Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192768 Dec 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Non sequitur, but you may like this:
California English:
1. "There's a Sigalert for the carpool lane on the 5 south."
Sigalerts are messages issued by the California Highway Patrol when there's an accident or anything else blocking multiple lanes of traffic, meaning that notorious California traffic is even more horrendous than usual (see also: Carmageddon).
2. "It takes 20 minutes, depending on traffic."
People from California say this all the time to describe their location, and it's barely ever true. 30 minutes just sounds way too far, and 15 minutes is unrealistic.
3. "June Gloom."
Beginning in June (or even at the end of May if it's a particularly unlucky year), a wave of foggy weather invades coastal areas of California and ruins everyone's beach plans. June Gloom/Grey May/No-Sky July are southern Californian terms used to describe a weather pattern that brings low-lying clouds and mist during the early summer months.
4. "It's pretty gnarly out, bro. It's double overhead today!"
Surfer culture has had a huge influence on the way Californians speak. You may hear surfers, skaters, and snowboarders talking about "shredding the gnar," but even those who refrain from participating in extreme sports tend to use the word "gnarly" to describe things that are either extremely good or extremely bad.You'll also hear words like "epic," and of course, "dude." Waves that are "double overhead" are not meant for the faint of heart.
5. "I'm stoked."
Though Merriam-Webster defines "stoke" as "to stir or add fuel to (something that is burning)" this expression has absolutely nothing to do with building a fire, at least in a literal sense. Californians are stoked when they're totally, completely exhilarated about something.
6. "The industry."
Vague references to "the industry" might be a little confusing to people not from southern California. When someone says their husband works in "the industry," they don't mean he's an industrial worker, though he may belong to a different kind of labor union. Actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, art directors, film editors, and talent agents are just a few people who make up the huge entity that is "the industry."
7. "This burrito is dank."
"Dank" is a prime example of a term whose meaning has changed from negative to positive thanks to slang usage. Though Merriam-Webster defines it as meaning "wet and cold in a way that is unpleasant," as in a dank basement, the word was adopted by stoner culture to describe high-quality marijuana.
You forgot "Does this ID look real?"

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192769 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

So it was the American Constitution that was the basis for opposing slavery. I guess that slave owners finally read it, and said, "Oops! Our bad!" when they got to the part that said that equality came from a god. Is that it?
No, that's not it.

You should educate yourself.

What actually happened is enough force was brought to bear on the subject to convince people that the god-endowed rights enshrined in the Declaration applied to blacks.

Lincoln, in his rebuttal to the Dred Scott decision, said it clearly on June 26, 1857, in Springfield Illinois:

"The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, as it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack."

More, just to illustrate the brilliant prose of Lincoln:

"They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is."
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#192770 Dec 16, 2013
No, because intelligent design is a fabrication.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot "Does this ID look real?"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192771 Dec 16, 2013
Jim wrote:
This is your church fighting against civil rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cxQomiMHyJ0XX You can't skirt around history to suit your religion, at some point you must address the facts.
An excellent contribution to the discussion. It puts the claim that a god belief is in any way conducive to rights or equality to bed. King's Christianity was obviously not the basis for the part he played in the civil rights movement. We saw in that video what Christianity's part was.

Although King referred to a "gospel of freedom," there is no such thing. Other clergy responded that what he was doing was un-Christian. There is only the gospel of submission. Blessed are the meek, not the uppity.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192772 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good examples.
The idea that a god is the basis for rights makes people more hateful to whomever they believe their god hates, and gives them justification for oppressing those types of people deemed to be outside of their god's favor
If we waited for the religious to come around, we'd be waiting a long time. It's secular, rational ethics that pave the way for righting the wrongs of ancient, bigoted faith based ethical systems.
You and Gym promulgate a bald-faced lie.

The civil rights movement began in christian churches, led most prominently by an ordained evangelical preacher, who declared the principle of god-endowed rights.

Earlier, against slavery, it was the seminary-trained leaders like Henry Ward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Wilberforce, Elijah Lovejoy, and on and on.

Secular humanism had not one goddamned thing to do with it.

You are up against recorded history. I can't wish you luck.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192773 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence is there for that?
Look at the evidence against that idea. Do you know which kind of people it is that have been arguing for equal protection for gays under the (marriage) law, and what kind have been fighting them? It's the ones who believe in a god that fight against equality, and they do with intense religious fervor in fear of retribution from that god that has no respect for equality, and whom they fear will remove its protection from America if they offer it. This is what Jerry Falwell said after 911:
"I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' "
<quoted text>
This is how Pat Robertson responded to Falwell:
"Well, I totally concur ... We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say,'Why does this happen?' It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, we are vulnerable because we are a free society."
Injecting gods into the mix doesn't lead to equality as you suggest. The evidence suggests that the opposite is true.
The gay issue is not an equal rights issue.

Gays have the same rights as straights.

That issue is one of inventing a new right - to marry the same sex.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192774 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent contribution to the discussion. It puts the claim that a god belief is in any way conducive to rights or equality to bed. King's Christianity was obviously not the basis for the part he played in the civil rights movement. We saw in that video what Christianity's part was.
Although King referred to a "gospel of freedom," there is no such thing. Other clergy responded that what he was doing was un-Christian. There is only the gospel of submission. Blessed are the meek, not the uppity.
Nonsense.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192775 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent contribution to the discussion. It puts the claim that a god belief is in any way conducive to rights or equality to bed.
Realizing there was racism in churches puts the issue to bed?

And that's an excellent contribution?

You and Gym come off as not very bright here.

