Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243154 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.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129622 Oct 14, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy are you going to be in for a surprise most of us here have Bsc and Phds in Biology, Math and Physics.
No I'm not, but just because I believe in GOD does not mean I do not study or am lazy. People don't mind tossing out the insults but for some reason, hate getting the same words back!!

And at least you would be aware of scientists who believe in our Creator, wouldn't you?

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129623 Oct 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that's all they can handle. Honest knowledge and study is too hard for them. They'd rather just deceive themselves and others through intellectual dishonesty than actually have to learn something.
They really are like parasites - enjoying all of the benefits of science while failing to understand even the slightest bit of it.
Such evil and hate.

They will say:

satan: how much did you do for my cause?
unbeliever: I did not believe. I was fooled.
satan: yes, you were a fool.
unbeliever: well, since I was fooled, can I leave?
satan: nope, I did my job, you did not do yours.
atheist: well, I denied there was a God, do I get a reward.
satan: you are a bigger fool. All that evidence, angels whispering in your ears. Your dying grandmother telling you that their is a God, but you wanted this. Sucker.
science Hiding: Ha, you are not real. This is a dream. There is no scientific causation for it. Can't be.
satan: yeah, and your burning butt is not real, but your screaming and pain is very much real.
gay lesbo: Well, I was gay and ruined my family and children's lives. I ignored all scriptures, promoted suicide and AIDS among gays, by not letting them know there was a way out.
satan: you did good, your reward is hell fire and eternal damnation.
gay lesbo: how is that a reward, it is the same as the rest.
satan: how many times were you told by good loving Christians, like Martina, that this was your reward.

unbeliever: damn
atheist: damn
science lesbo: damn
gay lesbo: damn
satan: yes, you are.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#129624 Oct 14, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot them again, not that it matters. They were surely true.
I hate boxing with shadows.
You suffer convenient memory lapses when you've been busted.

I'm going to let it go; my road travels along higher ground than yours.

But be more careful in the future.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129625 Oct 14, 2012
IGNORANCE :

***

Many children in the 1960's, like the kindergartner pictured above, were born with phocomelia as a side effect of the drug thalidomide, resulting in the shortening or absence of limbs.(Photo by Leonard McCombe//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

In a post-war era when sleeplessness was prevalent, thalidomide was marketed to a world hooked on tranquilizers and sleeping pills. At the time, one out of seven Americans took them regularly. The demand for sedatives was even higher in some European markets, and the presumed safety of thalidomide, the only non-barbiturate sedative known at the time, gave the drug massive appeal. Sadly, tragedy followed its release, catalyzing the beginnings of the rigorous drug approval and monitoring systems in place at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today.

Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child,“even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat.” By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.

Around this time, Australian obstetrician Dr. William McBride discovered that the drug also alleviated morning sickness. He started recommending this off-label use of the drug to his pregnant patients, setting a worldwide trend. Prescribing drugs for off-label purposes, or purposes other than those for which the drug was approved, is still a common practice in many countries today, including the U.S. In many cases, these off-label prescriptions are very effective, such as prescribing depression medication to treat chronic pain.

However, this practice can also lead to a more prevalent occurrence of unanticipated, and often serious, adverse drug reactions. In 1961, McBride began to associate this so-called harmless compound with severe birth defects in the babies he delivered. The drug interfered with the babies' normal development, causing many of them to be born with phocomelia, resulting in shortened, absent, or flipper-like limbs. A German newspaper soon reported 161 babies were adversely affected by thalidomide, leading the makers of the drug—who had ignored reports of the birth defects associated with the it—to finally stop distribution within Germany. Other countries followed suit and, by March of 1962, the drug was banned in most countries where it was previously sold.

http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/cont... ***

Is no excuse, is it?

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129626 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words...
"This is why there's no such thing as a "creationist scientist."
Err, a statement saying no such thing means no such thing, does it not?
Be careful and I am serious....Hiding, Happy Lesbo, Kittenkoder and boooots are stalkers....real life and they target christian females online and off. Ask a poster named Pattycake aka yellodog.

Hiding is one of the worse, filled with evil. So much that she has a goal of working to tear ever church, even if she has to burn them down. Her words.

They are dangerous, but they fear intellect and resolve. Hiding is mental unstable, if you pay attention to how she responds to abuse issues and accuses others of it, you will see. That and her being a lesbian, with male, daddy and God hating issues are clear signs.

...Be careful...if she focuses on you, pay attention to how her horns come out because wiccans are witches.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129627 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>No I'm not, but just because I believe in GOD does not mean I do not study or am lazy. People don't mind tossing out the insults but for some reason, hate getting the same words back!!
And at least you would be aware of scientists who believe in our Creator, wouldn't you?
Good for you.....don't back down, they are Internet cowards.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#129628 Oct 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say that no scientist believes in God.
2. I said the reason RR can't understand science is b/c of his inability to understand what subjective versus objective reality is.
Some Christians are scientists. But no creationists are scientists. It's impossible to be that ignorant and dishonest while remaining a scientist.
But Serah is not dishonest.

Her ignorance is such, that she is unable to think for herself.

It will sound cruel, I know, but I wonder how she can even take care of her daily needs without assistance.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#129629 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>No I'm not, but just because I believe in GOD does not mean I do not study or am lazy. People don't mind tossing out the insults but for some reason, hate getting the same words back!!
And at least you would be aware of scientists who believe in our Creator, wouldn't you?
No, you're not lazy Serah.

