Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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: May 09

Location hidden

#181675 Oct 28, 2013
chance47 wrote:
Oops, sorry scaritual
I see that it was blacklagoon who asked what happened to the water. Not you (although you rallied to his defense it seems by your response to what I posted).
No need to apologize.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181676 Oct 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>"Ha, My God Crom. laughs at your God."
Answer my questions Doctor. You called me a coward, remember. Even though I answered your questions. Now answer mine.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181677 Oct 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It has bee estimated that it would take 3.5 billion cubic MILES of EXTRA water to cover the planet to the extent that is portrayed in the bible. Where all this extra water came from and where it went is usually avoided by the Godbots. I do believe that Dave thinks the planet flew through a giant celestial rain cloud, of course that doesn't account for where all that water disappeared to.
1940's interpretation. Old as your argument is old and outdated.
.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181678 Oct 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It has bee estimated that it would take 3.5 billion cubic MILES of EXTRA water to cover the planet to the extent that is portrayed in the bible. Where all this extra water came from and where it went is usually avoided by the Godbots. I do believe that Dave thinks the planet flew through a giant celestial rain cloud, of course that doesn't account for where all that water disappeared to.
You live in those Atheist web sites. Like that is reliable information. Oh come on Doctor you can do better than that.
Super Satan

Hurricane, WV

#181679 Oct 28, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditch the 1940’s interpretation Doctor. This is 2013.
Genisis 7:
20.“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
Now did it say the “tops” of the mountains were covered?
NO it doesn’t. That is your insinuation from the old days of the 1940’s.
That measurement is about 28 feet and the would be enough water to cover the base of the mountains in the area.
And mountainous areas can flood. Just ask the Coloradans.
I wouldn't consider a mountain to be covered if just the base was surrounded in water.
Lrn2english f*ggot

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181680 Oct 28, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, no, word salad with "mysterious force dressing" is not a response, Dave.
Atmospheric pressure is atmospheric pressure and if the entire world, within a 40 day period, or a year, gained 3-5 miles in diameter of water, we would be toast...ermmm...more like lifeless meat sacks.
The biblical deluge is a myth.
Atmospheric pressure is the weight of all the gases in one square inch extending from the elevation being measured straight up until there is no more. All the gas gravity can get its hands on in that square inch column. Presently that is 14.7 pounds of gas at sea level.

If you rise 3-5 miles the pressure will be much less. Today's ocean is about .023 percent of the total earth mass. The average ocean depth presently is 2.65 miles. Even if you double that, and accounting for the increased circumference in doing so to raise the sea level to that 3-5 miles higher, you are not going to be adding enough mass to make that big a difference in any gravitational attraction to increase that air pressure. If I am wrong, please correct me and show the numbers.

Now, the increased moisture WILL increase that barometric pressure, but due to the way clouds work, it is not uniform. You have a large volume that condenses into drops, and that vacuum updraft thing I mentioned will influence that. A lot depends on just how that water became rain.

I am curious how you came up with that pressure bursting lungs thing. I took it to mean an increase in pressure. Maybe I misunderstood, and perhaps you could elucidate further and describe how such would be effected?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#181681 Oct 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Awwww.. the poor little godbot cannot read a long post?
Too much for your little godbot brains to comprehend?
LMAO!
Thanks for the compliment soulless one.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#181682 Oct 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And here? You prove you cannot read-- at all.
It Ain't has been anti-religious for years on Topix.
Not by your standards. Will YOU repost your seven sins claiming God is guilty of them, another 20 times this month? I hope not to see your standards of being anti-religious.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#181683 Oct 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Every day is proof of what? Nothing, except that we are alive on a planet that has days. The rest is speculation.
What does every day prove to you? That the universe has gods? One god? One god named Jesus?
As usual you are not even in the ball park. Jesus was a great person worthy of worship. The story is spectacular.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181684 Oct 28, 2013
The average ocean depth is 2.65 miles. That is almost 14,000 feet. The average land elevation is 2750 feet. That is a little over a half mile. A half mile rise in sea level will flood half of the land. It will also have an impact on the drainage of the higher places than they had before, in addition to debris blocking the drainage. The drainage will back up a bit. You will get lakes or seas at high levels for the duration when it is raining everywhere.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#181685 Oct 28, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditch the 1940’s interpretation Doctor. This is 2013.
Genisis 7:
20.“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
Now did it say the “tops” of the mountains were covered?
NO it doesn’t. That is your insinuation from the old days of the 1940’s.
That measurement is about 28 feet and the would be enough water to cover the base of the mountains in the area.
And mountainous areas can flood. Just ask the Coloradans.
I will withhold judgment, and await the 2060s interpretation.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181687 Oct 28, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>
Roanoke 1892–1905 sunk after having burnt down to the waterline A huge four-masted barque with skysails of a total length of 360 ft (110 m) and 3,539 GRT. In 1905 she was in command of Capt. Jabez A. Amesbury when it caught fire while loading at the anchorage of Noumea. The crew, sustained by those of the four-masted barque Susquehanna of the same owner and the three-masted ship Arabia, all in all 60 men, tried to fight the fire. This American ship used iron bolts and steel reinforcements. It belonged to the fleet of Arthur Sewell & Co. of Bath, Maine. It was the largest wooden ship (115 m / 377 ft LOA) after the Great Republic.[22][23]
(329.5 ft) 15.3 m
(50 ft 1 in) Wyoming 1909–1924 sunk[25] This American ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle.[26] This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to be pumped out.[27] The overall length including jibboom was 450 feet (140 m).
102.1 m
(335 ft)[28] 16.2 m
(53 ft) Great Republic 1853–1872 abandoned leaking[29] This American ship used iron bolts, and reinforced with steel, including ninety 36 foot 4x1 inch cross braces, and metal keelsons.[30] The MIT Museum noted that: "With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits.".[31] The overall length including jibboom was 400 ft (120 m).
102.1 m
(335 ft) 18.3 m
(60 ft) HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey 1858–1871, 1875 resp. sold as scrap These British warships were pushing the limits of what was possible in wooden ship construction and suffered structural problems.[32][33]
(311 feet) Pretoria 1900–1905 sunk An American barge built for use on the Great Lakes. To strengthen its wooden frame and hull, it included steel keelson plates, chords, arches, and also was diagonally strapped with steel. A donkey engine powered a pump to keep its interior dry.[34]
(377.3 ft) 22.2 m
(72.8 ft) Rochambeau 1865–1874 scrapped This French ship was an iron-clad ship built in New York. About 50 feet (15 m) of her length was a ram. She was not particularly stable or seaworthy, even with her substantial metal components, and only made one voyage in the open ocean to reach her new owners.
Notice all these ships over 300 feet HAD to be reenforced with STEEL and IRON braces, and even then the twisted in rough seas and leaked.
A little lesson for you on boats in the ocean. The only way to survive heavy seas is to be sure the bow of the boat is alway "into" the weather, for this you need propulsion, sails or a motor, otherwise the boat will flounder and possibly capsize, this is even true for the biggest tankers and container ships. The supposed Ark had NO power source, and would have been at the mercy of the sea. As big and as top heavy as it is depicted, it would have capsized in the first heavy seas, or, without iron bracing, broken apart and sunk.
‘The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried.”

