Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#146765 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh is that the rules?
Shit, I forgot.
We Christians have to "prove" everything we say while you athitards can just say "Fossils!" And we're supposed to buy it.
I gotta remember the athiest rules of arguing......
Fossil are evidence, they are experimentally and factually proven. You can pick them the f*ck up in your hand.

Your god, isn't real, there's no evidence and plenty of evidence to show that its not real. That's how the rules work.

Atheists don't have special rules, its religious people that try to subvert the rules of evidence and logic for their own ends, and we call them liars because of this.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#146766 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the OT has never been proven wrong.
That is ridiculous - the OT says the earth is fastened, implying it does not move. It DOES move.
His argument has already crumbled!!! what a surprise. godbot defeated once again.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146767 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes, yes.
We've been over this. You said there's NOWHERE in the Bible that says Satan is the serpent.
Revelation 12:9 disagrees with you.
And you quetly ignore it.
Maybe you should change socks now.
"Serpent" was an insult used by Romans and people of Hebrew descent at the time that the New Testament was written.

Okay?

This is why Jesus calls other people serpents.

Okay?

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.

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?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146768 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the OT has never been proven wrong.
That is ridiculous - the OT says the earth is fastened, implying it does not move. It DOES move.
lol, WTF? It's a figure of speech, dude....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146769 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
I spent my whole life doing that, and he didn't once offer any proof that he existed.
You're whole life?

Liar - you're here right now NOT doing that.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146770 Jan 2, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Bible is literally true, then the Earth is ~6,000 years old.
So, do you believe the Bible is literally true?
No, the Bible is not a literal book.

I believe the Bible is 100% true.

The problem is you're reading it like it's a novel or something.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146771 Jan 2, 2013
What is it then? A clitoral book?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Bible is not a literal book.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146772 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
lol, WTF? It's a figure of speech, dude....
How do you know?

Catholics and all other, smaller sects of Christianity believed that the earth was stationary for hundreds of years BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO. Were they all wrong? Can you prove that they are wrong?

No - you can't. Because the Bible is an extremely vague piece of literature which does not very well discern between fantasy and reality.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#146773 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't presume that scientists are atheists....
If they correctly practice the scientific method in their work, any belief or non-belief of the scientist is completely irrelevant.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#146774 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a fact and the bible story is proven lies thanks to fossil.
I think you know that fossils disprove the bible, you're just playing dumb now, otherwise why would you be here apologising for your cult?
What part of evolution are you calling fact and how does it disprove the Bible?

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146775 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're whole life?
Liar - you're here right now NOT doing that.
Notice the past tense word "spent."

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146776 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Bible is not a literal book.
I believe the Bible is 100% true.
The problem is you're reading it like it's a novel or something.
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).

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#146777 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of evolution are you calling fact and how does it disprove the Bible?
If evolution is fact (which it is - observable fact), Creation cannot be literally true.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146778 Jan 2, 2013
The bible exists. It's just full of dumb sh!t, that's all.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of evolution are you calling fact and how does it disprove the Bible?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 40 min woodtick57 36
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr fadu singh 21,904
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 1 hr Patrick 4,083
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr Patrick 176
What Bums Me Out Most About Being an Atheist 2 hr californio 88
The Ultimate Evidence of God 4 hr susanblange 119
Stump a theist with 2 questions 8 hr NightSerf 9
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••