Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206874 Jan 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You also have to wonder about what the Garden of Eden story says about the omniscience of God. As you pointed out, if God were omniscient, he would have known the result of his actions. So either he did not know, or did not care.
But you also have to consider that when God returned to the Garden, he didn't know where Adam and Eve were. He had to coax them out of hiding. And he didn't know what they had done. He had to coax that information out of them.
And, as well, God wasn't there when the whole eating the fruit thing happened, which also puts a hole in the omnipresence of God.
So the lessons to be learned are:
God is not omniscient.
God is not omnipresent.
God is not interested in justice.
And
God is vindictive to the n-th generation.
If you take an overall perspective of what the Bible says, God is not described as either omniscient nor omnipresent. There are plenty of examples of God being surprised, angry, and jealous, which isn't possible if you know the future beforehand. And of course, as you point out, if God is not omniscient, then it cannot be omnipotent either. It's actually Christians who insist that God is omni-everything. But that's because most of them aren't really knowledgeable about their own Bible.

The flood story is another example of a deity who is both clueless as to consequences of it's own creation, and also it's love of laughable Rube Goldberg solutions to them.Well, it would be laughable if you didn't stop to think about how incredibly morally repugnant that story is. I saw a T-shirt recently that I think summed that up nicely: it had a cartoon of the big wood boat full of happy animals with a rainbow flying over it, while under the boat floating face-down in the water are the corpses of dead people (and children) and animals.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206875 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There has to be a god to have sin?
How do you figure?
Please, be objective. Use empirical evidence for your reply.
Logically, I cannot use empirical evidence to prove a negative. Sorry.

Sin is a religious concept, and so yes, you need a deity to have sin. Although it should be said that there are religions (with deities) which do not have a concept of sin.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206876 Jan 23, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It can mean just about whatever a person wants it to mean.
That's the problem with trying to convey an important message through poetry and asking people to believe it on faith.
Now if you're trying to promote a religion that makes unsubstantiated extraordinary claims, that's exactly what you want to do. Poetry and faith act as insulators for bullshit.
Notice the difference between that and how science works.
Well I suppose if someone has their mind made up to demonized everything about the Bible, even Christ's teachings, then they may claim its bullshit and imply someone is taking liberties with the definition

But if someone is willing to look at it objectively they can read Matthew 25:40-48 and see it is pretty straight forward. Whatever we don't do for the least of those we don't do for Jesus. If Jesus is our foundation and we do what is taught that entails there really is no basis for criticism. Jesus being the priority in out lives means obeying His teachings

But however you want to characterize it is up to you. That is exactly what is said however

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206877 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read the article. It talked about some cosmologists looking at another galaxy through Hubble and seeing a "wake" in another galaxy.
They never witnessed dark matter. No one has.
They only believed that what they were seeing what the effects of dark matter.
"It MUST be so!"
Nooooo...it was direct evidence. What do you want it to do? Wave a sign? Or maybe you didn't really read the article.

Don't get me wrong, it's good to subject science to skepticism, that's how it thrives. But it's also important to understand when skepticism has been addressed. I just wish you'd apply the same skepticism to religion.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206879 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
My ass being firmly planted in this seat is evidence of gravity.
So no, the same argument cannot be made.
Well, to use the same logic you've been applying, there is an unseen force pushing you into your chair, but that doesn't mean it's gravity doing it per se. It might be an invisible deity pushing you down. There is also the pre-Newtonian Aristotelian explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_the... ). You just take the theory of gravity for granted because science has proved it so.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206880 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Logically, I cannot use empirical evidence to prove a negative. Sorry.
Sin is a religious concept, and so yes, you need a deity to have sin. Although it should be said that there are religions (with deities) which do not have a concept of sin.
I humbly accept your apology.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206881 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Nooooo...it was direct evidence. What do you want it to do? Wave a sign? Or maybe you didn't really read the article.
Don't get me wrong, it's good to subject science to skepticism, that's how it thrives. But it's also important to understand when skepticism has been addressed. I just wish you'd apply the same skepticism to religion.
Evidence, you say?

Is the wake of a boat evidence of the wake or the boat?

Are rabbit paw prints in the dirt evidence of paw prints in the dirt or evidence of a rabbit?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206882 Jan 23, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think others might disagree with your interpretation of what it means to put God first? If so, how do you determine who is right other than each of you saying that he or she is?
If I wanted to agree with you, I would say that you are correct. If I wanted to disagree with you, I would cite Matthew 22:36-39:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied:“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
I would argue that it is clear here that loving your neighbor is not included in the exhortation to love God, which his why it had to be added separately. I would say that this was clear evidence that loving God is distinct from loving one another, and of the two, less important.
You might tell me I'm misunderstanding, and go find a few more scriptures that say or seem to say otherwise, and I could tell you why you are taking them out of context, misunderstanding mistranslated words, or why they no longer apply.
A third person watching might conclude that we simply had two different personalities directing us in picking our preferred scriptures and assigning them our preferred meanings. He might conclude that you have more empathy social conscience than I have, and that I was more into looking upward than outward. I might say that I pray for those people and let God choose how and when to bless them. If I were very selfish or outright antisocial, I'd be telling you that what happens on earth doesn't matter - the ones that would eventually be cast into the fire don't deserve our sacrifices, and the rest don't need them..
John 14:15
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

It is pretty straight forward what loving God requires of someone

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#206883 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
I'm sick of defining simple words for idiots on Topix.
...and you couldn't even answer the ones I asked.

Figures.