It's clear that you are trying very hard.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129630 Oct 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say that no scientist believes in God.
2. I said the reason RR can't understand science is b/c of his inability to understand what subjective versus objective reality is.
Some Christians are scientists. But no creationists are scientists. It's impossible to be that ignorant and dishonest while remaining a scientist.
You are just lying,most US scientists are religious and that includes creationist. However, no atheists are scientist, they quickly become agnostic. It is impossible to be atheist ignorant and dishonest while remaining a scientist.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129631 Oct 14, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>Since most scientists are not atheists, then you must say that you are full of it.
FACTS: A survey conducted in 1969 showed that 35% of scientists did not ....
Now lets use more resent data instead of your 40 year old stuff:-

A recent survey (June 2009) of over 2,500 U.S. scientists shows that the scientific community has a very different view of God from society as a whole. Only 33% of scientists believe in "God" while another 18% believe in a "universal spirit" or "higher power".(See source 1.) The study concluded that scientists are less likely to believe in a "God" or "Higher Power" as the general public.

It can be broken down even further by the different areas of study:

Biological/Medical Field: 32% believe in "God", another 19% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 41% do not believe in either.

Chemistry: 41% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 39% do not believe in either.

Geoscience: 30% believe in "God", another 20% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 47% do not believe in either.

Physics/Astronomy: 29% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 46% do not believe in either.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8...

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129632 Oct 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally
I am quite totally awesome,thank you much. Clearly. You were told "god didn't do it" and that's as far as you got. You've accepted a fiction, intellectual laziness and built your entire understanding of the world on science fiction.
Totally worthless.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129633 Oct 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that's all they can handle. Honest knowledge and study is too hard for them. They'd rather just deceive themselves and others through intellectual dishonesty than actually have to learn something.
They really are like parasites - enjoying all of the benefits of science while failing to understand even the slightest bit of it.
ABSO(bloody)LUTELY.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129634 Oct 14, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>You are just lying,most US scientists are religious and that includes creationist. However, no atheists are scientist, they quickly become agnostic. It is impossible to be atheist ignorant and dishonest while remaining a scientist.
Backwards projection. The percentage of atheists among scientists is much higher than the percentage of atheists in the general populace.

What you should have said is that there are no honest informed creationists, a fact that has been demonstrated many times over.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129635 Oct 14, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ever heard of Stephen Hawking?
Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4047

***Since Francis Collins has now been selected by Obama to head the NIH, we thought readers might be interested to read this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from November 2006.- Josh

a little extract...

***DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?

COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.

DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...

COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public.[Laughs.]

DAWKINS:... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.****

Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129636 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Getting any benefits of scientists?
Cola Component - May damages DNA - Cervical Spondylosis
www.cervical-spondylosis.com/cola.htm - United States
Research shows that E211 can switch off vital parts of DNA, causing serious damage to cells. Laboratory tests suggest this could even result in degenerative ...
Light Switcher: E211 additive switches off parts of DNA
lightswitcher.blogspot.com/.../e211-additive-... ...
28 May 2007 – E211 additive switches off parts of DNA. This weekend The Independent newspaper reported on a recent soft drinks research, which reveal...
**********
The next time you become ill make certain you ask for medicine produced by the use of creation science.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129637 Oct 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Serah is not dishonest.
Her ignorance is such, that she is unable to think for herself.
It will sound cruel, I know, but I wonder how she can even take care of her daily needs without assistance.
Insults and rudeness to cover your lack of knowledge? Too bad, it shows your intelligence level right off the mark, and not having met you before, I can wonder how you know I am not dishonest? I might be the biggest flipping liar alive for all you know!!

Your ignorance is astounding

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129638 Oct 14, 2012
I love Hawking's excellent statement here;

" Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. "

Funny how people have so much faith in one who has no faith in his own belief!

They may or may not solve it!! BRILLIANT deduction

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129639 Oct 14, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>I am quite totally awesome,thank you much. Clearly. You were told "god didn't do it" and that's as far as you got. You've accepted a fiction, intellectual laziness and built your entire understanding of the world on science fiction.
Totally worthless.
You have to love how Martina calls everyone who disagrees with her a follower of science fiction and yet she never links to science based sites.

Hmm, I wonder how she spells hypocrite?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129640 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4047
***Since Francis Collins has now been selected by Obama to head the NIH, we thought readers might be interested to read this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from November 2006.- Josh
a little extract...
***DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?
COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.
DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...
COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public.[Laughs.]
DAWKINS:... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?
COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.
TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?
COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.
DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.
COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.****
Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking
What has that got to do with Stephen Hawking and who is Richard Hawking?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#129641 Oct 14, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Ever looked at the debate between Francis Collins and Richard Hawking?

(edited for space, conversation between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking)

Yep, in answer to your question, I have heard of Stephen Hawking
Have you really ever heard of Stephen Hawking?

Derp.

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) 55 min ChristineM 9,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 19,752
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 4 hr thetruth 21
John 3:16 4 hr thetruth 33
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 10 hr NoahLovesU 6,174
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 15 hr ChristineM 2,283
Atheists have morals too! Tue Amused 4
More from around the web