Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
197,981 - 198,000 of 225,722 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206334
Jan 22, 2014
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
This is called pretending.
It's one step removed from delusion.
You said you didn't care.....

Don't go back pedaling on me.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206335
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI we have had needle exchanges here since the 80s. I think they only have to bring their box of needles back, then are given another.
It's not illegal to carry them either, only the drugs.
You might say, ah they're only junkies. But if they don't prevent infection, the next person they pass it onto might be "innocent".
I didn't say I am personally against it

I used to have a drug problem. I am more empathetic than most when it comes to these things. And of course I understand the practical aspect of it

But my point is, it would be understandable to me if someone was on the other side and didn't want to see their tax-dollars going to pay for clean heroin needles.

And I think anybody would understand why the church would believe the correct way to fight the drug problem is to teach "don't do drugs" instead of "make sure you have clean needles"

Just like their position on fighting AIDS is "don't sleep around" instead of "just make sure you wear a condom"

It is hardly a position they should be demonized for taking

Taking strokes

And they are trying to teach the moral thing. There are public agencies to do the practical thing

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206336
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Darwins Stepchild wrote:
What Buck does is pathetic, but funny.
That Bongo tries to emulate him is just sad.
No, I'll show you what is pathetic and funny:

Buck Crick wrote:

"There is a contradiction unless you use different rules."

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

"No contradiction. The contradiction arises IF you try to use the same rules."

Bwahahahaha...., it's funny every time.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206337
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I did.
<quoted text>
Who said it was without evidence? Not me.
<quoted text>
It depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean a thought process that is not fully understood, then yes.
<quoted text>
No.
<quoted text>
I think it is extremely likely that life exists somewhere else in the universe.
<quoted text>
I don't believe in any gods, or anything supernatural.
Uh-huh. I see your qualifier now, your criteria.

Some things you don't believe in because there's "no evidence". What, with you being all rational and skeptical and all...

Other things that you DO believe in you label as "not fully understood".

God = no evidence.

Intuition = not fully understood.

Got it.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206338
Jan 22, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No Vatican edict says they accept Darwinism.
If I'm wrong, show one.
__________
Darwinian evolution incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and author of Catholic Catechism...
On July 7, after years of media-generated confusion, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a theologian who helped author the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote in the New York Times clarifying the Church’s understanding of human origins.
In his article, Schonborn said, that the “defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.”
“This,” the Cardinal says bluntly,“is not true.”
Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism.“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”
__________
Now, Christinemc^2, you can persist in your lie, or recant.
I predict you will persist in your lie.
I have provided the links, Just because you can’t be bothered than tough, I am not here to pander you to your stupidity

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206339
Jan 22, 2014
 
...And he still thinks he was disagreeing with me !!!

Bwahahahahahahahaha....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206340
Jan 22, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinism encompasses evolution, it may be a century or so out of date but it was a damn good starter
By the entire Catholic church I did actually mean the church (Vatican) that dictates catholic dogma, not the throwbacks in the congregation who do not want to follow the doctrine of the Vatican. Sorry I should have explained that to you.
Your equivocation is still a lie.

The Vatican does not accept Darwinism, and has never indicated it does.

Persist in the lie. I'm done with it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206341
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You get their logic.
Additionally, the Catholic church causes AIDs deaths because it gives money for some assistance. But not the preferred type.
Right

The people volunteering their lives or time or money to feed, clothe, vaccinate, and care for people with AIDS are somehow the bad guys because they believe teaching sexual morality is the best approach verses telling people just make sure to wear a condom

When those people are the 'bad guys' in anybody's book, they ought to spend a bit more time looking at some actual bad guys. Because the world could use a lot more 'bad guys' like the ones who dedicate their lives to trying to help others. I didn't realize people agreeing with 100% of their ideology or approach was a prerequisite for not demonizing people who are trying their best and doing a heck of a lot more than most people.

