Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#212583 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
David was a homosexual.
That's OK, right?
He also had a small winkie. lol see...

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/keithlevit/...

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#212584 Feb 15, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He also had a small winkie. lol see...
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/keithlevit/...
They're all small to me because, like David, I'm a homosexual too.

Unlike David, I'm a female homosexual.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#212585 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
David was a homosexual.
That's OK, right?
Adultery with Bathsheba along with setting up Uriah to be murdered because Bathsheba became pregnant. David also had multiple wives, perhaps some concubines. Don't remember off hand. Davids not homosexual. That was a curse.

There is the curse David utters against the house of Joab in 2 Samuel 3:29.''Takes hold of a distaff'', is associated with woman's work or effeminate.

http://www.aulaorientalis.org/AuOr%20escanead...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#212586 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Adultery with Bathsheba along with setting up Uriah to be murdered because Bathsheba became pregnant. David also had multiple wives, perhaps some concubines. Don't remember off hand. Davids not homosexual. That was a curse.
There is the curse David utters against the house of Joab in 2 Samuel 3:29.''Takes hold of a distaff'', is associated with woman's work or effeminate.
http://www.aulaorientalis.org/AuOr%20escanead...

It's good to be the King!

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#212587 Feb 15, 2014
scaritual wrote: Maybe you'd be better off sticking to the biblical myths, sugartits.
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You present speculation as fact, you are ignorant!
The fact that evidence for domesticated camels existed 3000bc in Babylonian and Egyptian histories proves you are the fool.
>6<
_^_

We're not talking about Babylon or Egypt, sugartits.

Do you know what we're talking about?

Let me remind you.

"A team of Israeli archaeologists has studied the oldest-known camel bones from this ancient period and the results are in — camels reportedly started plodding around the eastern Mediterranean region centuries after the Bible tells us they did.(...) Stories about camels in the Bible “do not encapsulate memories from the second millennium,” said Noam Mizrahi, an Israeli biblical scholar,“but should be viewed as back-projections from a much later period.”" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/archaeo...

"Last week, archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University released a new study that dates the arrival of the domesticated camel in the eastern Mediterranean region to the 10th century B.C. at the earliest, based on radioactive-carbon techniques.

Abraham and the patriarchs, however, lived at least six centuries before then. The New York Times, in a story about the finding today, announced,

“There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place … these anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history.”
http://world.time.com/2014/02/11/the-mystery-...

Thanks for the help...

expert~/.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#212588 Feb 15, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Sugartits?
That was rude.
Oh wait, I'm River Tam.
Never mind.
He says he's an expert, but he's really a pro.
OG Kush

United States

#212589 Feb 15, 2014
Religions become evil because the human view of truth, one that is dynamic and relational, enables religious people to embrace and affirm foundational truths without necessarily solidifying the words into static, absolute, propositional statements.

Conversely, religious convictions that become locked into absolute truths can easily lead weak minded people to see themselves as God's agents.

People so emboldened are capable of violent and destructive behavior in the name of religion.

When zealous and devout adherents elevate the teachings and beliefs of their traditions to the level of absolute truth claims, they open a door to the possibility that their religion will become evil.

Humans armed with absolute truth claims are closely linked to violent extremism, charismatic leaders, and various justifications for acts otherwise understood to be unacceptable.

On a lighter note...

Easy keel or Ezekiel

34:29 And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.

This "Plant of renown" is known as marijuana.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#212590 Feb 15, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>scaritual wrote: Maybe you'd be better off sticking to the biblical myths, sugartits.

>6<
_^_

We're not talking about Babylon or Egypt, sugartits.

Do you know what we're talking about?

Let me remind you.

"A team of Israeli archaeologists has studied the oldest-known camel bones from this ancient period and the results are in — camels reportedly started plodding around the eastern Mediterranean region centuries after the Bible tells us they did.(...) Stories about camels in the Bible “do not encapsulate memories from the second millennium,” said Noam Mizrahi, an Israeli biblical scholar,“but should be viewed as back-projections from a much later period.”" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/archaeo...

"Last week, archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University released a new study that dates the arrival of the domesticated camel in the eastern Mediterranean region to the 10th century B.C. at the earliest, based on radioactive-carbon techniques.

Abraham and the patriarchs, however, lived at least six centuries before then. The New York Times, in a story about the finding today, announced,

“There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place … these anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history.”
http://world.time.com/2014/02/11/the-mystery-...

Thanks for the help...

expert~/.
Hm. Interesting.

I must admit I didn't know or care much about camel history, or the history if camels.

Thanks for reposting it scar, I was compelled to read it. Learning is fun.

