Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243311 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 10

Long Beach, CA

#128484 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Their authority runs your life.
You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists. For life. What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?
That would be awful.

And it's the principal reason to reelect President Obama.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128485 Oct 8, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
Some make the connect. i would point out the obvious connections between Exodus and Ipuwer is rejected based on dating only a few understand who probably have the bible down as fictional until proven factual.
It's agreed upon by relevant and legitimate archaeologists and scholars that the Ipuwer Papyrus is a copy of a story that originated hundreds of years earlier based upon references and earlier stories from 1850-1600 BCE, with some portions dating to 2181-2055 BC during the First intermediate period.
lightbeamrider wrote:
The two camps assume different time lines. The Hyskos were the biblical Amelekites. Ermitage is about some catastrophe which happened years ago. If the revisionists were wrong about David why should we assume they are right about Moses and the Exodus?
Yet the biblical details claiming the David rules an empire isn't an accurate depiction, the agreed upon consensus is that based upon archaeological evidence, and if David existed, the region of influence barely qualified as a small tribal kingdom.

Some suggest that David may have been a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath.

Hardly the descriptions put forth in the biblical account, which makes you wonder just how accurate anything is in the bible.

Is it nothing but embellishment after embellishment?

Would apologists admit that if it were?

Doubtful.

As a matter of fact, apologists don't, in spite of the evidence.

"Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no powerful United Monarchy." - Professor Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128486 Oct 8, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear. Naked women appeal to other women as well or am I the only one?
I like in between meal snacks too.:)>
Metal on metal works for a minute , but it will end in a disaster me thinks? What you really mean is you have no use for men, um.....until you need one. You may not need one for everything but you will need one for something. Perhaps you should not deny one that needs you for something too?:)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128487 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.
Maybe you should consider that heritage to be Egyptian?

"Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt is thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (ca. 2400 BC) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall". In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BC, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_...

Probably.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128488 Oct 8, 2012
And no Protestants, no Mormons, no Muslims, no Buddhists, and no Hindus. So what? It's not possible for a 9-member body to be representative of every possible religious belief (or of those who lack theistic belief).
<quoted text>
Then we wait until the makeup of the USSC changes and then bring another case that could overturn the previous ruling. Just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are confused.
Funny that you can't seem to demonstrate that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128489 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
I believe it was Julius Caesar that burned the library first, the big one. Accidentally.
Yes, that is correct. he did it when invading Egypt. But, as you point out, it was a mistake. The Christian burning under Theodosius was certainly NOT accidental. The final burning when the Moslems invaded was also NOT accidental.
You are judging without sufficient information and with insufficient judgmental abilities.
Looking in the mirror again?

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128490 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I really didn’t think you were that stupid…
When did I ever say he broke any FU[KING laws in the country he was in?(I do love to see meltdown every now and again). I said he was RESPONSIBLE for making that film. Please LOOK UP the meaning of the word responsible.
It certainly wasn’t me who is responsible for making that film, it probably wasn’t you. It was not any god and it was not joe bloggs in the next town. He made the film, he edited the film (to be deliberately offensive) he is responsible for making it, no one else, just him. It does not matter if he is American or the man from Mars, he made the film, he is responsible for making the film.
That does not excuse murder no matter what the provocation but it does not distract from the fact that HE IS RESPONSIBLE for making and releasing that film.
Oh look at that we can all post in capitals
While I agree with you somewhat , you have to know you are saying that your wearing provocative clothing , makes you guilty of being raped. NOT! Yes wearing provocative clothing is risky , but the being raped because you did wasn't your crime.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128491 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has nothing to do with it.
Freedom of speech exists, yes, but one must excercise it with discretion.
Think of the blade falling the other way - how many Muslims burnt the American flag after 9/11? It is a statment they made, and they are free to make it.
Just because they MAY make it, does not mean that they SHOULD. I find the film as disgusting as I found the flag burning after 9/11.
People must excercise common sense. If I am white, going to the black part of town and burning a Malcolm X/ Nelson Mandela poster will probably get me beaten up.
Yes, the boy in question has a RIGHT to air his views, even if it is supremacist BS. But we have to accept that our views may incite anger and in some cases, rage.
Just because there is no law against flicking boogers in a restaurant, is no reason to start doing so.
Ok you made up my mind...Muslims have no mind. Best not to provoke them.
Just exterminate them all. After all they cannot accept criticism a joke , a stupid movie, being called on unjust or humanitarian matters, foreigners in their country , anything that upsets their view of Allah, poking fun at Mohammad , taking pictures of then licking their camels ass, Jews praying at the dome of the rock, Jews being in Israel, Jews minding their own business. And Jews Period. Americans anywhere else , Americans anywhere in America , America....The fact they are paid attention, the fact they have not been paid attention.

