Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255494 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.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#201125 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
While I was in the Air Force, I had a sergeant that told me aliens do not exist because they are not mentioned in the Bible. I asked him where the airplanes on the base came from since clearly they must not exist since airplanes aren't mentioned in the Bible either.
(Yeah, I'm a snarky bastard.)
I like your sense of humour.
:-)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#201126 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yessir, I know this.
Do you understand the imagination it takes to fully comprehend the many differences in fish and mammals? It wasn't just legs the fish had to grow, but an entirely different body. Different eyes, skin, organs, bones, hair, etc.
The fish had already supposedly evolved from 'lesser' organisms into fish. Why? You say it's to benefit their survival. Ok, I'll go with that.
But why, then, did the fish bother getting on land? What's the point? They obviously have it good in the ocean...
Also, after some of the fish grew land living bodies, why did some of them decide to go back to the ocean and regrow only part of their fishie bodies? What evolutionary sense does it make for whales to have lungs and pelvic bones? That doesn't seem to be an advantage for a water living creature.
Why would a perfect deity create them that way?

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#201127 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
On another forum, several years ago, I had posted the same letter. One Canadian agreed to be my slave. But that person has been a bad slave and has not followed my orders. They have not moved from Canada to take care of my every whim.
How very kinky.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#201128 Jan 9, 2014
Bongo wrote:
actually, you just mocked yourself with that strawman response.
It was an analogy, not a misrepresentation of RR's position.

To me, there is little difference between rejecting the ToE and rejecting a round Earth concept.

There are many things that RR believes, and tells us about, that are just as demonstrably incorrect as believing that the Earth is flat.

You have the opportunity to redeem yourself by explaining to the class what the purpose of an analogy is, in your own words.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#201129 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It is possible for an organism to develop systems that work very well on land, in water, or both. Usually, those that can live on land or in water aren't the best in either, but their environmental flexibility makes up for that. The flexibility, which gains them access to a wider variety of resources, is what facilitates the transition from one environment to the other.
How does an organism "develop" a system? What would prompt it to consider "developing" a system.

There is a lot of "evolved" used by evolutionists, but almost no nuts and bolts on how. Such would lend great credence to the theory.

How are these changes effected on the molecular level? Understand there is not supposed to be some guy moulding this stuff in his fingers. It is supposed to initiate these actions on its own.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201130 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If they weren't an endangered species, they could be furry woodland creatures someday.
There are fish, classified as fish, that walk on land and have the ability to survive out of water for extended periods.
When people, usually Christians in my experience, attempt to criticize the ToE by claiming that it is absurd for fish to "grow legs", I grin, because I can think of much more absurd adaptations to use as examples.
Are you familiar with the Angler Fish?
Of course.

And that's a good point. How the hell did a fish learn to fish?

Have you seen the bird of paradise (strelitzia reginae)? How the hell did a plant learn to grow like a bird?!

That's some magical evolution right there!

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#201131 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, gays need to be re-reminded about common sense?
Still poofter bashing I see, UC.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201132 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Organisms that die before they have a chance to reproduce cannot pass on their genes. Anything that has an effect on how long they live will have an effect on which genes carry to the next generation. That's an important tidbit.
Buck Crick wrote:
Yeah. The dead members of a population are less numerous, and have fewer offspring.
That was a fascinating scientific breakthrough.
Almost spooky.
~sniggers

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#201133 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are "lunged fish" now extinct?
Because the Jesus! died on the cross?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201134 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have missed my last post on the subject.
Barton spoke correctly on Jefferson, right down to the letter.
Throckmorton's claims about Jefferson's motivations are that he and Congress had no interest in evangelizing the Indians:
Throckmorton:
" Congress in general and Jefferson in particular had no interest in and were not
involved with missionary or evangelistic work among native peoples, including
the Delaware."
Barton responds:(historical references are footnoted to source)
"In November 1775, Congress (of which Jefferson was a member) provided monies “out
of the continental treasury” to the Rev. Samuel Kirkland for the specific purpose of “the
propagation of the Gospel among the Indians.”68 Also related to the Rev. Kirkland, in
January 1777 Congress gave more money for his missionary work among native
peoples,69 and in October 1779 appropriated additional funds to expand his missionary
work into other tribes.70 Then in December 1784, Congress announced:
'Congress are highly pleased with the readiness expressed by the Indians to receive
a missionary among them; and being desirous to embrace every opportunity of
diffusing the benign precepts of Christianity among those nations ...[and] hereby
authorized to cause a church to be built in place of that which was destroyed
during the war, and to engage Mr. Samuel Kirkland as a missionary among the
Indians'.71
All of these congressional measures relate to funding the Rev. Kirkland as a missionary
among native tribes. Returning to a chronological examination of other congressional acts,
in December 1775 a Delaware chief appeared before the Continental Congress. John
Hancock, president of Congress, told him:
'We are pleased that the Delaware intend to embrace Christianity. We [Congress]
will send you, according to your desire, a minister and a schoolmaster to instruct
you in the principles of religion and other parts of useful knowledge.'72
Congress provided funding for missionaries; and significantly, Jefferson was again part
of this Congress and this policy; and there is absolutely no evidence in the congressional
records or in any of his own correspondence, that of other delegates in Congress, or his
own autobiography that he opposed any of these acts. Congressional funding for
missionaries was regularly passed by subsequent Congresses, including in 1776, four
times in 1785, and so forth.
75
In April 1776, Congress ordered the Commissioners for Indian Affairs to employ “a
minister of the Gospel to reside among the Delaware Indians and instruct them in the
Christian religion.”76 For the second time:(1) Congress directly funded missionaries to
the Delaware on their land"
__________
Now. Which man appears to be historically accurate on Jefferson's motivations?
Sorry, Buck, but I don't see any evidence here that Jefferson wanted to evangelize Indians as Barton implied. Do you?

