone can spin it anyway they want.
Wrong. The misuse of Scripture does not invalidate its legit use anymore than using a hammer to kill someone does not invalidate its legit use to pound nails.
The war was about King Cotton and States Rights.....money (aka greed) always seems to be the bottom line. Greed is a common human flaw but the almighty dollar is about as objective as you can get. Money doesn't eat, breath or reproduce. It is just a man made concept like time.
In the world of atheism greed is neutral and the almighty dollar is just as valid a reason any other since it brings advantages and comfort to a fleeting life.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166457 Jun 1, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt you would want to be a slave even though you appear to defend slavery.
Wrong. Since your first premise is wrong the rest of your post is irrelevant.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#166458 Jun 1, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to cut you off.
Please explain your understanding of empathy.
If you understand the concept, it will be easy to show you how slavery is wrong.

I heard it described by soldiers in Iwo Jima. They killed people and stacked them up like cords of wood. This is slightly different but nearly the same mindset. They said that if they considered those people they killed humans ...that they would have gone insane from the horrible of it.

It's the same with holding slaves..If you consider them humans you can't do it.
Imhotep

Sevierville, TN

#166459 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong. Since your first premise is wrong the rest of your post is irrelevant.
It's hard to get the big picture when you have such a small screen.
I've seen people like you before, but I had to pay admission.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#166460 Jun 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Your empathy carries no more weight than your opinion and does not justify your distortion of Scripture. If you are like most unbelievers then you do not care one bit about slavery in any ways which seeks to abolish it. Your real agenda has to do with hatred of Scripture and God depicted and slavery is just a means to an end. In short you do not know what you are talking about and are probably regurgitating propaganda from hostile Christian websites.
You support owning another human being outright, yeah, his morals are way above yours.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166461 Jun 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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!
<quoted text>
Yeah. It's hilarious when christians say that the world would be in much better shape if only everyone followed the bible. Really? If everyone followed the bible, we would be a bunch of barbarous, superstitious, backwards idiots. We would be stoning women for having sex and beating children to death for disobeying their parents.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#166462 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.
Categorical imperative.

Stop whining about "objective basis" this and that. Your god offers no more an objective basis than anything else - and in fact, if we were to follow his rules to the letter, we would be in far worse shape than we are currently.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Joe Fortuna 38,462
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min truth 641,765
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 min good true observa... 618,430
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Crazy Cat Woman 970,066
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 21 min RiccardoFire 104,737
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 22 min good true observa... 44,418
Hi, Sweetie......EYE will ALWAYS """"LOVE YOU''... 44 min Doctor REALITY 1
More from around the web