Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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

Alamosa, CO

#182274 Nov 1, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, you're the biggest clown in this forum. You're just to dim and arrogant to realize that.
yawn

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182275 Nov 1, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
yawn
Its better if creationist just f*cked off back to their own forum where nobody will challenge them for proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182276 Nov 1, 2013
Oh wait, they still get challenged...maybe they should not have lied about god being real?
LCNLin

United States

#182277 Nov 1, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No one can understand you, that’s usually the problem when you

talk davesworld garbage
name calling again,
amusing
Pat

East Granby, CT

#182278 Nov 1, 2013
Atheist verses theist speaks more to ones integrity than intellect. While it takes a certain level of intellect to reject an appealing world view offering life after death and a loving father figure in the sky watching over you, does not mean that intelligent people still can't choose, due to their lack of moral character, to go with the feel good personally appealing world view instead of a world view guided by reason and unfortunately many make this dishonest choice. If you choose your beliefs based upon what makes you feel good you are not only dishonest, but engaging in an act of self deception.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#182279 Nov 1, 2013
Pat wrote:
Atheist verses theist speaks more to ones integrity than intellect. While it takes a certain level of intellect to reject an appealing world view offering life after death and a loving father figure in the sky watching over you, does not mean that intelligent people still can't choose, due to their lack of moral character, to go with the feel good personally appealing world view instead of a world view guided by reason and unfortunately many make this dishonest choice. If you choose your beliefs based upon what makes you feel good you are not only dishonest, but engaging in an act of self deception.
That is exactly what you are doing with your higher morality than the Creator feel good.

You're dishonest.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182280 Nov 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about rain and a global flood that sufficient to cover the mountains and drown almost all terrestrial life.
<quoted text>
Atheists here stubbornly insist on you sticking to the parameters of the story.
<quoted text>
I'm happy to acknowledge that snow falls on mountains, but it's irrelevant to the biblical account. Your god's miracles and magic get smaller every year. The Great Flood of the Christian bible is now just snowy mountaintops.
"Seems to me that Christians worship the incredible shrinking god. I mean at one time it was supposedly capable of flinging thousands of billions of galaxies into existence with a mere thought. By the time of Noah, it was reduced to flooding an insignificant speck in the cosmos.
"By the time of Moses, its best trick was moving a tiny portion of a minor sea aside for a short while. By the time of Jesus, it has to send a delegate on its behalf who leaves behind only rumors that he was able to turn water into another beverage, or render himself extra buoyant.
"Now it counts as a miracle if a water stain grows mold that kind of looks like a bearded face which could be claimed to resemble this supposed delegate. How much more pathetic can this god get? How do Christians manage to sing praises of its glory and greatness without feeling like fools--or at best, like new parents gushing over their toddler's ability to make a pee." – Kronk
========
Shall we amend the miracle from "By the time of Noah, it was reduced to flooding an insignificant speck in the cosmos" to "By the time of Noah, it was reduced to snowfall on the mountaintops of an insignificant speck in the cosmos"? How about "a great fog settled in the valley and made everything dewy"?
Your compadres claim it is impossible for precipitation to cover a mountain.

In this argument you and your compadres are on the wrong side of science.

In Genesis 7:20 the scripture talks of water (precipitation) and mountains being covered.

The narrowness of your interpretation is beyond humorous.

If it was impossible for a mountain to be covered in precipitation then science would be on your side. But it is and will always be a fact that mountains are often covered in precipitation.

20 “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

A cubit being about a arms length and fifteen cubits being about 25 feet. Here the actual “average” depth is listed.“And the mountains were covered.”

When NOAA gets a average depth of a particular ocean. They do not pick the highest peak in the ocean and claim it is the average depth. This is what you and your compadres are doing.

It’s down right funny to watch you guys try and twist the story to make it fit your crazy and wild interpretation.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182281 Nov 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
The Christians are free to help however they can, but the government is not free to use public funds to help them promote their religion, which is an unproven method of crime control anyway. Christianity doesn't reduce crime to lower levels among Christians than non-Christians.
<quoted text>
Nope.
We want to stop efforts to use public resources to promote a religion that we think does more harm to the culture than good.
I agree with you about using public funds to promote a religion.

But using public funds to build a partnership with citizens in crime prevention is not only beneficial but a smart move.

Excluding people of faith from organizing a crime watch or volunteer awareness group would be unconstitutional. It would be like excluding people of faith from serving in the military.

Many of these volunteer groups in Atlanta are African American. Excluding these citizens because they have faith would be more than one act of bigotry.

