Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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 11

Location hidden

#202152 Jan 12, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in Whale evolution because someone told you whales evolved from land animals.
But when you discard the artist conception and the speculation what is really left?
Whales like dolphins have a sophisticated sonar system that supersedes anything the United States Navy has ever designed. So hoofed animals, bears, wolfs or some kind of land animals evolved into whales with this advanced sonar capability?
This whale evolutionary tale is the most incredible child like imagination I’ve ever heard. A story beyond even what Walt Disney could produce.
I challenge you to prove your point about whale evolution minus the speculation, guessing, and artist conceptions. Evolutionist claim they have lots of fossil evidence for whale evolution. But when you look at it close there’s not even enough to fill a five gallon bucket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Zio1ttlDjlMXX
That reminds me of this story about an emperor that had no clothes. What about you?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202153 Jan 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
LOL, Are you playing dumb, or was it for real? As a matter of fact, there is a type of radiation that does cause glowing. But who knows what kind of radiation we are talking about, since it is emanating from an extra terrestrial being. And you conveniently avoided addressing the multiple types of shielding required for even a partial viewing. Or that the affects were repeated every time Moses went into the presence of the Alien. Oh, and don't forget that the Alien hovered over the Israelites, and fire was noted at night. Of course, you need to give a little grace since the writer hardly had our understanding or experience to even begin describing what he was witnessing. But frankly, I'm seeing some pretty serious science that we have yet to catch up with... Put all that with the fact that everything the Alien promised happened, and we have some freaky incredible predictions! I do appreciate your effort, but seriously, you really need to do better than that... Smile. Oh, you should read Leviticus 15. It gives the fundamentals on protecting from germs. Took science a while to catch up, didn't it?
<quoted text>
Wow you avoid addressing the issues I bring up and shift the focus with a lot of troll bluster thrown in...
You know what that says about your position???
Now, if you want to play with the adults, respond specifically to the points.
Oh, you are right, the Big Bang is noted in the first verses, but you forgot the facts that life formed out of the earth, and that human life at it's earliest roots was genderless. Just as Adam is portrayed. By the way, if the sun and moon were not set until the fourth day, how long were the days? I'd say they'd have to be the alien days of the Creator. Spoken of as being thousands of years in another passage...
Smile.
Why would a description of radiation featured in a book by an all knowing god be so vague that only a true believer could derive any meaning from it? The only way you get radiation from the verses in question is a desire to believe that the verses describe radiation. Ten different people would give you ten different answers if asked to interpret your "radiation" verses.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202154 Jan 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, your own site noted that there is a type of radiation that causes glowing. I noted that we are talking about an unknown Alien radiation.
Not to mention that you ignore all the other indications of a radiation type danger.
I use the term 'Alien' because it is a scientific term for an extra-terrestrial being that even the source claims.
You have only proved me right so far.
SMile.
Have you been watching a little too much ancient aliens?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202155 Jan 12, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I have. My favorite is that one, and then how it tells me how to get leprosy out my walls. Killing the pigeons and smearing the blood around is integral to both. I try to get leprosy at least once a year so's I can kill pigeons and smear the blood around. God really likes blood smeared around, it's indicated in a host of just such cures.
Don't forget to mention the Bible's scientific prescience when it comes to genetic selection. Genesis 30 tells us how to make striped goats. Have you read it?
And Leviticus 11 teaches about the taxonomy of bats and other related birds.
Then there's Exodus 4 which tells us of the origin of crippling birth defects. Not sure that's a bragging point, but this God is a capricious sort.
Genesis 6 teaches all about a fascinating sort of alien/human miscegenation, and this looong before the National Enquirer-type rags.
Then there's the complete suspension of physical law as told by Isaiah where the sun stops, and turns backward for a spell, and nobody spills a single drop of their coffee!
Yessiree, that Bible is a fascinating repository of scientific lore.
Grin.
You'd make a bad apologist. You only make appeals to "science found in the bible" when the verse in question is so vague as to be meaningless. But when it makes specific, clearly wrong claims, we write it off as a simple mistake. Surely we can allow for a few mistakes in god's perfect testament to mankind.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202156 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
In a controversial decision, the Oklahoma government authorized a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds. The Satanic Temple has now submitted an application to place a seven-foot statue of Satan (depicted as goat-headed, with wings and horns) on the Capitol grounds. The applicants explain that the monument is intended to be a historical marker celebrating the scapegoats, marginalized and demonized minorities, and a symbol of religious freedom.
Who thinks both monuments should be permitted, and why? Who thinks neither should be permitted? Who thinks one should be allowed, and the other not, and why?
If we follow the Constitution, the 10 Commandments monument will be allowed and the Satanic monument prohibited.

First Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States, Joseph Story:

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects".

U.S. Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952:

"For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no relgion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence".

<Not a word of the First Amendment has been changed since these statements>

Stare decisis, anyone?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#202157 Jan 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, your own site noted that there is a type of radiation that causes glowing.
That mentioned Cerenkov radiation, and it really isn't a "type", as in the effect occurs when beta particles (electrons) travel faster than the speed of light within a substance such as water.

The Moses was not "emitting" Cerenkov radiation.

Being exposed to radiation does not make people emit a glow.

Supply a credible link that says humans emit a glow when exposed to - any type - of radiation and you'll have made a point for your unsupported assertions.

If you don't or can't supply that information, you're just blowing a horn in a barrel in the middle of nowhere.
KiMare wrote:
I noted that we are talking about an unknown Alien radiation.
Great. You've come up with something you claim exists, but is unknown.

So, now The Alien Yahweh had his own type of radiation that is different - and - unknown.

And you know it must be unknown, because, the only way your assertion works is if what you assert is an unknown variable, that you know.

I'm amazed at the explanations theists will come up with in order to hold on to a belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disson...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bia...
KiMare wrote:
Not to mention that you ignore all the other indications of a radiation type danger.
Like a sunburn?
KiMare wrote:
I use the term 'Alien' because it is a scientific term for an extra-terrestrial being that even the source claims.


So now you're saying that the source is proving what - you say - the source is describing, and you refer me to the source - from where you've taken the mythic story and the only place it exists - as proof of its veracity.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...
KiMare wrote:
You have only proved me right so far.
SMile.
Keep telling yourself that, Astro; The best thing about a delusion is only you have to believe it.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202158 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you said the satanists are not covered by the 1st Amendment.
Did I err in that?
Oh...and ... what is your point? Are you trying to say that because the satanists are not congress, they don't get...what exactly?
The 1st Amendment says...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
So how, exactly, does this say some satanists can't ask to be allowed to put up a monument on government property...given that government has already allowed another religion to put up a monument?
And please don't give me Buck's BS argument that the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress and not to any other governmental agency. That may be his interpretation, and possibly yours, but the people whose interpretation matters, SCOTUS, says differently.
Read it. What does it say? Who is restricted by the amendment?

Secondly, there is nothing in it that disallows Congress, or any governmental body, from prefering one religion over another.

All that is prohibited is Congress legislating an official national religion. That is why they drafted it - at the insistence of legislators that states be free to handle the issue.

That's the history. You can like it or lump it.

Speaking of monuments, look up at the entrance of the Supreme Court building.

Look at the Washington monument. Read the words chiseled in stone.

There was no need to include "Praise be to Satan". And they did not.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202159 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If we follow the Constitution, the 10 Commandments monument will be allowed and the Satanic monument prohibited.
First Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States, Joseph Story:
"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects".
U.S. Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952:
"For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no relgion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence".
<Not a word of the First Amendment has been changed since these statements>
Stare decisis, anyone?
With all respect, my critique of your statement.

First, your quotes are not from the Constitution. You have mined them to support your position, from scores that would refute your position.

Second, it's 2014, Buck.

Happy New Year and welcome to the present.

It's much better than when Story lived--we don't even allow slavery, or Jim Crow laws, any more. And women are allowed to vote (don't tell RR, he'll have a coniption).

By the way, Story was NOT the first Chief Justice. It was John Jay, as any Constitutional scholar should know.

The Catcher Institute of Constitutional law is accepting applications.

You may apply at the Institute, or at the Holy Church of Catcher.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202160 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read it , of course I meant within our borders.
But the universal declaration of human rights covers us out of state.
*Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
*Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
*Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
So what?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202161 Jan 12, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfettered sex?
Is there some other kind?
Well, there's hobbled.

Also spancelled.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202162 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> is Phyliss Diller still alive?
Nope.

She died a couple of years ago, in her mid-90s.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202163 Jan 12, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Because apes are suited to their environment quite well.
Your assertion is that we are categorically different from apes? I remind you that we share upwards of 97% of our DNA with chimps, we both have arms, legs, hands and feet with five digits, similar faces, etc, etc, etc. The mystery is how humanity comes from that tiny difference, but rest assured, it is a very, very tiny difference.
Your 97% figure is wrong, but it is NOT a tiny difference.

