Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239180 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.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155281 Feb 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't done any poring.
You must be enrolled in Eagle school.
It was an amalgam of pouring and boring. Took a little poetic license, even though I knew you wouldn't understand. Sorry, I meant couldn't.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#155282 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Every form of like we know starts as a seed in some fashion. DNA is a bootstrap program, DNA is "alive" as it has energy coursing though it. This see then can be triggered into growth.
In plants these seeds are assembled as chemicals in packets exposed to the elements. They have a life span of their own. They can dry out or interact with the environment in a fashion where their growth can not occur.
In animals these seeds are protected within the body of the parent. Egg bearing gets the warmth for the chemicals and programming to occur. Live bearing gets the warmth and nutrients, and is even subject to changes of its host occurring after it's growth began.
There is a force that is constant and passed on in all of those processes. Show me where DNA that has not been maintained in some sort of nutrient environment, the basic raw chemicals, has been used to activate life. Show me where plants have been grown from dead seeds, and how the seeds were "rejuvenated".
The living active creature can modify it's blueprint, its seed. The purely reactive chemical processes can not do that. However, those things are done on a very low awareness level of the creature. They are not "conscious" acts.
You are stretching chance and randomness beyond their limits asserting life is strictly a chemical process. It is a combination of chemicals and programming, and with that programming is a desire to continue existing. To keep watching this movie unfold.
There is nothing to prove that "thought", or "spirit", did not create or assemble the chemicals needed to exist in this manifestation.
Man, for one, is well known for exploiting what is available to survive. Plus, he has developed the ability to even manufacture some of that. Your view would like to believe he just appeared magically out of total chaos, becoming a deity on his own able to do those things, when the truth may be he is just a chip off the old block.
I'm back to instruct you on just how WRONG you are here. You make these statements that make you appear that you know what you're talking about, when in fact, you are completely WRONG. DNA is NOT "alive." Here for all to see is your ignorant statement for all to see. "DNA is "alive" as it has energy coursing through it.(so do batteries and light bulbs) This seed can be triggered into growth."..........Wrong all the way around. Here, class is in session, pat attention>>>> >>

DNA is a chemical compound, chemical compounds are NOT alive. DNA is non-living because it is a MOLECULE not an ORGANISM. DNA cannot maintain homeostatis on its own. It also cannot GROW. The process of replication is NOT growth but simply DUPLICATION. More information if you need it and it appears as though you need lots of information before you open your uneducated mouth. Just here to help and save you those totally embarrassing moments. LOL

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155283 Feb 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Bacteria are a counterexample.
Bacteria are atheist.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155284 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
A "material architecture" is nothing like a learning engine, nothing at all. We are actually developing computer programs that do it, they are written to mimic the human brain perfectly, I worked on a few of them myself, and they don't start with a predefined "code" at all, it's randomized from the start and learns everything. The problem is that we cannot get the processing power we need for it to work as quickly as the biological brain.
Then at the end you just reworded what I said, it's not "code," it's a language, the brain develops a language for comprehending the world around it, even the simplest concept like the number zero has a very complex set of neurons firing when you just think the value. It's a language, not a "code" at all. You just admitted it, so at least you're learning still.
If you didn't have something for the code to be stored in, you would get nowhere in a hurry. You need material and an architecture for it to be stored and recalled. In addition, you need the means to even generate the code. Which again, requires that material architecture. There is quite a loop in the process.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#155285 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an amalgam of pouring and boring. Took a little poetic license, even though I knew you wouldn't understand. Sorry, I meant couldn't.
Good try, Dave.

And keep on poring your amalgams.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155286 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you didn't have something for the code to be stored in, you would get nowhere in a hurry. You need material and an architecture for it to be stored and recalled. In addition, you need the means to even generate the code. Which again, requires that material architecture. There is quite a loop in the process.
Wait, now you're saying it's a "code" again? Also no, you don't need an architect, that's what we have learned, natural processes can cause it to happen naturally, no need for anything to "guide" it at all. You are putting the cart before the horse, presuming that it can't occur naturally without even looking to see if it can.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155287 Feb 20, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a spiritual breath and cpr are two different things. That's that whole twisting and turning of interpretation I was talking about.
I have actually intubated 1 baby and 1 neonate. But open heart massage was probably the coolest thing I have ever gotten to do in the hospital.
The starting the heart and pulmonary function of Adam was both a physical and spiritual event. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life starting his breathing and blood flow. Then Adamís body responded and he came to life.