Seems to me... some people are.. just fucking impossible to get along with.

I have an Idea ....its not Anything you did or said and ''its not what you think . What it is...is stupidity called religion.

Whether you like it or not I'm free to poke muh hah med with what ev Vah tool I choose , including films you do not like.

And if you do not like it... close ya eyes baby.
Because America is free to do this .
Don't like it?
Fuvck you!
That's the way it is..and the way it will always be.

Want me to tell you why now?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128492 Oct 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is correct. he did it when invading Egypt. But, as you point out, it was a mistake. The Christian burning under Theodosius was certainly NOT accidental. The final burning when the Moslems invaded was also NOT accidental.
<quoted text>
Looking in the mirror again?
You are an ideologue. You are incapable of seeing things in a balanced way.

I'm just an anti-ideologue.

"Socrates of Constantinople provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria, in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum.[...] Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.
—Socrates; Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James (1885), "Socrates: Book V: Chapter 16", in Philip Schaff et al., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II, II"

"Attack of Aurelian, 3rd century

The library seems to have been maintained and continued in existence until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (ruled Egypt AD 269–274).[27] During the course of the fighting, the areas of the city in which the main library was located were damaged.[2] The smaller library located at the Serapeum survived, but part of its contents may have been taken to Constantinople to adorn the new capital in the course of the 4th century. However, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing around AD 378 seems to speak of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, and he states that many of the Serapeum library's volumes were burnt when Caesar sacked Alexandria. As he says in Book 22.16.12–13:

Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.
—Marcellinus, Ammianus (1862), "Roman History: book 22.16.12–13", in Yonge, C.D., Roman History, London: H.G. Bohn

5th century scroll which illustrates the destruction of the Serapeum by Theophilus

While Ammianus Marcellinus may be simply reiterating Plutarch's tradition about Caesar's destruction of the library, it is possible that his statement reflects his own empirical knowledge that the Serapeum library collection had either been seriously depleted or was no longer in existence in his own day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexa...

The good stuff was long gone by the time Theophilus did his thing.

Ancient pagan practices were bloody things.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128493 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said
Every person is responsible for their own actions
If thine eye offends thee , pluck it out! Or I have a towel you can cover your whole head with? So you can't be offended :)

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128494 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
That's you. Neither would I. How about a mob of angry, agrieved people?
<quoted text>
Certainly. Violence is never condoned, and I think you misunderstood Christine. We don't condone violence, but we do advocate responsible people making responsible statements.
<quoted text>
Of course. But had I been the one spouting supremacist BS/anti-semitism to the wrong crowd and got hurt, I will have to take some of the blame.
<quoted text>
Not normal or not legal?
Unjustified/illegal reaction to emotion is almost expected. Ever here about violence at sporting events? Road rage? Surely, it is not condoned, but one must remember that people are really easy to incite.
<quoted text>
Nope. Not against the customer.
<quoted text>
Then good, you are a human being with empathy. Good for you - really. However, many people lack that.
Screw you DF if you do not like the message, if you do not like the movie.....leave.

And keep your GD hands to yourself, after all it was just a movie.

Now what you are demanding is that I change, when I have placed no demands on you. I only expressed myself how I felt. I am free to do this and have not hurt anyone.
And the response was murder.

