Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185954 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No mistakes...REALLY??
"All flying insects that walk on FOUR legs are detestable to you"
"There are some winged creatures that walk on FOUR legs that you may eat"
ALL insect have SIX legs, your bible is WRONG. How many winged creatures do you know that have FOUR legs? WRONG once again
You bible classifies BATS as BIRDS, you bible is MISTAKEN.
Genesis claims the firmament is a "Roof" over the world.....WRONG
Genesis refers to the moon as a light.......WRONG
Genesis claims the earth was formed before the sun....REALLY WRONG.
Genesis claims the firmament is a "Roof" over the world

Another Bible verse skeptics claims teaches dome cosmology comes from the book of Amos:
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth...(Amos 9:6)
This is the only verse in which the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB translation. Here are some other translations of the verse:
It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth...(Amos 9:6, KJV)
he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth...(Amos 9:6, NIV)
He built his palace in the heavens and let its foundations rest on the earth...(Amos 9:6, CEV)
He that buildeth his ascension in heaven, and hath founded his bundle upon the earth...(Amos 9:6, DRB)
It is he that builds his ascent up to the sky, and establishes his promise on the earth...(Amos 9:6, LXX)26
The Hebrew word in question is aguddah, meaning a band:- band(1), bands(1), bunch(1).27 The other translations use the word "foundation" (NIV) and troop" (KJV). Here are the other three verses in which the word aguddah appears:
"And you shall take a bunch [aguddah] of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and the two doorposts; and none of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning." (Exodus 12:22)
And the sons of Benjamin gathered together behind Abner and became one band [aguddah], and they stood on the top of a certain hill.(2 Samuel 2:25)
this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands [aguddah] of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke?" (Isaiah 58:6)
So, it is obvious that the NASB translation of Amos 9:6 is off base. This example is typical of the kind of objections raised by atheists. Their MO is to find an unusual translation (usually found in only one translation) and use this as "proof" that the Bible is inaccurate.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185955 Nov 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are incapable of learning, no matter how many opportunities you are given.
But you can't refute that faith is trust...

Imagine that.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185956 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No mistakes...REALLY??
"All flying insects that walk on FOUR legs are detestable to you"
"There are some winged creatures that walk on FOUR legs that you may eat"
ALL insect have SIX legs, your bible is WRONG. How many winged creatures do you know that have FOUR legs? WRONG once again
You bible classifies BATS as BIRDS, you bible is MISTAKEN.
Genesis claims the firmament is a "Roof" over the world.....WRONG
Genesis refers to the moon as a light.......WRONG
Genesis claims the earth was formed before the sun....REALLY WRONG.
Genesis refers to the moon as a light.......

To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”(Strong’s 0215). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...

Sun was created "in the beginning". The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew construction "heavens and the earth" refer to the entire created universe. The light of the Sun first fell on the surface of the earth on the first "day," since the Bible describes day and night on the first "day" (Genesis 1:2-3).20 In contrast, the plants were not created until the third "day."2
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185957 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Science KNOWS the origins of the Earth, I'm surprised you don't, well not really. Science also has a pretty good hypothesis on the origins of man, and for the origins of the universe. Notice I left out SOULS. All of the others I mentioned can be observed and tested so therefore are REAL. Your soul thing is just something imagined, like any supernatural bullshit.
Yes, yes, you have hundreds of books and personal testimony's for your soul thing. You seem to think that because there is so much written about souls and because many people support such a thing that makes it real. There are thousands of books on astrology, levitation, spirit realm, physic powers, alien abductions, and to date, none of them can be proven scientifically. I guess we can add your soul thingy to this long list of bullshit
“Science also has a pretty good hypothesis on the origins of man”

Hypothesis = WAG (wild *ss guess)
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#185959 Nov 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis refers to the moon as a light.......
To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”(Strong’s 0215). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...
Sun was created "in the beginning". The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew construction "heavens and the earth" refer to the entire created universe. The light of the Sun first fell on the surface of the earth on the first "day," since the Bible describes day and night on the first "day" (Genesis 1:2-3).20 In contrast, the plants were not created until the third "day."2
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...
You've spent a lot of energy is showing just how unbelievably inaccurate and confusing your holy book is. Wouldn't you think a God could do a better job at being clear and concise. Could it be that this book is in actuality the work of frightened old misogynistic men, and not your God thing?

"It's almost as if the bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated old men, instead of a loving God"

You should be tremendously embarrassed by a God who is incapable of clear and concise thought, especially a God with such an important message for all of mankind. That he would be stupid enough to commit these ideals to texts, that have been translated and edited countless times, should be very uncomfortable for you. This to me, is just another nail in the coffin for the non-existence of God.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#185960 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Opps, no mistakes you say.
Gen 32:30 states,“…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states,“No man hath seen God at any time…” Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified
Obviously you see a contradiction. Is it possible for one to meet another face to face and yet not be able to see that person in detail? Further in the verse you are referring to explains that Moses could not see Gods face.

Remember Watergate incident? The two Washington Post writers met with a man secretly in the shadows face to face to gleam leaked information on the Watergate incident. The identity of the informant was kept a secret for years until he died.

