Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258039 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

#196730 Dec 28, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Hey IANS Just waving HI
And a hello back at you.
Skombolis wrote:
What do you think about the Rob Ford story?(Canadian mayor doing crack)
I love that story. I love political circus. Anthony Weiner, Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford.

I'm also enjoying the Phil Robertson (duckman) thing for the same reason.

I have discussed the Rob Ford thing a few times with Canadian friends int the past few weeks. They're not as amused. They're not used to circus news. But I come from the land of Michael Jackson, balloon boy, Tiger Woods and Octomom

Even so, some of the Canadians I have spoken to want to see his career saved. They don't like the scandal, but they liked his performance on the job.
Skombolis wrote:
The hilarious thing to me is his approval rating numbers basically haven't budged since before the scandal till now I don't know if that is a sign of the level of apathy when it comes to politicians and constituents today where there simply is no shock value left and people just don't care enough anymore to be bothered or if its that people are so desperate for someone to actually do a decent job that they will overlook basically any personal indiscretion. From what I have been reading, he has done a decent job despite ya know, the alcohol and crack binges, the prostitutes, the drinking and driving, the sexual harassment, etc, etc!
As I said and as you already know, a lot of people are pretty happy with his performance on the job, and are willing to overlook his lawlessness and indiscretions. I am too far removed from Canadian politics to have an opinion about his value as a mayor.
Skombolis wrote:
Truth be told i fall into the latter group. I really don't give a ratt's ass what they do in their personal life if they can get the job done. This whole 'integrity of the office' argument means nothing to me because I think it is practically non-existent. There are simply the politicians who have gotten caught and the ones who haven't. It's a sad social commentary but its the truth and I'd rather have a crack-smoking mayor that can balance the budget than a corrupt or inept one that can't.
Agreed. Still, there is something to said about the rule of law.
Skombolis wrote:
I am done expecting public officials to stand for something better. Or even to just be at the bottom end of the curve. I feel like most treat the government like their personal piggy bank and laugh in our faces while doing nothing they were elected to do and then smile and lie to our faces. To me, that is way worse than the Rob Fords.
Agree again.
Skombolis wrote:
I think he may actually win a re-election. Of course whether he lives to see the end of another term is another matter. But i am actually rooting for him to run again and win. I hope it sends a message to other politicians at just how low they have managed to lower the bar.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#196732 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, there you go. Make fun of the unemployed.
You'll be laughin' out the other end when I deliver your ass whoopin'.
Wear cotton. It'll be easier for them to cut off you at the emergency room.
Clint Eastwood in hospital, Dr trying to cut off his pants, they cost 49.95 let it bleed. Try this Buck,.
.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#196733 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesse Jackson is pissed off by anyone whom he can't extort money from.
Robertson incited nothing. GLAD saw an opening and took it.
Groups like them rely on such for their existence. The last thing they would want to see is the end of prejudice against gays. They love it. They live by it.
Rabblerousing for fun and profit. Became big business in the late 60's.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196736 Dec 28, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I would clarify that someone being forced to leave an area to get away from hate-speech is unacceptable to me
For example, someone goes to a park in the middle of a dozen families on picnic benches and just decides to go off on bigoted rants. There should be some sort of reasonable standard applied when it comes to autonomy. Someone shouldn't be able to pick a spot based on the idea of having an unwilling captive audience. I see nothing wrong with protecting someone's right to free speech and balancing that with someone's right not to have to listen it. Maybe something like restricting it within a certain distance from areas designated for public congregating where the exercise of free speech causes an unreasonable burden on those who don't wish to hear it. If someone has the choice to listen or keep walking on by then that is one thing. Or go over to listen or stay where they are. That is fine too. But someone shouldn't be able to stand outside a funeral or on a sidewalk by an outside restaurant patio or in between picnic benches or any type of situation that unreasonably restricts the autonomy of the public
Agree again.

An unbeliever can't go into a church on Sunday morning and take the podium to express his anti-theistic idea even though.those should not be suppressed at all times in all places. And we can limit what is shown to children.

Also, certain forms of expression should be limited, such as those that rely on psychological techniques .or money to unduly sway opinion. It's the merit of the argument that should matter, not how much money you can muster to make your idea prevail. Political campaigns supporting candidates or referenda, and lobbying to influence legislators come to mind.