I'm not sure experts realise that anymore.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#212591 Feb 15, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
Religions become evil because the human view of truth, one that is dynamic and relational, enables religious people to embrace and affirm foundational truths without necessarily solidifying the words into static, absolute, propositional statements.

Conversely, religious convictions that become locked into absolute truths can easily lead weak minded people to see themselves as God's agents.

People so emboldened are capable of violent and destructive behavior in the name of religion.

When zealous and devout adherents elevate the teachings and beliefs of their traditions to the level of absolute truth claims, they open a door to the possibility that their religion will become evil.

Humans armed with absolute truth claims are closely linked to violent extremism, charismatic leaders, and various justifications for acts otherwise understood to be unacceptable.

On a lighter note...

Easy keel or Ezekiel

34:29 And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.

This "Plant of renown" is known as marijuana.
So, marijuana is the "real" jesus?
OG Kush

United States

#212592 Feb 15, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
So, marijuana is the "real" jesus?
Interesting concept

Jesus?
His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212593 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The moderns assumed David was mythical until proven wrong. That means the moderns were wrong and the ancients were right. Now the moderns are saying David was not as important a figure but if the moderns were wrong about the existence of the David kingdom in the first place why would anyone assume they would be right about the importance of his kingdom? They have already been discredited.
You probably wouldn't have posted this if you didn't think it was a compelling argument. Of course, it is all just unsubstantiated claims. To my knowledge, nobody reputable has asserted that David did not or could not have existed, and nobody has been discredited. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? We require it to believe you and anybody else.

We rational skeptics don't accept claims on faith. We regard all claims including all biblical claims with skepticism, meaning that we do not accept them as fact or likely fact without good supporting evidence. Show us a palace from the tenth century BCE that contain inscriptions referring to a Hebrew king named David, or show us the artifacts of non-Hebrew cultures that reference this King David, and as you just saw, people like Aura Mytha, Darwins Stepchild, and me are happy to accept David's likely historicity. You saw Darwins Stepchild and me make the transformation right here on this thread - Darwins Stepchild based on the data Aura Mytha presented, and me based on my recollection of what the NOVA documentary presented supported by Aura Mytha's link.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Same with Noah. There is multiple written accounts of the event yet most moderns dismiss it as myth. The written accounts is evidence from history and the ancients treated the event as history but the moderns know better than everyone else.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212594 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Same with Noah. There is multiple written accounts of the event yet most moderns dismiss it as myth. The written accounts is evidence from history and the ancients treated the event as history but the moderns know better than everyone else.
Flood myths that contradict one another don't rise to the level of credible evidence for a flood, just for the proclivity of people everywhere who have found seashells in former sea floors that have been elevated by orogenic processes over deep time and misunderstood them as evidence of a flood.

Did you want to look at any one of those accounts, such as the one in Genesis? Its claims are easily ruled out with a dozen or more independent arguments. We just went through them on this thread a few months ago. Were you present for that?

Let me ask you this:

[1] how hard would it have to rain to submerge all dry land in forty days? What would be the rate of rainfall?

[2] How much water would it take to do that? How much water is there on earth that could fall as rain?

The answers to these questions confirm that the flood story in Genesis is a myth.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Most of your moderns make certain base assumptions about the Bible. Namely it is myth and go from there. This all ignores the fact the moderns have been proven wrong time and again when it comes to Scripture.
Actually, the opposite is true. Multiple claims of the bible been proven wrong time and again. or starters, it got the cosmology, the biology, the geology, and the early history of the Jews wrong.

They may praise you for your faith in church, but here, it is considered neither a virtue nor a path to knowledge, but rather a subversion of reason and evidence based thought. Arguing armed with nothing but faith, however zealously and plaintively you do it, renders your claims useless to evidence based thinkers. What position or its opposite cannot be argued that way?
OG Kush

United States

#212595 Feb 15, 2014
Noah this...

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/...

There are several good treatments of this subject

Number 10: Where’s the Ark? Surely, the survivors of such an expedition would have remembered the location of the Ark. It’s hard to believe they wouldn’t have built a monument or something — perhaps not as elaborate as one of the Pyramids, or even Stonehenge, but surely they would have done something to mark the resting place of the vessel that preserved them and all life on Earth. But we’re expected to believe that they just walked away and let the thing fade into oblivion.

Number 9: Why has Noah been forgotten? Except for those cultures that have been exposed to the tale of the Ark as found in the Old Testament, no other people on Earth remember the name of Noah — the father of us all.

Number 8: Who was Noah’s wife? Somehow, the mother of all mankind remains unnamed in Genesis. Not only that, but the wives of Noah’s sons are also unnamed. Again, this is an absurdity.

