Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239254 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.

White Trash Ho hater

London, KY

#165959 May 24, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too funny!
Almost as funny as your religion and its Bible!
Here is why! crack open a Gideons and check this out.
Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.
So, since your Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.
Irony meter goes boom!
Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus?
After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.
I live my life so that when my feet hit the floor in the morning Satan shudders in fear, and says "OH For Christ's sake... he's awake!"
I was raised with King James Version of the Bible. Family, God and my country. That's what I believe in so don't push your beliefs on me or should I say non beliefs.
Imhotep

Sweetwater, TN

#165960 May 24, 2013
White Trash Ho hater wrote:
<quoted text>I was raised with King James Version of the Bible. Family, God and my country. That's what I believe in so don't push your beliefs on me or should I say non beliefs.
Then why are you in atheist forums?
What is your purpose here?
Do you hope to convert someone?
You won't, your wasting your time.

If you want to learn something this is a good place.

I've given you something from the book you were raised in...explain it please. Ask your clergy.

Also you cannot 'push' a belief that you don't have!

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.--Exodus 33:23

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#165961 May 24, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
<quoted text>Because your gay sex is not part of his design. If your car did not run, would you let it sit there or take it to the shop to be fixed so it could run like it was designed to run.
Jesus made it clear and it was a powerful message. When the fig tree failed to produce and function as it was designed to, Jesus cursed it. When Noah built the Ark, who brought in two of a kind, male and female, because that is proper functionality.
LOL

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#165962 May 25, 2013
JesusMyLord wrote:
<quoted text>Because your gay sex is not part of his design. If your car did not run, would you let it sit there or take it to the shop to be fixed so it could run like it was designed to run.

Jesus made it clear and it was a powerful message. When the fig tree failed to produce and function as it was designed to, Jesus cursed it. When Noah built the Ark, who brought in two of a kind, male and female, because that is proper functionality.
The fig tree that "failed to produce" was not in season.

You'd think the son of god would know that.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#165963 May 25, 2013
He must have been ahem,( special )
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>The fig tree that "failed to produce" was not in season.

You'd think the son of god would know that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#165964 May 25, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The fig tree that "failed to produce" was not in season.
You'd think the son of god would know that.
But if he was the son of god, he knew it would not produce when the season came.

HairyBetty, what strikes me as comical is that atheists insist on more biblical literalism than theists.

Always looking for those technicalities.

Both atheists and christians are obsessed with God.

It is an ego trip - in both cases.

Christianity developed from taking the wisdom of a special man, Jesus, and weaving it into yarns that require material, like blood, sin, hell, a man-like god on a throne, etc.

That's material faith. Entirely egoic.

The atheist thinks there is nothing but material. Material is his god. What he thinks he knows, what he holds in his hand, these are god.

Fundamentally, it is the same error - the error of substituting form for the formless; describing and explaining, or explaining away, what cannot be described or explained.

Lesson for the day.

Live long and prosper. I will not pray for you. Praying is also part of form.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#165965 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
He must have been ahem,( special )
<quoted text>
You are special, GiveMeLiberace.

A special fuckingIdiot.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#165966 May 25, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Thanks, Falice.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#165967 May 25, 2013
You got a thing for Liberace fatboy?

Whatever gets you through I guess.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You are special, GiveMeLiberace.

A special fuckingIdiot.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#165968 May 25, 2013
Your screen name rhymes with what you were made to do as a lad right?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks, Falice.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#165969 May 25, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too funny!
Almost as funny as your religion and its Bible!
Here is why! crack open a Gideons and check this out.
Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.
So, since your Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.
Irony meter goes boom!
Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus?
After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.
I live my life so that when my feet hit the floor in the morning Satan shudders in fear, and says "OH For Christ's sake... he's awake!"
The changeover from BC to AD is based upon the crucifixion, not the birth.

Why do Topix atheists rant and rail from a position of ignorance? Perhaps they are made that way.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#165970 May 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if he was the son of god, he knew it would not produce when the season came.
HairyBetty, what strikes me as comical is that atheists insist on more biblical literalism than theists.
Always looking for those technicalities.
Both atheists and christians are obsessed with God.
It is an ego trip - in both cases.
Christianity developed from taking the wisdom of a special man, Jesus, and weaving it into yarns that require material, like blood, sin, hell, a man-like god on a throne, etc.
That's material faith. Entirely egoic.
The atheist thinks there is nothing but material. Material is his god. What he thinks he knows, what he holds in his hand, these are god.
Fundamentally, it is the same error - the error of substituting form for the formless; describing and explaining, or explaining away, what cannot be described or explained.
Lesson for the day.
Live long and prosper. I will not pray for you. Praying is also part
Not bad, dude.

Pretty good, actually
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#165971 May 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The changeover from BC to AD is based upon the crucifixion, not the birth.
Why do Topix atheists rant and rail from a position of ignorance? Perhaps they are made that way.
That is an interesting analogy, But that dog won't hunt.

