Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244779 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: Apr 13

Location hidden

#166403 May 31, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, lost and lonely ... you still haven't proved that there isn't a GOD! Not one single once of evidence from your "somewhere over the rainbow posts
You still haven't proved that Jesus wasn't a homosexual.

Not once.

Until you do; he was.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#166404 May 31, 2013
You said it was appropriate because your dark god said so. Again other cultures at the time did not allow slavery and they survived just fine.

Yes you best go lay down before you hurt yourself.
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>this is a prime example of the fallacy of the assumed question. i never argued that it was an optimal thing, i argued that it was necesary for the culture as a safety net due to practical cultural needs. any personal dislikes about the way they did things back then is, well, personal. i cant convince you to up and like something. but my argument doesnt need to convince you, it just needs to show that you view doesnt correlate to the evil you assume its commiting. this is why these arguments dont lead anywhere. your asking me to make you like something you dont like, which makes this an argument based on moral preference. but if you had an argument with some foundation, it would be different. now im tired tonight, but maybe tomorrow we can continue this talk, because believe it or not, i like the discusiion, and theres much more to be said.:)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#166405 May 31, 2013
Exactly! He was always making commandments and laws that if not followed meant death. So why couldn't he say with the blended fiber law say... You shall not own another human being and anyone caught with a slave shall be stoned to death?

Oh I guess we need to save that for rape victims who didn't scream loudly enough eh?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, slavery is always wrong. Why would your god be influenced by the morality of a specific culture anyway?
Imhotep

United States

#166406 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
MESSAGE FROM Bro. Clownie TO ALL ATHEISTS: Hurry up and band together to fight Bro. Clownie the Anointed. The inept atheist morons that are posting on this thread right now, are making you dip-sticks look almost intelligent. Hurry up now, as those intelligent challenged twits need all the help they can get. And, Clownie the Anointed looks up toward Heaven and says to God, "Is this all the moronic atheists have"? And, God in his majestic voice says to the Anointed one, "I did warn you that you would be facing some of My worst rejects". "Yes you did, Lord!... my bad!"
.
As far as I can see it, the 'anointed one' talks only to himself.

His self appointed mission is to have you cavort with atheist messengers, Under the false pretense of being a true believer, promptly avoiding the teachings in the Bible he truly believes in.

Among God's curses on people who won't obey his commandments is the following: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

Here we go again. More child-eating. Disgusting!

You don't read too far into your (good book) do you?

Tell us how do children taste ... salty?

Perhaps a better measure would be why would any God order such a thing?
Imhotep

United States

#166407 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>every week
Don't have enough indoctrination? Do you need remedial study?

Ponder this and get back to us when you have an answer...

That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that clergy can not, or that the Bible does not lie.

Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.

Therefore since the Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.

What a delicious irony!
Irony meter goes boom again!

Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus.

After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#166408 Jun 1, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>remember the verse that says every 7 years all slaves are to go free regardless of if the master wants it or not?
But you ignored the rest of the verse! What happens to the wife and kids?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#166409 Jun 1, 2013
I'm personally Agnostic so i'm open to possibilities. This gives you the ultimate freedom because you treat life as a constant journey of discovery. Humans are so eager to answer all the questions when they don't have the answers. I respect we don't know anything and live my life constantly patient.

The day we can move away from the primitive shackles of religion will be great for mankind if they can survive. Many will fight and not accept it even with conclusive evidence. But if we can get through that we can build a cohesive society where we focus on answering questions directly in front of us instead of making up things with our imagination. I believe religion is simply a way of controlling vast amounts of people. People get rich from this and it makes sense to do so. When we can learn the true meaning of equality and stop elevating people on different platforms that will be another step to progress.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#166410 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>admitting you can't !!!!! PRICLESS
Your turn.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#166411 Jun 1, 2013
Apologetics often do that. Very dishonest.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>But you ignored the rest of the verse! What happens to the wife and kids?

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

#166412 Jun 1, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Why should your god be influenced by the cultural mores of the time? Wouldn't he just tell everyone that slavery is wrong? I can never believe the lengths that christians will go to justify the fact that the bible, and therefore god, are ok with slavery.
Can we agree that slavery is flat out wrong? There is no need to get into the cultural issues - I understand that it was a pretty widespread institution and that it was more or less accepted as a fact of life at the time - but it was still wrong. Assuming that we can agree that slavery is in fact wrong in any situation, then an explanation as to why your god would give it his tacit approval is warranted. Didn't your god know that more "enlightened" cultures would look on his words as hopelessly backwards? Didn't he know that slave owners in pre civil war US would use his words to justify slavery? Didn't he know that refusing to condemn slavery in his one and only book would make him look rather stupid?
When you try to justify the bible's view on slavery with appeals to the historical cultures found in the bible - all you are doing is weakening the case that the bible is in fact the word of god. The word of god should not be subject to the constantly changing cultural whims of his subjects. You are strengthening the case that the bible is nothing more than the collected opinions of a bunch of rural, superstitious people. "I think slavery is pretty ok, so god must think so too!" LOL
3 points before i go to work.

