Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244867 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 08

Westcliffe, CO

#199774 Jan 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You really do use some silly similes and then you wonder why people think you are silly. A saw destroys, true it can help create 2 pieces of wood from one but the bit sawn is destroyed and turned into sawdust.
I think you will find that without science certainly the deep drilling would not exist and the methods of production would limit the millions of barrels drilled each year to the production of lamp oil and temporary road surfaces in desert areas.
You can of course continue to call me names if it excites you but please don’t be surprised if I retaliate, and we know you don’t like it when I retaliate.
The "sawdust" was not "destroyed". It just became smaller portions of the same material construction. You can glue it together and make a new product that is superior in some ways than the original.

Using a sharp rock to shape wood is something you seem to be claiming is science, and which negates any religious claims that we are but constructs of a superior entity's consciousness.

It appears your knowledge of "science" is limited. As is your definition of it, and application in an argument of this type. You are stretching the hell out of it to make nonsense in support of your spurious signal generating consciousness apparatus.

Your head is messed up, Christine.

Missed you, lovey. Hope you enjoyed your Christmas vacation.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#199775 Jan 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
So you like a good Aramaic joke, do you? As the great Aramaic comedian Hosne Youngman was so fond of quipping, "Take concubine. Please!"
I think he stole his material from Hillel. But he played a mean lyre.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#199776 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, but in English we say and write "God".
I speak and read English, so I write "God".
I thought you knew.
Nope, in christianity you say and write god and presume that everyone else will understand.

And in fact the word god is an ancient German/Dutch word that never made it’s way into the English language until the 6th century, some 250 years after the babble was first compiled.

You really don’t understand much about the English language do you?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#199777 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
aw, I'm special.
My yellow helmet proves it.
<quoted text>
Very astute.
You deserve and award or something.
Thanks but I decline

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#199778 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was the leprechauns.
Don’t tell me tell buck, he may even believe you

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#199779 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God.
The capital G narrows it down a bit to around 2400, but then again it was the first and only word in your sentence to that make a mess of that idea, back to 3700+

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#199780 Jan 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the is-ought dichotomy? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought...
"The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine."
Buck and I weren't discussing that great gulf, but the juxtaposition of "is" and "ought" there highlights the difference between ontological issues - what is - and normative ethics - what we ought to do in the ethical sense of the word.
Timber makes the same error. He sees me make an ontological statement about the nonexistence of moral absolutes, then tells me I'm appealing to moral absolutes and asks me where they come from.
When I say that I reject the claim that there are moral absolutes with objective existence outside of the heads of human beings or other moral agents if the universe holds any others, it is a statement about existence - what does or does not exists, what can or cannot exist, what might or might not exist, etc. not a comment about how one ought to behave.
This is the kind of problem we frequently see when faith based thinkers tackle academic matters like biology or the philosophy of ethics as apologists rather than as students of the subjects. They don't have the broad foundation necessary to do more than repeat the apologetics learned on a religious website. They can't defend the positions that the authors of the apologetics have outlined for them, and they make elementary errors such as confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis or social Darwinism.
Buck is normally astute enough not to make errors like that, but he did this time. I didn't know what to expect from Timber, but he's done a bang-up job of imitating a Magic 8-Ball in his replies so far, and I think I'm going to have to keep on referring him to Ar-Ar-bucks for coffee.
When one claims moral absolutes, and you claim moral absolutes do not exist, they are both ontological claims - they are about what is.

The self-contradiction in the assertion "there are no moral absolutes" is that apparently the speaker is asserting this as an objective truth, while rejecting that there can be an objective truth in moral "shoulds and should nots". The conflict is still ontological.

On abiogenesis, evolution, and social Darwinism, the error is yours. My position is in no way a matter of confusion, or not having a properly broad base of knowledge.

My position is an ontological argument, as in the assertion that abiogenesis and the current model of evolution are inextricably linked, and I am correct. Without a well-constructed view of abiogenesis being assumed, RM + NS = DWM comes apart.

And social Darwinism is a product of Darwinism. I'm not at all confused on that, either.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199781 Jan 6, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't fret redneck, I'll provide many more cases of the evil your "church" creates.
Have you got something more substantial
Yes.

I don't go to church.

I'll keep fretting until you tell me what church you're talking about.

Because different churches teach differently.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199782 Jan 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text> It's true because all the evidence points to the FACT that it's true. The documentation below is valid, challenge it if you want, and show me YOUR documentation that shows Gacy to be an Atheist. If you can't I expect an apology from you admitting your wrong and are acting childish because you have been proven wrong.
Something is TRUE because it's TRUE not because someone says it's true. A good example would be you saying your God is TRUE, of course we all know that is not the case since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate it to be TRUE. See how that works skippy!!!!!
This is a beta version of NNDB
Search: for
John Wayne Gacy
AKA John Wayne Gacy, Jr.
Born: 17-Mar-1942
Birthplace: Chicago, IL
Died: 10-May-1994
Location of death: Joliet, IL
Cause of death: Execution
Remains: Buried, Maryhill Cemetery, Niles, IL
Gender: Male
Religion: Roman Catholic
I see, I see.

It's on the Internet.

