Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
169,301 - 169,320 of 226,235 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176481
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Take your argument to the United States government. The Churches of Atheism are respected as a religion in every detail. And you could make science a religion. Cut and dry. Period.
Have you read the definition of religion?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176482
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Take your argument to the United States government. The Churches of Atheism are respected as a religion in every detail. And you could make science a religion. Cut and dry. Period.
And the United States government has ignored the fact that religion is not supposed to be a part of the government for many years now so it was not surprising when they ignored the actual definition of the word religion. Now I'm curious as to whether you are a person who just agrees and doesn't do any thinking for yourself or if you are someone who can actually admit that the statement is false. The definition of religion does not in any way mesh with the definition of atheism. If you don't see that then you are simply arguing to be arguing. It's simple and obvious. It's always seemed silly to me that people can't just look at the definition an see the simplicity of it. "Not believing in a deity". It's just so plain and simple.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176483
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Take your argument to the United States government. The Churches of Atheism are respected as a religion in every detail. And you could make science a religion. Cut and dry. Period.
At the base of anyone who claims to be an atheist that is the one simple definition... To address what you would call Churches of Atheism...it's in my opinion that if someone calls something an atheist "church" then they are also ignoring the definitions church... A church is a public building yes, but mostly used for Christian worship. There is no reason for an atheist to have church.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176484
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Take your argument to the United States government. The Churches of Atheism are respected as a religion in every detail. And you could make science a religion. Cut and dry. Period.
Also Can't blame the Federals to try this option.

After all, throwing money or tax breaks at the problem to make it go away (for now) has worked well in the past.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176485
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
At the base of anyone who claims to be an atheist that is the one simple definition... To address what you would call Churches of Atheism...it's in my opinion that if someone calls something an atheist "church" then they are also ignoring the definitions church... A church is a public building yes, but mostly used for Christian worship. There is no reason for an atheist to have church.
There is no reason for an atheist to have a funeral either, right?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176486
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no reason for an atheist to have a funeral either, right?
you should change your alias to clueless because you are not an expert

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176488
Sep 6, 2013
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>There is no reason for an atheist to have a funeral either, right?
I'm not even going to respond to this stupid of a question. Your tone in this is far too dramatic.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176489
Sep 6, 2013
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>There is no reason for an atheist to have a funeral either, right?
Actually, no, I am going to reply... As you well know usually religious people have funerals in a church. I can only assume that your statement about an atheist needing a reason for a funeral means that you think funerals are for the religious only, funerals are for families to grieve for the loss of their family members...for you to make that religion specific is disgusting. I, and my family would deserve no less than you would at your death whether its being held in a funeral home, a church, or a person's home.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176490
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read the definition of religion?
The United States has found it does meet the criteria. Congratulations Atheist Church. Let me now paste the online answer to your question. Using Bing this was the first answer.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I agree with the United States, as I just about all ways do. Again congratulations Atheist Church.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176491
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
And the United States government has ignored the fact that religion is not supposed to be a part of the government for many years now so it was not surprising when they ignored the actual definition of the word religion. Now I'm curious as to whether you are a person who just agrees and doesn't do any thinking for yourself or if you are someone who can actually admit that the statement is false. The definition of religion does not in any way mesh with the definition of atheism. If you don't see that then you are simply arguing to be arguing. It's simple and obvious. It's always seemed silly to me that people can't just look at the definition an see the simplicity of it. "Not believing in a deity". It's just so plain and simple.
Now you bring up, what in my opinion the origin of Atheism becoming a religion. Everyone unfortunately has a government. The Irish made a good run at not having a government. Due to foreign invaders no government does not work. In the beginning governments destroyed non government mainly for trade routes, sometimes in the name of religious rituals, or religious rituals just followed. with in a government, larger religions goals are to be "The Keepers of the Program". Religions find ways to push rules they favor into the law system. The atheist desire to partake in being keepers of the program, slowly pushed them to where they are now a religion. As communication continues to advance smaller religions will grow. Had man had the internet day one. World history, and man's history may be less violent. I think what you are spreading, is no good for no one. If you go back to pushing for government changes without discussion of religion, maybe I would say you are not a religion. Honestly I don't think you could turn back. Perhaps you all ways have been a religion. The 2nd one formed. Denying the 1st one.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176492
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
At the base of anyone who claims to be an atheist that is the one simple definition... To address what you would call Churches of Atheism...it's in my opinion that if someone calls something an atheist "church" then they are also ignoring the definitions church... A church is a public building yes, but mostly used for Christian worship. There is no reason for an atheist to have church.
