Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 253655 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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207238 Jan 24, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but lying isn't a Christian moral standard. Lying was frowned upon before Christians came about. Look what happened to that Jesus dude for lying about being the messiah.
So where did the absolute moral absolute that lying is wrong come from?

As a Christian I can account for it, but where do you get it from if not Christianity?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#207239 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of Being appears in the present system in three places: in the doctrine of God, where God is called the being as being or the ground and the power of being; in the doctrine of man, where the distinction is carried through between man's essential and his existential being; and finally, in the doctrine of the Christ, where he is called the manifestation of the New Being, the actualization of which is the work of the divine Spirit.
-Tillich, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, p.10
Sounds like presuppositional apologetics: "let's just assume that the Abrahamic God exists and work from there". The fun thing about that is that it opens the door to every other deity which has been claimed to exist too. There isn't any way to rationalize the existence of Yahweh without likewise allowing every other god too.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207240 Jan 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>No, it doesn't. They didn't know about good and evil, meaning they knew nothing about morals. Without such knowledge, it could not have been a moral choice.

You need to think these things through.
Knowing evil meant knowing the consequence of evil experientialy.

They did not have that knowledge before, but they understood the concept of wrong which is clear in eves discussion with satan.

Your argument seeks to make Eve the unwitting victim and God the cruel overlord, but that is something you bring to the text and read into it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207241 Jan 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>What contradiction? Please explain.
See last post.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207242 Jan 24, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I said racially insensitive, at best. This is because he implied that black people were perfectly happy in the pre integration south based on his personal experience.
I can't see this quote from Phil R as insensitive at all.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person, not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#207243 Jan 24, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>He didn't give me the privilege of breathing, evolution took care of that.

The word "Privilege" means a special right given to a particular individual or group. Since all creatures breath, you're misusing the word privilege.

You misinterpreted my suggestions as whining, comprehension problems most likely.

Even if I submitted to your delusion, why is it HIM, instead of her, or it. Do you have information that no one in 2000 years has been able to discover? Just curious!
Because He has revealed that information to humanity, without that humanity cannot know anything....

You know that an atheist that holds to the idea of empiricism as a central tenet, cannot be an evolutionist don't you?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#207244 Jan 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we still have to log on?
As long as you're on an - AuthentiChrist™, YahwehNet™, IslamaLan™, or PaganWan™ server*- no.


















*Other deities are subject to additional fees and/or restrictions.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#207245 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. They were told not to eat from the tree placed right in front of them, and told if they did they would die. The snake told Eve that was a lie. Eve, having no sense of right or wrong, ate from the tree because there was no way for her discern whether to believe God or the snake, and, all things being equal, the apple looked good to her. So there was no reason to punish her. If God didn't want them to eat from the tree it could have:
Not created the tree
Not placed it in front of them
Not made Adam and Eve intentionally ignorant
Prevented the snake from talking to Eve
Been omnipresent with them, instead of ignoring them
Essentially God created two naive toddlers and placed them in a backyard next to an unfenced pool and left for the day, coming back in the evening shocked that they drowned.
You made quite an assumption and assertion there.

Eve had no way to discern between the serpent and God?

Uh, wilderide, whose Garden was it?

Who said don't eat it?

Don't forget the serpent was subservient to Adam and Eve in the hierarchy established by God in that locale. In fact, Adam and Eve were the designated caretakers of the place.

So, if you Daddy says don't stick the fork in the outlet and your little brother, or the family dog, says it is OK, go ahead, it will be Daddy's fault?

You have some strange perceptions of maturity and responsibilities.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#207246 Jan 24, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good.
So they know something exists, just ain't sure what it is or how it works, but they put a name on it so you can refer to it easily. They know it exists.
Kind of what they do with the term God, isn't it?
Except we don't know if god exists.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#207247 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA!!
Do you think that when Catch is gently nailing his cousin for the first time, does he start with his penis or the cucumber?
I wonder if they did that to the Jesus!

Did they put the nails in easy or soft?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207248 Jan 24, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Your morality says it is OK to beat your wife and baby.
My morality says it is wrong to beat a baby or a woman.
I have never beaten my wife or my kids.

