Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245258 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.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171990 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop trying to change subject and explain the errors in the bibull.
you can't spell... poor education you have there

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171991 Jul 13, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>> Can you read? Why couldn't you comprehend what Osama said in his post answering your questions? I've asked God why I should have to repeat myself over and over to you atheists! God said to Osama, "You have to be very patient with these people. They barely believe that they exist much less that I exist"!
Osama looks up into the heavens and...
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yes Sir, Lord, You do have a great sense of humor!
Sorry, Sir ... please excuse Osama for interrupting you!
And God gives Osama a big Heavenly Laugh...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Okay, Osama, enough humor ... back to business...
Although you being able to convince them of My existence is slim and none, you should keep hammering them with truths ... it will strengthen your resolve. Osama, your God is really heartbroken that these people see no light at the end of the tunnel, other than the light that surrounds the area of a Super Massive Black Hole that their scientist-astronomer idols show them. It's almost as bad as pulling teeth, and trying to get Oscar the Grouch to come out of his garbage can, I tell ya!"" Osama is heartbroken too, Lord! He knows a couple of these atheists have a 50/50 chance of making it to Heaven. Las Vegas' line is 5/95. Not good odds I'm afraid! Anyway, Osama will be like a mad jackhammer and pound away at the miniscule clay and straw atheist scientific cult headquarters. Praise be to God! "
>:)
Yes I can read, you did not answer a SINGLE point. Your long winded post said nothing.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171992 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
You copy & paste but with no understanding.


I could say the same about you. In fact, I'm about to do exactly that.
Richardfs wrote:
So let us talk about the 2000+ year old uncorrected errors in the bibull:-
Yes! By all means! I look forward to this.
Richardfs wrote:
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
Writers of the bible (especially in the OT) didn't always write about secondary events. Therefore, God didn't tempt or incite David. God allowed Satan to tempt David.
Richardfs wrote:
2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
1 Chronicles is speaking of the male population that can be called on to fight, while 2 Samuel is speaking of the professional army that is trained and ready to fight.
Richardfs wrote:
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
The same principle applies to this apparent contradiction as well.
Richardfs wrote:
4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
There had already been 4 years of famine. God was asking David if he wanted 3 more years of famine or if he wanted to be on the run from his enemies for 3 months, or if he wanted 3 days of pestilence. God was giving David a choice.
Richardfs wrote:
5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
Ahaziah was the son of Joram. Joram was sick and it's plausible even probable that Ahaziah ruled jointly with his father, and then in the 12th year started to rule by himself.

This is fun! Shall I keep going?:)

Advice before listing apparent contradictions:

Verses in one book of the bible cannot be compared with verses in another book for the purpose of finding contradictions. That is known as "proof-texting" and isn't intelligent nor honest.

Each verse should be considered within the larger passages in which they are found, and with knowledge of Hebrew customs, history, traditions, and the genre of each book. This will keep you from making foolish arguments.

I know I didn't answer them all, but if you seriously want answers (as opposed to mockery and derision) then I'll be glad to help.

P.S. At the end of the day, science can't prove science.:D

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171993 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I can read, you did not answer a SINGLE point. Your long winded post said nothing.
To think that some men and women who call themselves “scientists/atheist actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is dumb.. if he did give you a answer you wouldn't believe it...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171994 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you can't spell... poor education you have there
Why do refuse to comment on bibull errors?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171995 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>To think that some men and women who call themselves “scientists/atheist actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is dumb.. if he did give you a answer you wouldn't believe it...
Why do refuse to comment on bibull errors?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#171996 Jul 13, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>> Who says that there are errors in The Bible, other than you deaf, dumb, and blind atheists who want to believe that there are errors in the Bible? The Written Word of God is perfect, error free! The Books of the Bible contain many curious mysteries and quotes. They are in the Bible for a reason ... and, when we believers are filled with the Holy Spirit, and God sees our faithfulness, He will open our blind eyes, and, behold, in heavenly awe ... we will see right before our eyes, all of the answers of not only the mysteries of the Bible, and Heaven and Earth, but, also, the entire universe! Praise be to God!
<:)
Really?
Numbers 31:18
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"

Hmmmmm, no errors?
So, are you saying you're okay with MEN molesting children?
GROSS!