No it is not what I call them. It is what they call themselves. You could use a search engine to find them, you could contact them, if you wish you could attend their services or session, or whatever they call their gathering. You could actually address them in the flesh. As previously noted, I don't agree with them, and don't see this as a message to be spread.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176493
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Also Can't blame the Federals to try this option.
After all, throwing money or tax breaks at the problem to make it go away (for now) has worked well in the past.
I do have my disagreements, but I do think America is a wonderful country. I sometimes ponder if Atheist are just never ending complainers. As I read here they don't respect the good of the message of Jesus Christ. Yes, all are entitled to their opinion, but there comes a point that one becomes a folded armed pouting jerk.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176494
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need to "protect" atheism, unlike theism, it stands on it's own without the various crutches, props, smoke and mirrors, etc.
It ignores evidence from history, for one. When push comes to shove. That is why the problem is not with the evidence. The idea atheists are open to actual evidence is a scam. They are among the most closed minded and dogmatic anyone wants to meet.
Sure modern historians give ancient historians the benefit of a doubt, they don't declare it factual statement mind you. They take as truth, the truth that was accepted at the time....before the advancement of knowledge.
If advancement on knowledge leads to atheism then they are down the wrong road. Wrong roads do not advance knowledge.
Ancient Kings, lol. Much like our world leaders of today,
Not really. They had more power. A king, for example could clear up black on black crime in major cities in a heartbeat. Obama is impotent and buys bullets so people have to scramble around to try to purchase a pack of .22 shells to go squirrel hunting. Can't buy bullets. Bring back prohibition. Maybe it will work this time!
mouthing platitudes and watching out for mumero uno...themselves. They had a VESTED interest in proving some kind of divine heritage and not just Christianity.
They believed keeping careful records was important as far as genealogy. You just can't deal with history. It's pathetic.
Theists can easily spot the falsity of ancient Pharaohs claiming to be direct descendants of the son god Ra or today's politicians who beat their breasts much as the ancient Pharisees and get caught with their pants down - literally - on an every day basis.
A lot of females go for alpha male types. Many will drop their drawers for a politician who is married with children no problem. Forfeit their modesty and expose their behinds for filthy lucre, that happens all the time.
Yet, you seem fundamentally unable to look at yourselves in the mirror and see the ridiculous reality of your situation.
All i am seeing is you marginalizing everyone who disagrees with you in order to protect your atheism.
Oh well, religion is losing ground daily the world over....it will never die out completely....but it will dwindle down to an oddity that the majority shrugs and avoids.
Has not happened in two thousand tears. The young leave and come back all the time after they marry and have children and realize the futility of unbelief. How it really answers nothing and goes no where. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church! Your prediction is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176495
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>The United States has found it does meet the criteria. Congratulations Atheist Church. Let me now paste the online answer to your question. Using Bing this was the first answer.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I agree with the United States, as I just about all ways do. Again congratulations Atheist Church.
Well I guess congrats to the atheist church :-)... They'll probably continue to fight the tax break because its not something the actual people see as a religion, but it's whatever anyone wants to call it I guess. Either way there still is no proof for god, there is no proof against god. You believe there is at least one...I don't believe there is one, and I think that I have much more proof against it than you do for it, so I still conclude that my decision is the more logical and rational of the two.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176496
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>The United States has found it does meet the criteria. Congratulations Atheist Church. Let me now paste the online answer to your question. Using Bing this was the first answer.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I agree with the United States, as I just about all ways do. Again congratulations Atheist Church.
