Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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.

Anon

Lakewood, OH

#187226 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I assume he's a dude.
And I wouldn't felch ever.
Just wanted to see what kind of homophobic reaction I could get out of the homophobe.
They're really easy to spot.
I looked at all Thinking's replies and I can't seem to find any that would warrant your "homophobe" test.
If there is, please show me.
I think you blurted out your stupid comment hoping that Thinking was female, then you found out a few posts later that Thinking is indeed a male, and this is a rather desperate attempt to cover another of your many asinine replies. You're attempting to hide your stupidity, but that's never an option for you.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#187227 Nov 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a bigger idiot than you normally are today. Why do you think that is?
Your method of insulting someone doesn’t make you look intelligent. It’s the Neanderthal method. Try putting some real thought before you annotate.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#187228 Nov 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked at all Thinking's replies and I can't seem to find any that would warrant your "homophobe" test.
If there is, please show me.
I think you blurted out your stupid comment hoping that Thinking was female, then you found out a few posts later that Thinking is indeed a male, and this is a rather desperate attempt to cover another of your many asinine replies. You're attempting to hide your stupidity, but that's never an option for you.
Does anyone really care what you think? Like it really matters?

You're a day late and a dollar short trying to catch the bus.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187229 Nov 25, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interlocking little fingers and chanting, "evoluuuuuuuuution."
"evoluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuution." [laughing]
Don't know why you're laughing, you admitted to believing in evolution, did you not? Yeah I know, you believe in miro-evolution just not marco-evolution, which confirms you have no idea what the term evolution means, and here you belittle something for which you have no understanding. Not a very smart idea do you think?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187230 Nov 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked at all Thinking's replies and I can't seem to find any that would warrant your "homophobe" test.
If there is, please show me.
I think you blurted out your stupid comment hoping that Thinking was female, then you found out a few posts later that Thinking is indeed a male, and this is a rather desperate attempt to cover another of your many asinine replies. You're attempting to hide your stupidity, but that's never an option for you.
What would I care if Thinking was a broad or not?

I'm not here pretending it's a dating site.

He wrote:

"I'm mocking Buck's desire for anal rape."

and

"Try Buck. Is it your religion that has made you desperate for sex?"

and

"He takes turns throwing Buck's soap at the prison floor."

And when I asked him why he mocks homosexuality, I get the usual "I'm not a homophobe".

You said you checked.

You didn't do a good job.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187231 Nov 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What produced the energy and mass, and when did it produce it?
Do you really truly believe, Buck, that putting in a man-created god figure to solve that mystery is sane? Kind of shoots your own theory in the foot, doesn't it, to suggest that something came from nothing, by an act of something that could not have existed if nothing existed?

Whether some people theorize that everything came from nothing, I don't believe that. I just don't think we have enough information yet to take us further back in the chain of events to see what came before what man has already discovered. Even what we know today about the past is a major accomplishment of man, because scientists have discovered means for determining how things work which are far beyond my ability to understand. Certainly, it is much easier for someone, who doesn't want to think, to just take the easy way out, and say that God waved his hand and 'poof' everything appeared. But that is too much like a child's fairy tale. Man would have long ago forgotten all of the 'God did it stories' except for the clever little ruse of threats of horrible unbearable torture for eternity, which has kept irrational beliefs alive, long after they should have died a natural death, as did all of the other invented beliefs that preceded them.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187232 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dreams don't exist?
huh...
Did DNA exist before there was proof of it?
hmmm...
Are you sure you're thinking?
I think, RR, if you were to stop and consider your last several posts, you would see how you are digging yourself into a whole. You are arguing against yourself.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187233 Nov 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
People can make the claim about god because they are not claiming god is matter.
You are making a claim for matter, that it existed.
If matter existed, it had electrons in motion.
What caused this? And when?
If you know the answer to that, Buck, why not tell us, rather than using that argument as if it is some sort of intellectual break through on your part? It still does not lead to us deciding that a belief created by man in an invisible never know to exist God did it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187234 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hallelujah!
<quoted text>
I don't know what you mean by cosmic mystery. Can you elaborate?
<quoted text>
Of course we seek authority.
But more than that, we seek an authority figure, someone or something that is smarter and stronger than we are.
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that Satan did it.
But Satan did it.
And because man seeks an authority figure, man invented one, but made it invisible so that the inventors could not be proven wrong. A tiny shred of evidence of such an entity could change that whole picture, yet there has never been even a minute fragment of evidence to prove the existence of an omnipotent God that created everything. We still fall back on ancient writings of people who, compared to the knowledge of humans today, knew hardly anything about anything.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187235 Nov 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't.
If evidence is absent, there is no evidence.
If evidence is not absent, as in "present", then evidence cannot be absent.
Evidence cannot be both absent and present.
I'm on solid ground with that proposition.
I would not stand with you on that 'solid ground', Buck.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#187236 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What would I care if Thinking was a broad or not?
I'm not here pretending it's a dating site.
He wrote:
"I'm mocking Buck's desire for anal rape."
and
"Try Buck. Is it your religion that has made you desperate for sex?"
and
"He takes turns throwing Buck's soap at the prison floor."
And when I asked him why he mocks homosexuality, I get the usual "I'm not a homophobe".
You said you checked.
You didn't do a good job.
Those replies we're after your stupid comment of "You sound hot. Ever felch?" What comment did Thinking make that made you ask this? I checked pretty damned well, and I can't find any comment that would warrant this question. Give me his comment that triggered you to say this.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187237 Nov 25, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I think, RR, if you were to stop and consider your last several posts, you would see how you are digging yourself into a whole. You are arguing against yourself.
No. I'm arguing with blacklagoon.

