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

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#128104 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't.
I'm talking about the specific religion of "creationism." It denies science and history.
It denies your atheism and your revisionist history which is not the same as rejecting Science anymore than your belief the universe created itself and life came from inert elements is anti science.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128105 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
All you have to do is look at Scripture. 1 Kings 6:1. Establish the time Solomon started to build the Temple and back date it 480 as it says in the text! Then you have the time of the Exodus. Not 146 or so years after that date!
You just made me spit soda all over my screen. Thanks.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128106 Oct 6, 2012
Makes sense, Hiding.
Good thing I'm no creationist.
ugh
Do I have to fight with them now, too?
screw it, it's oh-beer-thirty

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128107 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No ''leap of faith'' is required. All one has to do is compare the Exodus account with this Egyptian text to see the obvious similiarities. The river to blood is in both. What is the Egyptian author describing? Slaves revolting. What event is the Egyptian describing? The land dark. All this and more jibes with the Exodus account.''Not everyone is willing to make'' subsequently means many are willing to make. If not everyone is willing to make then who is willing to make? That is what happens when an authentic document is produced which jibes with Exodus account. It is dismissed! Explained away. No one know the date!(Appeals to ignorance!) Any number of excuses and hiding asks how does the document add validation to the Exodus accounts?
You act like people are instinctively against the idea of an all loving god up in the sky who loves them and has a plan for them and wants to hang out with them forever and play harps and such. I actually think that would be quite nice. We don't reject your religious nonsense out of spite or reflex, we reject it because it's stupid, and because it is easy to see that when your mind isn't clouded by belief.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128108 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're being ... ignorant here. New York, New Amsterdam didn't always exist. You know this, right? Once, a long time ago, there was no city where New York now stands.
The same thing is true of Jericho (and other cities mentioned in the Bible). Only, unlike you, our early Bible editors and writers weren't aware of that - they literally were ignorant. They assumed, incorrectly, that the cities they were aware of always existed.
Do you know how we know that? Cities are built upon previous dwellings, upon previous dwellings, upon previous dwellings and eventually upon the earth.
It was a very simple matter for archaeologists to just keep digging and dating Jericho. Eventually they, too, found the beginnings of the city - and guess what? They dated it.
No city existed where Jericho did when the Bible claims it was there.
Let's pretend you can think critically with regards to your own religion. I know you cannot, but let's pretend you can. You ask "why wasn't there a city when the Bible says there was, Hiding?" And I respond, "well, we both know that 3 different writers wrote Exodus. Later, one editor wove the stories together and tried to make the work. He didn't know that Jericho did not always stand where it was and so anachronistically (do you know what this word means???) added it."
Anachronistic means "putting items out of time or before their time." It's like writing a novel where the main character is listening to ABBA in 1940. That would be incorrect; an anachronistic error. Your Bible editors were anachronistic because they didn't have access to information the way we do. They just added whatever cities and details that they knew at the time - that's how Bible scholars can tell that it was edited (and edited poorly), out of time.
You're welcome.
I feel bad for light.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#128109 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
From your paper. Please note they also don't take the Bible literally:
It is only fundies from both the left and right who do. That would include you but not necessarily me.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128110 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Why should we take their claims on faith? On the other hand you have Scripture.
Dude, I swear to god you're doing this on purpose. You are going to have to buy me a computer if you keep this up.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128111 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> And let me tell you something, it is not only Christianity, it is also Judaism and Jewish history you demonstrate contempt for. Reducing it all to invented myth to keep everybody together. Your explanation is condescending.
You do know that most jews are not ridiculous literalists, right?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128112 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If you deny 400 years of Israeli history as it relates to slavery to the degree where the first born sons were murdered by Egyptians then it is not so hard a stretch for your counterpart to deny the holocaust in the years to come. You laugh at biblical accounts and dismiss them as myth and now you get a taste of your own medicine and you call me coward. I have long since given up on how others except a handful who have earned the right think of or view me.
Oh, I don't deny that some Israelites were likely held as slaves by the Ancient Egyptians, but I deny that the Bible is 100% historically accurate. Even your own article that you posted suggested that 1 million people very likely didn't survive in the desert for 40 years.

Were the first born sons of the Jewish slaves murdered in Egypt? I wasn't aware that was in the Bible, sorry. That doesn't make a lot of sense, though. If you're a slave owning people, you kind of want those valuable first born sons.

No, you called me a Holocaust denier because we are in disagreement about Exodus. That's cowardly. I won't stand for it. 1000 years from now, someone like me won't either - we have film footage of the terrible atrocities inflicted on the Jews by the Christian Nazi Germany state and people.

Yes, I will not accept your book of myth as evidence. So it's laughable when you write "it is scripture!" as if that should somehow sway an argument. You wouldn't if I put any other religion's mythology down - why should I with yours?

Oh, some parts of the Bible have some historical truths in them. Yet you have to be careful about accepting it as accurate - it's a book that is designed to promote a cultural identity for the Jews. Several different versions were stitched together by an editor hundreds of years after the events described - and he altered them. We know this, Bible scholars know this - and here you are claiming it's 100% accurate???