I understand how the ball gets rolling on some of the stuff on Topix and it can become more about sides or circling the wagons

I am going to tell myself people really do appreciate their efforts in real life, even they would go about it a little differently. Because if it isn't Topix, i don't wanna know.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206342
Jan 22, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No Vatican edict says they accept Darwinism.
If I'm wrong, show one.
Here are a few more

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharps...
Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism
16:38 11 February 2009

http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-e...
Does the new Pope believe in evolution

The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206343
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>No, back up. You misrepresent me on both sides of that equation. Nowhere have I said I "adamantly want prayer out of schools". Nowhere. Not even close. It's not even a case of "I didn't use those exact words" - I have never expressed any sentiment that might be fairly construed as "want prayer out of schools", much less "adamantly".
I thought I read a post by you when the discussion was going on saying there absolutely shouldn't be prayer in school

If i am wrong then I apologize
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor did I say I the church should take a "bigger social role in public health policy". Quite the opposite. In this case, it is the views of "the church" that adversely impacted available solutions. This was not "church money", it was foreign aid, ie "taxpayer" money ie secular money, and "the church" took an active role in restricting how that money could be spent. Sure, teach abstinence, but when people are dying, why not either allow a holistic approach, ie deploy all available weapons, or just get out of the way?
I disagree the church impacted available solutions

Who doesn't know about condoms? And did they ever actually prevent condoms from being passed out in places where people can't afford them?

I don't even see how the church is responsible if legislatures decided 1/3 of the funding will go to faith-based programs. What is wrong with that? Shouldn't the problem be attacked on as many fronts as possible? The secular agencies don't address all the things the faith-based ones do. The faith-based ones don't emphasize all the things the secular ones do. That is why it is good to split up the funds
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text
I'll say again - the secular world cannot match the churches for mobilizing common everyday people and resources in giving aid where it is needed. I have personally taken part in many such efforts and I can say there was no proselyting whatsoever beyond our work and the witness of our behavior - not even a sign.
But there were no "moral" restrictions either on who, where, or what we did to help. We helped where it was needed within our means, without judgment. In the case of African aid, it was not this generic term "the church" but fundamentalist evangelicals who influenced secular policy, which is a group whose general behaviors (I would think) you would find little in common with anyway.
I appreciate your response, but please be sure to respond to what I write, not a gratuitous bastardization of what I wrote. You're plenty good enough at this game without resorting to those all-too-common misdirection ploys.
Again - my position is, any help is good, no matter where it comes from. Tho' "the churches" historically have a decidedly mixed record as to their "help", nonetheless today there is massive amounts of non-restricted aid pouring outward from "the churches". It's all good, esp. when we partner that with "secular" foreign aid, and every resource, every NGO, and every available weapon, not just the subjectively "moral" ones. I'd tell the churches, "If that is a problem for you, then please just get out of the way."
Be well.
HipG
Well in all our conversations I don't believe this has ever come up as an issue so I think you can be confident any misrepresentation was unintentional

I actually am starting to realize my memory is not as good as it once was. I used to remember every detail about everything correctly. I have been surprised on more than one occasion to see that is no longer the case

I am glad you appreciate the efforts regardless of who they come from. That is why I was taken aback a bit by what seemed to be a pretty good shot at the church taking the attitude like it did all it can do as justification for sitting back and letting people die. I think they are simply people trying their best to fight a tough problem in the way they feel is best

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206344
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>No, back up. You misrepresent me on both sides of that equation. Nowhere have I said I "adamantly want prayer out of schools". Nowhere. Not even close. It's not even a case of "I didn't use those exact words" - I have never expressed any sentiment that might be fairly construed as "want prayer out of schools", much less "adamantly".
I thought I read a post by you when the discussion was going on saying there absolutely shouldn't be prayer in school

If i am wrong then I apologize
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor did I say I the church should take a "bigger social role in public health policy". Quite the opposite. In this case, it is the views of "the church" that adversely impacted available solutions. This was not "church money", it was foreign aid, ie "taxpayer" money ie secular money, and "the church" took an active role in restricting how that money could be spent. Sure, teach abstinence, but when people are dying, why not either allow a holistic approach, ie deploy all available weapons, or just get out of the way?
I disagree the church impacted available solutions

Who doesn't know about condoms? And did they ever actually prevent condoms from being passed out in places where people can't afford them?