It's a difficult subject.

But clearly,what freedom of expression is NOT is the protection of Duckman's job if his employers deem him somebody that they no longer want to be connected with. He's free to express himself, but there may be economic consequences,as Paula Deen discovered.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196737 Dec 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I think Buck's comment was tongue in cheek. We should make him pull himself up by his bootstraps and toe the line before we string him up. Crap, I just went all Tide while posting as River Tam.

[QUOTE who="Catcher1"]RR is a heel.
And a little insolent at times.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#196738 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesse Jackson is pissed off by anyone whom he can't extort money from.
Robertson incited nothing. GLAD saw an opening and took it.
Groups like them rely on such for their existence. The last thing they would want to see is the end of prejudice against gays. They love it. They live by it.
.. yes, GLAD will open any door ..

.. prejudice cannot be legitimized, especially when it's done in the name of religion ..

.. sometimes there's an overreaction by the GLBT Community because of past oppression ..

.. you know how that works, right? You and Fountain cruise for babes and women call 911 ..

.. as long as some churches take the bible literally, homosexual prejudice will never end ..

.. welcome to HL school ..

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196739 Dec 28, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a little pussy that runs around the house, and the basement at will, and quite often gets on my lap because she desires such.
Me too !!!

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196740 Dec 28, 2013
LCNin wrote:
<quoted text>
Some atheists hold a position by falsely claiming they have no position?
Have a Great Day
So, you were high?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196741 Dec 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're a loner, right Dave? I'll bet you have all of your urine for the past year in jars around the house, and a girl chained to a filthy mattress in your basement.
Dave Nelson wrote:
I have a little pussy
TMI
Dave Nelson wrote:
Remarkable human secularist compassion you display for all those lonely people, IANS.


I was referring to you and you alone.

My compassion for you is limited to not wanting to see you killed or tortured, which is the same I offer any sentient creature. You squandered any additional respect or affection I might have had for you with your hateful comments wishing me harm.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You die very much alone, IANS. Will be the loneliest experience you ever encountered.
And there you go again. I can only guess how you came to resent me so much, but whatever the reason, it is a reaction to things I posted not directed at or about you that you identified with, and chose to take personally and to be angry about. You resent me. Sorry, but that's all you, not me.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196742 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesse Jackson is pissed off by anyone whom he can't extort money from.
Robertson incited nothing. GLAD saw an opening and took it.
Groups like them rely on such for their existence. The last thing they would want to see is the end of prejudice against gays. They love it. They live by it.
You mean groups like Christian churches and the Tea Party and the entire population of Texas?

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196743 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think there is not an atheist belief system?
Who told you that?
Just curious.
I don't know all atheists.

The ones I do know have different beliefs but none of them include deities.

Who told you otherwise?

Just curious.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196744 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
3 metaphors in one sentence.
I'm practicing to be the Messiah when I turn 32. Times awastin.
LCNin

United States

#196745 Dec 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you were high?
Internet Atheists cannot come to terms with the fact that the claim of the nonexistence of deities is a belief.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196746 Dec 28, 2013
LCNin wrote:
Some atheists hold a position by falsely claiming they have no position?
We all hold positions. I just gave three of mine: one on free speech, one on Rob Ford, and one on Dave Nelson.

But perhaps you noticed that none of them had anything to do with atheism. Even my opinions about faith, the church and Christian doctrine, the Christian bible and the character of the Christian god described in it, and the like do not derive from my atheism. It's more the other way around. My opinions of those things derive from what I observe about them, and help confirm my choice to reject religion.

What do think you benefit by arguing that atheism is a philosophy? My worldview is informed by secular humanism, which is a robust epistemological, metaphysical and ethical system (rational skepticism/empiricism, naturalism/materialism, and rational, compassionate ethics, respectively). Atheism has nothing to say in any of those arenas, and is compatible with virtually any other ism apart from theism, including totalitarianism, militarism, feudalism, sadism, white supremacism, fascism, cannibalism, and even supernaturalism such as astrology as long as it doesn't include a god belief. Atheists can be any of those.

