Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255176 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.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#199271 Jan 5, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Technically you are right. It is mostly due to stupidity. Unprotected sex with strangers.
<quoted text> Prove it. You claim about the Catholic church being responsible because of its view on contraceptives is outrageous. Cite your scholarly source to back your claim. The source for HIV was in the MSM category.
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite...
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized as a new disease in the United States when clinicians in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco began to see young, homosexual men with Pneumocystis carinii (now P jiroveci) pneumonia (PCP) and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), unusual diseases for young adults not known to be immunosuppressed. The first report in the medical literature that alerted the world to this new immunodeficiency syndrome appeared in June of 1981 and described five young, homosexual men in Los Angeles with PCP.(1) That observation was followed a few weeks later by a report of 26 homosexual men, from both New York and San Francisco, with KS (four of whom also had PCP).(2)
----------
It spread to women from men in the MSM category
<quoted text> Grow up. Stop using childish tactics. That is if you want to be taken seriously.
<quoted text> Do you suffer from mood swings? What makes you think i have any interest in cleaning your house as you put it? Never mind, i am losing interest. Its just not worth the effort anymore.
The exit door is over there, on the right.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#199272 Jan 5, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes. <quoted text> You do realize MSM is the source in the United States. From that point it has spread.
<quoted text> Like you cherry pick my posts?
<quoted text> They will pay the price for their ignorance in spades.
The exit door, LB, the exit door.

Since: Jan 11

United States

#199273 Jan 5, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
I guess that is another thing i need clarity on. I assumed for the purpose of discussion, the choices made were done so under an evolved social-moral contract where the individual is given the right to use their own judgement when disregarding the rule-book.
If someone is still under the old contract, disregarding the rule-book and saying the ends justifies the means could get people in a lot trouble and there is a lot of things they wouldn't do. And i would be less inclined to worry about who may be throwing the rule-book out personally so long as there is still the law
As highly social animals, we benefit from the ability to create rule structures that we feel obligated to follow. We also have the ability to reason, which is more developed in some individuals, which can create conflicts between what the group thinks is best and what the individual thinks is best.

Having the structure in place is definitely a good thing, but the more we treat it like an absolute, the worse off we are. We need to allow progress to take place. Individuals that think they know better than the group, who act on their convictions, provide the necessary data to either confirm or deny the value of our structures. It's my opinion that we witness far too much confirmation, but less than in the past.
Skombolis wrote:
I completely agree. Slavery used to be legal. It was flawed moral thinking that allowed for flawed laws
It's my opinion that incarceration for drug use is a kind of slavery. We aren't free of it yet.
Skombolis wrote:
I agree there is almost never moral absolutes.
(although to be honest I can't think of a situation where willing infidelity would be moral)
But again for this example it comes back to choices. A person can always suck it up and deal with their own issues instead of lie and cheat. The cost/benefit for them may have made it worth it.
Some people can't always suck it up and deal with their own issues. For some, they consider that impossible, whether it is or not. That belief limits their available options in a very real way.
Skombolis wrote:
I am sure a loving spouse wouldn't claim the same.
How can you be sure?

Also, I never limited the situation to include only loving spouses. I would imagine that justifiable cheating happens most often in loveless marriages, or otherwise unhealthy ones.
Skombolis wrote:
And to me that is what it boils down to a lot. Many situations may cause pain. We simply often will have a choice if we want it to be us that goes thru the pain or someone else. Of course people will choose themselves. And that is why it can be so dangerous
If there really are exceptions to the rule then let them be built into the social contract. I would find that much more acceptable than giving people the option of subjectively breaking it. And wouldn't that still be a moral evolution to acknowledge these exceptions?
JMO
People always have the option of breaking the rules.

Progress is making rules that most people can and want to follow.

The future of "marriage" will be changed for the better by all those cheaters and divorces. That data is telling us that the construct is very flawed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199274 Jan 5, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
The jesus character did, so why don't you?
More Topix Atheist! ignorance.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199275 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Ignoramus was the answer to Final Jeopardy last Monday. The category was “Word Origins,” and the clue was "When evidence was lacking, juries of yore would reply with this Latin word meaning 'We do not know.' Now it means a dunce."
http://fikklefame.com/final-jeopardy-12-30-13...
HA.

I wonder of the Final Jeopardy theme song is on iTunes....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199276 Jan 5, 2014
Nope.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#199277 Jan 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoramus was the answer to Final Jeopardy last Monday. The category was “Word Origins,” and the clue was "When evidence was lacking, juries of yore would reply with this Latin word meaning 'We do not know.' Now it means a dunce."
http://fikklefame.com/final-jeopardy-12-30-13...
I saw it, and didn't get the answer, dammit.

One guy, the winner, did.

It may have triggered my post to RR....

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#199278 Jan 5, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Dave. Mostly doing non-topix stuff. Working poorly and slowly on an invited book chapter. If I get embroiled in these silly topix arguments, too much of my mental time is spent on unimportant discussion.
I have real reservations about the kinds of tests you describe above. They're usually overly generalizing b/c they only look at a few genes and kind of force fit their interpretations w/in just a few populations. But, yeah, they'd be additive. And they're fun, showing us how we're all interrelated. I have great fun telling Japanese people that they're not unlike other Asian populations.
Uhm...if your son is finding a long lost half sister, that would entail either your daughter of another mother, or his mother's daughter of another father.
Anyways, Happy New Year, good to see you still alive and arguing.
Life is a collection of skeletons in the family closets.

