Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128341 Oct 7, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you all ever listen to what you say? You seem okay with the US being a gayocracy or athiocracy. How polarizing is it for the president of the US to come out and say that he supports same sex marriage when 44 states do not and neither does the constitution and the Supreme Court that he hates?
It appears that your personal beliefs hold back science, because all evidence supports an earth no older than 7,000 years.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005...
I really hope you are a troll.

While I shouldn't even dignify you with a response, I will tell you that your outright hatred for gay people is disgusting, and your contempt for atheists is equally repulsive. Didn't your god tell you to judge not? 50 years ago people like you were using similar arguments against the civil rights movement. And no, I don't want everyone in the world to be an atheist, I just want our government to be as secular as it was intended to be. We are not a theocracy, or at least we should not be. The beliefs of the majority should not be forced on the minority. If I were ever to entertain the idea of running for public office, I should not have to pretend that I love some imaginary fairy in the sky.

As for the last part, about the age of the earth, I don't even know what to say to that. Your ignorance, no, your stupidity, is at a level that I didn't think was possible. I don't even need to address your ridiculous claim about supernovas (which actually occur once every 50 years) to prove you wrong. We know the speed of light, and we can see objects that are much, much farther away than 7k light years. Or are you on of those shining lights of intelligence that thinks the speed of light has slowed down?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128342 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps because, if you are going to be on the science and technology committee, you should not be actively against several basic disciplines.
The man is a product of those disciplines.

If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.

Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128343 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Noticed no response from you regarding the Ipuwer Papyrus.
http://www.specialityinterests.net/ipuwer.htm...
Still think Jesus ''probably'' existed?
I'm beginning to think that you are literally blind to evidence that defies your beliefs. Many people have already touched on the subject, and you somehow still maintain the delusion that people are ignoring you because you are right.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128344 Oct 7, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that wouldn't be for me really.
I am totally comfortable with anybody's preferences in any consensual adult relationship.
And I have my own preferences.(Not prudish by the way.)
And actually, it's none of your darn business.
Hey, you are the one calling him homosexual in a derogatory way.

Prove it. You have the lip action, turn it into hip action.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#128345 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The man is a product of those disciplines.
If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.
Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.
Very Buckish post, Dave.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#128346 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you are the one calling him homosexual in a derogatory way.
Prove it. You have the lip action, turn it into hip action.
Dave, I asked you to go easy on the alcohol tonight.

You know you went overboard last night.

Self control dude, self control.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128347 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
A totally reasonable thing for the leader of a supposedly non theocratic nation to do, right?

Can you imagine the uproar from christians if an atheist managed to get a "lose your religion" month established?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#128348 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Cut your post for space. There are actually three references. Papyrus Ipuwer
2. Ermitage Papyrus.[The Ermitage-Leningrad]
3. Monolith of El-Arish.[Museum of Ismailia]
(...SNIPPED...)
The Ermitage Papyrus.

I feel the need to point out that the information I did find concerning the 'Ermitage Papyrus", included sites that are "end times" "axis swap", and world cataclysm >in the future and in the past>.

On much shakier ground is a claim by Dr. Paul Schliemann, grandson of the famous Heinrich Schliemann, that among other relics relating to Atlantis he discovered an Egyptian papyrus in the Hermitage at Leningrad which said: "Pharoah Sent sent out an expedition to the west in search of Atlantis from whence 3350 years before the Egyptians arrived carrying with themselves all the wisdom of their native land.(Schliemann, 1912)

This papyrus has never been seen by anyone else, so it remains in limbo. Had Schliemann used the term "Land of the West" instead of "Atlantis" it would be a little more believable. However, I did find that there actually was a pharoah with the unlikely name Sent. Pharoah Sent, or Senta, was the fifth king of the 2nd Dynasty who ruled approximately 4000 B.C.(Budge, 1960)" http://www.wendag.com/forum/showthread.php/42...

"In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky wrote, "This papyrus bewails the terrible devastation wrought by the upheaval of nature. In the Ermitage Papyrus [Petersburg 1116b recto] also, reference is made to a catastrophe that turned the 'land upside down; happens that which never (yet) had happened.' It is assumed that at that time ~ in the second millennium ~ people were not aware of the daily rotation of the earth, and believed that the firmament with its luminaries turned around the earth; therefore, the expression,'the earth turned over,' does not refer to the daily rotation of the globe."55
The Ermitage Papyrus (1116B recto) containing Neferrohu's prophecy, quoted earlier and above, also declares, "I show thee the land upside down; that happens which never happened before. Men shall take up weapons of war; the land lives in uproar. All good things have departed."
http://www.henryzecher.com/papyrus_ipuwer.htm

Fringe "woo woo", in other words. I don't think it helps the biblical claims.

Monolith of El-Arish.

"In the 19th Century, archeologists discovered a piece of black granite in El Arish, Egypt (a town found in the Sinai). The locals were using the granite as a watering trough. When archeologists first came across it, they noticed the hieroglyphic carvings all over it. While the text was for the most part destroyed on one side, there were other parts that were still legible .