It must be true.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199783 Jan 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My winter break was fine thanks, how was yours?
Did you put up a Yule tree and give (and receive) plenty of Saturnalia presents. Did you drink plenty of winter solstice warmer in the form of alcoholic spirits, mulled wine or warm mead?
Please don’t tell me all you did was work up to and including 24th then celebrate the unknown date of birth of your gods little lad by praying in church then going right back to work again on 26th???
You do after all claim to be a good christian. Right?
Being the wise and good Christian I am, I know I can celebrate Jesus' birth any way I want.

I don't need conformity.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#199784 Jan 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my problem if you chose to ignore contemporary evidence and documented fact, including that of the Vatican and choose instead to quote from later stuff written when the “hate Hitler” bug was just starting to trickle through American christian journalism
You are hilarious.

Are you really "Hiding"?

Some of yours and her claims seem equally "out there".

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199785 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

I say "sexual immorality" and you turn it into "homosexuality"?

Imagine that.
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
Can't find anything can you?
About sexual immorality, Yes.

Here's 100 of them:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immor...

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#199786 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

I don't go to church.

I'll keep fretting until you tell me what church you're talking about.

Because different churches teach differently.
The "church" is the "bride of christ", "the body of believers".

That includes all the heads of the big purple dragon hore, the rcc or c

Didn't you claim to attend bible study?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199787 Jan 6, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
You won't but it doesn't stop christians from using the bible as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals and stop saying you don't because you do and there are plenty of your posts on the subject here in topix.
I don't discriminate against anyone.

If you aren't aware, "anyone" includes gays.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#199788 Jan 6, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Adolf Hitler was very popular at one time, your observation proves what? That being popular absolves one of any wrong doing?
The Roman Catholic Church is most definitely a criminal organization. They have used their money and power to protect a huge number of pedophiles, many of whom are still preying on young boys. Rape of children is a crime, when you protect these criminals the organization that protects them becomes a criminal organization.
The RC church also backed Hitler and provided and ambassador to the Reich, Much of what Hitler did was agreed by and condoned by the RC church. In the eyes of many those actions aided and abetted the actions of war criminals

The IRA is a Roman Catholic organisation that was (still is) a byword for terrorism and are responsible for thousands of indiscriminate murders, mutilations and injuries besides millions of pounds of property damage. They were funded by Catholic Noraid donations.

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic committed genocide against Moslems in the name of their Catholic church. Both were tried and convicted of war crimes, unfortunately the church who backed them was never brought to justice.

On another note, I have been away for a couple of weeks and I noticed a couple of post’s where you said you were asking me my views on something. I don’t think I saw the original question so could you ask again please.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199789 Jan 6, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
Psychopaths lack insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships or feeling any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are reproduced by watching and mimicking other people's emotions.
<quoted text>
http://enpsychopedia.org/index.php/Psychopath
I think it's interesting how much you mimic so many different posters, almost like you have no thoughts of your own, are you aware of this?
You chided me yesterday for asking if you have multiple personalities. You acted as if I was talking shit about you. Now you turn around and do the same to me?

Hypocrite much?

RR mimics no one.

Others mimic RR.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199790 Jan 6, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Well there ya go, I didn't think it could be done without bringing Paul into it, who never met Jesus (except in his mystical "Third Heaven" - try and find somebody that can explain what he meant by that).
Whatever else "fulfill" means, nowhere in context does it mean abolish, supercede, make conditional, or any of the other constructs Pauline Christians try and fabricate. Further, nowhere can we find where Jesus differentiates between Jews and others, except to call us dogs (metaphorically, I'm sure). Finally, nowhere can we find where Jesus sperates himself as apart from the faith of his people.
In fact, the weird thing about Paul, in this regard, is that, for all his dismissive words about Torah, he keeps one foot in both worlds at all times. Odd, that.
What happens when a builder "fulfills" his contract with his client?

Think about it.

And leave the red herrings alone.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#199791 Jan 6, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>RiversideRedneck wrote:

I say "sexual immorality" and you turn it into "homosexuality"?

Imagine that.

About sexual immorality, Yes.

Here's 100 of them:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immor...
Can't find a passage about homosexuals in the nt can you?

Just admit it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#199792 Jan 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
Nope, in christianity you say and write god and presume that everyone else will understand.
Well, der.

I'm a Christian that happens to speak English.

So I say "God".

Why is that difficult to comprehend?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#199793 Jan 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Interpretations of ancient paintings are worthless without taking account of the culture context and understanding to frame the piece. I assume that because the link is to a creationism biased site then there will be little or no historical research into what was actually painted. The fact that it shows Hongshan works and claims them to be dinosaurs without taking culture into account validates this.
I study the Cro Magnon period as a hobby and there are plenty of cave paintings that can be interpreted as whatever you want to see, gods, aliens, space ships, dinosaurs etc. However deeper investigation provides more factual, down to earth and usually mundane understanding.
If dinos went extinct millions or years ago, how did they come up with them depictions? Sometimes the problem is not with the evidence.

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
White Lives MATTER 5 min RFD 101
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 7 min Janie 221,992
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min Liam 599,715
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min True Truth 864,733
I'm looking for a writer to write my true story (Nov '08) 14 min Timeitwassaid 231
Renzenberger : STEALING MILLIONS from their dri... 46 min fixxitman1 11
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 51 min WasteWater 272,417
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Lbj 2,000
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 hr sangili karuppan 7,502
More from around the web