Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243147 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: May 10

Location hidden

#183562 Nov 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you're telling me that I'm not an atheist unless I meet the definition for atheist that you prefer.
No, I'm telling you the definition of atheist.

If you believe there is no god, you are one.

If you believe otherwise, you might still call yourself one, and it troubles me not.

But it would be an imprecise claim.

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183563 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm telling you the definition of atheist.
If you believe there is no god, you are one.
If you believe otherwise, you might still call yourself one, and it troubles me not.
But it would be an imprecise claim.
When you can prove the god your mental illness wills you to spread based on zero evidence, you won't need to spam the atheism forum with your disproven 2005 creationist rubbish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183564 Nov 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is a weak appeal, and rationality is superior. The success of rational skepticism has been stunning in the understanding of nature and in political philosophy, which is evidence for its validity. By contrast, there are no analogous successes for faith based thought, which has been sterile. This is evidence against such a way of thinking.
But this is not surprising. There is nothing that cannot be believed or asserted by faith, including its opposite.
I'm not sure who is an idiot, but being unable to distinguish between these radically different ways of thinking would be a good start.
THAT'S IT!

Nothing could illustrate my point better than what you just said.

In your analysis, atheism is based on "rationality", and theism is based on "faith".

There's the cheat.

Both are based on faith.

Both infer an unknowable conclusion.

And that is precisely the reason for the attempts to dilute the meaning of "atheism" - so that a person can be an atheist and feel superiorly rational, or at least make the claim.

One side defines the terms to fashion their position and themselves into a sphere of intellect, knowledge, science, reason.

While delegating the other to "faith", as you just demonstrated.

It's perfect. The perfect example of the glaring fraud of this whole debate.

It is the fraud of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc.

I feel affirmed.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#183565 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't been this pissed in years????
You live in Cleveland.
I actually live in the suburb of Lakewood, which is adjacent to the Cleveland border. My location suddenly changed to Cleveland about a month ago, probably something I did, but it's only Topix so who cares. If you're waiting for me to beat my chest and defend my city, well, I really can't so I won't. Even In prosperous times, Cleveland has always been a little behind, like someone's mildly retarded brother. If you have one of the Great Lakes in your backyard and you still can't produce a flourishing city, perhaps one should abandon all hope.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#183566 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No devil.
Though my -ex comes close.
It's all in us - the divine and the diabolical.
The only devil is the ego.
Jesus said so, in so many words.
Oppps, most likely there was no such person as Jesus. Not a good idea to quote imaginary people. make you look.......err..crazy!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#183567 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy to, Silky Pants.
But soon as I do, somebody will pop off and say "Atheism is a lack of belief".
Wait and see.
Atheism is the LACK of belief, a REJECTION of the Theist claim that a God exists. Stupid IS forever by the way!!!!!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#183568 Nov 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is the LACK of belief, a REJECTION of the Theist claim that a God exists. Stupid IS forever by the way!!!!!
Which proves you will live forever. Not here, but you are eternal after a fashion.

And you thought you were just a flash in the pan.

Nice to see there is a glimmer of rationality and intelligence buried in that ball of ego you are.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#183569 Nov 12, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually live in the suburb of Lakewood, which is adjacent to the Cleveland border. My location suddenly changed to Cleveland about a month ago, probably something I did, but it's only Topix so who cares. If you're waiting for me to beat my chest and defend my city, well, I really can't so I won't. Even In prosperous times, Cleveland has always been a little behind, like someone's mildly retarded brother. If you have one of the Great Lakes in your backyard and you still can't produce a flourishing city, perhaps one should abandon all hope.
Your ISP just moved the computer they use to connect to the internet. It's just a router.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#183570 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We've seen those "cooperative societies", BlankBufoon.
The first thing that happens is the leaders start murdering their citizens.
The second thing is they begin to starve.
We'll send you some powdered milk. Good luck.
So I take it you do NOT agree that "God answers" when replaced by REAL science answers, that God become an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance?

I can see you're getting ready to invoke that tired old Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao argument. This is most usually done by those who understand little about the history involving those people. Do you count yourself as one of those ignorant to the history connected to these rulers?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183571 Nov 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is a weak appeal, and rationality is superior. The success of rational skepticism has been stunning in the understanding of nature and in political philosophy, which is evidence for its validity. By contrast, there are no analogous successes for faith based thought, which has been sterile. This is evidence against such a way of thinking.
But this is not surprising. There is nothing that cannot be believed or asserted by faith, including its opposite.
I'm not sure who is an idiot, but being unable to distinguish between these radically different ways of thinking would be a good start.
"A skeptic should have occasional doubts about his own skepticism".

-Sigmund Freud

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183572 Nov 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So I take it you do NOT agree that "God answers" when replaced by REAL science answers, that God become an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance?
I can see you're getting ready to invoke that tired old Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao argument. This is most usually done by those who understand little about the history involving those people. Do you count yourself as one of those ignorant to the history connected to these rulers?
No, I consider my grasp of history far superior to yours.

But if I did not, you would be the last source I would reach for to fill in the gaps.

Your commentary about the answers of "real science" sounds a lot like the allegorical serpent of Eden.