Number 7: Conditions aboard the Ark were unsurvivable. We have previously estimated that they were at least ten times worse than the accommodations aboard a slave ship. See How Horrible Was Life Aboard Noah’s Ark? For our comparison of Noah’s waste removal problems with the similar task faced by Hercules in cleaning the Augean stables, see Waste Disposal on Noah’s Ark.

Number 6. Biogeography is all wrong. If every species of animal on Earth radiated out from the landing site of the Ark, today’s living varieties and their fossilized ancestors sould reveal that pattern of dispersal. But as Darwin observed on his round-the-world voyage on the Beagle, the actual distribution of animal life is quite different. See chapters 11 and 12 of Origin of Species here.
Number 5: Where is the evidence of universal population bottlenecks? Except for a few species known to have recently recovered from near extinction, animal life on Earth shows far too much genetic diversity to be descended from only a pair of Ark-borne ancestors a few thousand years ago.

Number 4: What about the water? One of our readers (docbill) told us about this website: All Water On Earth As Sphere Compared To Size Of Earth. Enough water to cover the entire Earth to the height of the tallest mountains would require a much larger sphere of liquid. Where did that extra water come from, and more importantly — where did it go?

Number 3: What about Egypt? They have a written history that precedes, is co-existent with, and which continues uninterruptedly after the time of the Flood, yet somehow they were unaware of that catastrophic global event. The same is true for the Chinese and other cultures. How did a global Flood somehow ignore them, leaving their societies intact?

Number 2: The Earth’s geology is all wrong if there were a recent global flood. Can Noah’s Flood Explain Banded Iron Stripes?

And the Number One reason the Flood is mythology is: It didn’t work!

We’re told that the purpose of the ghastly planet-killing exercise is that mankind was wicked. That’s the reason everything was cruelly destroyed — except for Noah, his righteous family, and their chosen menagerie.