Furthermore, if you steadfastly refuse to cite your references for review of them in toto, then I will simply consider these matters your unsupported claims. I need to look at the source data, and I don't always feel like chasing it down.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#201135 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard about the civilization that first developed the concept of zero? It was such a novel idea, they actually thought it was divine in origin. They put the symbol in all their temples and on all their altars.
To them, nothing was sacred.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#201136 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ya, ok. Adapt, not grow.
Semantic crap.
When I'm corrected on something, my worldview becomes more accurate.

Am I not helping you?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You never addressed my question.
I thought you answered yourself, and I have now forgotten the question.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, I've heard the theory.
But how?! How can a fish adapt to such drastic differences as the biology of a fish imparted to the biology of, say, a frog?
It's only drastic if you separate your examples by a very long period of time.

From generation to generation, there's hardly any difference at all. Deep time is generally necessary to see significant changes.

For an overview of the process, consult the appropriate wiki articles.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Aw beeeee-otch. I'm hungry.
I've got Buck doing macaroni crafts. Perhaps he'll let you have a small portion for a snack.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201137 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It goes back to the argument about "separation of church and state", a phrase of which Jefferson is the author.
Whatever its provenance - Constitution or activist judges and politicians - you seem to disapprove of the concept of church-state separation. In my opinion, it's one of the best features of American government.

What would you like to see instead? Certainly not theocracy.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#201138 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are "lunged fish" now extinct?
Because there aren't any left.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201139 Jan 9, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:

You really don't get evolution do you?
You don't evolve, species evolve.
This is how it works.
1. All living things produce offspring which are slightly different to themselves, either through sex mixing two sets of genes or mistakes in copying or because bacteria can swap genes. Just observe how different you are to your parents and children.(That’s Random).
2. All living things produce far more offspring than can possibly survive on the resources available.
3. Most of those offspring will die (watch any nature program).
4. Those most likely to survive are those most suited to that environment. Different environments will suit different individuals. In other words, what survives breeds, what doesn’t doesn’t.(Non random Natural selection).
5. So over many generations, a species changes, becomes more adapted to its environment.
6. If a branch of a species changes enough, it might be called a different species, just as foxes are a different species to wolves.
7. Only tiny changes can be expected to happen from one generation to the next. So the evolution of all body parts such as the eye and brain has to be explained in very small steps. Scientists are sure they can do that.
It isn’t just the fittest that survive. Species can survive by becoming smaller, quieter and better at hiding.
Nor is it about increased complexity, that’s just one of many survival strategies.
Earthworms are very successful despite being very slow and dim.
This process is incredibly slow, but it does happen and as life has existed for about 3.5 billion years, it’s had plenty of time to branch into all the forms we see today.
1. We're different from our parents because 2 created 1. Where's the evolution in that?

2. Seriously? Then why are the too many offspring surviving?

3. All offspring die, not most.

4. Yes. What doesn't survive doesn't breed. Science!

5. I know that's the theory, it just doesn't add up. A fish is already adapted perfectly to its environment, to slowly change over millions of years would mean millions of years of imperfect adaptations.

6. Different species?!

7. Ya. Sure. Scientists are sure of a lot of things. Too bad they're wrong more often than right.

Look, it seems you've found your religion and it's in the middle of a science book.

I wish you well.