I don't even see how the church is responsible if legislatures decided 1/3 of the funding will go to faith-based programs. What is wrong with that? Shouldn't the problem be attacked on as many fronts as possible? The secular agencies don't address all the things the faith-based ones do. The faith-based ones don't emphasize all the things the secular ones do. That is why it is good to split up the funds
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text

I appreciate your response, but please be sure to respond to what I write, not a gratuitous bastardization of what I wrote. You're plenty good enough at this game without resorting to those all-too-common misdirection ploys.
Again - my position is, any help is good, no matter where it comes from. Tho' "the churches" historically have a decidedly mixed record as to their "help", nonetheless today there is massive amounts of non-restricted aid pouring outward from "the churches". It's all good, esp. when we partner that with "secular" foreign aid, and every resource, every NGO, and every available weapon, not just the subjectively "moral" ones. I'd tell the churches, "If that is a problem for you, then please just get out of the way."
Be well.
HipG
Well in all our conversations I don't believe this has ever come up as an issue so I think you can be confident any misrepresentation was unintentional

I actually am starting to realize my memory is not as good as it once was. I used to remember every detail about everything correctly. I have been surprised on more than one occasion to see that is no longer the case

I am glad you appreciate the efforts regardless of who they come from. That is why I was taken aback a bit by what seemed to be a pretty good shot at the church taking the attitude like it did all it can do as justification for sitting back and letting people die. I think they are simply people trying their best to fight a tough problem in the way they feel is best

(T) Peace
Bongo

Coram, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206345
Jan 22, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'll show you what is pathetic and funny:
Buck Crick wrote:
"There is a contradiction unless you use different rules."
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
"No contradiction. The contradiction arises IF you try to use the same rules."
Bwahahahaha...., it's funny every time.
It really is hahahahahahahahahahahaha hehehehe

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206346
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Darwins Stepchild wrote:
What Buck does is pathetic, but funny.
That Bongo tries to emulate him is just sad.
Bongo does not emulate me.

Shit house rats emulate you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206347
Jan 22, 2014
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The Topix Atheists! won't understand.
Well, I have gone round and round with Tide on some things that have tested the little patience i have

But in issues like this I normally find him to be pretty reasonable

I remember a different time he also wrote he understood the verse about drinking poison and casting out demons is probably illustrative insofar as people can do great things if they are faithful

So I will give credit where it is due here. When it comes to verses he doesn't get too caught up in the "gotcha" aspect of it

But there is no doubt some of the same verses and the same arguments have come up a lot because they have been put out there for general consumption even though most the people putting them out there do not take a reasonable approach

It can cause me to approach the issue with a carry-over feeling sometimes of feeling annoyed to have to deal with it again. But if people are reasonable it makes the exchange much easier

Some will be. A lot won't be

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206348
Jan 22, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a few more
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharps...
Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism
16:38 11 February 2009
http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-e...
Does the new Pope believe in evolution
The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science."
None of those links say the church or the Vatican accepts Darwinism.

This is from the link you provided:

"But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point."

That's not Darwinism.

Chrissy says, "the entire Catholic church accepts Darwinism"

The author of the Roman Catholic Catechism says, "...Darwinism is incompatible with the Catholic faith."

Wonder which one is correct?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206349
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Fair question. A little bit diversionary, but fair, I guess.
Yes, I have. It would be counter-productive and self-serving to run down a list in this anonymous setting, because obviously one could say anything and no way to prove it, nor do I care about "proving" anything about myself. It wasn't about me when i did it, and it ain't about me now. But, yes, I have, locally and "cross-border" and each time (but one) has been in some way church-sponsored or affiliated (tho' anyone can participate). Each time has been enlightening and uplifting on multiple levels, and i look forward to a more active role when I retire. I believe strongly in hands and feet outreach, and agree with you that those who don't or haven't with either time, talent, or treasure have a weaker position from which to argue.
But at the same time, I think it's hubristic to imagine that most Americans haven't done so in one form or another. Survey data backs me up on that, so really, it's just another misdirection tactic. A valid question, but not material to someone expressing an opinion.
Btw, I've never taken part in anything that had "moralistic" conditions attached. You do what you can, where it's needed, with everything in your arsenal. Think about it - how many more souls would there be to "save" if we did everything possible to save lives?
I don't see how it is diversionary on my part when you are the one that injected that element into the discussion

Not only you did so, but you did so with the implication the church was sitting back feeling good about itself that it had done all it could to rationalize why it needed feel bad about people dying

Do you really think that is a fair assessment just because you disagree with them in the best way to teach against AIDS even though there are people out their dedicating their lives to care, cloth, feed, and minister to the afflicted?