We share 75 - 80% of DNA with earthworms.

This does not mean we are 75% similar to earthworms, or 95% similar to chimps.

Given the number of base pairs, it is a huge difference.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202164 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the history. You can like it or lump it.
Without intending discourtesy, I want to focus just on this one statement of yours.

Your history somehow ended suddenly at a very early stage. That's not the way history works. History is like time, it doesn't stop, it continues to run.

So I say, look at where we are today, at our point in history.

Wouldn't you agree that I'm the one who should be saying, "That's the history. Like it or lump it?"

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#202165 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Speech has nothing to do with the first amendment?

Otay

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202167 Jan 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply here.
The group that wants the statue of Satan isn't Congress....
Nor am I.

And neither are you.

See? Something in common after all!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202168 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Is that the right to remain silent? lol
I think it's the right not to have troops billeted in your home without recompense...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#202169 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Stare decisis, anyone?
I didn't even know you had a sister, but, if she looks like you, no thanks, I don't wanna stare at her.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202170 Jan 12, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Because apes are suited to their environment quite well.
Your assertion is that we are categorically different from apes? I remind you that we share upwards of 97% of our DNA with chimps, we both have arms, legs, hands and feet with five digits, similar faces, etc, etc, etc. The mystery is how humanity comes from that tiny difference, but rest assured, it is a very, very tiny difference.
It goes beyond even that concerning our similarity to the other great apes.

What we see is that the alignment of our genes upon our various chromosomes matches, nearly exactly, the alignment of genes on the chromosomes of great apes. Creationism doesn't even begin to give an explanation of that except for "common creator". But if that were so, why do we see increasing differences this arrangement as we move away from the human lineage?

And one of the smoking guns (and there are a great many smoking guns pointing to evolution) is human chromosome 2.

One significant difference between humans and the other great apes is that humans are 23 pairs of chromosomes and the other great apes all have 24. At first glance, this would seem to be an indication AGAINST evolution. But only at first glance. Upon closer examination, we find that our chromosome 2 has some peculiar traits. In the middle of chromosome 2 is a cluster of telomeres. Telomeres are the stuff at the ends of chromosomes, not stuff found in the middle. Why are they there?

And it turns out that chromosome 2 has two centromeres. A centromere is a cluster of bases that are found near the center of a chromosome. But chromosome 2 has two of them, one which is inactive and found near the middle of the top half of chromosome 2, and the other, active one near the center of the lower half. Why are these found in those locations?

Well, upon yet closer examination we find that the upper half of chromosome 2, the part between the telomeres found at the top and those found in the middle, the genes line up almost perfectly with the genes of one of the chromosomes in the great apes that is otherwise not present in humans. And the lower half of chromosome 2, the part below the telomeres found in the center, is a near perfect match for the other chromosome the great apes have that we don't.

What we see is humans have one chromosome that appears to be the fusion of two chromosomes of the great apes!!!

So chromosome 2 is not evidence against evolution after all, but in fact evidence FOR evolution...pointing to a fusion of those chromosomes after our lineage separated from the chimp lineage.

And all the creationists can do is bury their head in the sand and give lame excuses.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202171 Jan 12, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of luminescence. You can google luminescent skin. Google electroluminescence, too.
Glowing skin exists naturally to a noticeable degree, though not as being pictured here. However, Egyptians were quite fond of cosmetics to protect against the elements. This would have also applied to their ex-slaves and ex-princes. Maybe Moses had some makeup on that was electroluminescent.
And maybe he didn't.

Got any evidence?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202172 Jan 12, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Because apes are suited to their environment quite well.
Your assertion is that we are categorically different from apes? I remind you that we share upwards of 97% of our DNA with chimps, we both have arms, legs, hands and feet with five digits, similar faces, etc, etc, etc. The mystery is how humanity comes from that tiny difference, but rest assured, it is a very, very tiny difference.
Yes. Animals who thrive in an environment are better suited for the environment than those who do not thrive.

And animals are better suited for their environment because they thrive in it.

That's a fabulous scientific breakthrough - if your environment kills you, you aren't suited for it.

And here is the even more brilliant breakthrough:

If you are dead, you can't reproduce as much.

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) 6 hr Samuel Patre 94,370
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... 15 hr Eagle 12 - 10
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 145
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 5,998
News Christ, Atheism, Quantum Physics, and the Natur... Thu nanoanomaly 1
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism May 21 Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20