Through the ages there have been face to face meetings in a clandestine settings. I know you remember the case of Charles Lindbergh’s baby kidnapping. Charles met a individual involved with the kidnapping secretly face to face in a cemetery in the Bronx. Lindbergh dropped off a ransom with 50,000 dollars. This man was often referred to as “Cemetery John. It was a face to face meeting yet Lindbergh didn’t see the mans face.
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#185961 Nov 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Science also has a pretty good hypothesis on the origins of man”
Hypothesis = WAG (wild *ss guess)
Glad I could clear up your mistaken definition of hypothesis. As you can see it is much more than a wild ass guess. You're entirely welcome!!!

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2]
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#185962 Nov 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you see a contradiction. Is it possible for one to meet another face to face and yet not be able to see that person in detail? Further in the verse you are referring to explains that Moses could not see Gods face.
Remember Watergate incident? The two Washington Post writers met with a man secretly in the shadows face to face to gleam leaked information on the Watergate incident. The identity of the informant was kept a secret for years until he died.
Through the ages there have been face to face meetings in a clandestine settings. I know you remember the case of Charles Lindbergh’s baby kidnapping. Charles met a individual involved with the kidnapping secretly face to face in a cemetery in the Bronx. Lindbergh dropped off a ransom with 50,000 dollars. This man was often referred to as “Cemetery John. It was a face to face meeting yet Lindbergh didn’t see the mans face.
Love the twisting and turning Eagle, doing the Christian dance of the fools, is ALWAYS very entertaining. Nice job, I swear you outdo all other Christians with your dancing abilities. Please, don't ever stop, watching you twist and turn in the wind is one of the reason's I come to Topix. Not just you, although you ARE "The lord of the Dance, but others who attempt to emulate you in dancing around the issues.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#185963 Nov 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re definitely flawed. And you as a representative of a flawed product is going to critique? So in essence we have a flawed critique by a faulty being.
I don't believe we are faulty but obviously your god does. What does that say about your almighty creator and his creations? You still provide no evidence of god's existence. Admit it you have none.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185964 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I never have. Never owned a pickup truck, especially one with a gun rack, and always avoided Church parking lots, way to close to a church.
Always slept on fine Egyptian cotton sheets with a high thread count. Even have them on the boat.
Are you serious?

You've never owned a pick up ?!?

You've never lived, you poor sheltered boy...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185966 Nov 19, 2013
davy wrote:
What makes christians so sleazy?
<quoted text>
It's our perfectness.

You'll see...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185967 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Opps, no mistakes you say.
Gen 32:30 states,“…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states,“No man hath seen God at any time…” Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified
Oh no!

AN ATHEIST CONTRADICTION!!

I'm quivering in my lil boots over here...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185968 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
No mistakes...REALLY??
Yes, really.

Deal with it.

You don't believe in the good book anyway, what do you care?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185969 Nov 19, 2013
[QUOTE who="davy] How many of your neighbors have you killed for working on the sabbath.
[/QUOTE]

Dave,

Do you know wagt this is ---------> ?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185970 Nov 19, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Science KNOWS the origins of the Earth,
Science once "knew" that insects were born of rotting flesh.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185975 Nov 20, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I'm a long ways from the cities in CO. Nothing happens out here. I'll die choking to death. Nothing spectacular. I have nothing to look back at, IANS.
Sorry.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are the one with hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
So you have both nothing to look back at and nothing to look forward to? Are you sure? You seem to be looking forward to some kind of harm coming to me. You think and write about it a lot.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Good luck with your plans for after your demise.
Thanks. It's really quite a simple plan, though.

Good luck to you before your demise. Maybe you'll find something that gives your remaining years more purpose.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#185976 Nov 20, 2013
To a simpleton like you, a yoghurt could be god.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still stuck on your follow up question and seeking clarification.
"Thinking wrote:
My follow up question to redneck is this: can we take down his not actually all powerful god like Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum did in Independence Day?"
O_o
What god in Independence Day?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185977 Nov 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
[1] How do you know that he didn't control every word? Because of all of the mistakes?
[2] What makes you think any of it was written by your god?
[3] How do you decide which parts to trust and which to disregard?
[4] Why would a god not write his crucial message to man himself? How hard could that be? Wasn't the message important enough to ensure that his message would be received accurately? Couldn't he foresee that that would cause people to doubt that he wrote any of it?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
1. There are no mistakes, so the premise of your question is flawed.
2. I believe it, and it's the only book to have endured as long as it has and adopted so many followers.
3. I don't disregard any parts of it, so again the premise of your question is flawed.
4. Because He trusts man. He knows that humans can understand human concepts. Perhaps Hid concepts are for too difficult for us to understand so it needed to be 'dumbed down' for human literacy.
This is faith speaking.

Did you ever read about Morton's Demon? I linked you to it twice. He's the fictional device imagined to guard the entrance to your mind and control what gets into it. Your first three comments are demonstrably incorrect, but there is no realistic hope of disabusing you of them.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#185978 Nov 20, 2013
Have you peer reviewed sources to back up that claim?
If you don't, it wasn't science.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Science once "knew" that insects were born of rotting flesh.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185979 Nov 20, 2013
Keepitreal1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe we are faulty but obviously your god does. What does that say about your almighty creator and his creations? You still provide no evidence of god's existence. Admit it you have none.
"We"?

Speak for yourself. I have faults.

I congratulate you on your good fortune.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min ChristineM 24,871
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Into The Night 52,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 25 min Dogen 475
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 53 min ChristineM 11,440
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Richardfs 22,158
A Proof That God Exists (Mar '13) 2 hr hpcaban 1,936
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Eagle 12 215
More from around the web