Btw...you are completely ignoring the fact that the goverment is not suppose to have a hand in any religion so they should have nothing to do with christianity or atheism or Muslims, or and other religion except for when it comes to those religions breaking the law, and those laws should not be stipulated by any religion.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176497
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Now you bring up, what in my opinion the origin of Atheism becoming a religion. Everyone unfortunately has a government. The Irish made a good run at not having a government. Due to foreign invaders no government does not work. In the beginning governments destroyed non government mainly for trade routes, sometimes in the name of religious rituals, or religious rituals just followed. with in a government, larger religions goals are to be "The Keepers of the Program". Religions find ways to push rules they favor into the law system. The atheist desire to partake in being keepers of the program, slowly pushed them to where they are now a religion. As communication continues to advance smaller religions will grow. Had man had the internet day one. World history, and man's history may be less violent. I think what you are spreading, is no good for no one. If you go back to pushing for government changes without discussion of religion, maybe I would say you are not a religion. Honestly I don't think you could turn back. Perhaps you all ways have been a religion. The 2nd one formed. Denying the 1st one.
You cannot discuss goverment change without discussing religion.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176498
Sep 6, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>No it is not what I call them. It is what they call themselves. You could use a search engine to find them, you could contact them, if you wish you could attend their services or session, or whatever they call their gathering. You could actually address them in the flesh. As previously noted, I don't agree with them, and don't see this as a message to be spread.
I also don't see the message that Westbrook baptist spreads either, but what does that have to do with anything. They are spreading gods word, and we are spreading the news that god doesn't exist. All the words that come out of the WBC mouths actually come straight out of the bible....you ignore those parts of the book, but it doesn't make their claims any less false... You act as though you're different but you are not. I don't intend to harm or hurt people but you choose to do that every day simply by following a religion that agrees with everything in the bible, and that includes all of the really sick twisted parts of it that you cannot deny because it Is in black
And white...you only care for your own spot in society or you would not be on an atheist site doing nothing but flapping your jaws about something that you know you don't have the power to change and not only that but you fall to the level that you claim us unbelievers do. Go spend time with your brothers and sisters I'm Christ and leave us heathens here to be judged by your god...if you follow your bible the way I was taught you were supposed to then this should not only not be difficult, but it should be exactly what you should do as a sign of obedience to your lords words.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176499
Sep 6, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Intuitions were built into us since the universe began. We are made of it and its organization.
It is how we survived.
It has to be trained out of you.
It's how we survived in the very limited environment of human-scale activities. Our intuitions work reasonably well in that context (although we tend to see more faces than are actually there---again for survival reasons). But those intuitions fail miserably on larger or smaller scales. So, yes, they *do* have to get trained out of you and *should* be trained out of yuou if you want to learn how the larger universe works.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176500
Sep 6, 2013
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no reason for an atheist to have a funeral either, right?
Funerals are for the people who are still alive, not for the person who died. They renew ties to family and friends and encourage us to remember the life of the person who died. Those motivations are present for atheists also.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176501
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I guess congrats to the atheist church :-)... They'll probably continue to fight the tax break because its not something the actual people see as a religion, but it's whatever anyone wants to call it I guess. Either way there still is no proof for god, there is no proof against god. You believe there is at least one...I don't believe there is one, and I think that I have much more proof against it than you do for it, so I still conclude that my decision is the more logical and rational of the two.
And I conclude contrary. I now present you with what is most likely, regardless of either one of our conclusions. The human race was made in a lab, by another form of being. Did they look like us? Maybe. More likely they viewed us as a perfect appearance. they might or might not have the answer of creator of Universe. The fact we are not the slaves of a superior elder race of intelligent beings supports my theory. I don't agree with Ufologist but, many details of the debate I do have to concede to them as being the more likely.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min seriously the ori... 538,770
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 14 min Yourbrainisbroke 297
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min atheism is destru... 732,691
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 18 min bacon hater 94,632
Appjoy invite code 18 min Im Rk9 43
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 23 min Chosen Holy Dr Sh... 599,771
Last Word + 2 27 min Hannah V 488
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min JudgeNJury 257,831
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Chris Clearwater 173,271
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••