Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#194993 Dec 22, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I call bs. I am not having a problem nor do I call people that disagree and say so hate. I call telling people they are a waste of flesh and like air pollution hate. What bothers me is when you see it from Ben or whatever his name is today, say nothing and rank on Christians. And I don't think your son is a pervert, I think he is caught up in preversion. I do apologize as I do think I said that once concerning homosexuals. I would say if a Christian pastor takes money that comes into a church for tithes and was to gamble it he is also caught up in perversion.
You have selective memory Chris...you only remember what aides your agenda against me.

I think that "BEN" or whatever he calls himself now will see it differently...I think he will tell you that I have spoke out against some of his posts quite frequently. If RR is honest...I have often taken his side when it comes to the remarks about him being a child abuser and a wife beater.

Even your recollection concerning the usage of "pervert" is selective. Remember when I asked you if your wife was a "pervert" when she was a practicing homosexual...your answer was "YES".

I don't really care if you think that homosexual act is a "perversion"...we wouldn't be having this conversation if that was what you said.

Tell me...how many times have you spoke up against a fellow "brother or sister"? I know...I know...you don't see those posts because you don't read everything. Strange how you happen to read all of mine when I disagree with a Christian...but never the ones where I disagree with any of the non-Christians. Maybe you just forget about those because they don't fit in with your agenda.

Oh...one of your "brothers" thinks that all homosexuals should be locked up in prison for the rest of their lives...you must agree with that because you never spoke up.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#194994 Dec 22, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame. Keep trying though, you might learn something :-)
I have learned something.

I learned you are a hate-filled, lying bigot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#194995 Dec 22, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
God depicted does not change.
That's obviously untrue.
lightbeamrider wrote:
What do you know about spiritual gifts?
I know what they are said to be, and how one is said to come by them. I also know when somebody didn't get them.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Faith and reason are not polar opposites.
Actually, they are. Fideism is the epistemological position that, "religious truth is a matter of faith and cannot be established by reason."

“Fideism is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

The methods of faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#194996 Dec 22, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Rape and slavery wrong? To quote you,''Is this objective morality you are talking about?'' You have no objective basis for your claim given your atheism. Hypocrite.
How am I the hypocrite? It is you that claims that his subjective choice to believe that the words of one of the world's holy books constitute an objective moral philosophy.

And yes, rape and slavery are wrong.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Seems you cannot comprehend the natural consequences of your assumptions. To quote Buck (which you never answered) Is your statement, rape and slavery wrong objectively true?
To quote Buck? Buck repudiated your claim of objectively true moral values, preferring words like transcendent and independent
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

I agree with him. Moral truths transcend the individual, whose opinions are maximally subjective, and inhere in the consensus of the collective, which still retains an air of subjectivity, but approaches objectivity relative to the opinions of the individual.

Maybe you need to define objectively true.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#194997 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I provided you with several examples of scripture authorizing nonconsensual sexual relations with women.
lightbeamrider wrote:
No you did not. You assume rape because of your jaundiced view of Scripture. Wives had conjugal rights. That means husbands had obligations to have sex with their wives. Females were given 30 days to morn and then the husband went into them and there was a transfer from slave to wife which was an elevation in status.
Maybe you need to define rape as well. To me, rape is forced, nonconsensensual sex. Would you concede that your bible is filled with examples of your god authorizing or commanding that? How about this one:

Deuteronomy 21:10-11 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#194998 Dec 22, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Slavery was an act of mercy as opposed to killing them off.
Seriously? This is what I mean about faith deforming your thinking.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Now you add that some rapes were not OK, and that in other cases, if the men married the women, all was fine.
lightbeamrider wrote:
You, on the other hand, obsess over things that went on 3000 years ago and exercise indifference towards arranged marriages today?
Weren't you talking about objective moral truths and an unchanging god a few paragraphs back? Now you want to sweep you want to call references to practices authorized or commanded 3000 years ago irrelevant.
lightbeamrider wrote:
You do not really care about slavery or arranged marriages. Your real agenda has to do with ranting against Scripture
You are correct if you are claiming that my purpose is to expose the hypocrisy and moral failings of your scripture and its "objective" moral truths rather than to argue against slavery. And I have not been discussing arranged marriages at all.
Jim

Stanmore, UK

#194999 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I have learned something.
I learned you are a hate-filled, lying bigot.
Takes your creationist troll arse and go home buck, you have no evidence and are a fraud.
Jim

Stanmore, UK

#195000 Dec 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Its true , youre an idiot and YOU have no evidence. Now control your outbursts , you histrionic beaver toothed thespian.
Desperate troll idiot with no evidence of the god he lies about.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#195001 Dec 22, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Joel is a rich sonofabitch snake oil merchant.
And as for Paul, let's wait a while and see.
Then we can make a full assessment.
bwhahahaha, you jelous little bitch. All your globetrotting, bath houses, pickles, horseback riding and fine dining etc amounts to almost nothing. The Osteens make you look like an unproductive little gnat on Gods wonderful earth. They actually produce something and have a good effect on the world. Schnoogly

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195002 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
But they come by it honestly. They are taught that their god loved us so much he built a hell, staffed it with a monster, crucified somebody, and said that if we didn't worship him, he'd keep us alive after death and torture us, too - forever. How's that for perfect love?
lightbeamrider wrote:
We are warned in advance. Hell should come as no surprise. You sell your birthright for a single meal. Your choice. Don't blame God for what you bring on yourself.
Once again I ask, is that a rebuttal? How does being warned or allowing my own damnation not make being threatened with torture or subjected to it not hate?

