Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255511 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202393 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
You should try it sometime.
You're biased, it's ok.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202394 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
You blithely ignore the fact that Kasso was an utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens at the time.
Oh.

You mean he wasn't murdering in the name of Satan?

Interesting turn around.

When a Christian goes nuts like that, all you Topix Atheists! blame it on his Christianity and claim he was murdering "for God".

But when a Satanist does it....

He's just an "utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens".

Fucking hypocrites.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202395 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're biased, it's ok.
I care about what is actually true.

That's my bias.

It's okay if you have other priorities. I understand.
Chris Clearwater

Auburndale, FL

#202396 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on then god, test me. Test me now god. See nothing happened you liars.
Remember this in the future when you are on your deathbed.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202397 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what Bongo meant to write was:
"Tell me, which set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms of evolution has been proven?
Which of the various guesses is the one?"
Can you answer? I know Jim can't.
thanks,man. Catcher should give you more credit.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202398 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
thanks,man. Catcher should give you more credit.
I'll take his American Express....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202399 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I care about what is actually true.
That's my bias.
It's okay if you have other priorities. I understand.
But it isn't actually true that Christianity is more violent than Islam.

Your bias against Christianity makes you think otherwise.

It's ok.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202400 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

I think Christianity has been more damaging than Islam thus far.
Islam is certainly more dangerous now, but they have a little catching up to do.
If we are comparing theology to theology, they have about the same potential for damage.
Atheism has done more damage than all of them combined.

--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.

--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.

--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202401 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
People that still deny the fact of evolution are to be pitied in this century.
Wrong page again, Gym. If you are going to use the handbook, use it properly.

Or give it back to Christinemc^2.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202402 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Bongo...
Scientists rarely use the term "law" today. That is because many of the laws that were previously thought to be indisputable have turned out to be incomplete. Scientist have realized that all of science is a work in progress, adding to our previous knowledge.
An excellent example is the Law of Gravity, which was derived by Newton. It was considered unassailable...that is until Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity and experimental data confirmed it. Newton's Law of Gravity is just a special case under General Relativity. In other words, the THEORY superseded the LAW.
In science today, theory is at the top.
ok, this is all true. I don't think science has been able to unequivocally rule out Jesus and his mission.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202403 Jan 13, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Remember this in the future when you are on your deathbed.
Your beliefs are so weak and insufficient that you are forced to enforce them with threats of death.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202404 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism has done more damage than all of them combined.
--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.
--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.
--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.
Nobody has ever killed in the name of Atheism, why do you lie? Why not explain to everyone how you think the earth is 3000 years old instead.

Then they'll believe you...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202405 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I've seen claims of 99% similarity.

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/201...

I didn't say we were 95% similar to chimps - I said that there is a small difference between our respective genomes, and that the mystery was how humanity comes from this small difference.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202406 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what Bongo meant to write was:
"Tell me, which set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms of evolution has been proven?
Which of the various guesses is the one?"
Can you answer? I know Jim can't.
Science does not deal in "proof", at least not in the mathematical sense.

As they say, proof is for math and whiskey.

Science deals, instead, in evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming behind the theory of evolution.

Are there debates over evolution within science? Of course. There are debates over any cutting edge in science. But there is no debate over whether evolution occurs. The debates are over things like...is mechanism A or mechanism B more important. In other words, the arguments are over the minutia of the subject, working out the details.

While we are speaking of debates on minutia...perhaps you can tell me why there are somewhere around 40,000 sects of Christianity all insisting only they are the ones that are right. Seems to me if there were one God, and only one way to worship him, and he is actually telling people how to do it...shouldn't there be only one flavor of Christianity?
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202407 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong page again, Gym. If you are going to use the handbook, use it properly.
Or give it back to Christinemc^2.
The Creationist Cult Oaf vomited words again.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202408 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> ok, this is all true. I don't think science has been able to unequivocally rule out Jesus and his mission.
its been ruled out because you liars can never seem to present any actual evidence for the cult you try to sell.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202409 Jan 13, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Remember this in the future when you are on your deathbed.
Everyone dies, what you have said does not shock or scare me in the slightest, so deal with it you deluded religious liar with no morals. You get slow claps for that remark.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202410 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Good post. I've confronted many a creationist with chromosome 2, but what I usually find is that they can't grasp the significance of the vestigial centromere and telomeres, and why their location makes it quite clear that a fusion occurred..

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202411 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> ok, this is all true. I don't think science has been able to unequivocally rule out Jesus and his mission.
Science hasn't been able to rule out little green men either. That isn't an excuse to believe in them...at least to a rational person.

You are trying to hide your God in the gaps of science. With every new scientific discovery, those gaps get smaller. Eventually your God is not going to have anywhere to hide.

Quote

Oolon Colluphid used the Babel fish as the main theme of his best-selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up For God. More specifically, Colluphid uses the Babel fish as an argument for intelligent design (or - and there are some subtle differences here) in a version of the so-called teleological argument for God's existence. But Colluphid then goes further - using the existence of the Babel fish to try to prove that God does not exist.

The whole argument runs, roughly, as follows.

(1) God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

(2) Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the fish proves that God exists - but hence also, by God's own reasoning that God does not exist.

(3) God says that He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

End quote

--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202412 Jan 13, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Good post. I've confronted many a creationist with chromosome 2, but what I usually find is that they can't grasp the significance of the vestigial centromere and telomeres, and why their location makes it quite clear that a fusion occurred..
Speak English , dammit!

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 Why I quit atheism 2 min Thinking 281
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Chimney1 34,939
Religion is the cause of war and most suffering... 3 min Thinking 149
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Big girl 5,598
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr superwilly 3,696
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 4 hr ATHEOI 197
Majority of Scots now have no religion 5 hr Eagle 12 158
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr scientia potentia... 14,928
More from around the web