Sorry I will murder all of you to be free

to express myself as I wish.

Anything less is not freedom and a demand you have placed on me.

When I start making demands on you , you will understand.
But the only demand I've placed on you is , I've the right to express yourself if you do not like my expression , you have the right to walk away. Or express yourself in rebuttal. much like dis...

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#128495 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Greeks had gods.
.
Realy? wow :)

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#128496 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised.
.. so, after thousands of years of persecution, Christians now embrace Jews because most US males are circumcised ??..
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.
.. this is not a sentence ..

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128497 Oct 8, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. so, after thousands of years of persecution, Christians now embrace Jews because most US males are circumcised ??..
<quoted text>
.. this is not a sentence ..
Reading Eagle's posts IS like a sentence.

After a criminal conviction.

(You are hereby hired as assistant grammarian.)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128498 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I am uneducated in science, but not ignorant of it.
Ignorant: Lacking in knowledge.
I know the diff between ignorant & stupid.
---
You can tkake night classes to hone your dishwashing skills. Then you can find a man.:)
You are lacking in knowledge of biological science. If not, you wouldn't make the odd comments you do about evolution and "proof."

How about I just spring for a dishwasher or a person from a third world country?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128499 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand all this. I do. My big problem with all this "knowledge" is that some day it'll probably be refuted by someone smarter than whoever figured this out.
100 years ago, science "knew" that insects grew from rotting food. They could prove it....
There's a lot of things that science claims to prove that inevitably get unproved...
You mean more like 250 years ago. There wasn't an established discipline of biology then, so "science" didn't "know" that.

Evolution is the simple outcome of genes, mutation and limited resources. It's a mathematical equation that describes allelic (genes) frequency changes in gene pools. That is established, it won't be superseded. We are building on this knowledge now, not questioning it. For it to be superseded, you'd have to demonstrate that genes don't really exist, mutations don't really exist or the world has unlimited resources or every child successfully survives to adulthood and reproduces the same number of children as everyone else.

Do you believe any of those absurdities?

Sure, our understanding of the details of evolution continues to be refined. Darwin would be utterly shocked at the contemporary version of evolution - and delighted.
I don't buy it. Evolutionary theorists start with "man & ape have the same shoulder joints". They then "conclude" that man & ape are related & then assume that we had a common ancestry. THEN, they search for evidence.
1. It was a Christian in the 1700s who worked that out, not an evolutionary theorist. Linnaeus - wanted to discover God's plan, so investigated the anatomy of animals and plants and gave us our classification system. He put humans in the category of great apes because that is the only possible conclusion based on our anatomy.
2. You're going about it backwards. The evidence of relationship is the morphology (anatomy).

You are saying "they concluded we're related and then found evidence." That's crap. All you have to do is look at the skeletons of humans and great apes. It's easy to see the similarities, especially compared to other groups of animals. How do you make sense of them?

Make up a story? Oh, God made us like Chimps because He likes tree climbing.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128500 Oct 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the way Obamacare is spelled out. It's just another way for the gubment to take more & more taxes. It won't benefit Americans at all, just the American gubment.
Besides, I don't want a nanny-state. The government has no right to tell me if I need insurance or where I should get it from.
I'm NOT getting health insurance. As I said, it's a rip off! What I used to pay in insurance I now deposit into savings. I'm good.
Your life.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128501 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.
The religious are the only groups of people who practice genital mutilation of infants.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#128502 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Evolution is the theoretical framework for the discipline of biology.
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes !!!
If you understood what I wrote, you wouldn't subsequently claim "evolution is a hot air balloon."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128504 Oct 8, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sun... ?\&_r=0

Topix atheists, please report to the lab for some tests.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 30 min woodtick57 9,336
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 43 min superwilly 31
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) 1 hr millertr1 5
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Brian_G 19,768
News Study: Public opinion not swayed by atheist arg... 8 hr geezerjock 2
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 10 hr dirtclod 6,213
Atheists have morals too! 19 hr Lelouch0 6
More from around the web