Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#198711 Jan 3, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your she is actually a he or a combo of both. Ya'll should hook up.
She's definitely a she.

What makes you think we haven't?

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#198712 Jan 3, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
[laughing] I know what you mean.
I seriously doubt that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198713 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
This is what I have been curious about though and that is why you see this as a church issue and not a societal one
It's a societal issue powered by the church's doctrine. It's my belief that without the church's continual marginalization of gays, there would little to no homophobia in the culture. I don't consider it natural to feel homophobic - it's an idea hat needs to be taught and learned - and I don't see another source for the idea.

The exact same phenomenon is repeated as atheophobia. There is no natural reason to despise unbelievers - just the continual teaching of that attitude by the church multipled by billions of people over centuries. People simply don't despise unbelief until somebody tells them to.

If the church taught that atheists and gays were their god's elect - favored in its eyes - those two groups would beheld in high esteem. But instead, they are taught that they are both sinners and an abomination to their god, and as a result, both groups have lived in the closet as societal outcasts. That's not a coincidence to me.
Skombolis wrote:
I would pretty much guarantee if you hooked people up to a polygraph and asked them was it the church that convinced them to feel how they do about homosexuals or did they already feel that way anyway, you would have pretty much every answer that they had already felt that way
They might not know the origin of their prejudice. It need not have come directly from a sermon. It may have come from a parent that learned it from the church, or from a parent that learned it from a grandparent that learned it from the church.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198714 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
If anything, the Bible teaches don't judge hypocritically
What matters most is what the church teaches. As I have indicated before, one can teach almost anything or its opposite using the same bible according to which scriptures are given the most emphasis. If you are predisposed to hating gays because your father beat you nearly unconscious for playing dolls with your sister, you learned that gay was bad, and you go with the scriptures that support. What do you do when you get to the scripture that says love everybody? You deny that you are spreading hurt, and say how you love the sinner.

Where did this come from?:

"God didn't answer that prayer. Your sin is deplorable and unacceptable to God, and you will perish in Hell for your sick and twisted homosexuality. You are NOT a Christian. South Africa is becoming an immoral country just like America and both will perish as nations in due time from the rampant infestation of anti-Christian lifestyles and atheism sweeping away decent morals. You are a nasty person and you should be ashamed of yourself. "
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Skombolis wrote:
that God will judge those outside the church; especially in matters of sexual immorality, and to love thy neighbor, enemy, here? and brother. Now I realize why the perception is out there because what person is going to say "I'm bigoted against gay people" when they are in a 75% Christian country and can say "It's a sin"? Of course people are going to go with because it's a sin.
There you go. That's it right there. That's the source of homophobia - a 75-(historically)95% Christian country is taught that homosexuality is bad and their god frowns on it. Wheres the mystery here?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198715 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
I would also guarantee even if there was zero mention of homosexuality in the Bible, people would still use it for the same reason and point to verses like "go forth and multiply" and "Adam and Eve". Bottom line is people rationalize or use things to justify their positions (even if its not actually following the Bible correctly) for self-serving reasons.
Agreed.That's why when you say that the bible teaches this or that, it doesn't matter. What people say matters most, and if the bible can also be used to support the opposite attitude, that opposite attitude will be the one that is actually taught.
Skombolis wrote:
They want to look more righteous in their objection. So while Christianity may provide a better excuse, even if it was gone do you think it would make any difference?
Yes. I strongly believe that if the church simply ceased teaching that atheists and gays were disfavored by its god, that the prejudice for both groups would die down gradually to nothing at all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198716 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
People form their opinions about homosexuality from their parents, friends, the playground, movies, songs, etc way way before they are old enough for it to be a subject talked about through faith.
Yes. The attitude is in the air. But why? What fuels it?

I have never gotten one Christian ever to even admit that the church might be even part of the problem. Perhaps that shouldn't be surprising. They are also taught that their church is good, and guided by a good god.

But it shows me that they are not the best backboards to bounce this idea off of. Anybody else would agree that the church is at a major part of the problem, or might be.
Skombolis wrote:
And people normally overcome these prejudices through life experience
I disagree. If they overcome them while remaining Christians, it will be because they are also fair and compassionate, and simply choose to embrace the love another parts of the bible in preference to the hellfire part.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198717 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
Gay marriage would never pass if Christians were not voting for it.
Gay marriage would have been the law centuries ago if the church didn't teach that homosexuality was an abomination to its god. Proposition 8 in California failed because of a huge campaign funded by the Mormons.

"Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here. Frank Schubert was the chief strategist for Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California.“We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban. The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote ... interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics...

I don't see what's so controversial about my claim. There it is. You say that gay marriage wouldn't pass without Christian votes. But those are Christians that weren't captured by the church's homophobic element. The part that was led to its defeat in California. You point to the one group of Christians and praise them as essential, but ignore the group that rallied to cause the proposition to lose.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198718 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
And while there are some places like Wesburo Baptist Church that unfortunately use the pulpit to teach hate, the reality is even then they are either preaching to the choir or they aren't.


