Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255520 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192354 Dec 14, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
I see Christmas as a Christian war on atheism. And all non-Christian religions, for that matter.
LOL. I love this thread. We've assembled a pretty good team of contributors here,and have had many good discussions..Kudos to the theists as well for their generally good nature in all of this.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192355 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Wrong. In America, rights are not "provisions of government".
This illustrates your problem understanding America's concept of rights. It is typical of the deficit in education that is pervasive today. I'd help you, but I suspect you have a compelling desire not to see the truth of it.
It is important to understand and acknowledge where rights come from: people, not gods, and our ability and willingness to enforce them. In a democracy, rights are the choices of the people, hopefully wise and benevolent people. I see more of that coming from the ones that call themselves humanists than from those calling themselves Christians. The Christians banned the right to mention Dawkins or DNA in Mississippi, fer krissakes!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192356 Dec 14, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
To apply to just one school is moronic, don't you think?
LOL. It may have been a faith based decision arrived at after prayer.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192357 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Yes, you did.
You changed your analogy from a determination of existence based on description to a determination of existence based on fact.
They were both conditional proofs based on the acceptance of the logical law of non contradiction and the meanings of "married" and "bachelor".

I just removed three unnecessary words to clean it up.
Buck Crick wrote:
You ended up with, essentially, something that does not exist does not exist.
No.

If you're going to jump scale you need to say "Something that cannot exist does not exist."

Tom does not exist because he cannot, because a married bachelor cannot exist.

Defining Tom as a married bachelor rules out his existence.
Buck Crick wrote:
But that is inconsistent with your original assertion, which is, that god does not exist because the biblical description is self-contradictory.
My argument has been consistent. Your understanding of it might not have been.
Buck Crick wrote:
You abandoned the nature of your original assertion.
No I didn't.

Do you know who gets to decide what I mean by what I say?

It's not you.
Buck Crick wrote:
Which means you lost the argument.
Welcome to Buck School. Have a seat in the back next to the guy that says dinosaurs had no DNA.
At least you haven't acted out of character.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#192358 Dec 14, 2013
davy wrote:
So your god thought that it was OK to sell your daughter into slavery as long as her master fed her, clothed her and f*cked her? What a lovely philosophy.
That is a gross distortion. I missed this part. First off if a man banged his female slave then she automatically becomes his wife and is elevated in status from slave to wife. He is obligated to feed cloth and take care of her. If he has intercourse with her then everything changes.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#192361 Dec 14, 2013
Said the religitard who argues that the opinion of slavers is valid. F*ck you and your sleazy book. I didn't side with slave owners, you did.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I asked you a valid question and you resort to a personal attack. Accuse me of being pro slavery. Losing the argument Davy? A bigot is anyone losing an argument to a liberal. It is you and the slave owner who has common ground in that both of you believe the Bible validates slavery. Cmon Davy. Come up with an argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192362 Dec 14, 2013
scaritual wrote:
Certainly. The "deity", has obviously decided that those rights it asserts to men are non existent when a Grizzly Bear is present. The "rights" of the Grizzly are of paramount importance, then. He gets his way, his morality prevails, and his decision overrules man ... That deity you speak of has obviously decided the most capable predator in any given situation has the most important, assertable or prevalent rights.
I think that I'm getting a better feel for what "natural rights" means.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#192363 Dec 14, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
That is your opinion. The slave owner who legally owns slaves is of a different opinion and his opinion is equally as valid as yours. If your going to be an atheist Catcher then don't be a punk about it. It is you who believes your rights come from men. Not me. If rights come from men then men can enslave. They can even do genocide.
You seem a bit vexed.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#192364 Dec 14, 2013
That isn't what the bible says lying religitard.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is a gross distortion. I missed this part. First off if a man banged his female slave then she automatically becomes his wife and is elevated in status from slave to wife. He is obligated to feed cloth and take care of her. If he has intercourse with her then everything changes.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192365 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
On the Supreme Court, I prefer someone who believes the Constitution. Whether they believe in the devil is none of my concern.
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.

Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#192366 Dec 14, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It just embarrasses me slightly is all.
<quoted text>
That would be Smurftastic.
<quoted text>
They lack influence from rational secular ethics.
I'm beginning to think we should send out missionaries or something.
<quoted text>
That's when it's not out drinking with The Declaration and the Farmer's Almanac.
<quoted text>
Bullshit doesn't age well.
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
That's when it's not out drinking with The Declaration and the Farmer's Almanac.
Poor Richard :(

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192367 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheists' hate for the Declaration and the Constitution is second and third to their hate for the Bible.
And puppies.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#192368 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes, Buck. The rest of us are alarmed by that.
Doesn't the director of the NIH also believe in devils?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/ron-...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192369 Dec 14, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Grateful Dead, Dancing Bear
http://search.yahoo.com/search...
Together - more or less in line

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192370 Dec 14, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
We ask Atheist to lose their conceit, arrogance, narcissism, ego, vanity, self righteousness, hatefulness, bigotry and selfishness.
This is the language theists use to describe those of us who won't submit to the lies of the priests or pay lip service to those that will. Would you like to see the language we use to describe people that do? I'd bet you wouldn't like it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192371 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Couldn't say. How does this relate to anything I posted?
Christianity is not the obstacle to systematic slavery that you implied it was.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192372 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The concept of god-endowed rights allowed the abolition of slavery.
After it didn't.

How about the god endowed right to own slaves. It's in their bible,complete with an owner's manual for their care and maintenance.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#192373 Dec 14, 2013
davy wrote:
Bullshit religitard. The bible doesn't mention debts.
Yes it does.
Just selling your daughter into slavery.
There has to be a reason and the reason was debt. I gave you the Elisha reference which you ignored, naturally.
Why does your god condone rape and slavery?
Why do you accuse a God you do not believe exists? Cite your reference where God condones rape? If God condones slavery then why where the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery? Why did Elisha liberate the children of the widow from debt slavery?[QUOTE} Your sick book makes me want to puke![/QUOTE] Despise a book. How stupid is that?
I feed, clothe and screw my wife because I love her.
Well i would like to see where your marriage is at five years from now. You are one sick individual.
Not because I bought her. Why does your idiot god not see that it is wrong to sell your daughter into slavery? Because it was common at the time? What a pathetic excuse!
You still have not provided an objective basis. Just a lot of ranting.
How much do you want for your daughter you sleazy religitard.
You are one sick individual.
I will sell her as a sex slave in Brazil.
I believe you. I would not do that to your daughter.
After all, it's common there so that makes it OK, right?
You would have to take it up with them. According to my beliefs they will answer to God in this life or the next. They put their children in jeopardy because of abuse. According to yours they simply die like their victims. No justice for the victims, just death and nothingness.
I don't hate god, god doesn't exist.
All anyone has to do is read your post. You blame God for slavery. Call God an idiot. You accuse God of condoning rape and in the next breath you say you do not hate God.
I hate religion. It warps minds! Religion kills brains dead!
Yet you will sell my daughter into sex slavery. Whose mind is warped?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192374 Dec 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I think we've also reached the end of this discussion. We've each posted our opinions, and there is common starting ground from which to proceed. I am an atheist, and an agnostic, and have taken no leap of faith there.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, you are not an atheist and an agnostic. That's impossible.(married bachelor) You are an atheist. ONE more point. Both the atheist and the theist take a leap of faith past reason and knowledge.
Would you care to repeat that? Maybe a few hundred more times.
Buck Crick wrote:
The advantage in rationality of the theist is the number of ways he can be inaccurate, but his theism still be the more logical choice.
Oh, OK:
Buck Crick wrote:
There is a myriad of ways to be mistaken about perceived qualities of a deity, but still be right about the existence of A deity..
There are even more ways to be mistaken about what the winning lottery numbers will be, but still be right that they exist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192375 Dec 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Welcome to Buck School. Have a seat in the back next to the guy that says dinosaurs had no DNA.
Don't say that in Mississippi, Buck. You can't mention DNA to kids there. It's the law.

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 8 min MUQ2 44,710
How to solve racism (and sexism) once and for all 9 min John 8
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 19 min It aint necessari... 49,236
Bring back thd human sexuality forum? 50 min jonie061 8
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Annaleigh 105,649
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr VIKING 971,782
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr MUQ2 281,280
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr truth 646,781
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 9 hr taylorr 25
More from around the web