“A witty saying proves nothing”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#182282 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your compadres claim it is impossible for precipitation to cover a mountain.
In this argument you and your compadres are on the wrong side of science.
In Genesis 7:20 the scripture talks of water (precipitation) and mountains being covered.
The narrowness of your interpretation is beyond humorous.
If it was impossible for a mountain to be covered in precipitation then science would be on your side. But it is and will always be a fact that mountains are often covered in precipitation.
20 “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
A cubit being about a arms length and fifteen cubits being about 25 feet. Here the actual “average” depth is listed.“And the mountains were covered.”
When NOAA gets a average depth of a particular ocean. They do not pick the highest peak in the ocean and claim it is the average depth. This is what you and your compadres are doing.
It’s down right funny to watch you guys try and twist the story to make it fit your crazy and wild interpretation.
I can't believe you're actually arguing in defense of the validity of the story of Noah's Arc! The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. It's like arguing the validity of the last Harry Potter movie, or Lord of the Rings. But it's so bad, it doesn't even make for interesting reading. It's such total obvious bullshit Eagle, why can't you see that? I mean, how did the animals get across the ocean? Where did all that water come from, enough to cover the entire planet? I could go on and on and pick out every point in the entire story and it's such obvious bullshit it's ludicrous. Back a few thousand years ago people were so ignorant you could expect them to believe crap like this, but if the Bible were invented today they'd have to put a whole lot more effort into making it believable or no one would every buy into it, not even you, if your entire belief system wasn't riding on it's validity.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#182283 Nov 1, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you're actually arguing in defense of the validity of the story of Noah's Arc! The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. It's like arguing the validity of the last Harry Potter movie, or Lord of the Rings. But it's so bad, it doesn't even make for interesting reading. It's such total obvious bullshit Eagle, why can't you see that? I mean, how did the animals get across the ocean? Where did all that water come from, enough to cover the entire planet? I could go on and on and pick out every point in the entire story and it's such obvious bullshit it's ludicrous. Back a few thousand years ago people were so ignorant you could expect them to believe crap like this, but if the Bible were invented today they'd have to put a whole lot more effort into making it believable or no one would every buy into it, not even you, if your entire belief system wasn't riding on it's validity.
Indoctrination you know it's beyond some people to escape their programing. It's what he was trained to think, so he can't shake it, if it isn't true then his world is upside down.
Leave him to his caveman mentality.
John K

Grafton, OH

#182284 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
When NOAA gets a average depth of
Funny how you will use scientist work to back up your belief , but not to refute your belief.
If science says that some statement in the bible is true you will buy the scientist a steak dinner and a round of drinks, but if the same scientist tells you that the Noah's ark story is undeniably proven false to high levels of accuracy you will cuss him up one side and down the other.

Stop using science until you start using all of it.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182285 Nov 1, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you're actually arguing in defense of the validity of the story of Noah's Arc! The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. It's like arguing the validity of the last Harry Potter movie, or Lord of the Rings. But it's so bad, it doesn't even make for interesting reading. It's such total obvious bullshit Eagle, why can't you see that? I mean, how did the animals get across the ocean? Where did all that water come from, enough to cover the entire planet? I could go on and on and pick out every point in the entire story and it's such obvious bullshit it's ludicrous. Back a few thousand years ago people were so ignorant you could expect them to believe crap like this, but if the Bible were invented today they'd have to put a whole lot more effort into making it believable or no one would every buy into it, not even you, if your entire belief system wasn't riding on it's validity.
I respect your right to disagree. All I ask is the respect be mutual. Most of the time it isn’t. Floods happen all the time and it is not outrageous to believe a flood happened in Noah’s time. It’s also not out of the realm of possibility that people built a vessel. Because mankind has been making vessels very early inhistory.

If the story had encompassed Noah building an airplane and flying away to some distant land then you would have cause to sneer. But building a floatation vessel was not out of the realm of possibility.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182286 Nov 1, 2013
John K wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you will use scientist work to back up your belief , but not to refute your belief.
If science says that some statement in the bible is true you will buy the scientist a steak dinner and a round of drinks, but if the same scientist tells you that the Noah's ark story is undeniably proven false to high levels of accuracy you will cuss him up one side and down the other.
Stop using science until you start using all of it.
The same is true with Atheist. They use science or try to use science in their argument. But when science is applied to their counterargument all of a sudden the playing field is leveled. Something most Atheist are appalled at.

Saying for example it is impossible for a mountain to be covered in precipitation is asinine. It happens every day and it’s ridiculous not to accept that scientific fact. It’s not even a complicated scientific fact nor is it pseudo science.
We are not talking theory here but actual verifiable metrological facts.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#182287 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The same is true with Atheist. They use science or try to use science in their argument. But when science is applied to their counterargument all of a sudden the playing field is leveled. Something most Atheist are appalled at.
Saying for example it is impossible for a mountain to be covered in precipitation is asinine. It happens every day and it’s ridiculous not to accept that scientific fact. It’s not even a complicated scientific fact nor is it pseudo science.
We are not talking theory here but actual verifiable metrological facts.
Now you are constructing a strawman flood argument out of fiat currency. What difference does it make that most moutaintops are in fact covered by snow and ice? In fact some are covered by glaciers that are part of the permafrost we are losing to global warming. No one has argued mountains cannot be covered by a thin coat of water. But in fact the mountains were never buried under 15 cubits of ocean, like your fairy tale says.

