Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257121 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#129920 Oct 15, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
Now, tell me friend, why should we accept your story as a mother's love? You have not proven that the story is true or that you even ahve a mother.
Why do you accept anything that you accept?
What's your point? Proof is not important to you. You are a faith based thinker.
Martina Navratilover wrote:
But, then let's say that no proof is required, then my story about God is just as valid on top of 100s of stories that are way more powerful.
Actually, the extra stories weaken your argument. They contradict historical fact, scientific fact, and one another. For example, what were Jesus's last words? I can get your four conflicting testimonies from your bible. In court, that's considered a sign of error or lie - unreliable testimony at the least.
Martina Navratilover wrote:
If yo say that my stories about God existence and love have an explanation, then likewise your mother could have been lying and besides she could be some stranger who found you on the streets at age 1 and assumed the identity. So, that was easy, you have no proof.
Take a giant step back from this argument and look at it. You seem to be implying that my telling an anecdote about my mother somehow makes your decision to devote your life to worship of a god more reasonable, even though you also seem to be saying that anecdotes and hearsay are unreliable, and should be rejected. Is that right?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129921 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ya, right. Of course I edited for space, but that's about the jist of it.
Strange that one fish (or a species) would somehow grow legs because "life is better on land" while at the same time learn how to breathe air instead of water.
Meanwhile, other fishies thought it was better to stay in the water...
The hypothesis is, the fish that evolved legs did so living in shallow waters. They could use the legs to scurry around the bottom of the swamps full of vegetation. First they evolved just legs up front that still had fin like feet.

Now it stands to reason, if they could get up on land even just a bit, they may elude predators. Thus the fish with these abilities would have better chance at survival over the others.
Thus they flourished.

So imagine these fish coming to the edge of land to escape. They do this for millions and millions of years. As time goes on, the ones who can stay up on the land and breath could survive the best and flourish. So if some mutated breathing to something like a lung, they win the race of the fittest.

Now imagine several millions of more years of this and some evolve the rear fins to leg like limbs.

See how this works? None of this is claimed to happen overnight as you guys keep claiming.

Think in terms of millions and millions of years. Tens if not hundreds of millions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129922 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do. You just don't like how I dumb it down to a cartoon-like story of bullshit.
Evolution has been proven that it can happen, but it hasn't and probably can't be proven that it happened the way the evolutionary theorists have desribed.
I'm sorry that your mind is so closed that you can't fathom any other possibility...
I think we can fathom it, you just cannot show evidence of it. And until you do, we will likely lean on the side of science instead of religion.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129923 Oct 15, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe they had an environmental disaster? Who knows? Advancements in technology normally occur when a people trade and learn from other groups. Maybe they stopped trading. Who knows? Until we find the answer, we can only speculate.
Did you have a point?
Perhaps you missed the point of them being several thousand feet above sea level, having ports and such.

"Tiwanaku appears to have been a port city, as well. However, Lake Titicaca, the only body of water, is almost 20 kilometers distant. There are piers and wharfs in Tiwanaku with long, straight calcium deposits that indicate prehistoric water lines, although they no longer lie in a horizontal plane, they are slanted. There are millions of seashells in the area, as well. Lake Titicaca, itself, is a salt water inland sea that is rapidly shrinking. Its fossilized shorelines are also dramatically tilted. Abundant sea life still thrives in Lake Titicaca, instilling a presumption that it was once part of the ocean."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/07/ti...

3700 years old by mainstream science, 17,000 by others.

How long ago were the Andes supposed to have been formed?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129924 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
hehe, that was TWO lines, bub. Not one. Can you basically understand 1+1?
<quoted text>
How many?
<quoted text>
Selection pressures? lol If that were true, why are there still fish in swamps? In low-flow rivers? Why to trout still swim upstream in sometimes very shallow water to lay eggs when they should've "evolved" a better way by now....
Maybe they evolved in waters that did not have predators like the ones who evolved legs.