You know, for someone like you to constantly criticise honesty and talk about it like it's something you really believe in, you sure do lie a lot.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207249 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. They were told not to eat from the tree placed right in front of them, and told if they did they would die. The snake told Eve that was a lie. Eve, having no sense of right or wrong, ate from the tree because there was no way for her discern whether to believe God or the snake, and, all things being equal, the apple looked good to her. So there was no reason to punish her. If God didn't want them to eat from the tree it could have:
Not created the tree
Not placed it in front of them
Not made Adam and Eve intentionally ignorant
Prevented the snake from talking to Eve
Been omnipresent with them, instead of ignoring them
Essentially God created two naive toddlers and placed them in a backyard next to an unfenced pool and left for the day, coming back in the evening shocked that they drowned.
What the?

You say Eve did not know right from wrong and good from bad.

But the apple looked good....

You need to rethink your position.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#207250 Jan 24, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ouroboros is an archetype grossly misinterpreted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Note all the fanciful and mystical aspects assigned to it.
Now look at it from a physical process view.
You know how a snake swallows. Look at the snake as a volume of mass and energy contracting itself to to it smallest possible dimension.
How much of itself can it swallow before it can't swallow any more? Can it it swallow more than that and just disappear if the energy necessary is supplied?
It represents a shrinking back to the point that it originated.
That snake is like an electrical current. Within the current is a powerful force that binds and tries to shrink. It is bipolarity trying to return to neutrality or a ground state.
That snake represents some physical and mathematical properties of this existence that are rather advanced for its age. The knowledge of the serpent.
<The Dave Nelson> "...Today, I will reveal that I am a NECROMANCER!... BWHAHAHHAHH! "

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207251 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
John 20:24-29
Jesus Appears to Thomas
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him,“We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them,“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said,“Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas,“Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to him,“My Lord and my God!”
Then Jesus told him,“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
----------
In sum: the Bible says belief is superior to evidence. Or in other words, it wants people to believe that credulity is a virtue.
I wonder if Jesus would think that those who believe in Lord Krishna without proof are also blessed.
The Topix Atheist! interpretations of the Bible are always amusing.

Please, continue.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207252 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like presuppositional apologetics: "let's just assume that the Abrahamic God exists and work from there". The fun thing about that is that it opens the door to every other deity which has been claimed to exist too. There isn't any way to rationalize the existence of Yahweh without likewise allowing every other god too.
Oh.

What god do you believe in?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#207253 Jan 24, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Our oh so intelligent and super informed Topix atheists on here.
Oh so cool collectors of information others gave them and reciters of it as truths.
They are "in the know", don't you know?
But they seem to miss one important salient fact of their existence. They are existing and have something to lose.
But blabberating and arguing on a forum is more important to them. They will do it until the day they die believing it was a worthwhile endeavor.
Then what? Perhaps someone a thousand years from now will retrieve one of their posts and start to worship the intelligence and insight they exhibited? They will be immortalized?
Yeah.
Perhaps you can recruit your minions in the classified section of a local Colorado newspaper?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#207254 Jan 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like presuppositional apologetics: "let's just assume that the Abrahamic God exists and work from there". The fun thing about that is that it opens the door to every other deity which has been claimed to exist too. There isn't any way to rationalize the existence of Yahweh without likewise allowing every other god too.
And what about the atheist apologetic point of view that says "let's just say that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist and we'll work from there"?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#207255 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you capitalize "atheists" like you did?
Just to irritate you and HIM.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#207256 Jan 24, 2014
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi...

Business and political leaders would not make a statement like that, or work toward. They are too busy trying to stay at the top of the heap.

Society needs a conscience.

IANS and Topix atheists don't qualify.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#207257 Jan 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't see this quote from Phil R as insensitive at all.
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person, not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say,‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
Really? There are several problems.

First, he is inferring that because he knew a few black people who seemed happy in public, that means:

1 - that their public persona was an accurate reflection of their private feelings caused by pre civil rights oppression

2 - that even if they were, that his experience can be extrapolated to all black people, and

3 - that it is appropriate for him to speak for an entire people that he is not a part of, and gloss over the real problems of the time with "they were godly" and "happy."

Also, with his "pre entitlement, pre welfare" comment, he disparages the entire race. This comment hinges on the notion that today, most black people mooch off the government, which simply isn't true, and that they were better off in jim crow days.

If you don't see the problem with those comments, I don't know what to say to you.

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
Mencari teman seks wanita yang gersang 2 min wan jambu 4
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 min WasteWater 17,938
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Lbj 14,787
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Pokay 951,688
Play "end of the word" part 2 7 min WasteWater 728
how long after taking the Vivitrol shot can i f... (Nov '12) 13 min Ryan55 151
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 15 min RADEKT 278,533
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min hojo 627,929
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr lisw 180,106
More from around the web