I say that you are very confused about moral values, beginning with calling them objective, assuming that they need to be even if they could be, confusing love with hate, and defending rape, slavery and now torture in the defense of an obviously cruel and immoral book god.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#195003 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I have learned something.
I learned you are a hate-filled, lying bigot.
Good for you lil buddy!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195004 Dec 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
Would quality time with a copious nymphet be construed as a sale?
It might be just a rental.
Jim

Stanmore, UK

#195005 Dec 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> bwhahahaha, you jelous little bitch. All your globetrotting, bath houses, pickles, horseback riding and fine dining etc amounts to almost nothing. The Osteens make you look like an unproductive little gnat on Gods wonderful earth. They actually produce something and have a good effect on the world. Schnoogly
Science denial will be outlawed in future civilisations, better clean your mind of this religious garbage quickly.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#195006 Dec 22, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Desperate troll idiot with no evidence of the god he lies about.
You always post the truth about yourself. Youre a desperate troll with no evidence and you lie about God. The billions of faithful have evidence and put their money where their faith is. They do a lot of good works, notwithstanding any problems due to the human condition.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195007 Dec 22, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Dicotyledons (typically flowering plant seeds) have sets of cells called "photophiles", which grow up, and "photophobes", which grow down. "Phobe" does not necessarily mean "fear".
Good example. Here's another:

"Lipophobicity, also sometimes called lipophobia (from the Greek lipos "fat" and phobos "fear"), is a chemical property of chemical compounds which means "fat rejection", literally "fear of fat". Lipophobic compounds are those not soluble in lipids or other non-polar solvents. From the other point of view, they do not absorb fats."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipophobicity

Are you familiar with the variety of semantic fallacy called the root fallacy? From http://dradney.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/word-...

"The Root Fallacy: presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. That is, the meaning of a word is determined by its etymology. This fallacy also relates to finding the meaning of a word by dissecting the meaning of each of its parts and then defining it as the sum of the parts."

If interested, you can look at http://kenschenck.com/wordbenefits.html for a cursory overview of the various types of semantic fallacies - the root fallacy, the etymological fallacy, the one-meaning fallacy, the lexical fallacy, and the word-concept fallacy.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#195008 Dec 22, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
I read everything Rosa, everything. This is just a tiny piece of a very large sh!t cake, regardless of source there are hundreds of stories just like it. Religion infects everything. It is what it is, discrediting a source and trying to make it look like something else is futile, it is everywhere.
From christians burning witches in PNG this very year to the pope trying to say homosexuals are the pedophiles, these are the consequences of the worst thing ever to have happened in the history of mankind, religion, the judeochristiancatholicislamtho usandsofcults one.
They demonize human nature then are shocked when their 'sins' become rotted from the inside and are exposed, too fckucking bad. People who endorse pedophiles, wife abusers, cheaters and rapists have no business telling anyone how to live.
Nit picking won't ever change the facts of what goes on in this world or the church's part in it.
.. for many Christians on this thread, Jesus is just a sock puppet for their ego. They slip Him on and off as needed ..

.. it's difficult to critique the psychological damage caused by religion, a stone wall has been built around the castle and a moat surrounds it. On one hand, we read, "You're a godless sick deviant going to hell," then "I'll pray for you." Talk about a mixed message ..

.. true spirituality begins with wonderment, not theological rules ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195009 Dec 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's freedom, baby. Whether it be the Phil guy expressing his views or the super gays expressing their views at the gays parades. So long as it's peaceful, it's all good.
I agree with you this time, but you've departed from the position that Duckman's freedoms were violated.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#195010 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to define rape as well. To me, rape is forced, nonconsensensual sex. Would you concede that your bible is filled with examples of your god authorizing or commanding that? How about this one:
Deuteronomy 21:10-11 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."
To the victor go the spoils

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195011 Dec 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think he should have told his superiors in advance, only because he was teaching at a Catholic school and obviously a gay teacher goes against their beliefs. He didn't respect their beliefs but expected them to respect his.
I don't respect their beliefs either.

And it wasn't an issue of his beliefs, but of his biology and psychology.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195012 Dec 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, of course not. I know they're gonna have sex. I know it's a sin, they know it's a sin. I just want them to be absolutely certain about the woman before they get married. I think I might be mixing a little secularism with Christianity. I have no doubt I'll be answerable for it when my judgement comes.
I think you're mixing a little reason and compassion in with dogma, which is a good thing.

The doctrine of sin - the arbitrary pronouncement and faith based acceptance of an activity as being in conflict with a perfect god and its objectively true moral values - is really a terrible thing. It's got you doing ethical calisthenics in an effort to be a loving father to your sons.

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) 3 min No Surprize 88,358
Should I marry my gf who is pregnant with my ch... 44 min Choicerocks 10
"Doctor REALITY" is FOS 1 hr Joe Puddin 1
Division Of Cold Dead Hands 1 hr say no2gun grabbers 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr candlesmell 703,788
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr Tellthetruth 996,533
Fischbach army depot-NATO site 67 (Mar '07) 6 hr Larry W-Ours 489