Why? Because atheism is nothing more than what results when a person says no thanks to god beliefs. It says nothing else about what the atheist actually does believe, and leaves room for any conceivable nontheistic worldview.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#196747 Dec 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
TMI
<quoted text>
I was referring to you and you alone.
My compassion for you is limited to not wanting to see you killed or tortured, which is the same I offer any sentient creature. You squandered any additional respect or affection I might have had for you with your hateful comments wishing me harm.
<quoted text>
And there you go again. I can only guess how you came to resent me so much, but whatever the reason, it is a reaction to things I posted not directed at or about you that you identified with, and chose to take personally and to be angry about. You resent me. Sorry, but that's all you, not me.
Wrong again, IANS.

Disappointed, not resent.

I am way past the point of resenting people. They are all idiots and can't help it, including moi.

You would understand if you get ever see past yourself.
LCNin

United States

#196748 Dec 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We all hold positions. I just gave three of mine: one on free speech, one on Rob Ford, and one on Dave Nelson.
But perhaps you noticed that none of them had anything to do with atheism. Even my opinions about faith, the church and Christian doctrine, the Christian bible and the character of the Christian god described in it, and the like do not derive from my atheism. It's more the other way around. My opinions of those things derive from what I observe about them, and help confirm my choice to reject religion.
What do think you benefit by arguing that atheism is a philosophy? My worldview is informed by secular humanism, which is a robust epistemological, metaphysical and ethical system (rational skepticism/empiricism, naturalism/materialism, and rational, compassionate ethics, respectively). Atheism has nothing to say in any of those arenas, and is compatible with virtually any other ism apart from theism, including totalitarianism, militarism, feudalism, sadism, white supremacism, fascism, cannibalism, and even supernaturalism such as astrology as long as it doesn't include a god belief. Atheists can be any of those.
Why? Because atheism is nothing more than what results when a person says no thanks to god beliefs. It says nothing else about what the atheist actually does believe, and leaves room for any conceivable nontheistic worldview.
Your opinions and generalizations are not unique.

Your beliefs are interesting!

If atheism is nothing that defensiveness is not needed?

Have a great day
LCNin

United States

#196749 Dec 28, 2013
Your opinions and generalizations are not unique.

Your beliefs are interesting!

If atheism is nothing **then** defensiveness is not needed?

Have a great day

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196750 Dec 28, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Robertson incited nothing. GLAAD saw an opening and took it. Groups like them rely on such for their existence. The last thing they would want to see is the end of prejudice against gays. They love it. They live by it.
That's pretty cynical, Buck. Why shouldn't gay people object to the things that Duckman said? Those ideas that the church propagates that have made closeting preferable for many people, and cause lives to be more difficult and more dangerous. So much unnecessary hiding, guilt, shame, self-loathing, suicidal ideation, and homophobic violence has resulted from Christian doctrine and the church that teaches it to people like Duckman. All decent people have a stake in resisting that.

If Christians want to teach these things to one another in their churches or around their dinner tables, nobody can do much about it except to educate the public otherwise..

But if they want to take these beliefs into the public arena - to GQ magazine, for example.- they should expect an energetic and angry backlash. Non-Christians have an equal right to try to guilt, shame and closet Christian homophobes.

And I'm pretty certain that when gays achieve social parity, organizations like GLAAD will disappear. Why wouldn't they?

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#196751 Dec 28, 2013
LCNin wrote:
<quoted text>
Internet Atheists cannot come to terms with the fact that the claim of the nonexistence of deities is a belief.
That sounds like a belief of your own.

You're free to believe anything you want. You have my permission.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#196752 Dec 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
And one ingredient of Godwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
I suggested a corollary that I called Gotbot's law in homage to Godwin, a fifth law of.posting on these theism/atheism threads:

IANS Fifth Law (Godbot’s law): As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a theist citing Stalin, Mao, and/or Pol Pot approaches one.

I think it's accurate.

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
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 10 min Seentheotherside 457
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Scaritual 87,943
Renzenberger : STEALING MILLIONS from their dri... (Feb '15) 39 min rocko 44
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr onemale 284,496
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Gods r Delusions ... 665,168
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr karl44 977,199
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Peace_Warrior 619,170
The Future of Politics in America 21 hr Insults Are Easier 176
More from around the web