He wrote: "When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT."

Don't you find any objections to that?

Doesn't anybody on this thread other than me find an objection to that?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187238 Nov 25, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
And because man seeks an authority figure, man invented one, but made it invisible so that the inventors could not be proven wrong. A tiny shred of evidence of such an entity could change that whole picture, yet there has never been even a minute fragment of evidence to prove the existence of an omnipotent God that created everything. We still fall back on ancient writings of people who, compared to the knowledge of humans today, knew hardly anything about anything.
It is your opinion that man invented God.

You cannot supply evidence for that opinion.

How can you say they hardly knew anything about anything?

They could make their own clothes.

They could grow their own food.

They could grow their own crops.

They dealt with a headache without medication.

They dealt with poor eyesight without glasses.

They bought children without medication.

They weren't as technologically advanced as we are today, for sure. But I guarantee you they did know a lot more about life than you or I.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187239 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It relates to God because billions of people throughout human history have experienced God, He's as real to us as your "experience the sunshine" analogy.
Not everything is proven by science.
I believe not everything can be proven by science.
You?
Actually, billions of people throughout human history have not experienced God, or at least we have no solid evidence that they did. Do you realize that there have not been billions of people throughout human history. When I was a child the total world population was in the 2 billion range, and now it is something over 7 billion, and that 2 billion would have been the most people ever alive at one time in recorded human history, and that occurred because man had found new ways of preventing early death, and it now becoming a problem, because there is not an infinite amount of matter to feed a constantly increasing population. While there were a total of several billion people that have ever existed, the numbers that might have claimed they "experienced" God would have been extremely small in number. I have lived all my life in communities of mainly believing human beings, yet I have yet to encounter anyone who will tell me with evidence that he has experienced God. Yes, people will recite stories of some coincidence that occurred in their life, and say they 'believe' that God did it, but that is not evidence of a God acting but rather a deliberate decision by that individual to put God's name as the cause of anything he doesn't understand.

Even if it were to happen that some person was to get up in front of a crowd and claim that he was going to ask God to grow a new leg on an amputee, and for some strange reason the whole crowd witnessed the leg actually regrowing on that amputee, that would certainly prove that something miraculous had occurred, but what would make it prove that the God of the Bible had caused it? Did this invisible God suddenly materialize and put that leg there? Since that has never occurred (and never will - which is one of the reasons that faith healers don't use those kinds of examples in their scam presentations), it will never happen. Yet man is a fairly long way along the road to discovering how to regrow that leg, using what man has discovered through scientific research, and is regrowing some body parts, skin for example, now.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187240 Nov 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Those replies we're after your stupid comment of "You sound hot. Ever felch?" What comment did Thinking make that made you ask this? I checked pretty damned well, and I can't find any comment that would warrant this question. Give me his comment that triggered you to say this.
I dunno.

Let's see.

You sound. Ever felch?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187241 Nov 25, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I go a little further.
I argue that the evidence is lacking altogether.
As far as the combined knowledge of all living and previously living human beings that has been the case, that evidence of a god has been lacking altogether.