Nothing in the theory of evolution holds all species must change. Nothing in the theory says the species 'must' change or die. Depends, depends, depends.
Your black and white, narrow view is the clear problem.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129925 Oct 15, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The hypothesis is, the fish that evolved legs did so living in shallow waters. They could use the legs to scurry around the bottom of the swamps full of vegetation. First they evolved just legs up front that still had fin like feet.
Now it stands to reason, if they could get up on land even just a bit, they may elude predators. Thus the fish with these abilities would have better chance at survival over the others.
Thus they flourished.
So imagine these fish coming to the edge of land to escape. They do this for millions and millions of years. As time goes on, the ones who can stay up on the land and breath could survive the best and flourish. So if some mutated breathing to something like a lung, they win the race of the fittest.
Now imagine several millions of more years of this and some evolve the rear fins to leg like limbs.
See how this works? None of this is claimed to happen overnight as you guys keep claiming.
Think in terms of millions and millions of years. Tens if not hundreds of millions.
How long does it take for a fish to fry in the sun?

Guess they learned to get a tan while learning to breathe and walk, also, eh?

Of course, you had to have those adventurous fishy souls that even dared to leave their comfort zone in the first place.

Pretty fancy adapting.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129926 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So the feeling of euphoria is spontanous?
Or does something have to cause it?
I think the latter.
When God touched me, I was whatever is opposite of euphoric & at the snap of a finger, I felt content.
it was not imagined. I'm not lying. Have faith.
Your mind can make you feel euphoria. It all depends upon what you are thinking. If you actually believe a god is great and all that, it would likely give you a euphoric feeling when thinking of it.
That is textbook psychology. Sad you are so ignorant of it.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#129927 Oct 15, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a problem, come on down. Bring your wheelchair.
WTF does that mean? No wonder you are on here all the time and need to create different names to post under. You are one of the lamest sob's that I have ever talk down to.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#129928 Oct 15, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>What has theism got to do with one's personal belief....
Back away slow from the keyboard.

It's not your friend.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129929 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed the point of them being several thousand feet above sea level, having ports and such.
"Tiwanaku appears to have been a port city, as well. However, Lake Titicaca, the only body of water, is almost 20 kilometers distant. There are piers and wharfs in Tiwanaku with long, straight calcium deposits that indicate prehistoric water lines, although they no longer lie in a horizontal plane, they are slanted. There are millions of seashells in the area, as well. Lake Titicaca, itself, is a salt water inland sea that is rapidly shrinking. Its fossilized shorelines are also dramatically tilted. Abundant sea life still thrives in Lake Titicaca, instilling a presumption that it was once part of the ocean."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/07/ti...
3700 years old by mainstream science, 17,000 by others.
How long ago were the Andes supposed to have been formed?
I have no idea what your point is. You have not made a point. You are just making claims. I cannot read your mind dude.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#129930 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed the point of them being several thousand feet above sea level, having ports and such.
"Tiwanaku appears to have been a port city, as well. However, Lake Titicaca, the only body of water, is almost 20 kilometers distant. There are piers and wharfs in Tiwanaku with long, straight calcium deposits that indicate prehistoric water lines, although they no longer lie in a horizontal plane, they are slanted. There are millions of seashells in the area, as well. Lake Titicaca, itself, is a salt water inland sea that is rapidly shrinking. Its fossilized shorelines are also dramatically tilted. Abundant sea life still thrives in Lake Titicaca, instilling a presumption that it was once part of the ocean."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/07/ti...
3700 years old by mainstream science, 17,000 by others.
How long ago were the Andes supposed to have been formed?
I'm sure you had a point, Dave.

And it was?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129931 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How long does it take for a fish to fry in the sun?
Guess they learned to get a tan while learning to breathe and walk, also, eh?
Of course, you had to have those adventurous fishy souls that even dared to leave their comfort zone in the first place.
Pretty fancy adapting.
Do mud fish fry in the sun? No one is claiming these fish sat on the edge of land long enough to fry.
Scales can change also.
They did not 'learn' to breath, the evolved to breath. Again you are showing cartoon thinking.
Show me a scientist who claims a fish learned to breath? You cannot. So why make the claim that is what I claim?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#129932 Oct 15, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
For some reason this thread dropped off my watch list so I apologise for the delay
No worries, I figured that we were done.
ChristineM wrote:
I am not defending them for attempting to kill someone (no matter how old), for that they hold responsibility, I am defending everyone’s right to their freedom of expression. They have just as much right to their view as you do to yours.
You don't have to tell me that! Your rights stop, where mine begin. Simple. You have the right to be heard and I have the right not to listen. I do not have the right to harm anyone because I heard you.
ChristineM wrote:
As I said total misunderstanding. Completely expected from one who only wants freedom of expression for his type.
Name one time that I wanted to suppress anyone's freedom of speech!

Name one time that I wanted to suppress anyone's freedom of religion!

I said that they do not have the right to suppress my rights or to harm anyone because their feelings were hurt. Nothing more.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#129933 Oct 15, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
What has theism got to do with one's personal belief.
If you're an American Christian, it probably defines many of your beliefs.
Martina Navratilover wrote:
The Catholic church also believed that Jews and Protestants were heretics and killed over 150 million because of that belief.
That many? For real?
Martina Navratilover wrote:
It is called atheist satanism ...
Satanism is a form of theism. We don't believe in any of the desert gods, including Satan, and we don't worship anything.
Martina Navratilover wrote:
It is called atheist satanism and it infects the church too.
The church is not infected. It infects others. It is a societal parasite. The values it inculcates diminish and hurt people.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#129934 Oct 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you accept anything that you accept?
What's your point? Proof is not important to you. You are a faith based thinker.
<quoted text>
Actually, the extra stories weaken your argument. They contradict historical fact, scientific fact, and one another. For example, what were Jesus's last words? I can get your four conflicting testimonies from your bible. In court, that's considered a sign of error or lie - unreliable testimony at the least.
<quoted text>
Take a giant step back from this argument and look at it. You seem to be implying that my telling an anecdote about my mother somehow makes your decision to devote your life to worship of a god more reasonable, even though you also seem to be saying that anecdotes and hearsay are unreliable, and should be rejected. Is that right?
Good post.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129935 Oct 15, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. That is because you lack the scientific knowledge to interpret any of the relevant facts.
Think of it this way - would you argue about the technical apsects of a new Ferrari with a mechanical engineer?
No; but GOD is inside and within, the big bang theory is exactly that, a theory. A thought, and idea..... by those who don't know GOD :)

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129936 Oct 15, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Francis Collins openly rejects Creationism, did you know that?
No, he doesn't, he says we are far too miraculous in our makeup to be the result of a fluke.... he does believe we have evolved into what we are today, and of course, we have adapted as such.

Eagle12

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#129937 Oct 15, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF does that mean? No wonder you are on here all the time and need to create different names to post under. You are one of the lamest sob's that I have ever talk down to.
It means I'm going to wheel your ass to church and get you saved. We’ll baptize you and the wheelchair together.

How long can you hold your breath underwater.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#129938 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
whatever is opposite of euphoric
Dysphoric.

Dysphoria - an emotional state characterized by anxiety, depression, or unease. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dysphoric

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#129939 Oct 15, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
No no no, you haven't shown us where anyone's DNA takes them back to an ape or chimp..... Show me the link where a person's DNA proves that they are the ancestors of animals; everyone's DNA takes them back to a person.....

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min ATHEOI 20,222
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 34 min ATHEOI 9,501
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 51 min replaytime 45,421
News Why Kasich's atheist criticisms seem out of touch 10 hr Reason Personified 29
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 14 hr ATHEOI 189
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 20 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 417
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 20 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 278
More from around the web