Your God is SICK!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171997 Jul 13, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do refuse to comment on bibull errors?
why do you not call it bible... there are no errors

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171998 Jul 13, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
Numbers 31:18
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"
Hmmmmm, no errors?
So, are you saying you're okay with MEN molesting children?
GROSS!
Your God is SICK!
so you do believe in GOD you just think he is gross

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#171999 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>why do you not call it bible... there are no errors
Because it is bipolar bull.

You can read can't you?:-

61. How did Judas die?

After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?

Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

63. Who is a ransom for whom?

The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all...(I Timothy 2:5-6)
The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright (Proverbs 21:18)

64. Is the law of Moses useful?

Yes. All scripture is... profitable...(2 Timothy 3:16)
No.... A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness...(Hebrews 7:18)

65. What was the exact wording on the cross?

This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

Yes (Matthew 14:5)
No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

67. Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?

Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)
Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Lukes gospel (Luke 6:12-16)

68. Jesus saw a man sitat the tax collectors office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?

Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?

After (Mark 14:12-17)
Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilates judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172000 Jul 13, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I could say the same about you. In fact, I'm about to do exactly that.
<quoted text>
Yes! By all means! I look forward to this.
<quoted text>
Writers of the bible (especially in the OT) didn't always write about secondary events. Therefore, God didn't tempt or incite David. God allowed Satan to tempt David.
<quoted text>
1 Chronicles is speaking of the male population that can be called on to fight, while 2 Samuel is speaking of the professional army that is trained and ready to fight.
<quoted text>
The same principle applies to this apparent contradiction as well.
<quoted text>
There had already been 4 years of famine. God was asking David if he wanted 3 more years of famine or if he wanted to be on the run from his enemies for 3 months, or if he wanted 3 days of pestilence. God was giving David a choice.
<quoted text>
Ahaziah was the son of Joram. Joram was sick and it's plausible even probable that Ahaziah ruled jointly with his father, and then in the 12th year started to rule by himself.
This is fun! Shall I keep going?:)
Advice before listing apparent contradictions:
Verses in one book of the bible cannot be compared with verses in another book for the purpose of finding contradictions. That is known as "proof-texting" and isn't intelligent nor honest.
Each verse should be considered within the larger passages in which they are found, and with knowledge of Hebrew customs, history, traditions, and the genre of each book. This will keep you from making foolish arguments.
I know I didn't answer them all, but if you seriously want answers (as opposed to mockery and derision) then I'll be glad to help.
P.S. At the end of the day, science can't prove science.:D
So what you saying is "god" does not use proof readers.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172001 Jul 13, 2013
Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say,“See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem believing

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1)“all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”(2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes”(Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172002 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say,“See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem believing
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1)“all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”(2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes”(Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Oh this makes my problems with the bible even bigger! I wasn't even aware of these verse's, but I can see now how someone who has stated that they were saved, and has asked for wisdom in understanding the bible can be very dis-heartened when they still do not understand the words, and in the bible apparently god even states that if you don't understand it then you must not be wise. So god was basically calling me stupid all of those years. Nice.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172003 Jul 13, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>> Yes, I See You... there is life beyond the end of your nose! What don't you understand about Osama's explanation that what ungodly people see as mistakes, and confliting statements in The Bible that has to be seen through the eyes of the believer? Sorry, I See You... but, you don't see very much do you? Osama put it to you non-believers in plain English. Osama even put it into layman's terms so that you who are uneducated, and can't comprehend more sophisticated writings could understand. Please reread Osama's simple explanation about reading and understanding The Bible!
>:)
O.k....aside from many years of having questions that god never gave me the wisdom to understand (questions about things in the bible) Let's just start with that one question. Was Joseph's father Jacob or Heli?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#172004 Jul 13, 2013
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>> Yes, I See You... there is life beyond the end of your nose! What don't you understand about Osama's explanation that what ungodly people see as mistakes, and confliting statements in The Bible that has to be seen through the eyes of the believer? Sorry, I See You... but, you don't see very much do you? Osama put it to you non-believers in plain English. Osama even put it into layman's terms so that you who are uneducated, and can't comprehend more sophisticated writings could understand. Please reread Osama's simple explanation about reading and understanding The Bible!
>:)
Maybe you were the person I was supposed to ask this whole time lol :)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172005 Jul 13, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
There is much to be said for getting it right the first time, and not professing those ultimately mistakes as "truths" in the search for knowledge, which is almost always the case.
First, if you know a way to get it right the first time, every time, let people know. The evidence is often ambiguous. It often takes more experiments to determine which of several interpretations is correct. And, unfortunately, science is often transmitted to the public by journalists and not by scientists. That means that 'dramatic' results are often presented as facts when the scientists themselves see them as ambiguous and inconclusive.