But even a creationist would agree that such behavior is incompatible with the nature of God, so the only rational conclusion is that the Flood is a childish myth.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#212596 Feb 15, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood myths that contradict one another don't rise to the level of credible evidence for a flood, just for the proclivity of people everywhere who have found seashells in former sea floors that have been elevated by orogenic processes over deep time and misunderstood them as evidence of a flood.
Did you want to look at any one of those accounts, such as the one in Genesis? Its claims are easily ruled out with a dozen or more independent arguments. We just went through them on this thread a few months ago. Were you present for that?
Let me ask you this:
[1] how hard would it have to rain to submerge all dry land in forty days? What would be the rate of rainfall?
[2] How much water would it take to do that? How much water is there on earth that could fall as rain?
The answers to these questions confirm that the flood story in Genesis is a myth.
<quoted text>
Actually, the opposite is true. Multiple claims of the bible been proven wrong time and again. or starters, it got the cosmology, the biology, the geology, and the early history of the Jews wrong.
They may praise you for your faith in church, but here, it is considered neither a virtue nor a path to knowledge, but rather a subversion of reason and evidence based thought. Arguing armed with nothing but faith, however zealously and plaintively you do it, renders your claims useless to evidence based thinkers. What position or its opposite cannot be argued that way?
Some folks just plain got more faith than brains.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#212597 Feb 15, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You probably wouldn't have posted this if you didn't think it was a compelling argument.
It is a compelling argument.
Of course, it is all just unsubstantiated claims.
According to you.
To my knowledge, nobody reputable has asserted that David did not or could not have existed, and nobody has been discredited.
BS. That is garbage.
Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? We require it to believe you and anybody else.
Sure I could. I have asked you on two different occasions to come up with any evidence for two of your claims and you came up with zero. Now you expect me to jump through your hoops? Do your own homework.
We rational skeptics don't accept claims on faith.
Written history is evidence. Genealogy is evidence. Valid historical evidence. Your faith is in your atheism. You do nothing to prepare for the afterlife because you do not believe in an afterlife.
We regard all claims including all biblical claims with skepticism, meaning that we do not accept them as fact or likely fact without good supporting evidence. Show us a palace from the tenth century BCE that contain inscriptions referring to a Hebrew king named David, or show us the artifacts of non-Hebrew cultures that reference this King David, and as you just saw, people like Aura Mytha, Darwins Stepchild, and me are happy to accept David's likely historicity.
You are not historians in the first place. You have any number of ancient historians who wrote of the David kingdom and you come along and say in effect they are all wrong and could not distinguish fact from fiction. Keep moving the goalposts. Coming up with ridiculous arguments about camels.
You saw Darwins Stepchild and me make the transformation right here on this thread - Darwins Stepchild based on the data Aura Mytha presented, and me based on my recollection of what the NOVA documentary presented supported by Aura Mytha's link.
<quoted text>
Actually I did not see any of that. Evidence for David kingdom was presented long before Aura on this thread because I remember doing it. The flood of Noah is established history by the fact there are so many accounts from ancient history. Written history is evidence. Especially when the accounts are by tribes who had no known contact.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#212598 Feb 15, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood myths
They are accounts, not myths.
that contradict one another don't rise to the level of credible evidence for a flood
And if they were all the same you would argue collusion. Fact being you have no precedent from ancient history to validate your claim it is all myth. This is all modern assumption void of ancient precedent. Go ahead and believe it is a myth, you will anyway. Jesus treated it as history and the moderns must know more than Jesus? Nothing is falsified because you do not like its source. The event either happened or it did not. The ancients say it did. Many moderns say in effect they know better than all the ancients combined. Tis a disease called denial.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#212599 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> They are accounts, not myths. <quoted text> And if they were all the same you would argue collusion. Fact being you have no precedent from ancient history to validate your claim it is all myth. This is all modern assumption void of ancient precedent. Go ahead and believe it is a myth, you will anyway. Jesus treated it as history and the moderns must know more than Jesus? Nothing is falsified because you do not like its source. The event either happened or it did not. The ancients say it did. Many moderns say in effect they know better than all the ancients combined. Tis a disease called denial.
The Ancients though Zeus was king of the gods once too.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#212600 Feb 15, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Ancients though Zeus was king of the gods once too.
I don't know about that. Sure they wrote about him but I don't know if there was a consensus of writers who assumed Zeus was an actual Deity or got human females pregnant. If you look at the reaction of the Greeks to the claims of Paul in Acts, regarding resurrection of Jesus there was plenty of scoffing. Nobody made the connect to other resurrection myths or females being impregnated by Zeus or any of that. Where is the genealogy of Zeus? Even if you go back to David. From that point you have genealogy back to Adam. Certainly David believed in Adam and Noah. All the ancients did. They also had sources which did not survive history. Probably too much of a literalist when it comes to the study of ancient history. Even if some of the ancients believed in Zeus it does not prove they were wrong about everything or could not distinguish fact from fiction.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212601 Feb 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It is a compelling argument. <quoted text> According to you. <quoted text> BS. That is garbage. <quoted text> Sure I could. I have asked you on two different occasions to come up with any evidence for two of your claims and you came up with zero. Now you expect me to jump through your hoops? Do your own homework.
<quoted text> Written history is evidence. Genealogy is evidence. Valid historical evidence. Your faith is in your atheism. You do nothing to prepare for the afterlife because you do not believe in an afterlife. <quoted text> You are not historians in the first place. You have any number of ancient historians who wrote of the David kingdom and you come along and say in effect they are all wrong and could not distinguish fact from fiction. Keep moving the goalposts. Coming up with ridiculous arguments about camels. <quoted text> Actually I did not see any of that. Evidence for David kingdom was presented long before Aura on this thread because I remember doing it. The flood of Noah is established history by the fact there are so many accounts from ancient history. Written history is evidence. Especially when the accounts are by tribes who had no known contact.
You seem to expect me to have faith in your claims, not a single one of which have you attempted to support in these posts. Sorry. I can't.

I will review your evidence and argument if you provide one. Otherwise, I have to file this under 'things lightbeamrider believes' and leave it at that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212602 Feb 15, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Let me ask you this:
[1] how hard would it have to rain to submerge all dry land in forty days? What would be the rate of rainfall?
[2] How much water would it take to do that? How much water is there on earth that could fall as rain?
The answers to these questions confirm that the flood story in Genesis is a myth.
< sound of pin dropping in the next room >
lightbeamrider wrote:
They are accounts, not myths. And if they were all the same you would argue collusion. Fact being you have no precedent from ancient history to validate your claim it is all myth.
I wouldn't use a precedent from ancient history to validate the claim that the flood story is a myth, and I haven't. My argument uses reason and evidence, as you would have seen had you not evaded it. I wonder why you chose to do that?
lightbeamrider wrote:
The event either happened or it did not. The ancients say it did.
How would they know?

Besides, these same ancients also said that the earth was flat, that insects have four legs, that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, and that you could purify a leper with pigeon blood, and they saw rabbits, lepers, bats, insects, and the earth. So why would I have confidence in what they said about a flood they didn't see? Why do you?

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min oneear69 37,310
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Seentheotherside 688,927
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Gabriel 988,601
You are of your father.....the devil 1 hr Doctor REALITY 3
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 1 hr Paul is dead 77
is god black or white? and why? (Oct '08) 1 hr my opinions 459
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr Tony 6,553
More from around the web