Not a whole lot there to misinterpret or twist and turn. You know from your experience to bring someone back to life itís ABC. Airway, Breathing and then circulation. Here we have the very first example of air being forced into a human body resulting in life starting.

Remember this whole conversation was over the accusation that the Bible is all myth. Well itís not and I have given an example where Pulmonary Resuscitation was used to kick start a life. Thousands of years before the practice of CPR was accepted by the medical community.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155289 Feb 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dave confessed he uses his hot tub as a toilet. Go ahead and sit by the George Burns look alike but remember those are not cigars floating by you.
<quoted text>
I was agreeing with you about the turds floating in the water. This is the very reason he never invited you over. He doesnít want a turd (you) in the water, ha, ha, haÖÖ

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155290 Feb 20, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I'm back to instruct you on just how WRONG you are here. You make these statements that make you appear that you know what you're talking about, when in fact, you are completely WRONG. DNA is NOT "alive." Here for all to see is your ignorant statement for all to see. "DNA is "alive" as it has energy coursing through it.(so do batteries and light bulbs) This seed can be triggered into growth."..........Wrong all the way around. Here, class is in session, pat attention>>>> >>
DNA is a chemical compound, chemical compounds are NOT alive. DNA is non-living because it is a MOLECULE not an ORGANISM. DNA cannot maintain homeostatis on its own. It also cannot GROW. The process of replication is NOT growth but simply DUPLICATION. More information if you need it and it appears as though you need lots of information before you open your uneducated mouth. Just here to help and save you those totally embarrassing moments. LOL
I can see where a certain growth got short circuited in your mental development.

What is a copper wire? A bunch of dead molecules, right?

Touch one laying on the table. Deader than a door nail. Stick one in the hot side of an outlet and touch it. Still deader than a door nail, right? Touch it and wet your finger and touch the screw in the middle of that outlet.

Not so dead after all, is it?

You might try connecting that wire to both ears before touching the screw. It might kickstart some dead molecules into action.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155291 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, now you're saying it's a "code" again? Also no, you don't need an architect, that's what we have learned, natural processes can cause it to happen naturally, no need for anything to "guide" it at all. You are putting the cart before the horse, presuming that it can't occur naturally without even looking to see if it can.
You are stuck in a loop with minimal potential differences to achieve any real work. Like marking memory banks so the code all comes together.

Remember what I posted about EM induction? Get a couple of large speaker magnets a wave them at a moderate speed back and forth across your temples. Say for an hour. That may get things activated.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#155292 Feb 20, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The starting the heart and pulmonary function of Adam was both a physical and spiritual event. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life starting his breathing and blood flow. Then Adamís body responded and he came to life.
Not a whole lot there to misinterpret or twist and turn.
Who needs to misinterpret or twist when you just make things up?

The passage says nothing about heart or pulmonary function. It doesn't mention blood flow. It doesn't even mention Adam breathing. God creates a body out of dirt, then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" and Adam is MAGICALLY alive.
Eagle12 wrote:
Remember this whole conversation was over the accusation that the Bible is all myth. Well itís not and I have given an example where Pulmonary Resuscitation was used to kick start a life. Thousands of years before the practice of CPR was accepted by the medical community.
You're being dishonest. The passage doesn't even remotely resemble CPR.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155293 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are stuck in a loop with minimal potential differences to achieve any real work. Like marking memory banks so the code all comes together.
Remember what I posted about EM induction? Get a couple of large speaker magnets a wave them at a moderate speed back and forth across your temples. Say for an hour. That may get things activated.
You don't know anything about neurology, that's very clear. Do yourself a favor, before you make yourself look like more of a fool, try learning something about the subject.

Oh, and magnets don't actually effect the brain's chemical processes unless they are strong enough to lift a car off the ground.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155294 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mouth to nose" would never work for CPR. Also you are making excuses for your abiogenesis myth, it doesn't say CPR and it talks about two unproven things.
Mouth to nose is used on infants and children because their little mouths are too small for mouth to mouth. The rescue breather covers both the nose and the mouth of the patient.

Mouth to nose is used on adults if there is any reason mouth to mouth is not applicable. These are accepted practices in the medical rescue business.

There is even mouth to nose breathing for animals such as dogs.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155295 Feb 20, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Who needs to misinterpret or twist when you just make things up?
The passage says nothing about heart or pulmonary function. It doesn't mention blood flow. It doesn't even mention Adam breathing. God creates a body out of dirt, then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" and Adam is MAGICALLY alive.
<quoted text>
You're being dishonest. The passage doesn't even remotely resemble CPR.
There is nothing dishonest about Pulmonary Resuscitation.