I know Gym is stupid. I hold you in higher esteem, and will chalk it up to your blind hatred of religion.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192776 Dec 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that there's some historical significance in this endowed by creator mumbojumbo.
But seriously, Buck.
Surely you don't think there is a deity out there for real.
Bottom line, and our protection from arbitrary rule, as I see it, is the Constitution--what it states, what protections it provides, and how it's interpreted along the way by those entrusted with that task by the Constitution itself.
No deity has any control over anything in the real world, and you know it.
I thought you were an atheist.
Jim

UK

#192777 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Gym promulgate a bald-faced lie.
The civil rights movement began in christian churches, led most prominently by an ordained evangelical preacher, who declared the principle of god-endowed rights.
Earlier, against slavery, it was the seminary-trained leaders like Henry Ward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Wilberforce, Elijah Lovejoy, and on and on.
Secular humanism had not one goddamned thing to do with it.
You are up against recorded history. I can't wish you luck.
You cannot hide what your religion did to civil rights, no matter how hard your try.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192778 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It does with me. Calling the same entity both A and non-A at the same time in the same way makes it a fiction.
<
You can call God any letter of the alphabet you want, that doesn't change anything about Him.

It only expresses your opinion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192779 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so modest, Buck. You're ALWAYS in awe of yourself.
Can't argue with that one.

I'm also in awe of my modesty.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192780 Dec 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
The slave owners were white Christians.
There was also black, African slavers.

There was also Spanish slavers.

Nearly every culture in our history has had slavery.

Don't limit your knowledge to hatred and bias of white Christians.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192781 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
And like cigarettes, quitting is the far better solution.
Like any drugs, right?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192782 Dec 16, 2013
[QUOTE who="Thinking"

No, because intelligent design is a fabrication.
<quoted text>

[/QUOTE]

So intelligent design does not exist?

I did not know that.

Have you told this to design engineers?

Are you saying they do not design, or that they design, but are not intelligent?

Anyways, thanks for the new information. I'm always eager to learn.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192783 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Individual freedom is a secondary concept to creation by God. Then other rights are secondary to that.
So you say, but history says otherwise. It doesn't work out that way. From Jim's video link on MLK at
:

"How can someone who professes to worship a god and a savior who saw all people as being equal - who created all people equal, a Christ who died for all people - how could these servants of that god and of that Christ do anything other than join in the fight for civil rights?"

Individual freedom seems to be an idea that flourishes better in minds uncontaminated by religious notions than in those with a god belief.
Buck Crick wrote:
That intent is as clear as ink on paper can make it: "... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."
The ink on that paper doesn't do a very good job of enforcing rights, does it? As always, only people can give one another rights. The ones with the god beliefs were the ones fighting against equality.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#192784 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Regarding items like separation of powers, checks and balances - these were derived directly from a religious view that the unchecked heart of man, and thus his government, would move toward power and subjugation of others. They referred to it as "the depravity of man". The most cited authority on this was Montesquieu, who endorsed 3 separate but equal branches. He based it on Jeremiah 17:9.
That's Christian disinformation that originated with a man named William Federer in a book entitled, "America's God and Country." From http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/montesquieu....

"According to Federer, the Jeremiah passage provides the motive for separated powers ... The problem with Federer's argument is that it is not true. Montesquieu develops his argument for separation of powers in Book XI of The Spirit of the Laws, and nowhere in this book does he reference Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any other book of the Bible. On the contrary, Montesquieu's examples in this section are all drawn from contemporary European and pre-Christian Roman and Germanic history. Nor can we find references to Isaiah and Jeremiah elsewhere in the book."

This is Christian (historical) revisionism, and you are serving as its vector uncritically. After a few years of exposure to this kind of thing, one comes to know the Christian's motivations and scholastic values, and just tunes them out.

Trying to give god beliefs credit for anything constructive will be difficult for you.
Buck Crick wrote:
Incidentally, you mentioned a "right to privacy". The founders considered no such right, and did not include it anywhere.
You don't see privacy as a god given natural right then? You may be correct. It certainly isn't a biblical principle. Humanists fixed that - for awhile.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#192785 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
If you say that Tom IS a married bachelor, then Tom does not exist.
You are a married bachelor.

Now, you don't exist.

Is that how this works?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192786 Dec 16, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No, because intelligent design is a fabrication.
<quoted text>
There are no designs that are done with intelligence.

Thanks for the info.

By the way, are you the guy that said dinosaurs had no DNA, or was that Blue Baboon?

No reason, just curious.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#192787 Dec 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say, but history says otherwise. It doesn't work out that way. From Jim's video link on MLK at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cxQomiMHyJ0XX :
"How can someone who professes to worship a god and a savior who saw all people as being equal - who created all people equal, a Christ who died for all people - how could these servants of that god and of that Christ do anything other than join in the fight for civil rights?"
Individual freedom seems to be an idea that flourishes better in minds uncontaminated by religious notions than in those with a god belief.
<quoted text>
The ink on that paper doesn't do a very good job of enforcing rights, does it? As always, only people can give one another rights. The ones with the god beliefs were the ones fighting against equality.
Red Herring, and also nonsense.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 32 min Chalupa Batgirl 37,005
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 38 min Aura Mytha 988,483
672,000 gallons of oil spilled off Louisiana co... 44 min Erratic Mind 1
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 2 hr RealityHurts 185
TRUMP OBAMA BUSH - Next Stage in a Big Con Game 3 hr Johnny 8
Does anyone else hate being around white women? 3 hr Doctor REALITY 31
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Seentheotherside 688,733
More from around the web