1. i agree slavery in the modern sense is wrong. but the problem is im not taking my cultural view on slavery to press it on the bible. often times i believe people see the word slavery and instantly think westetn slavery. the truth is the biblical accounts and the historical accounts better match up to the description of an indentured servant. but more to the point, because he bible has verses on slavery, it isnt commanding it, it is regulating it. its within the fraamework of the peoples wa of doing thngs tht involves more than just freedom. it involves money, land, food. there more to the dynamic of letting a persongo inthe ancient times. there was no fallbackfor these people, they needed crops, herds, materials, etc. so i think when people raise the complaint about ancient slavery, they think its the same and i think its a complaint thats unfounded. the bible is clear, seven yearof work nd the slave is to go free.v is clear. so its not an immedate release,but its still commanded that they go free. you dont see the command, thou shalt buy slave. you do see the command, set them free.

second, we do see the wrongness. we see that its wrong to own another persons body, mind and soul for all his life like cattle, misstreating him as you please. it is terribly wrong. so dont misunderstnd me as defending slavery in all forms or even in the way that it was. i just find it terrible as well that people would lookat these verses and instantly compare culture to culture, often times without taking the time todo the investigation. neither do i think people see the difference between god tolerating a behavior and him approving the behavior. but back to my point, God is under no obligation to make everyone like everything in the bible. but looking at the trend in the bible, we see a progression of changing the culture. do you know of any other culture that would release all there slaves after seven years of work? and they dont leave empty handed, hey could have a family, possesions of their own, maybe even herds. heck, a servant could end up more wealthy than his master lol. now as far as how the people use the bible, no matter how well intetioned any book can be, it can be used to justify any number of things. zGod isnt morally responsible for how people misuse his wordvto hurt others, hes only responsible for the originalintent of the book.so how people use it is on them.

ill get into the cultural thing at another time, im late lol.

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

#166413 Jun 1, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
But you ignored the rest of the verse! What happens to the wife and kids?
your actually mixing up two seperate verses lol. one talks about them all going free, the otherone simply talks about the husband gong free from his contracted time, and the wife still needing to finish her time in the service she owes. the kid stays with the mother. the seven year rule affects all people in the land of israel, male and female, old or young, hebrew or foreigner.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#166414 Jun 1, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
.
As far as I can see it, the 'anointed one' talks only to himself.
His self appointed mission is to have you cavort with atheist messengers, Under the false pretense of being a true believer, promptly avoiding the teachings in the Bible he truly believes in.
Among God's curses on people who won't obey his commandments is the following: "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." (Deuteronomy 28:53)
Here we go again. More child-eating. Disgusting!
You don't read too far into your (good book) do you?
Tell us how do children taste ... salty?
Perhaps a better measure would be why would any God order such a thing?
You can stop posting anytime now! I've already determined that you don't know your @ss from a hole in the ground. Where were you when God was gifting brains? Oh, that's right you don't believe in God. No wonder you're a dumb @ss! Anyway dip-stick, you still haven't come up with any proof that there is no God, and that Bro. Clownie is a jolly good fellow!!!! Now, quit talking out your @ss, or in layman's terms ... put your money where your @ss is!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#166415 Jun 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't proved that Jesus wasn't a homosexual.
Not once.
Until you do; he was.
Well, well, well ... I've seem to have brought out one of the top scumbag losers from the land of the lost. You've confirmed yourself a scumbag loser by your stupid post. It's reassuring when morons confirm their lack of intelligence, dignity, and honor, themselves. It keeps yours truly from having to do it! Congratulations fool!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#166416 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stop posting anytime now! I've already determined that you don't know your @ss from a hole in the ground. Where were you when God was gifting brains? Oh, that's right you don't believe in God. No wonder you're a dumb @ss! Anyway dip-stick, you still haven't come up with any proof that there is no God, and that Bro. Clownie is a jolly good fellow!!!! Now, quit talking out your @ss, or in layman's terms ... put your money where your @ss is!
The personal hallucinations of theists have absolutely no validity with athiests, scientists and the proven real world in which we all live.
KJV

United States

#166417 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Still no proof from the un-Godly! Just rants and whines from pathetic, lost souls who are roaming aimlessly in the wilderness of Sin. Unfortunately, most of these pathetic creatures with no souls, will end up committing Hari-kari and disappear from Heaven's conscience. Im telling you G if you don't stop that non-sense bull crap in the book of tommy OMG how dumb is that mess of lies... you gonna end up down there with that mean ol devil... ya hear me boy
"The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge ½parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...
KJV

United States

#166418 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Still no proof from the un-Godly! Just rants and whines from pathetic, lost souls who are roaming aimlessly in the wilderness of Sin. Unfortunately, most of these pathetic creatures with no souls, will end up committing Hari-kari and disappear from Heaven's conscience. Im telling you G if you don't stop that non-sense bull crap in the book of tommy OMG how dumb is that mess of lies... you gonna end up down there with that mean ol devil... ya hear me boy
Part 2

"Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^37 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10^40, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10^55 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10^120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 10^80 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (10^18 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10^-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143"

KJV

United States

#166419 Jun 1, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Still no proof from the un-Godly! Just rants and whines from pathetic, lost souls who are roaming aimlessly in the wilderness of Sin. Unfortunately, most of these pathetic creatures with no souls, will end up committing Hari-kari and disappear from Heaven's conscience. Im telling you G if you don't stop that non-sense bull crap in the book of tommy OMG how dumb is that mess of lies... you gonna end up down there with that mean ol devil... ya hear me boy
Part 3

"So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely"

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#166420 Jun 1, 2013
No it doesn't!

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#166421 Jun 1, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Part 3
"So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.
What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely"
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g... [/QUOTE]

Enough, Eagle.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#166422 Jun 1, 2013
Chaumette wrote:
No it doesn't!
to which comment were you replying?

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) 18 min Gary Coaldigger 10,699
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Gary Coaldigger 20,528
Santa vs. God: logic? 5 hr Shizle 2
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 9 hr Shizle 11
Is the Christian god good? 9 hr Shizle 4
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! Tue Richardfs 18
There is no meaning without God Tue Shizle 3
More from around the web