...except he was smart.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183573 Nov 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is the LACK of belief, a REJECTION of the Theist claim that a God exists. Stupid IS forever by the way!!!!!
See, I told you so, Catcher.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183574 Nov 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No devil.
Though my -ex comes close.
It's all in us - the divine and the diabolical.
The only devil is the ego.
Jesus said so, in so many words.
.. hi ya Buck ..

.. many believers will find this post injurious to their beliefs. No devil? Doesn't there have to be a balance in everything, good -vs- evil being the standard concept, Newton's 3rd law, you know, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" ??..

.. you see, many people are terrified of something which may force them take a compassionate position so, instead, they assume a defensive stance. This is ego, a direct violation of spiritual law, a counterfeit wannabe, a meat-sack nightmare in direct conflict with the authentic self ..

.. and, you are correct. In so many words, the man you call Jesus claimed the ego is false self. It protects, defends and justifies who we think we are. It can be good or bad, everything depends on how we use it. Ego can be a devil or an angel ..

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#183575 Nov 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is the LACK of belief, a REJECTION of the Theist claim that a God exists. Stupid IS forever by the way!!!!!
.. then why do atheists say, "I don't believe in God" ??..
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#183576 Nov 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ISP just moved the computer they use to connect to the internet. It's just a router.
I think you're right. You schmart guy... I don't want eternal life. You can take mine and have two eternal lives. Haw-haw.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183577 Nov 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
From a pragmatic standpoint, the burden lies with whomever it is that wants to change minds. For whatever reason, the American population seems to be transforming into an irreligious one. Christians will be a minority by or before 2029 if the nation continues in its present trajectory. If you're indifferent about what others believe or are satisfied with the status quo, you have no burden.
Buck Crick wrote:
Not true in the slightest. You are advocating a position as the preferred course. As an advocate, you assume a burden no different than that assumed by an alternative point of view, and it has nothing to do with the status quo. Not to mention that your characterization of "status quo" is deformed.
As I said, if one is satisfied with the present trajectory of the Christian church in America, there is no burden to act, and hence no burden of proof. Those who feel otherwise have their work cut out for them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183578 Nov 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Oppps, most likely there was no such person as Jesus. Not a good idea to quote imaginary people. make you look.......err..crazy!!!
You have a savant-like ability to be wrong every time.

The evidence strongly supports that the person did exist, and no serious, credible case can be made that he did not.

How's the powdered milk we sent? Lumpy?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#183579 Nov 12, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the early days of American History conflicts were routinely resolved by killing your opponent. It looks like we as a nation have gone back to our roots. When the safest and appropriate action to take is walk away from a potential violent conflict.
That advice can even be applied in abusive relationships. Get out of the violence situation at all cost and don’t add to it. It’s not easy to do but it’s the most wisest course one can make.
Often times people don’t take into account the cost of what they’re going to do. And that cost can be very high. Conflict resolution should be taught in every school in America. There’s wisdom in turning the other cheek.
Of course a man or woman has the right to defend themselves. But that defense can turn deadly so avoidance is always the best choice.
Agree.

My point was that Jesus' advice to offer the other cheek is not the best advice.

As you suggest, one should try to resolve differences with conversation if possible, or walk away if that is the best that one can do. Barring that, one should at least put up ones fists to defend his face, not offer the other cheek. Offering the other cheek is more likely to result in violence than any option available apart from throwing the next punch oneself.

You might say that I am misinterpreting the meaning of the words - that Jesus really meant to do the things we suggested,and that turning the other cheek is just a euphemism for all types of nonviolent response.

But simple people heard and read those words, and often interpret them literally, such as the ones that think that it is safe to handle snakes, that they should not suffer witches, or that children shouldn't get medical care. I don't believe that a god would use such imprecise and easily misunderstood language, and I don't believe that one did.

Moreover, I'm still waiting for the example of the deep ethical truth that Jesus gave the world. As I said, the words that seem original to him are not valuable, and the valuable words that he is said to have spoken were not original with him.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#183580 Nov 12, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
As I said, if one is satisfied with the present trajectory of the Christian church in America, there is no burden to act, and hence no burden of proof. Those who feel otherwise have their work cut out for them.
Error #1:

The future is yet to be. For what you call "trajectory" to continue, there has to be "change" from the present status.

Thus, one who is satisfied with "trajectory" is not necessarily subscribing to a "status quo", but to change.

Error #2:

To be "satisfied" with the trajectory is to prefer that course to alternative courses available. If there is opposition to that particular course, and there is, the one who prefers it is no less encumbered with a burden to support his position than the one who prefers the alternative.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#183581 Nov 12, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. then why do atheists say, "I don't believe in God" ??..
because it's easier to say than."I reject the theists claim that an omnipotent being who created everything actually exists."

Why do you say "holy shit." Do you really believe feces is somehow holy, connected to God, anointed in some 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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Rosa_Winkel 853,864
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 11 min MUQ2 40,688
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min hojo 595,910
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 17 min I Am No One_ 444,122
The Christian Atheist debate 29 min Burke Devlin 775
Playboy 43 min Burke Devlin 10
Homosexuals are the REAL reason God DESTROYED S... 58 min Rosa_Winkel 81
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr DebraE 100,727
More from around the web