I'm sorry, LB, this isn't Sunday school. You'll have to do better than that. Or don't. Perhaps this is your limitation.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128113 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
From your paper. Please note they also don't take the Bible literally:
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It is only fundies from both the left and right who do. That would include you but not necessarily me.
.
Huh?
.
This may shock you, considering our past discussion, but I don't take the Bible literally.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128114 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It is only fundies from both the left and right who do. That would include you but not necessarily me.
They are not capable of seeing how their passion and zeal in denouncing religion displays their irrationality. They don't understand it is that fanaticism which makes them so unlovable, not their personal belief for or against. There is no gray in their views. If you are theist or deistic, you are automatically a creationist. Snarl, snap, snap. No rational discussion with them. Absent the religion, they will find something else to snarl and snap against. It ain't the message, it's the messengers with the problem.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128115 Oct 6, 2012
timn17 wrote:
I feel bad for light.
:)

Hey!

It's me :)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#128116 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
From your paper. Please note they also don't take the Bible literally:
"If it seems incredible to believe that 600,000 men plus women and children could have survived as a people in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years, we may be misinterpreting the number, says Hoffmeier. Hebrew University professor Abraham Malamat, for one, points out that the Bible often refers to 600 and its multiples, as well as 1,000 and its multiples, typologically in order to convey the idea of a large military unit. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one," says Hoffmeier. "The Hebrew word eleph can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.' When I look at the question as an Egyptologist, I know that there are thought to have been 20,000 in the entire Egyptian army at the height of Egypt's empire. And at the battle of Ai in Joshua 7, there was a severe military setback when 36 troops were killed. If you have an army of 600,000, that's not a big setback." In other words, the head count may have been far fewer than suggested by a literal reading of Exodus 12:37."
Ah, thanks for that, LB.
"If it seems incredible..." just change how we interpret the Bible! After all you don't need to use "a literal reading of Exodus..."
You apologists are fantastic - what a wonderful demonstration.
There were at least 10 judgements after the Israelites left Egypt. In Joshua the people who entered were the next generation along with Joshua and Calab. Even Moses died off. I don't know, off hand if there is a number count in Joshua.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128117 Oct 6, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Makes sense, Hiding.
Good thing I'm no creationist.
ugh
Do I have to fight with them now, too?
screw it, it's oh-beer-thirty
River, you're growing on me. Stubbornly, like an unwanted love handle, but you are.

River, toss me a beer! And no Budweiser - blach! I'll take a Coors. The champagne of beer.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128118 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If you deny 400 years of Israeli history as it relates to slavery to the degree where the first born sons were murdered by Egyptians then it is not so hard a stretch for your counterpart to deny the holocaust in the years to come. You laugh at biblical accounts and dismiss them as myth and now you get a taste of your own medicine and you call me coward. I have long since given up on how others except a handful who have earned the right think of or view me.
I think you may have it backwards. The first born egyptians were murdered by the holy ghost, because the pharaoh was being a meanie to moses, or some nonsense like that. It's funny to see someone get righteously indignant over something that not even their mythology claims to have happened.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128119 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It denies your atheism and your revisionist history which is not the same as rejecting Science anymore than your belief the universe created itself and life came from inert elements is anti science.
You deny biological science. You actually claim that the theoretical framework of all biological sciences is in error - all without seeming to understanding the smallest detail of what evolution is, means or does.

You have a contradictory approach to history. Just a moment ago, you posted that you didn't take the Bible literally...necessarily, while earlier posting "it is scripture!" So I'm not sure where you stand here. It's fair to side with archaeologists who claim that the Bible can be read like history if we just know how to. It's not ok to rewrite history as the Creationists do - but I don't know where you stand on these issues.

Wasn't it you who claimed that Hitler invoked Darwinism? That would be one example of lying about history. Hitler invoked Social Darwinism and Catholicism but never Darwinism - he quite clearly didn't understand what Darwin wrote about. My point in bringing this up is that only a creationist would resort to this purposefully fraudulent representation of history - and distorting history so is damaging. For if we cannot understand history, we cannot learn from it.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128120 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> There were at least 10 judgements after the Israelites left Egypt. In Joshua the people who entered were the next generation along with Joshua and Calab. Even Moses died off. I don't know, off hand if there is a number count in Joshua.
That's ok. I forgive you.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128121 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> There were at least 10 judgements after the Israelites left Egypt. In Joshua the people who entered were the next generation along with Joshua and Calab. Even Moses died off. I don't know, off hand if there is a number count in Joshua.
You are going to have to realize that, despite what you may believe, you aren't going to change any minds by citing biblical evidence. I know, I know, it's unfair, us godless heathens won't give your book a fair shake, but please humor us with more substantial information.

I still can't believe it every time I read a post from you that quotes the bible. I should have learned by now.

“hellshade”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#128122 Oct 6, 2012
atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in gods and/or the supernatural. belief requires faith disbelief does not...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128123 Oct 6, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not capable of seeing how their passion and zeal in denouncing religion displays their irrationality. They don't understand it is that fanaticism which makes them so unlovable, not their personal belief for or against. There is no gray in their views. If you are theist or deistic, you are automatically a creationist. Snarl, snap, snap. No rational discussion with them. Absent the religion, they will find something else to snarl and snap against. It ain't the message, it's the messengers with the problem.
I have no problem with personal religious belief, I have a problem with virus like religious belief. The type that wants to spread.

Also, I would prefer to think that we live in a nice, perfect, meaningful universe, where we all get to meet our dead friends and family in the afterlife. I just can't. It's not spite, it's a true inability. I cannot believe without evidence.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Even Steven 1,049
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,456
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 13 hr thetruth 29
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 13 hr thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 13 hr thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Thu QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed Richardfs 1,423

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE