Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247201 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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129907 Oct 15, 2012
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah you're right, if only the israelites would have listen to God, but as I said all throughout the the Old Testament they were known to be a stubborn hard headed bunch. You would think after being set free and being fed daily by God raining food down to them they would do as he says, but that's the way mankind is, stubborn and hard headed.
Well then it makes no sense to make a hard headed people the 'chosen ones' to represent god.
Why would a god rain food down to those who were so immoral as to enslave humans?
This is the same god that allows millions to starve that do not enslave humans.
Sorry, but it just does not stand to logic. Nice try to excuse the lack of logic though.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129908 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
woo hoo
You didn't say a damned thing.
A generation is the individual.
What do you mean by selection pressure?
You will have failures occurring mostly in the more "intelligent" and "educated" niches, primarily because of mental conditions brought on by those chemicals in food and medicines, and excess EM, such as cellphone usage, the education and the resultant affluence to afford those things. They will breed in lesser numbers, and are dependent on the greater mass of people. They tend to run in herds, so follow fads and such more quickly.
Basic people will be the survivors. They will suffer cancers and chemical injuries, but will tend to breed anyhow.
If someone lives long enough to reproduce, and the species can survive even with such problems like cancer, then there will not likely be a natural selection to the situation.

Medicine of modern humans also tends to change the old dynamics of natural selection. But it does not mean natural selection does not exist.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129909 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/w p/2012/10/07/tiwanaku-2/
High in the mountains.
Considering how advanced they were in cutting, moving and erecting big stones like that in astronomical alignments, why did their science not advance to our level?
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?
lightbeamrider

Fargo, ND

#129910 Oct 15, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Dagny Taggart ??..
<< Shrug >>
All the big shots could not resist Dagney. Wonder why that was? Galt, Rearden and the Mexican guy all bedded Dagney and in the end she ends up with Galt and all four live in the same paradise. Only in a female novel. Sort of reminds me of Gone with The Wind where just about everyone had the hots for Scarlett. It must be a female fantasy men find them irresistable.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129911 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if you take me seriously. In fact, because I'm no big fan of the way science had "figured out" evolution, most people hear think I'm ignorant. When I say the ignorant one is the blind follower. Science has been wrong countless times. They may be wrong this time, too.
I am quite sure science is still doing a lot of research on evolution.
It stands firm on the idea animals are decended from other animals, but their are a lot of questions still being looked into. So your statement on "figured out" is not true. Again, that shows your ignorance of what science claims.

Sure it can be wrong, but you sure have no shown them as wrong. And until someone does, why think it is certainly wrong as you do?
One hundred and fifty years of research has all signs pointing to evolution as science says. So it seems strange to dismiss all this just because you think god did it.
I do not even believe in a god, so why should I think a god did it?I have seen no god. I have heard no god. I see no sign of god. It is as if gods were a figment of mans imagination.

I can see fossils. I can see signs of evolution.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129913 Oct 15, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How so? Who says other animals get no pleasure from the hunt and capture of an animal?
It stands to reason humans get pleasure from it because his instincts drive him to hunt for food, thus the pleasure chemicals is what gives him the drive to do so.
Who says; science says and the whole theory of evolution based on survival of the fittest. No, clueless one, many humans engage in sport fishing and hunting. It is sport, and that is why it is called fishing and gaming, since it is a game to catch the game. Animals hunt for food and survival. You will never find a lion hunting just for sport. One clue at a time, take this one and use it.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129914 Oct 15, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am quite sure science is still doing a lot of research on evolution.
It stands firm on the idea animals are decended from other animals, but their are a lot of questions still being looked into. So your statement on "figured out" is not true. Again, that shows your ignorance of what science claims.

I can see fossils. I can see signs of evolution.
Yes, science is doing a lot of research on evolution, much to your chagrin since it is refuting a lot of your preconceptions.
Science does not stand firm on the idea of animals descending from other species, which I am sure you meant. That is one question that is being looked into. 2 million year old Sediba has put a monkey in that wrench, since he was found to be more evolved that neanderthal man and closer to human man. Also, 195 million year old Jurassic rat is laying claim to being human's oldest ancester, so you may want to trim your whiskers and go visit some kins in your nearest sewer.

Seeing fossils, which you have never found, are simply evidence of fossils, not evolution. How many times must you students be told this? The second time was one too many.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#129916 Oct 15, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Many theists believe in evolution. In fact, the Catholic church now officially says evolution is true. I am quite sure they are not atheists.
If you wish to believe a god started life, fine. Just do not call it science. It is religious faith.
What has theism got to do with one's personal belief. The Catholic church also believed that Jews and Protestants were heretics and killed over 150 million because of that belief. When it is convenient you atheists claim that Hitler was a Catholic, which means that the church believed in gneocide and continuing satan's work of killing Jews.
It is called atheist satanism and it infects the church too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#129917 Oct 15, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
I think that was Darrin Stevens. So much for your veracity as a source of information.
Yes, I left out a line. Darrin was his character's given name, but he was "Darwin" to his mother-in-law. From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bewitched :

"Endora loathes mortals, and disapproves of Darrin, as do many of Samantha's relatives. Endora refuses to even use Darrin's name, alternatively calling him "Durwood", "What's-his-name", "Darwin", "Dum-Dum", etc., all much to his annoyance."

Your world is so tiny, your spirit so small.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129918 Oct 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if you take me seriously. In fact, because I'm no big fan of the way science had "figured out" evolution, most people hear think I'm ignorant. When I say the ignorant one is the blind follower. Science has been wrong countless times. They may be wrong this time, too.
<quoted text>
Then why do they think all life came from the sea. ONE of them would've had to sprout legs.... The thing is, the scientific community swears by evolution even theough they can't explain it.
<quoted text>
No. The way I explain it is an accurate depiction of the way evolution is spelled out by the general concensus of the scientific community.
One cell turned into fish that grew legs
but not all grew legs, some stayed as fish
and the one that grew legs mated with itself & populated land
then some decided to frow fur
while others decided to keep the scales
then some with scales decided to grow to a massive size
while others stayed small
then the earth got very cold
and the ones that kept scales died off
and the ones that grew fur sruvived but were small
so some decided to get bigger
while others remained small
then some decided to walk on 2 legs
while others thought 4 legs were better
then some decided to start talking & drawing
while others kept to instinct only
oh, and there were still some that kept scales and/or wings.
then McDonalds opened & the furry mammals started to get fat.
whew!
This is quite the cartoon version of evolution.
Please show me a science book that says a fish decided to grow legs?

I think you also forget that some fish stayed the same because they did not live in the same place as the fish that evolved legs. You do know the oceans and seas are big and very different in different areas, right? Then it stands to reason the animals in different conditions may be pressured to adapt to the conditions of the area.

You speak as if all land is the same and all water areas are the same. To say this is true is ignorant. This is why people see you as ignorant, not because you question evolution.
Question away. Just do not make ignorant claims and then whine about being called ignorant.

Legs likely formed from fins. No science is claiming a fully formed leg sprouted overnight.
This fin to leg may have taken tens of millions of years to complete.
Look at mudfish and you you may get a better picture of what may have happened.
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#129919 Oct 15, 2012

“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.

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) 1 min dollarsbill 12,377
Proof of God for the Atheist 1 min Uncle Sam 89
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus 2 hr Amused 25
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 2 hr Amused 15
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr thetruth 2,352
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 5 hr thetruth 47,744
News Muslim World and Secularism Tue P_Smith 1
More from around the web