"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.Ē

You call mouth to nose resuscitation magic?

CPR is a three step process known as the ABC. Airway, Breathing and then Circulation. Always in that order. If Pulmonary Resuscitation is all that is needed then circulation has already been established.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#155296 Feb 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything about neurology, that's very clear. Do yourself a favor, before you make yourself look like more of a fool, try learning something about the subject.
Oh, and magnets don't actually effect the brain's chemical processes unless they are strong enough to lift a car off the ground.
Microwave ovens aren't strong enough to lift a car off the ground. Set to low, bypass the door lockout, stick your head in one, and come back and tell me magnets, as in magnetic force, does not affect chemical processes.

I will wait.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155297 Feb 20, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mouth to nose is used on infants and children because their little mouths are too small for mouth to mouth. The rescue breather covers both the nose and the mouth of the patient.
Mouth to nose is used on adults if there is any reason mouth to mouth is not applicable. These are accepted practices in the medical rescue business.
There is even mouth to nose breathing for animals such as dogs.
It's actually mouth to nose and mouth on infants, but the mouth is generally best because you are exhaling only a small amount of oxygen with your breath, so you have to get as much as you can into their lungs so they don't suffocate, otherwise if you cannot get enough into their lungs it is all for naught.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155298 Feb 20, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a young man in the neighborhood, who works for a different law enforcement group every month or so. His parents bought him an old scanner/radio, a nice looking badge, a toy night stick, an officer's hat, and a bright orange vest.
Often he would direct traffic in the neighborhood, threaten to write you up for some violation, but always let you off with a bit of a warning. Yeah, he heads back to the HQ every night, too.
I bet, I only worked as a police dispatcher for a short stint.

The job was just a little too crazy for me. One minute your dealing with a car flipped over on a rail road track on fire, people inside and the train coming. The next minute you have two year old asking you how to do CPR on a goldfish.

I have had enough drama in my life. Someone else can do it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#155299 Feb 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Microwave ovens aren't strong enough to lift a car off the ground. Set to low, bypass the door lockout, stick your head in one, and come back and tell me magnets, as in magnetic force, does not affect chemical processes.
I will wait.
That's not a magnet. Gah, do you even know how a spark-gap radio works? Sheesh, your entire knowledge of science and technology could fit into a 3.5 inch floppy disk.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#155300 Feb 20, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing dishonest about Pulmonary Resuscitation.
There is no pulmonary resuscitation in Genesis. The passage does not resemble CPR. YOU are being dishonest.
Eagle12 wrote:
"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.Ē
You call mouth to nose resuscitation magic?
There is no mouth-to-nose resuscitation. There is no mouth mentioned at all and no resuscitation is occurring. The passage involves God turning a non-living formation of dirt into a living being (MAGIC), not reviving a living person by giving them air artificially. And certainly nothing about starting the heart.
Eagle12 wrote:
CPR is a three step process known as the ABC. Airway, Breathing and then Circulation. Always in that order. If Pulmonary Resuscitation is all that is needed then circulation has already been established.
You tried to claim that Genesis mentioned "starting the heart" and "starting...blood flow". You know there is nothing like that in there. You're dishonest.

There is no CPR in the Bible.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#155301 Feb 20, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Something happened, we are here! Since there is zero evidence for a god, we look were there is at least some evidence.
How many times has some kid died because parent refused medical help, instead they tried to pray the sickness away?
I'll stick with science, it has gotten us to the edge of our solar system. Religion has taken us to believers flying planes into building, blowing each other up and murdering doctors they don't like.
It would be interesting if we took a vacuum gauge and screwed it into one of your ears. What would be the vacuum reading?

Aside from all the negative advertising you are doing here for religion. Donít forget that a large part of the hospital system here in the US and abroad is religious based. The Catholics and Methodist have some of the most advanced hospitals in the world. Saving thousands of lives every years.

Not to mentioned most of the religious hospitals are also research and teaching facilities. I donít know the exact number of religious hospitals versus secular but I bet itís over 50%.

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) 3 hr Eagle 12 7,407
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr MikeF 19,043
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 13 hr Thinking 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr Thinking 2,179
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Mon NoahLovesU 7,468
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists Mon thetruth 115
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
More from around the web