Those semantics - such a burden to live with, huh?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#206884 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take an overall perspective of what the Bible says, God is not described as either omniscient nor omnipresent. There are plenty of examples of God being surprised, angry, and jealous, which isn't possible if you know the future beforehand. And of course, as you point out, if God is not omniscient, then it cannot be omnipotent either. It's actually Christians who insist that God is omni-everything. But that's because most of them aren't really knowledgeable about their own Bible.
The flood story is another example of a deity who is both clueless as to consequences of it's own creation, and also it's love of laughable Rube Goldberg solutions to them.Well, it would be laughable if you didn't stop to think about how incredibly morally repugnant that story is. I saw a T-shirt recently that I think summed that up nicely: it had a cartoon of the big wood boat full of happy animals with a rainbow flying over it, while under the boat floating face-down in the water are the corpses of dead people (and children) and animals.
One example is:
Why would an omnipresent, omniscient god ask "Where's Able, Cain?"

That god would already know.

Clearly the Bible defines that "God" had to ask the question.

Onipresence and omniscience is now not involved.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#206885 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Nooooo...it was direct evidence. What do you want it to do? Wave a sign? Or maybe you didn't really read the article.
Don't get me wrong, it's good to subject science to skepticism, that's how it thrives. But it's also important to understand when skepticism has been addressed. I just wish you'd apply the same skepticism to religion.
You are not two for two in my book!!

:o)

Thanks!

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206886 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I humbly accept your apology.
Then you have reading and comprehension issues, RR.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#206887 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence, you say?
Is the wake of a boat evidence of the wake or the boat?
Are rabbit paw prints in the dirt evidence of paw prints in the dirt or evidence of a rabbit?
Direct observation and measurement of dark matter is the equivalent of having the rabbit itself, not merely tracks of it's prints.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#206888 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
My ass being firmly planted in this seat is evidence of gravity.
So no, the same argument cannot be made.
No - it proves that you can sit or have the ability to sit - it doesn't provide proof of gravity.

Remember - gravity is invisible, although with Scientific equipment, it can be proven to exist.

Unlike a god.

that was the point of the other poster's response to you.

You should have seen that, as you do seem to have intelligence, even when things are stated in few words.

I think you are just being argumentive for no apparent reason. One could also construe that to be a diversion tactic from answering honestly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206889 Jan 23, 2014
Edit Ians

Luke 10:36-37
36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37 And he said,“The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him,“Go and do [a]the same.”

John 15:10-13
10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#206890 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
I'm sick of defining simple words for idiots on Topix.
I didn't ask you to define the word "sin" - I asked you what is all entailed with "sin".

C'mon RR - you can do better than this.

BTW - I am not an idiot. No need to apologize.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#206891 Jan 23, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Responding to a question with another question is just obfuscation.
In the story of the Garden of Eden, God inexplicably created a tree that it knew in advance Adam and Eve should not eat from, and placed it right in front of them, and then left. Additionally, the tree was knowledge of good and evil, and so Adam and Eve, presumably not knowing good from evil yet, could not have known that disobeying God was evil. God also claimed that if they ate from that tree they would die. And so they did eat from it, after a talking snake said God was lying, which in fact turned out to be true. They did not die. And God got so mad because the humans fell into it's trap (as it knew they would) that God punished them, and if you belong to certain sects of Christianity, also cursed every consequent generation for the sins of their ancestors.
And so from this story we learn that the God described therein was a lying trickster with no concept of justice, and a deep antipathy to knowledge. And it also established the misogynistic theme for the Bible, where women are blameworthy for the sins of men.
It's a very odd story to start the Bible out with.
I hope you remember you said this,“Responding to a question with another question is just obfuscation.”

Your interpretation of the story is lacking in real truth. You’re not telling the story correctly.

Adam and Eve first error was not believing. They had been forewarned and Adam had obeyed while he was living alone. Then Eve came along and was tempted and gave into that temptation.

Nowhere in the Bible did it say Adam and Eve were going to die that very same day. This is a misnomer read into the scripture by Atheist.

Most of my adult life I worked with all types of deadly poisons & carcinogens. My life and the life of my co-workers depended on our faith in the information we received about the individual hazards of each chemical. A lot of the carcinogens we worked with didn’t kill right away. It could be months to years before Cancer began to show up. Kind of like smoking cigarettes.

One of the most dangerous chemicals I ever worked with was pure Phenol. We were told an exposure to the skin in a 4” x 4” surface area would be immediately fatal. That kind of exposure goes directly to the Central Nervous System. It shuts down all life in the body.

Whatever this forbidden fruit was it was a slow killer. And believe me Wildride there no shortage of slow killing toxins out there.

Another misnomer was a talking snake. In the book of Genesis, there’s the pre cursed serpent and the post cursed serpent. Know one knows what the pre-cursed serpent looked like.

Atheist find it humorous that an animal can talk. There are certain birds that are so intelligent they can communicate verbally with their trainers. Just about all animals are able to communicate in some way or another.

Now why was this tree in the Garden in the first place? Lot’s of vegetation is in the wilderness. Some if it can be fatal if eaten by mankind yet certain animals can digest these forbidden foods with no problem. Poison Ivy is one that comes to mind. Deer’s consume it all the time. Yet humans can’t even touch it.

Genesis 2:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206892 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Shiiiiiiit, you think he'd answer me?!
Yeah I guess not!

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#206893 Jan 23, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No thanks.
That's the redneck.

No interest in self-improvement.

The gutter's good enough for him.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206894 Jan 23, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Off to the gym.
Dont forget to wash behind your ears

:)

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Clearwater 88,269
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 54 min Brian_G 284,602
The Future of Politics in America 1 hr Johnny 268
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 1 hr Neville Thompson 969
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr bad bob 184,765
News The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 2 hr Sad Days in America 26
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 3 hr truth 603
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 5 hr Seentheotherside 179
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr Aussie Kev 977,403
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 hr Seentheotherside 665,402
More from around the web