Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239446 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146779 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
"Serpent" was an insult used by Romans and people of Hebrew descent at the time that the New Testament was written.
Okay?
If you say so.
This is why Jesus calls other people serpents.
Okay?
Is it?
This is why we cannot accept that interpretation of the Bible without FURTHER evidence that when it says that Satan is an old serpent, it is meant to be taken literally and not as an insult. It makes no mention of the Garden of Eden in the passage.
He is called "the serpent of old" in Revelations.

We can ascertain who the serpent was from other passages of Scripture, and from the context of Genesis 3 itself.

Ezekiel 28:13 states that the being addressed was listed as being in Eden.

Since Satan was a created being, and since Eden was guarded by cherubim after the Fall, he must have been in Eden between his creation and the Fall of man

Satan is called a serpent three times in the book of Revelation 12:9, 12:15, 20:2. When combined with Paulís words in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the identification of the serpent in Genesis 3 with Satan is unmistakable.

By the way - this isn't fringe. This is what the mainstream, Christian theologian belief is. So please - tell me why you, a "riverside redneck" have a better interpretation of the Bible than Christian theologians who have spent their life studying it? Surely, you have some evidence besides that which has been dismissed by experts in the subject?
Don't be fooled by a simple internet title, doofus. I do not have a different interpretation as mainstream Christian theologans, I have the same. And I'm sharing it with you.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146780 Jan 2, 2013
Good point. Has anyone said that theirs is the 3rd best religious sect?
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point, you're just picking and choosing what you like and saying the rest of it isn't meant to be taken literally.
Just like every denomination of Christianity (none of which can prove their interpretation is right, yet all of which claim theirs is right).

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146781 Jan 2, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
If they correctly practice the scientific method in their work, any belief or non-belief of the scientist is completely irrelevant.
Exactly. But some of your anti-theist cohorts think that a scientist MUST be an atheist.

I guess they've never heard of Isaac Newton.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146782 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>um...... What?
It's a quote from this book called The Bible.

You may have heard of it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146783 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution is fact (which it is - observable fact), Creation cannot be literally true.
HA!

How do you figure?

Evolution happens, I agree. That is a proven fact, it's ToE that's bullshit.

The Theory of Evolution is based on the assumption that ALL life on Earth came from one single-celled organism.

Prove it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146784 Jan 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The bible exists. It's just full of dumb sh!t, that's all.
<quoted text>
shh, shhh, shhh....

The adults are talking.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146785 Jan 2, 2013
Sources?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But some of your anti-theist cohorts think that a scientist MUST be an atheist.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146786 Jan 2, 2013
Straw man. Other way up, surely?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Theory of Evolution is based on the assumption that ALL life on Earth came from one single-celled organism.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146787 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't create any creatures....
There's no such thing as God or Satan, huh?
Care to back up that assertion?
Or are we to simply trust you.
I trust that assertion.

Unless, of course, you can prove it wrong.

I'll wait.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146788 Jan 2, 2013
Unfortunate stammer you have there.

If only you knew of an all powerful god that could stop that sort of thing happening.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
shh, shhh, shhh....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146789 Jan 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Sources?
<quoted text>
Topix atheists.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146790 Jan 2, 2013
I'm one of them but I refute your assertion.
So you're wrong.
Again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Topix atheists.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146791 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA!
How do you figure?
Evolution happens, I agree. That is a proven fact, it's ToE that's bullshit.
The Theory of Evolution is based on the assumption that ALL life on Earth came from one single-celled organism.
Prove it.
All life is demonstrably related.

Any two things that are related must have a common ancestor (unless you'd care to give an example where this isn't true...).

*yawn*

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146792 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This shows your ignorance.
You can't demand proof of God from me, He isn't a science experiment.
You can ask God to prove Himself to you, you can't ask me to do that for you.
I just did.

He said he's busy babysitting a bunch of do-nothing whiners with their silly prayers.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146793 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. But some of your anti-theist cohorts think that a scientist MUST be an atheist.
I guess they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Is he still around?!

Damn!

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146795 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. But some of your anti-theist cohorts think that a scientist MUST be an atheist.
I guess they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton also believed in the philosophers stone, which could turn base metals into gold.

One's contribution to science is separate from their religious beliefs. This is because science and religion are fundamentally different. Science can be tested. Religion cannot.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146796 Jan 2, 2013
By the way, RR - Cherubs are only associated with angels by modern Christian apologists. Cherubs were used in ancient history to signify the presence of God. Whether or not they are angels is never clarified (although they COULD be angels. They could be other things, too, though. In this case, the king of Tyre).

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146797 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
All life is demonstrably related.
Any two things that are related must have a common ancestor (unless you'd care to give an example where this isn't true...).
*yawn*
Yup I've heard. Humans and potatoes have common ancestry.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146798 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Isaac Newton also believed in the philosophers stone, which could turn base metals into gold.
One's contribution to science is separate from their religious beliefs. This is because science and religion are fundamentally different. Science can be tested. Religion cannot.
Well there you go.

Scientists can also be religious.

Because science & religion aren't enemies, like you want.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146799 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
By the way, RR - Cherubs are only associated with angels by modern Christian apologists. Cherubs were used in ancient history to signify the presence of God. Whether or not they are angels is never clarified (although they COULD be angels. They could be other things, too, though. In this case, the king of Tyre).
Google will only take you so far.....

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 New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 15 min Knowledge- 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 31 min woodtick57 7,484
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr MikeF 19,075
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr Thinking 2,218
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 8 hr Insults Are Easier 125
News Richard Dawkins insists he's not an angry athei... 11 hr Thinking 2
John 3:16 11 hr Thinking 2
More from around the web