The Ark was a one time use expendable survival craft. It was not made to sail around the globe. And it was not designed to last 50 years at sea.

It’s design is similar to modern day rescue life boat found on ships and oil rigs. With the exception it was much larger.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181688 Oct 28, 2013
Oh, don't forget the tides during those 40 days and more.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181689 Oct 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will withhold judgment, and await the 2060s interpretation.
Are you going to be around till 2060?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#181690 Oct 28, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Good rebuttal.
<quoted text>
In the future, if you have trouble understanding how a reply relates to your post, just ask.
What is your legitimate interest in my location?
<quoted text>
You seem to have me confused with somebody else. All I've said about you is that you seem like a Christian to me.
Your post are text book on why I am against paraphrasing. Beside what is standard of paraphrasing your responses are not even in the ball park of your break down. I do really believe you are not an atheist and you are making a mockery of them
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181691 Oct 28, 2013
Super Satan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't consider a mountain to be covered if just the base was surrounded in water.
Lrn2english f*ggot
What if it was covered in snow and the base was flooded?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#181692 Oct 28, 2013
Subliminal Criminal wrote:
Atheism does require faith like religion. Perhaps not as much but that depends on how much faith you have in science and how much has been scientifically discovered so far.
It is the belief man knows everything. To claim it as proven is saying exactly that. This debate is beyond silly.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#181693 Oct 28, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditch the 1940’s interpretation Doctor. This is 2013.
Genisis 7:
20.“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
Now did it say the “tops” of the mountains were covered?
NO it doesn’t. That is your insinuation from the old days of the 1940’s.
That measurement is about 28 feet and the would be enough water to cover the base of the mountains in the area.
And mountainous areas can flood. Just ask the Coloradans.
Oh, so Biblical truth is based on the latest "interpretation"?

Good to know.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#181694 Oct 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will withhold judgment, and await the 2060s interpretation.
Hehehe.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181695 Oct 28, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No reference supplied, which marine engineering firm was this? I have tried several searches with no results. You would think a bold and major statement like that which can validate at least part of the religious belief of three major world religions would at least warrant a small article in a newpaper.
The only attempt to prove it is possible was not a great success. A duplicate ark of the description in the babble was built, moored on the Thames during part of the 2012 Olympic games until it was moved on for health and safety reasons
You will note that it was built by a modern engineering company using 21st century methods of Swedish pine (unavailable in the middle east) and steel fabrications had to be used as bracing and reinforcing, unavailable pre the late industrial revolution.
‘The nautical engineering firm Shearer and Associates wrote regarding the ark that it would have been structurally sound and would have had sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried.”

Naval architects at t KRISO (renamed MOERI in 2005) in Korea who studied Noah’s Ark in 1992 and declared the biblical specifications sound.

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) 4 min Nostrils Waxman 1,761,831
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 min Trojan 35,944
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 32 min Website statistician 341,024
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 19 hojo 12,405
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May 16 Go phartse 4
News PBA: Columbian parades new import vs Aces May 4 AndPhartse 2
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar '18 Lonnie Peters 201,480