I don't think the scientific method is perfect. It is just better than any other method we have found for finding truth. It doesn't do so immediately in all cases. It is often slower about discovery than an impatient public would like. And mistakes are made. But the system is self-correcting.
Your approach there is just science apologetics. Your belief system justifies those mistakes and lives lost and other harmful things to mankind in your "search for knowledge". The means justifies the end. You are totally ignoring the personal aspects of the living experience and the rights of individuals to experience them. Your god is this nebulous desire to conquer the universe which your own science says will be impossible.
Again, it is often not obvious how to interpret the initial evidence, or even accumulated evidence which often seems contradictory. You can argue that scientists should be more clear about what is verified and what is controversial and what is pure speculation. But the journalists often see this as waffling when it is just being honest. Unfortunately, honest caution in the interpretation of evidence doesn't sell magazines.

Yes, it would be nice to get it right the first time. Everyone would strongly prefer that. But that simply isn't reasonable in practice. What *is* reasonable is that further tests will show where the mistakes were made, where the data was misinterpreted, and how to prevent mistakes like that from happening again.
You speak of 20 and 50 year periods to prove something by lasting. Religions and theistic, deistic, and beliefs in the supernatural have lasted for thousands of years. They have been put to the test repeatedly and severely. Why are you now saying they are all wrong out of hand?
You are caught in a cult.
I am saying that the methods of skepticism, of having observation trump philosophical speculation, and of realizing that evidence is always tentative is something that is anathema to religion, but is the basis of science. Religious ideas are not tested, are not challenged in ways that definitively establish which are false, and are seen as 'sacred' and therefore unable to be questioned. Religious ideas 'work' only because they are not really challenged.

You seem to think it is always obvious what the truth is, how evidence should be interpreted, that honest mistakes cannot be made, and that others will always be as cautious as those who are looking for the truth are. That is simply not reality.

So the question is whether we will seek further knowledge at all. If we seek truth, we will make mistakes. Unfortunately, people may suffer because of those mistakes. But the alternative is to never seek new truths at all. Is that really what you think we should do?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172006 Jul 13, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
BS!
If science correct it self then String theory would not be called a theory because it has failed every single test put to it. GR and QM should not be called theory's sense they fail in each others realm. A theory must work everywhere and there is not TWO everywheres.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Yet another repost of something you clearly do not understand. Yes, you post without comprehension.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#172007 Jul 13, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh this makes my problems with the bible even bigger! I wasn't even aware of these verse's, but I can see now how someone who has stated that they were saved, and has asked for wisdom in understanding the bible can be very dis-heartened when they still do not understand the words, and in the bible apparently god even states that if you don't understand it then you must not be wise. So god was basically calling me stupid all of those years. Nice.
There is alot more in the bible you don't know about

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#172008 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>cause its not true! GOD created man
OK so - Where did god come from? Well, you and I both know (I think) that all matter and energy has always existed. So - God created all this is stuff only 6,000 years ago. Is God is made of energy and matter? If God is "not" of energy and matter, then there was nothing in the beginning, including a vacuum, right? On another topic, let's nail this down. Do you know that God is Supernatural? If so, that would explain everything, and I have no need to post to you any longer.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#172009 Jul 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>There is alot more in the bible you don't know about
All my life I have heard that NO lay person should try to interpret the bible (yes, we may read it, as a novel, with no interpretation on our lay part), as that is up to the ministers and holy priests who have ultimate expertise in this area of understanding. So, if we are NOT to read the bible, why do you and others here continue to refer to it? When you reference a psalm, for instance, are you in effect saying that we should bring it to our priest's attention for interpretation?

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) 46 min woodtick57 11,093
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 59 min Thinking 20,749
John 3:16 4 hr thetruth 101
Hitler was Catholic 5 hr Shizle 1
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 17 hr thetruth 14,671
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 22 hr Shizle 23
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Mon Thinking 19
More from around the web