Here's why Dave!

In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators. Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context. In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt. Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court. Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult. Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence. For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts.

"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)


For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.

Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.

It would spoil the story!!

How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?

'Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.'
– John Romer, Testament


The "Word of God", far from being inerrant, has always been a work in progress.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#165972 May 25, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an interesting analogy, But that dog won't hunt.
Here's why Dave!
In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators. Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context. In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt. Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court. Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult. Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence. For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts.
"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)
For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.
Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.
It would spoil the story!!
How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?
'Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.'
– John Romer, Testament
The "Word of God", far from being inerrant, has always been a work in progress.
So?

Why do Topix atheists take words of religious texts so literal? They so more than theists.

"Your" history is attempted reconstruction of events from fragments of all that was. It can have errors regarding true events. Be advised works such as the Bible go back a long ways, and were much closer in time to preceding events. They had fresher oraL history along with the artifacts.

BTW, people were people back then. Just as varied in thoughts and actions as we are today. They, too, had to occupy their minds like we do. History stultifies them, they become machines and stick figures. Something remote. They were the same as your Mom, Dad, Uncle Harry, and street vendors.

I believe part of present Israel was at one time part of Egypt proper during one of its eras.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165973 May 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The changeover from BC to AD is based upon the crucifixion, not the birth.
Why do Topix atheists rant and rail from a position of ignorance? Perhaps they are made that way.
Oh look the creationist twit is back with no proof of god.

He's come once again to the atheist forum to lie about atheists and scientists and apologise for the worthless rag cult manual he follows.

When you learn the moral of "honestly" you are welcome to admit to everyone here that you have no proof of god and are in fact a dishonest creationist troll.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165974 May 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
Why do Topix atheists take words of religious texts so literal? They so more than theists.
"Your" history is attempted reconstruction of events from fragments of all that was. It can have errors regarding true events. Be advised works such as the Bible go back a long ways, and were much closer in time to preceding events. They had fresher oraL history along with the artifacts.
BTW, people were people back then. Just as varied in thoughts and actions as we are today. They, too, had to occupy their minds like we do. History stultifies them, they become machines and stick figures. Something remote. They were the same as your Mom, Dad, Uncle Harry, and street vendors.
I believe part of present Israel was at one time part of Egypt proper during one of its eras.
Why do creationist trolls lie to excuse the gaping inconsistencies in their poorly constructed religious fraud tales?
Imhotep

Sevierville, TN

#165975 May 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
Why do Topix atheists take words of religious texts so literal? They so more than theists.
"Your" history is attempted reconstruction of events from fragments of all that was. It can have errors regarding true events. Be advised works such as the Bible go back a long ways, and were much closer in time to preceding events. They had fresher oraL history along with the artifacts.
BTW, people were people back then. Just as varied in thoughts and actions as we are today. They, too, had to occupy their minds like we do. History stultifies them, they become machines and stick figures. Something remote. They were the same as your Mom, Dad, Uncle Harry, and street vendors.
I believe part of present Israel was at one time part of Egypt proper during one of its eras.
We can see you are still engaged in your courageous battle with literacy and mental health. Perhaps one day, you will gain sufficient education to join the 21st Century.

There are, of course, many sins one can commit in the eyes of religion. Among the greatest is the sin of having an original thought. Religion disapproves of original thought the way Dracula disapproves of sunlight.

So you discard the old testament? But not the new? You can't have it both ways, all or none. You can't pick and choose what to believe in. Well, you can, but then that makes it basically your own religion, and by definition that makes it your own imagination.

Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its uses. Personally I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted. And the holy scriptures come in very handy when I need to justify behaviour I’m ashamed of.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#165976 May 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why would an all powerful god be concerned about gay sex of a lower species? Is god hoping his mum doesn't see him crack one out?
<quoted text>
God is concerned about gay sex??

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#165977 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It says cower... Wow you are really desperate. Or are you seeing things wrong through your tears? No shame in you once again being stumped by your betters.
It happens all the time.
<quoted text>
I meant cower, autocorrect changed it.

Your grasping at straws now, loser.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#165978 May 25, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too funny!
Almost as funny as your religion and its Bible!
Here is why! crack open a Gideons and check this out.
Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.
So, since your Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.
Irony meter goes boom!
Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus?
After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.
I live my life so that when my feet hit the floor in the morning Satan shudders in fear, and says "OH For Christ's sake... he's awake!"
The exact date of Jesus' birth is unknown. It's somewhere between 4BC and 3AD.

No one has birth certificates back then, Jesus was no exception to that.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Yeah 1,233,690
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr IBdaMann 5,604
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr cpeter1313 309,894
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr tom wingo 29,767
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) May 25 Pietro Armando 201,809
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... May 25 Timotion 7
Jayhawks dance team #1 May 24 Jeff 1
More from around the web