It would appear that this was a kind of monolith. Some researchers hold that it was erected just ahead of Persiaâ&#128;&#153;s invasion of the area in 525 BC. Other researchers believe the monolith4 to date sometime during the period of Ptolemaic rule (305-30 BC) over Egypt5.

(...)Arguments persist that this is nothing more than a metaphor or ancient folklore. Adding to some of the discord is that a good portion of the inscription has been worn away over time or is just indeterminate." http://www.christianevidences.org/el-arish-in...

These last two references you've supplied do not appear to relate to the "Exodus", in any way.

You're hurting your case.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128349 Oct 7, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference being that the rational are using evidence and logic, and the irrational are not. In this case, the irrational would be the creationist, since they don't based their position on evidence and logic but instead on a literal interpretation of a specific set of scriptures.
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.

Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.

Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.

Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.

Identify what you are railing against before railing.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128350 Oct 7, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn’t see any reference to him being a Speleologist.
Obviously you see him in a derogatory way. It’s not his fault that science of evolution is mostly unproven hype. Every time evolution is challenged. Evolutionist and their supporters start reaching for their baseball bats.
There convincing philosophy is to beat the hell out of the deniers of Evolution. Evolution is the only science with this type enforcement arm. If evolution has such a convincing argument. Why do evolutionist need such combative enforcement?
I’ll tell you why. Because there is no convincing argument. There’s a hell of a lot of speculation, guesswork, imagination, fraud and artist conceptions.
Now you do a good job in Traffic Court tomorrow.
No, it is actually because evolution is one of the many scientific fields that draws a lot of opposition from the religious right, and to let them peddle their ignorance unfettered would be a disservice to the entire country. Or do you still wish that the sun revolved around the earth?

The church has always been an enemy of scientific progress, and although it would be unnecessary in a perfect world, people unfortunately have to devote countless man hours to combating the fake controversy drummed up by IDers and the like.

And like it or not, evolution is not fluffed up. I know it makes you sad to think that we might have descended from "lower" life forms, but to continue to deny a well supported scientific field is not even ignorance, it is outright stupidity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128351 Oct 7, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:
What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.[3]
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.[4]
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."
Leo commented,
A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).
John 8:44-45
King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Replace every mention of homosexuals with "black people, the black agenda, etc," and perhaps you will gain some insight into what a backwards bigot you are.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128352 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>A totally reasonable thing for the leader of a supposedly non theocratic nation to do, right?
Can you imagine the uproar from christians if an atheist managed to get a "lose your religion" month established?
Democracy.

Majority rules.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#128353 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Cut your post for space. There are actually three references. Papyrus Ipuwer
2. Ermitage Papyrus.[The Ermitage-Leningrad]
3. Monolith of El-Arish.[Museum of Ismailia]
Now when His majesty fought against the evil-doers [Israelites] in this pool, the place of the whirlpool, the evil-doers prevailed not over his majesty. His majesty lept into the place of the whirlpool.''It was said he was lifted by a great force.''
http://scienceandhistoryfaith.com/9.html
The land is utterly perished and nought remains.
Perished is the land
The sun is veiled and shines not in the sight of men.
None can live when the sun is veiled by clouds...
The river is dry (even the river) of Egypt.
The earth is fallen into misery...
Ermitage Papyrus.
Also, the link above, didn't work.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#128354 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this link
http://sciencehistoryfaith.com/9.html
Thanks.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#128355 Oct 7, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to take days off just "because".
I might even use my day off to watch a show about nothing.
There's nothing wrong with that.
I can agree with that, because, there is nothing to disagree with that I can find wrong with it.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#128356 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.
Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.
Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.
Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
Identify what you are railing against before railing.
Dave, I commend you for going easy on the booze tonight.

I can tell because you wrote such a long post.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128357 Oct 7, 2012
Well, another day.

Time for bed.

Still nothing intelligent or witty from Catcher.

Evolution produced such things faster.

Hmmm, maybe in his case it changed course. Need to check him for red shift.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#128358 Oct 7, 2012
So long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Speaking of majority I wonder if Mormon Mitt has his concession speech written?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy.
Majority rules.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128359 Oct 7, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie.
Thanks for letting us know.

Here's how it goes:

This is a lie. No wait, that's not true.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128360 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The man is a product of those disciplines.
If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.
Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.
Bet you'd change your tune if an atheist politician proclaimed that the bible was a fairy tale. Or would you support his right to use his power to undermine your religion?

A politician should not let his personal beliefs, beliefs that are not founded on anything but the bible, affect his behavior. It is even more ridiculous that he sits on the science committee. Now, it would be one thing if he had anything of substance with which to back up those claims, but he doesn't, and you and I both know it. If he had any legitimate evidence to back up his claims, I would have no problem with it. He is coming from the same place that all science deniers do - willful ignorance inspired by their religion and their need to believe in god.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 75,476
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr John 6,109
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr John 209
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Nemesis 4,070
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 13 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web