Just don't die. Cuz the dead can't have offspring, according to science.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#201140 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Given 4 billion years, a lot can happen.
You can say "did not" all you want, but in the end you have still failed to explain the fossil record..
And the DNA record, and...
Well, pretty much all of reality.
As for growing gills...because evolution is not directed, it does not have a purpose, it does not plan. The ancestors of whales moved from land to water because the environment provided opportunities to exploit. Evolution followed as adaptations made them more fit for that environment. But evolution can only adapt what it has to start with. Ambulocetus didn't have gills, or anything even close to gills. Therefore, whales don't have gills. It takes a long long time for that sort of adaptation to occur.
Fish developed lungs from other organs (most likely a swim bladder), using those lungs they moved to land (because opportunities were available), they evolved into amphibians that had lungs and gills.
That took a very long time to evolve. And you think things can just happen at the snap of a finger and whale evolve gills? Oh. Right. You are one of those types of theists. You really do think such things can happen at the snap of a finger.
And if you bothered to look carefully, you would see that whales...while not having gills...HAVE made some serious adaptations to an aquatic life. Their breathing mechanisms have strong similarities to our own (we both have lungs) but theirs have some important differences that allow for a better fit in water. You just try to hold your breath and dive to a depth of 1500 feet.
Are you actually going to claim that since whales do not have gills they are not successful at living in the ocean?
BTW...we have seen this move from land back to the sea many times. Not just whales. Plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, mesosaurs, sea snakes, marine iguanas, seals, sea otters, manatees, penguins...just to name a few.
Compare sea otters, seals and manatees. All of these lie at different points on the continuum of moving from land to sea. How can you look at these and NOT see the possibility of whale evolution. Land animals with a few adaptations to life at sea (sea otters) yet still living mostly at sea...sea animals that still spend a little time on land (seals) and have many adaptations to life at sea...and sea mammals that spend their entire lives in the water (manatees) and have even more adaptations to life at sea..
I wonder if RR can adapt.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#201141 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, if you can't imagine any way it could have gotten there, then all I can say is that you have a very poor sense of imagination.
How did it get there? The same way Harry Potter ended up at Hogwarts...somebody made the story up.
Are you aware that a few years ago some Israeli archeologist went on a serious hunt for archeological evidence of Moses. They really want to find evidence of the man. And what did they find? Nada. Not one damned thing. Their conclusion? The whole Moses story is a myth.
And outside of the Bible, there isn't one mention of Moses in any historical document. Not one. It is almost as if the man never existed at all. Which is almost certainly the case.
Your one and only source for Moses is the Bible. Using the Bible as evidence of Moses is like using Paul Bunyan stories as evidence that Babe the Blue Ox really existed.
If you want to see what archeology really has to say on the early Bible, watch PBS's "The Bible's Buries Secrets". All true, and information that should be illuminating to a Christian.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-b...
LOL, now sarcasm masquerading as intelligence...

Potter didn't portray a fact of science thousands of years before science discovered it. Nor did he produce a culture of the distinction and history of the Jews.

You clearly have no explanation or validation for your idiotic claim.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201142 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
When I'm corrected on something, my worldview becomes more accurate.
Am I not helping you?
<quoted text>
I thought you answered yourself, and I have now forgotten the question.
<quoted text>
It's only drastic if you separate your examples by a very long period of time.
From generation to generation, there's hardly any difference at all. Deep time is generally necessary to see significant changes.
For an overview of the process, consult the appropriate wiki articles.
<quoted text>
I've got Buck doing macaroni crafts. Perhaps he'll let you have a small portion for a snack.
What is this mysterious mutant creature? The part fish, part frog, part lizard thingie?

If there's been 4 billion years of evolution, don't ya think we would've found loads of evidence to support evolution? I mean, for every animal we see today, it had billions or trillions of ancestors. From bacteria to figs to frog to lizard to mouse to bird to ape to man and everything in between.

Where's all the inbetweens?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201143 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Because there aren't any left.
Oh.

So there's no more evolution going on?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#201144 Jan 9, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
First recorded murder in history – Genesis 4.2-8
First recorded genocide – Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24
Biblical rape - 2 Samuel 13:1-15
God commands the murder of unarmed men, women and children - Ezekiel 9:4-6
Slavery and theft - Numbers 31:9
Murder and Slavery - Numbers 31:17-18
Slavery and mutilation - Exodus 21:20-21
Had enough of the babble stories then how about Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Bhring Beivik, good cristians all
Then we have Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic who committed ethnic genocide against in the name of their christian church
Do not accept that the IRA were mass murdering terrorists in the name of their church?
How about the NLFT in india, more good christian terrorist murderers
And the KKK and anti abortionists in the US, what about those dealers in misery, the eastern European human traffickers, the majority of all those caught and tried are christian.
Hitler was catholic, his actions were based on his christian beliefs and he was never excommunicated.
Stalin was raised christian and once his power was consolidated he set about rebuilding the church in russia.
Facts are facts no matter what your preacher tells you.
And if you want personal experience of the hatred that christians bestow on those who will not bow down to there god or conform to there particular version of morality I can give you several harrowing and atrocious examples.
As for jewish I know of several Palestinians who have suffered at the hands of the jewish military, I employ a girl who brother was MURDERED in his bed because the local Jewish people wanted to build a new settlement on land that he owned.
So christian or jewish? Yes
Ignorant bigot? I think not, I simply think you are blind (or deliberately ignorant) to what you church does to some sick minded people
Interesting.

You scrap the history, true or not, from as far back as you can go against both Jews and Christians. And you could do it, because those situations were so rare.

I simply asked you to compare current situations with what is going on right now in our world. You know we could argue historical incidents until we are blue in the face.

What you can't argue, is that Islam, right now, TODAY, committed more atrocities than you were able to list against Jews and Christians IN ALL OF HISTORY!!!

Smile.

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 Teaman 1,394,657
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr -This IS Too Easy 9,796
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr cpeter1313 311,324
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr Bruin For Life 32,288
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 13 Dump Trump 201,862
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web