Would man still be trying to convince other men of the existence of God, if evidence of that God had been found? I doubt that any with a fully functioning brain would doubt the existence of a God that had been proved. Kind of like only a very poorly informed person today would argue for the existence of a flat Earth, when man knows 100%, by many forms of real evidence, that the Earth is not flat.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187242 Nov 25, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. what's your take on it? Do you think it innate, environmental or simply a case of indoctrination ??
I can't add anything to your question except a guess, but my guess is that it's mostly a cultural thing tapping into the child-for-parent instinct. The priesthood attempts to maintain childlike perspectives that includes magical thinking and a submission to authority, which seem to be the main differences between the faithful and the unbelievers. Throw in the promises such as the answer of prayer, protection, absolution and immortality, and it's a potent package that needs little more help from the DNA that childhood instincts.

Here's Dawkins' take on religion from an evolutionary scientist's perspective - what competitive advantage personal or social religion might confer. He argues that the costs of religious instincts are so high in terms of death and suffering that if it is inherited and being selected for naturally, it must provide some benefit to offset that. It's a provocative read. Here it is in two parts:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/125-wh...
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/124-wh...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187243 Nov 25, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, billions of people throughout human history have not experienced God, or at least we have no solid evidence that they did. Do you realize that there have not been billions of people throughout human history. When I was a child the total world population was in the 2 billion range, and now it is something over 7 billion, and that 2 billion would have been the most people ever alive at one time in recorded human history, and that occurred because man had found new ways of preventing early death, and it now becoming a problem, because there is not an infinite amount of matter to feed a constantly increasing population. While there were a total of several billion people that have ever existed, the numbers that might have claimed they "experienced" God would have been extremely small in number. I have lived all my life in communities of mainly believing human beings, yet I have yet to encounter anyone who will tell me with evidence that he has experienced God. Yes, people will recite stories of some coincidence that occurred in their life, and say they 'believe' that God did it, but that is not evidence of a God acting but rather a deliberate decision by that individual to put God's name as the cause of anything he doesn't understand.
Even if it were to happen that some person was to get up in front of a crowd and claim that he was going to ask God to grow a new leg on an amputee, and for some strange reason the whole crowd witnessed the leg actually regrowing on that amputee, that would certainly prove that something miraculous had occurred, but what would make it prove that the God of the Bible had caused it? Did this invisible God suddenly materialize and put that leg there? Since that has never occurred (and never will - which is one of the reasons that faith healers don't use those kinds of examples in their scam presentations), it will never happen. Yet man is a fairly long way along the road to discovering how to regrow that leg, using what man has discovered through scientific research, and is regrowing some body parts, skin for example, now.
You seek miracles.

You seek proof.

You seek God.

You're not convinced that He isn't out there for you and I'm curious as to why? What did you lose that you blame God for?

I believe that God's love for us is beyond our ability to fully understand, but not beyond our ability to realize.

John 3:1:
"See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did no know Him."

It's the realization of God's love and purity that motivates us Christians.

To those that haven't experienced it, I defer you to IANS' analogy of being God blind, like color blind.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187244 Nov 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your opinion that man invented God.
You cannot supply evidence for that opinion.
How can you say they hardly knew anything about anything?
They could make their own clothes.
They could grow their own food.
They could grow their own crops.
They dealt with a headache without medication.
They dealt with poor eyesight without glasses.
They bought children without medication.
They weren't as technologically advanced as we are today, for sure. But I guarantee you they did know a lot more about life than you or I.
Lol

That should be "bore children", not "bought children".

Seriously, who'd buy a child without being heavily medicated...?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#187245 Nov 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you're article is bull shit.
"Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts"
http://iands.org/news/news/front-page-news/97...
"Esquire's cynical article distorts the facts of my 25-year career as a neurosurgeon and is a textbook example of how unsupported assertions and cherry-picked information can be assembled at the expense of the truth".-Dr. Eben Alexander

Not bs Buck, Dr. Eben Alexander contradicted the facts.
But he did sell a book, plenty of suckers will buy into it to read what they want to hear. But fact remains the whole book is unscientific and is personal opinionated gobbledygook.
Sure it's probably a good read, but things like that are far from conclusive and so not science. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
But run go buy the book sucker, he needs the money.

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
8.1 Earthquake Off the Coast of Mexico 2 min Concerned 3
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Robert F 987,338
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 6 min science god 30,998
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 min Exposed another s... 286,550
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 18 min Robert F 687,239
skype usernames for dirty skyping;) and usernam... (Aug '14) 4 hr Jack Pitan 9
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr lil whispers 619,792
More from around the web