Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243439 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

#188319 Nov 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaah.... brilliant!
:)
Thanks, Blob.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188320 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>YES, we Do, the default position is the one that relies on evidence, not avoiding it. It's not a question as to whether or not "I want" it to be the default position, it simply is.
As someone has already said, I don't work that hard on not believing pixie dust exists.
You want to drag others down to your level of gullibility, all you Theists do, I guess it make you more comfortable. Or most likely your embarrassed by that level of gullibility, and need to mask that embarrassment by claiming we Atheist fall into that same category.
Thanks for illustrating the fraud again.

You can't get to atheism on evidence.

It requires belief.

You want to change the meaning of atheism to make it the default position.

You are a fraud, Bert.

"In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a default position."

-Uri Nodelman; Senior Editor, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188321 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Default position?
That term might be more useful to determine a good debate rather than knowledge or rationality.
The problem with a debate about God, there is no "knowledge" and nothing rational about the belief.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188322 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Back to juvenile insults rather than meaningful dialog I see..........ooopps sorry I used the word meaningful, we know it has no meaning for you.
We can always tell when someone is frustrated and unable to argue can't we? Nothing intelligent to say! Backed into a corner!, and then the childish insults are hurled. Simply pathetic!!!!!
Au contraire mon frere, Bert.

I often use insult as a first resort.

You invite insult, by being so stupid.

It would be impolite not to respond to the invitation.

Berp.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188323 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Merriam Webster good enough?
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

a : has actual, real-live people who are like that.
b : only exists in the fevered and self-lying brains of god-robots.
a : you don't get to redefine words.

b : you don't get to redefine words.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188324 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nothing" must either (A) exist, or (B) not exist.
If (A), then something cannot come from it.
If (B), then something cannot come from it.
Given only (A) and (B) are possible, something cannot come from nothing.
How many ways do you want to lose on this, Bert?
Because I am perfectly willing for you to lose as many times as you wish.
Have you revised your revision of "religion poisons everything" again, yet?
Wrong, either something can come from nothing or it can't. The ONLY way to determine if either one of these proposition are true is to be able to examine the properties of BOTH of the subject matters. Without a thorough examination of both "something" and "Nothing" No definitive conclusion can be drawn.

No I haven't revised the fact that religion poisons everything "Meaningful" And I gave a list, would you like me to repost that list, just for you?

BTW I asked you for a definition of "nothing" Cat got yer tongue?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188325 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry I angered you by making fun of your Hero Jesus. You do know that he had nothing noteworthy to say? That his very existence is in question, yet you are angered by a joke. Your "Hero" is not all he's cracked up to be, and just may well have never existed.
You are mistaken, Berp Legumes.

I could not get mad over a light-weight like you pontificating through your ass about anyone's existence, or on anything, for that matter.

Particularly when you claim nothing both exists and doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if someone were on this thread with an elementary level education in history of the era, and made such claims, I might respond to them.

So far, none has shown up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188326 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>How could you forget another one of my favorites "God The Failed Hypothesis" How science shows that God does not exist. Victor Stenger..
Stenger is a light-weight.

Like you, Berp.

Excuse me.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#188327 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Already done, multiple times.
Results - psi exists.
And yet somehow other scientists can never repeat those tests. Odd that.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188328 Nov 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right.
My cat is an atheist. So am I.
Without any **proof** that gods are real?
Atheism is the only rational conclusion.
Yeah, there are a number of words that scare the shit out of them, Rational, and evidence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188329 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Including God. So who or what caused God to exist? NO SPECIAL PLEADING NOW< it a childish tact.
Nobody believes in a god that began to exist.

So what was your point, Berp.

Excuse me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188330 Nov 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes default position.
You god-robots have failed-- and quite spectacularly too-- to show that your god is a real thing.
(I will now await your **insults** because, you know, that is how Jesus would reply to me. Right?)
It isn't our responsibility to prove anything to you.

You've made your choices and have decided on your own beliefs.

Why do you blame us?
Bongo

Hicksville, NY

#188331 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Blue Oyster?
Wan't that a band?
If it's a bar, I have probably hit somebody in it.
Never like a lot of noise in a bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mPIeI-muZv0XX
Tell us about the wagon wheel

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188332 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The problem with a debate about God, there is no "knowledge" and nothing rational about the belief.
Then why do you attempt to rationalize your belief?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188333 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry -I forgot the first an very critical post in this series, so I'm posting it again with the revisions:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
FIVE posts later and still no communication.
[IANS groans even more and heaves even harder as he laboriously struggles to roll the boulder uphill.]
There you go, nitpicking again.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#188334 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believes in a god that began to exist.
So what was your point, Berp.
Excuse me.
Nobody believes in a god then.
Because it definitely never existed before the human mind invented it.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188335 Nov 29, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> baffled buffoon, you obstreperously prevaricate. You also err greatly in your claim that There is NO evidence for Jesus, Heaven, Hell, or Your demon God. Youre either a hypocrite or ignorant of the atheist rule book whereby you make a positive claim without proof.
ALL, you have is an immoral holy book to prop up your beliefs, NOTHIBNG ELSE. It is a fact that there are NO CONTEMPORARY accounts of Jesus outside of the bible.

Then wanting to be true to the "atheist rule book" There is no verifiable or scientifically observed evidence that supports your POSITIVE claim that Hell, Heaven, or your Demon God exist. Is that more palatable for you? I'll go one step further and say that anyone who accepts a belief without evidence or for no good reason is totally irrational, and depending on the fervor of their belief could be considered totally insane.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188336 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>The problem with a debate about God, there is no "knowledge" and nothing rational about the belief.
Which belief?

Atheism or theism?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188337 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Blue Oyster?
Wan't that a band?
If it's a bar, I have probably hit somebody in it.
Never like a lot of noise in a bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mPIeI-muZv0XX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Just under 2 minutes is when it starts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I've heard that is recreation in parts of Central America.

I've chopped off 2 inch tree limbs clean in one swing in my day. Overhead. Those thin spring steel cane machetes with sharp blades can be awesome.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#188338 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for illustrating the fraud again.
You can't get to atheism on evidence.
It requires belief.
You want to change the meaning of atheism to make it the default position.
You are a fraud, Bert.
"In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a default position."
-Uri Nodelman; Senior Editor, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I know you're smarter than this, aren't you? Well just maybe I was mistaken. You get to Atheism NOT on evidence, but from COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE, Holy shit, put down the weed boy!!!

I'm not changing anything goober, Atheism IS the default position. Twist and turn anyway you like, Atheism REJECTS the POSITIVE claim that a GOD exists..........thats it goober, nothing else.

Once again calling it a belief seems to make you feel better about your gullibility, thats fine, your embarrassed I know, so seek your comfort zone by calling Atheism a belief, it's ok, we all understand how desperate you are to pull un all down to your level of extreme gullibility.

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) 6 min Aura Mytha 855,178
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Just Think 596,446
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 13 min Angry Bella ITA 612,626
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 21 min Angry Bella ITA 40,711
___FEDs Funding ISIS w Your Taxes! 38 min Rumorz 3
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 40 min Toby 100,754
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Halle Berry Sister 2,646
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr I Am No One_ 444,356
The Christian Atheist debate 3 hr -Alan S Shole- 1,026
More from around the web