Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#182340 Nov 1, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
It requires no courage to pull someone from imaginary flames.
Look…I just did it!
Wanna see it again?
Ooh….I saved kittens this time!
And the puppies too?

Yaay! The puppies too!

Do it again!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#182341 Nov 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically it was easy as pie fitting everything into a dugout canoe.
All the animals food and everything in a 14 ft dugout.
The hard part was building and getting them all to go through the miniaturization machine...:)
Obviously, god consulted Iaasic Asimov.

;)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#182342 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cultures have been building boats ever since man has been on the Earth.
The population of the Earth numerically was significantly lower than today. It’s not known how far mankind had traversed on land from their original beginnings.
The Earth as they knew it may have been regionally. Meaning it was possible to have the regions animals captured and put on the Ark.
The problem Atheist have with the story of the Noah’s flood. Is their very narrow perception. They refuse to look at the possibilities because they want to exaggerate the story beyond reason.
There’s absolutely nothing about this story that was impossible. We have seen catastrophic natural disasters on the Earth in our lifetime. We know that humans can build massive and impressive structures. Even in ancient times.
We know that precipitation can cover mountain tops.
Atheist are the ones who try to make the story far fetched and it’s anything but that. It’s just reality. The Earth floods today and it did in their time.
Wow

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182343 Nov 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is not a bit of sense in trying to reason with "critical thinkers' that are more into destruction than reconstruction.
What's your interest in reason? Reason is for evidence based thinkers. You're a faith based thinker. You're free to believe whatever you like without this week, and then the opposite next week. What's the difference?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182344 Nov 2, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah Dave, the problem has to lie with us and our limited intelligence... can't possibly be that your thoughts are a convoluted mixture of paranoia, arrogance, immaturity, senility, and an unsolicited burning need to explain to the world how the entire universe is based on electromagnetic energy.
Aerobatty wrote:
Don't you think there are better things to pray for?
Like that no more children needlessly starve to death?
Hey there! Two of my favorite pilots. Nice to be posting with you both again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182345 Nov 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
That is exactly what you are doing with your higher morality than the Creator feel good.
Assuming that you are speaking of Jehovah, how hard is that? How hard is it to be more moral than Jehovah? And yes it feels good.

Since: Nov 13

Istanbul, Turkey

#182346 Nov 2, 2013
surah yaseen < check out please its a part of Quran

Since: Nov 13

Istanbul, Turkey

#182347 Nov 2, 2013
surah yaseen < check out please its a part of Quran

www.youtube.com/watch...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182348 Nov 2, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Your compadres claim it is impossible for precipitation to cover a mountain.
I don't think they or I claimed that it is impossible for snow to cap a mountain. We claim that there is not enough water in the world for the biblical of rainfall resulting in the disappearance of all dry land on earth to be accurate. You seem to agree.
Eagle 12 wrote:
If it was impossible for a mountain to be covered in precipitation then science would be on your side. But it is and will always be a fact that mountains are often covered in precipitation.
20 “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
Obviously, your bible is not referring to rainfall (or snowfall) on mountains, which falls downward, but to the floodwaters forming from rainfall, which level ascends as the word "upward" attests.
Eagle 12 wrote:
In this argument you and your compadres are on the wrong side of science. In Genesis 7:20 the scripture talks of water (precipitation) and mountains being covered. The narrowness of your interpretation is beyond humorous.
In the end, each of us needs to decide whether your bible is the authentic word of the creator of the universe or something else in order to decide whether to devote our lives to it or move on. You seem to find these arguments compelling. I find them tortured, and I attribute that to you having chosen to believe by faith what is abhorrent to reason. When confronted with the inevitable problems that come from that, you either need to abandon any pretense of reason, or start spinning.

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense”- Edward Abbey

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182349 Nov 2, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
I agree with you about using public funds to promote a religion. But using public funds to build a partnership with citizens in crime prevention is not only beneficial but a smart move.
Not if your crime prevention program is Christianity. What is the evidence that Christianity inhibits criminal activity? Why hasn't it helped the Catholic Church avoid crime?
Eagle 12 wrote:
Excluding people of faith from organizing a crime watch or volunteer awareness group would be unconstitutional.
Agreed. The unconstitutional part is supporting them with tax dollars.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182350 Nov 2, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
If the story had encompassed Noah building an airplane and flying away to some distant land then you would have cause to sneer. But building a floatation vessel was not out of the realm of possibility.
Noah building an airplane is more believable than that the highest mountains were submerged by forty days of rainfall. Only one of the two is physically possible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182351 Nov 2, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
The story says the mountains were covered. Not impossible but very much likely they were covered in precipitation. The average mean depth is listed. That depth was not taken over Mt Everest as you so ridiculously want to make it look.
The story implies that everybody not on the ark drowned. Your rainy or snowy mountaintops apologetics don't account for that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#182352 Nov 2, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Prove it, prove your insinuation. You say it says that I would just to like to see this proof.
You're a faith based thinker. What's all this talk about evidence and proof? Those are for rational skeptics. We require it to believe.

Our faith based friends don't need it to believe, and are not influenced by it in matters of faith, so why trouble them with it?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#182353 Nov 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a faith based thinker. What's all this talk about evidence and proof? Those are for rational skeptics. We require it to believe.
Our faith based friends don't need it to believe, and are not influenced by it in matters of faith, so why trouble them with it?
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, you know a lot, and you think it’s impossible to have H2O covering a mountain top. Let’s see, what’s on top of Mt McKinley?
According to you it’s a dry desert. It’s impossible for water to be covering a mountain top?
It’s called snow, H20, One hydrogen and two oxygen molecules. Water in the frozen form.
<SNIPPED>
H2O, One Hydrogen and two Oxygen molecules. Water in the frozen form.

BOOM. New science.

Since: Sep 08

Fowler, CO

#182354 Nov 2, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Where'd the water come from and then where did it all go to? The Earth is a closed system, all the water that evaporates eventually comes back down as rain. If you have a logical answer to this question I swear I'll go to church on Sunday and sing praises to the Lord.(Even though I can never actually be saved because on numerous occasions I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and usually in a very vile and demeaning manner.)
The earth is not a closed system. No more than a molecule passing an electrical current. It has a basic structure that passes mass and energy through it. It even has magnetic and gravitational fields that captures matter. I'm not aware of them finding giant catapults to get rid of that yet.

Continual solar wind, asteroids, comets, water vapor clouds. There is a lot of stuff out there that invades or get sucked into our system.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old?

How long did it take to accrete all of that mass just from gravity? Remember it was supposed to be clouds of space dust that came together.

What about all of the space dust and directed matter as from the sun in those 4.5 billion years since?

Fully formed Earth less than 10 billion years after the BB and nothing added on in the last 4.5 billion years?

You should quite reading books and blindly accepting them as "truths" about your creation and start thinking about what you read.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182355 Nov 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The earth is not a closed system. No more than a molecule passing an electrical current. It has a basic structure that passes mass and energy through it. It even has magnetic and gravitational fields that captures matter. I'm not aware of them finding giant catapults to get rid of that yet.
Continual solar wind, asteroids, comets, water vapor clouds. There is a lot of stuff out there that invades or get sucked into our system.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old?
How long did it take to accrete all of that mass just from gravity? Remember it was supposed to be clouds of space dust that came together.
What about all of the space dust and directed matter as from the sun in those 4.5 billion years since?
Fully formed Earth less than 10 billion years after the BB and nothing added on in the last 4.5 billion years?
You should quite reading books and blindly accepting them as "truths" about your creation and start thinking about what you read.
Science also conclusively demonstrates Evolution - the fact of life that sh*ts on your creationist cults lies.

Since: Sep 08

Fowler, CO

#182356 Nov 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that you are speaking of Jehovah, how hard is that? How hard is it to be more moral than Jehovah? And yes it feels good.
Assuming is a large part of your reasoning process.

That Jehovah is a representation of a higher authority and force behind the creation of this universe and us. It doesn't have to be as pictured.

You are reacting to men's perversions of that representation and have puffed up your little ego to Biblical proportions in reacting to them and are including that force with them. You are no better than them.

A chaotic and random creation belief suits your ego better.

Since: Sep 08

Fowler, CO

#182357 Nov 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science also conclusively demonstrates Evolution - the fact of life that sh*ts on your creationist cults lies.
Ever watch time lapse movies of the construction of various things?

The finished product does not usually look like the components.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#182358 Nov 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever watch time lapse movies of the construction of various things?
The finished product does not usually look like the components.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever watch time lapse movies of the construction of various things?
I'm watching the time lapse movie of the destruction of a variant thing.

That would be you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182359 Nov 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming is a large part of your reasoning process.
That Jehovah is a representation of a higher authority and force behind the creation of this universe and us. It doesn't have to be as pictured.
You are reacting to men's perversions of that representation and have puffed up your little ego to Biblical proportions in reacting to them and are including that force with them. You are no better than them.
A chaotic and random creation belief suits your ego better.
You're a simple minded judgemental cult liar with no proof of god, talking out of his arse.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 35 min Tinka 1,191,124
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Anonymous 29,070
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr LonePalm 4,197
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 hr HitMan 201,387
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Joy Division 308,924
Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) 17 hr CS Rosenberg 71
NCSU vs UNC from the Coach's Perspective by Jam... Feb 28 IdeasandTruth 1
More from around the web