And that was my point as far as, someone can always claim someone can do more. Unless we spent every second of every day that wasn't spent on work dedicating it to charity then everybody could do more. But I don't see the church patting itself on the back as saying it has done all it can. But i think it is certainly fair to say they have done a heck of a lot more than most

I actually am aware of your record of service work. I suppose in that regard in fairness i should have included that. But it does irritate me when people online demonize people who are trying their best to help in real life just because they would do it differently...if they actually did something at all....which they don't

Again, I was taken aback to see you express the sentiment that anybody would in the church would take the attitude like "well, did all I can do, those deaths aren't my problem"

Its an overwhelming problem. And I think they are trying their best to do what they think is best

But I do know you are someone who gets involved. And for that, Ia m appreciative just as another human being on this planet

(T) Peace

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206350
Jan 22, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a few more
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharps...
Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism
16:38 11 February 2009
http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-e...
Does the new Pope believe in evolution
The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science."
That's not what you claimed.

You claimed they accepted Darwinism.

From the author of the Catholic Catechism:

"Schonborn said, that the 'defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.'

“This,” the Cardinal says bluntly,“is not true.”

http://www.tldm.org/News8/evolution.htm

"Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206351
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's not the message I see. Nor do I see the subsequent verses as illuminating the one in question, nor saying what they say to you. They seem to be unrelated. First, a man (or woman) is told to forsake everybody important in his life including himself to follow Jesus. The word hate is used. Then he is warned not to start something that he can't finish. I don't see "nobody should claim other things are preventing them from following Christ" in that.
This is what I call a verbal Rorschach test. You get to choose what the words means - which words to take literally and which to say really mean something else. And you get to chose which other verses support it. You chose love thy neighbor and Good Samaritan, and the following verse. Someone else may choose "I come with a sword" and three verses before. And nobody but the two of you has a say in that. You each go by your gut feelings, which will be different because you have different emotional and intellectual proclivities, and each feels that he is being led by the Spirit. You may even debate with one another, but neither has a compelling argument for the other because there is no compelling argument for one interpretation over the other, or any other.
And this is how organizations as disparate as the Quakers and the Klan justify themselves using the same book. One might say that one is more correct and the other wrong, but which is which depends on whether he identifies with pacifists or violent racists.
So what does the bible actually say? To me, it says what the reader wants it to say.
If that was the only verse and I gave that explanation then I would be mor einclined to agree the reader sees what he wants to see

But when you literally have hundreds and hundreds of verses by Jesus than make up His teachings and dozens upon dozens of different times he taught where the message is repeatedly; love your neighbor, love your brother, love your enemy I think it is pretty fair to say that perhaps this one isolated verse may have something more to do with context

And the context did go on to say basically if people use other things as an excuse for why they didn't finish building then they should not have started at all because they won't be a true follower

If there were not the hundreds of other verses all saying love everyone, I think this one verse in how it was worded would perhaps be reason for more scrutiny than it should be with the case being how it is now

I was even going to check out the original translation but didn't feel like digging out the lexicons or looking up studies on it. I may at some point though just out of curiosity

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206352
Jan 22, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'll show you what is pathetic and funny:
Buck Crick wrote:
"There is a contradiction unless you use different rules."
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
"No contradiction. The contradiction arises IF you try to use the same rules."
Bwahahahaha...., it's funny every time.
Oh, Buck. That just never gets old. You could tell that a thousand times and...oh...wait...you have told that a thousand times.

Maybe time for some new material?

Of course, you have argued in the past that they SHOULD use the same rules. Now THAT is a laugh.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206353
Jan 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bongo does not emulate me.
Shit house rats emulate you.
Thank you Buck for all the hate. I must be really good at destroying your arguments.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I conclude from being on this thread the the quantity of hate people will pour onto a person is directly proportional to his effectiveness at annihilating their arguments.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 min bad bob 173,000
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min pusherman_ 537,366
Minecraft Enchant Hack - How to hack minecraft ... 8 min JhonRed 1
Appjoy invite code 9 min lauraiv 37
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Susie D 730,859
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 16 min GodFreeByChoice 5,348
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 18 min yon 2,229
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Pegasus 259,387
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Epiphany2 599,586
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 7 hr monu chauhan 104

Search the Top Stories Forum:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••