“A witty saying proves nothing”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#182288 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I respect your right to disagree. All I ask is the respect be mutual. Most of the time it isn’t. Floods happen all the time and it is not outrageous to believe a flood happened in Noah’s time. It’s also not out of the realm of possibility that people built a vessel. Because mankind has been making vessels very early inhistory.
If the story had encompassed Noah building an airplane and flying away to some distant land then you would have cause to sneer. But building a floatation vessel was not out of the realm of possibility.
OK, yes, boats can be built and heavy rains happen. But one man and his immediate family could not have built a boat large enough to house 7 of each animal (2 of "unclean" ones). Marine engineers playing around in their spare time estimated the size a boat Noah would have needed and it could not have been made of wood, as it's not strong enough. There's a reason really large boats were never built until they learned to use steel. It's because a really large wood boat would not be strong enough to support itself and would break in half under it's own weight.

This is discounting the entire basis of the story which is the most ridiculous part. God is pissed because the people he created are sinning so he kills them all except one family plus the majority of all the living things on earth? I'm not God, but if I were, I'll guarantee you I could come up with a MUCH less violent and evil way to deal with that sinning problem. And... there was never enough water to cover the entire world. Back when this crap was all written, they didn't bother to think about that because people were all basically pretty ignorant.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182289 Nov 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are constructing a strawman flood argument out of fiat currency. What difference does it make that most moutaintops are in fact covered by snow and ice? In fact some are covered by glaciers that are part of the permafrost we are losing to global warming. No one has argued mountains cannot be covered by a thin coat of water. But in fact the mountains were never buried under 15 cubits of ocean, like your fairy tale says.
The story in Genesis doesn’t say that my friend. That’s what you are trying to insinuate it says. Big difference.

Your insinuation is not factual nor plausible.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.

The story says the mountains were covered. Not impossible but very much likely they were covered in precipitation. The average mean depth is listed. That depth was not taken over Mt Everest as you so ridiculously want to make it look.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182290 Nov 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are constructing a strawman flood argument out of fiat currency. What difference does it make that most moutaintops are in fact covered by snow and ice? In fact some are covered by glaciers that are part of the permafrost we are losing to global warming. No one has argued mountains cannot be covered by a thin coat of water. But in fact the mountains were never buried under 15 cubits of ocean, like your fairy tale says.
Prove it, prove your insinuation. You say it says that I would just to like to see this proof.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#182291 Nov 1, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, yes, boats can be built and heavy rains happen. But one man and his immediate family could not have built a boat large enough to house 7 of each animal (2 of "unclean" ones). Marine engineers playing around in their spare time estimated the size a boat Noah would have needed and it could not have been made of wood, as it's not strong enough. There's a reason really large boats were never built until they learned to use steel. It's because a really large wood boat would not be strong enough to support itself and would break in half under it's own weight.
This is discounting the entire basis of the story which is the most ridiculous part. God is pissed because the people he created are sinning so he kills them all except one family plus the majority of all the living things on earth? I'm not God, but if I were, I'll guarantee you I could come up with a MUCH less violent and evil way to deal with that sinning problem. And... there was never enough water to cover the entire world. Back when this crap was all written, they didn't bother to think about that because people were all basically pretty ignorant.
We all know the flood tale is a copy and exaggeration of part of the epic of Gilgamesh. It's no surprise since the Babylonians did in fact conquer the Jews and the epic a Sumerian tale, that it would rub off onto them is a given. The fact it was given it's own Jewish spin ...no surprise.
\

What is a freaking mystery is.... how these colossal doofus people can believe it as it is written?
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#182292 Nov 1, 2013
Clark Griswold wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, yes, boats can be built and heavy rains happen. But one man and his immediate family could not have built a boat large enough to house 7 of each animal (2 of "unclean" ones). Marine engineers playing around in their spare time estimated the size a boat Noah would have needed and it could not have been made of wood, as it's not strong enough. There's a reason really large boats were never built until they learned to use steel. It's because a really large wood boat would not be strong enough to support itself and would break in half under it's own weight.
This is discounting the entire basis of the story which is the most ridiculous part. God is pissed because the people he created are sinning so he kills them all except one family plus the majority of all the living things on earth? I'm not God, but if I were, I'll guarantee you I could come up with a MUCH less violent and evil way to deal with that sinning problem. And... there was never enough water to cover the entire world. Back when this crap was all written, they didn't bother to think about that because people were all basically pretty ignorant.
I would challenge you to prove you claims.

The Greek Tessarakonteres is recorded in history as having a length 420 feet. This was done in ancient times. Made of wood.

So whoever you are referring too as saying it couldn’t be done is historically inept. It has already been done.

For centuries men have been floating wooden barges and wood rafts to saw mills. We know wood floats. We also know in history men have built wooden boats and ships.

When you are making claims please validate them with references and not just hearsay.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#182293 Nov 1, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it, prove your insinuation. You say it says that I would just to like to see this proof.
For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

You have a wonderful heart and a empty head.
While I admire your loyalty, I loathe your ignorance.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 48,654
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 8 min Richardfs 5,698
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 40
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Thinking 21,875
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 12 hr Mikko 1
What are the best arguments against religion? 13 hr bluehill 1
More from around the web