That congregation is extreme, but illustrates very nicely how readily people assimilate the dominant attitude in their church. Those people have heard an extreme message and are extreme.
Skombolis wrote:
So do you think people become anti-gay because of the church or do you think they already were and some of those of those people simply use religion as justification because it sounds better?
I think that virtually all homophobia in the West derives ultimately from a very popular bible that calls it a sin, and a church that teaches that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198719 Jan 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
One question that comes to mind, I-man. With no belief in an afterlife, how do you avoid deep pessimism?
I don't know why I would be pessimistic about being mortal. I am grateful to have lived.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198720 Jan 4, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
I get that a lot as well. One need not be a homosexual to care about human rights.
I agree. That is the default position: no prejudice for people according to the gender they are attracted to, and a sense of compassion and justice for everybody. As I indicated, you have to be taught otherwise. The theists posting on Topix give us a good cross-section of the population at large. Most defend the church's teaching. And almost all objection to that comes from unbelievers.

Sure, some Christians are fair, and some unbelievers are bigots. But the bulk of homophobia I see is either justified by scripture ("It's a sin") or is just some vague bad feeling ("Ew, that's gross") that I believe originates with the church.

In any event, whether the church is responsible for all of it, most of it, or just a large part of it, I support active and vocal opposition to what it does, and many Christians typically tell me how sincere they are, how little hatred they feel, and that they consider my attitude bigotry. I don't expect the faithful to ever see it any other way. They are loyal to the church.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#198721 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. That is the default position: no prejudice for people according to the gender they are attracted to, and a sense of compassion and justice for everybody. As I indicated, you have to be taught otherwise. The theists posting on Topix give us a good cross-section of the population at large. Most defend the church's teaching. And almost all objection to that comes from unbelievers.

Sure, some Christians are fair, and some unbelievers are bigots. But the bulk of homophobia I see is either justified by scripture ("It's a sin") or is just some vague bad feeling ("Ew, that's gross") that I believe originates with the church.

In any event, whether the church is responsible for all of it, most of it, or just a large part of it, I support active and vocal opposition to what it does, and many Christians typically tell me how sincere they are, how little hatred they feel, and that they consider my attitude bigotry. I don't expect the faithful to ever see it any other way. They are loyal to the church.
Only the delusion matters Teddy.

I hold the "church" responsible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198723 Jan 4, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
So I'm trying to think of a situation that technically would be considered immoral but still the right thing to do.
Those are synonyms. Once you consider it wrong, you consider it immoral.
Skombolis wrote:
Maybe something like I know for a fact someone molested his step-kid. But I know because I saw video that was illegally set up and if I saw that the case will be thrown out. So instead on the stand I lie and say I saw the crime in person. It was immoral to lie but I know if he goes free he will continue to abuse this kid. Maybe something like that I guess
Telling the truth is a high moral principle, but not the highest. Love, compassion and justice all outrank it. Generally they are not in conflict - you are not forced to choose between honesty and love or honesty and justice.

But it's not hard to conceive of situations where they are in conflict. There is the famous example of somebody harboring Jews in the basement when the Nazis come knocking, and lying to them to prevent torture or murder. In such a case, the higher ranking moral principle overrules the lesser one, and lying becomes the moral choice, meaning the right thing to do..

Here's a woman who both lied and committed adultery to save Jewish children during the Holocaust
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ultimate-Questi...

Did you see my post to Tide about moral theory?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

The deontologist says that it is moral to follow the maxim to always tell the truth whatever the outcome. He is rule oriented. The consequentialist bases his choices on outcome. His rules for a situation are relative. He might choose honesty here and lying there if that is what promotes a higher good than honesty. The deontologist would condemn the woman in the story, and the consequentialist would commend her willingness to degrade herself and risk reprisal for those children.

I'm in the second camp. People matter, not blind obedience to rules.

And this brings us back to the bible, which is deontologial in nature. When it says that thou shalt not steal, it doesn't add, "unless your children are hungry." A faith centered moral philosophy is rule oriented. The rational ethics of secular humanism are outcome oriented. We write the rules guided by reason and compassion to try to effect preferred outcomes.

But that's exactly what you would expect from a group that sees itself as the highest moral authority, which is in contrast with the group that sees a god in that role.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#198724 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know why I would be pessimistic about being mortal. I am grateful to have lived.
Agreed!

Buck is pissed off that he finds life "nasty and brutish". Yet doesn't have enough faith in his deity's alleged promise of an afterlife paradise to go there ASAP.

Maybe he is afraid that he is most likely going to burn forever in a presumed Hell.