I could see the shotgun approach in some of the results, but it is surprising about some links. He used that 123me service. Curiously it showed my side and his mother's side sharing an area around the Caucasus mountains or western Asia some time back, then concentrating in northwestern Europe and Japan. What I found interesting was my side had a very miniscule percent of sub-Saharan Africa, likely a remnant of the out of Africa thing, and zero percentage of Middle Eastern and SW Asian.

I've never been convinced of this migration out of Africa and species development as portrayed. Makes more sense to me man is a lot older than thought, developed a worldwide civilization, then a major league catastrophe left pockets of mankind hanging by the skin of his teeth and isolated from each other. Then your races came into being. There is real history buried deep in the ground yet waiting to be discovered.

Ran across this article that was published this morning.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/study-s...

That was a sort of out of the blue piece of info. It appears there is a genetic bent to such?

Now, on the social scene side, how much do you think this will cause in increased health costs which Obamacare is supposed to spread among the population?

11 million illegals dumped into a system. Immigration preferences favoring families and not skills. I believe they dropped the health requirements of years past.

Social engineering can be very complex.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#199279 Jan 5, 2014
Bongo wrote:
Perhaps it was a hypothetical possibility of a growing Godless nation. If the burden of the old folk puts to much pressure on society, is it ok if societal change deals with it by elimination? Hey check the stats, its mind boggling liability coming.
You seem to be implying it is safer to live in a society that is predominantly Christian than in one that is predominantly non-Christian, such as the one America is becoming, as if the church inculcates a better system of morals than humanists. I disagree.

Of course, you probably don't acknowledge that the church actually teaches such things as homophobia and atheophobia. Most Christians point to biblical passages that really don't represent the values that the church actually promotes when describing Christian values.

And at the same time, American atheists are called genocidal. Here you are suggesting that we would murder the elderly.

If that's how you have to make your argument - denying the church's transgressions while trying to saddle the humanist alternative with Stalinist proclivities - then you have no argument.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199280 Jan 5, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
It's my opinion that incarceration for drug use is a kind of slavery. We aren't free of it yet.
It's my opinion that we need harsher punishment for illegal drug offenses.

It was not starvation that led the druggie to steal my truck and tools, it was his addiction to his next fix.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199281 Jan 5, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
The future of "marriage" will be changed for the better by all those cheaters and divorces. That data is telling us that the construct is very flawed.
O_O

Will the future of incarceration be "changed for the better" by criminals?

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#199282 Jan 5, 2014
Off to the gym.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199283 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>I do not find lying to be moral. I don't claim to speak for God though.
So you think lying is immoral, why?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199284 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
It is a personal issue for me. I never said it is an absolute.

Once again you ar putting words in my mouth. Having been made aware of that fact a few posts ago you are now providing evidence that you are either stupid or lying. That isn't a moral judgement just a statement f facts. I personally find it a valid reason to dismiss anything you write as doubtful.

Is lying wrong?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199285 Jan 5, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>For the same reason I don't pick my nose in public. A personal belief. I don't claim to be God.

Why do you believe lying is moral ?

Is lying wrong?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199286 Jan 5, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw it, and didn't get the answer, dammit.
One guy, the winner, did.
It may have triggered my post to RR....
Good morning, Feltcher1.

Since: Jan 11

United States

#199287 Jan 5, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
To me, ownership has to be established before there is theft. So I wouldn't consider it stealing if someone didn't own it or was in possession of it illegally
But if someone does have legitimate ownership, then .I woulds say regardless of the necessity that may make it understandable, stealing would be wrong
Do you mean wrong as in immoral, or wrong as in the wrong decision to make?

Would you choose to steal and live, or not and die?

A better question might be: Is morality your servant or your master?
Skombolis wrote:
Although i can think of an exception and that is if someone commits the act to avoid worse acts of immorality. For example a local university has been slaughtering dogs for 20 years and has never come up with a single applicable scientific find from it. They have been chided by other scientists saying their methods are out-dated and a joke and begged with to stop using dogs. People call, go on the news, picket. Local officials have tried. But they get millions in federal funding for this so they go thru the motions and pocket the money. In that case even though they own the animals, the theft of those animals would be an act of mercy
<quoted text>I do think there needs to be some way to purge old laws and adjust current ones to represent modern thinking
Some of the laws on the books are outrageous. And essentially while people don't have the right to follow the ones they want, the government has the right to selectively prosecute only the ones they still care about
While ironically the law is often behind the times, it also can be horribly antiquated. There really should be a system in place to prevent that from happening IMO
America is fcked.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#199288 Jan 5, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, so now you've resorted to lying.

I have never - never - said that no proof is acceptable. Not. Ever.

I have stated repeatedly that no proof has ever been provided that any deity ever existed. If there were proof, I'd love to see it.

Anyway, its obvious that you can't answer the simplest question. Carry on, liar, carry on.
Why are you upset by the idea of lying? Is it because you we're created with an awareness of its immorality?

The fact you appeal to that morality is evidence which you say does not exist for God, if not where do you get the idea that lying is absolutely morally wrong?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#199289 Jan 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More Topix Atheist! ignorance.
More RR bible cherry picking...

Since: Jan 11

United States

#199290 Jan 5, 2014
mtimber wrote:
Moral absolutes can only exist if God exists.
Without God there is no right and wrong, there can be no absolute moral values.
Yet everyone lives as though there are absolute moral values, they just don't want to accept the logical conclusion that entails...
Are you staying at the Fallacy Hotel and Casino?

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
How come girls don't like to date east indian g... (Dec '09) 7 min Anjali 166
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Rosa_Winkel 36,675
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min AussieBobby 280,829
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 15 min AussieBobby 44,245
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 16 min Steve III 618,239
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 46 min DebraE 104,526
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 57 min truth 640,786
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr X Pendable 969,743
More from around the web