"If the room is on fire and the door is blocked, jump out the goddam window or STFU and die like a man ! " - ME 3:29

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198725 Jan 4, 2014
Buck wrote:
One question that comes to mind, I-man. With no belief in an afterlife, how do you avoid deep pessimism?
Catcher1 wrote:
I was about to reply to your question, but I'll leave it to IANS, who I am sure shares my perspective and can articulate it much better. It's all about appreciation of life itself. It's a wonder, and more than enough for me.
Thanks.

I didn't give much of a response, however. The question is a hard one to answer, but it fits into the same category as accepting the other undesirable truths of life, assuming that mortality of the mind is a truth.

How do you avoid pessimism about aging, or having to work, or the loss of a loved one? If it's presented as an immutable truth and not an option, you assimilate the idea and go on without much trouble. If given a choice to believe that you might go on thinking forever, you might never learn to accept your finiteness, just as if you thought that there was a way to avoid aging, you might not accept that truth without a struggle.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#198726 Jan 4, 2014
Not ALL Churches are anti-gay:

"Other Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as sinful or immoral, and may bless such unions and consider them marriages. These include the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ.,[24] all German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in EKD,[25] all Swiss reformed churches, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Church of Denmark, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Iceland and the Church of Norway. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland also allows prayer for same-sex couples.[26] In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church was founded specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. The Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (GAAAP), traces its roots back to 1980, making it the oldest LGBT-affirming Apostolic Pentecostal denomination in existence.[27] Another such organization is the Affirming Pentecostal Church International, currently the largest affirming Pentecostal organization, with churches in the US, UK, Central and South America, Europe and Africa."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198728 Jan 4, 2014
Oops! Forgot the link to the song:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198729 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sorry, Dave, but since we're discussing wisdom. and since you feel free to be candid about me, I'm sure you won't mind if I return the favor and tell you that you are neither kind nor wise. You are fool. This post of yours is the evidence of it yet again, as was your insipid definition of wisdom a few posts back. You are a horrible judge of people, most especially yourself. You somehow miss the obvious. Evidence doesn't matter to you, or you can't recognize it when it goes by you. Buck and I agree on almost nothing, and yet we have each been kind to the other. But you're in a coma. You're mentally sluggish. So you just miss that, and make inane comments instead.Your judgment is horrible, And I can't remember a single constructive sentence from you commending or encouraging somebody else ever. You give nothing. Any time you'd like some more feedback like this, just let me know by giving me one of your nasty little critiques of me, OK? Or, if you have enough intelligence and self-respect to recognize the consequences of these exchanges for you, maybe you can just put that ugly habit of yours to bed altogether. Your choice. You really don't need anybody pointing out your failings. I promise you that you are the loser. It's remarkable that you haven't discerned that yourself yet.

So what do you say?
Dave Nelson wrote:
yawn
LOL. You never disappoint.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198730 Jan 4, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor IANS. He gets on his soapbox and rails against the system, religions, or whatever or whoever currently disturbs him.
Your lack of insight and self-awareness are epic, bitter man. You are constantly whining about "Topix atheists."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#198731 Jan 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Rejecting god claims makes us atheists. Those that acknowledge that are agnostic atheists. We can only rule out a few gods - the "married bachelor" type gods. They are as impossible as married bachelor leprechauns. But who can rule out bachelor gods or leprechauns, married gods or leprechauns, or even bachelor gods gay marrying bachelor leprechauns. Sure, it sounds a little far fetched to me, too, but how do you rule it out?
Freebird USA wrote:
My simple objection was if one makes a definitive statement, the burden of proof supporting that claim rests with the proclaimer.
I would agree with that, assuming that he is trying to convince others. If he is content to have his words regarded as his personal opinion, there is no burden to act at all.

Just to be clear, what I mean by rejecting is not necessarily calling a claim wrong, but not willing to accept it as right. If one is reserving judgment pending sufficient evidence, one rejects the claim. It means that I don't believe you - or I don't believe you yet - because you haven't made your case, not that you are wrong.

Have you heard somebody ask, "Are you calling me a liar?" when his words are not accepted? The answer is "No. You might be right or wrong and not be a liar. I just don't accept that you are right yet."

I like to give different words different meanings when useful. The way I use the language is to acknowledge a middle ground between belief and disbelief (saying that somebody is wrong) that I call unbelief - saying that I don't believe them yet.

There's a similar middle ground regarding trust. If I don't know you, I don't trust you, but I am not saying that you will turn out to be untrustworthy. I might reject some offer you make because the trust is not there yet, but I am not calling you a crook when I do.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#198732 Jan 4, 2014
A witness that presents obviously contradictory testimony may be considered unreliable. Said witness risks being accused of perjury. A convicted perjurer's testimony is not to be considered valid in future cases.

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) 23 min nanoanomaly 980,107
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Aura Mytha 100,145
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr Peter Ross 445,651
Any hot teen girl wanna email me (Mar '12) 4 hr idk 8
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr RCC Biblical Beas... 670,271
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr NIST 286,454
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 6 hr WildWeirdWillie 184,287
More from around the web