Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247637 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.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#104941 Jun 1, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I believe in God.
You are the one who believees in an anthropomorphic supernatural being. I do not.
Let me put it in tangible terms.
I beleive in electricity and Ohm's Law.
You believe in Zeus and thrown thunderbolts.
I find electricity to be a beautiful manifestion of God.
Of all the people on here, you seem to understand scripture the best. Can I ask you why you believe in God? What kind of a God? Is it, say, compatible with what the other major religions believe in?

Are you as angry as the Christians on here when I write that all belief is the product of human biology?
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#104943 Jun 1, 2012
Explain Consciousness......

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#104944 Jun 1, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Explain Consciousness......

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104945 Jun 1, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Explain Consciousness......
Social trait selected by the biome to improve the chance of survival. Next.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104946 Jun 1, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it-- prove your monster-terror-god is "alive".
I have $100 for you, if you can prove it.
If only the Protestants had not banned "Bel and the Dragon".
Then again, the Catholics seemed to have missed its point entirely.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#104947 Jun 1, 2012
Tony Longfellow wrote:
<quoted text>
Meltdown.
Ha!. weak. And you're still a coward.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104948 Jun 1, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have to prove your fake god isn't real.
For this is the default state.
It is up to YOU to prove your imaginary terror-god is real.
I have the $100 waiting for you, right here--
-- that's probably more money than you've seen in a month...
Their is more evidence to support ET's and Bigfoot than any deity.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#104949 Jun 1, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you went and changed into some clean Depends™. Good man. All by yourself, too.
Oh, what is your opinion concerning Gashadokuro. Real or no?
I don't know. See if you can use your religion and turn a shovel into an anteater and maybe you will get an answer :)

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#104950 Jun 1, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
It was then the man spoke; "I thought Confucius or a Hindu guy came up with the Golden Rule before you did." It was then the Jesus said; "Look, kissass, I did the research. I designed and wrote the Golden Rule, it was me, damn you, and you can't do anything about it." The man replied, saying; "I just revealed your deception." The Jesus said unto him; You didn't reveal squat dumbass, come get me for plagiarism then. What is revealed about you is that you die believing in shit and you go to hell" — The Holey Book Of Manure(whole book)
??now this may be a meltdown.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#104951 Jun 1, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Social trait selected by the biome to improve the chance of survival. Next.
Not Even Close....Try Again
ARGUING with IDIOTS

San Jose, CA

#104952 Jun 1, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>Their is more evidence to support ET's and Bigfoot than any deity.
Ok, what evidence do you have for Bigfoot?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104953 Jun 1, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>Ha!. weak. And you're still a coward.
Anyone can get courage, you will still be a proven liar.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104954 Jun 1, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Even Close....Try Again
Closer than you will ever admit. I know, knowledge is hard to take, but you can be a big girl and take it.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104955 Jun 1, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. See if you can use your religion and turn a shovel into an anteater and maybe you will get an answer :)
I can turn rocks into a shovel.

I must be in league with Satan, or God, according to your beliefs.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104956 Jun 1, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, what evidence do you have for Bigfoot?
Video and footprints trump a story in a book.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#104957 Jun 1, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one claiming he is not real...
You claim Zeus is not real. Can you prove that ?
We have lots of Greek books that are as much 'eye witnesses to Zeus' as your Bible is 'eyewitness to God and Jesus'.

So, prove Zeus is not real!

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#104958 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The fossil record cannot be complete, b/c of its nature.
2. We have tons of "transitional" forms - tons and tons. The main arguments in human evolution are where to put them all.
<quoted text>
1. The fossil record is not complete. Soft bodies don't fossilize well. Read more about the Cambrian explosion and evolution to understand what went on here or I can answer this for you in great detail, but it will take a lot of writing.
<quoted text>
That's false. They've changed quite a bit at the level of genetics and traits.
<quoted text>
Read contradictory claims on this one - the creationists seemed to have invented a lot of fiction to discredit it.
<quoted text>
He was overzealous in his presentation. He was a bit off because he did not quite grasp how evolution works. It doesn't just build new developmental stages over old ones. Rather, mutation affects genes and gene pools change over time. Thus, similarities may exist in development because of similar ancestral conditions but massive differences may also exist because of divergent phylogenetic paths.
<quoted text>
His experiments led to newer experiments. What's the problem?
<quoted text>
No idea. We don't really need them - there are multiple examples of eye evolution, everywhere we look. The eye evolved at least 47 separate times. These eyes are not trying to be like ours, they're are under their own selection pressure, going their own phylogenetic path.
Now, your turn:
1. How can a perfect deity create an imperfect world where almost all species go extinct?
2. Why would Creation lead to 4 times as many parasite species as free living ones?
3. Why does a perfect deity Create a world that looks precisely as if evolution happened - from the examples we can measure in real time (pathogen evolution, genetic change in all extant populations, physical laws we can measure that tell us how old the universe is, geological stratification, etc)- to all the indirect morphological evidence?
4. How can creationism be used to produce a framework theory for all of the biological sciences? Please present the theory and one example of how we can draw hypotheses from it.
5. Why do creationists spend all of their time baselessly attacking evolution and none of their time putting forth actual, testable theories and hypotheses?
6. Why are there no biological scientists who are creationists? Why are there no creationist technologies - no creationist medicines, gene therapy, representation in science, institutions of higher learning or research institutions?
7. Why shouldn't I, a trained scientist, laugh at your claims when you can't answer a single one of my questions with any kind of rigor that we expect from science?
1. The fossil record refutes your religion.
2. Same as one.
1. Same
2.Ask God when you see Him.
3.Species to species evolution like a fish turning into a goat are the fairy tale teaching and pseudo science doctrine of your religion.
4.Ask God when you see Him.
5.Because Scientists have not put forth any evidence that humans evolved from any other species. Its all nonsensical pseudo-science that allows suckers like you to use to back a religious doctrine you have always wanted to believe. So crack scientist like yourself just believed "no God"...then went and created nonsensical theories and hypothesis to back your religious claims LOL. silly atheist.
6.How do you know that there are no biologists that are creationist? I don't believe you're an actual atheist.
7.I laugh at you atheist. So feel free to laugh at religion. Laugh until you choke. You will die, and you will meet Jesus Christ. You won't be laughing less than a second after you meet the Christ and you're damned.

Any further response can be summed up in the next post from a previous thread.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

#104959 Jun 1, 2012
The fossil record is in perfect accord with the modern Theory of Evolution. There is no lack of transitional species. In a very real sense all species are transitional, but even ignoring that, there are numerous significant transitional species. You're absolutely wrong there. This is what evolutionary biologist Robert Carroll says "Very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil records". Thats what a evolutionist biologists says. The example what evolutionists used...the archhaeopteryx bird was concluded it had No relation to modern birds, it was a dead end. The fossil records disputes Evolution, not proves it. Above addresses your second refutal. third refutal. I agree there were changes in the beak. but the finches when Darwin saqw them, He states the finches evolved from one single finch species. in 1991 "scientific american" Darwinist Peter Grant says.."natura l selection would transform one species into another withinn 200yrs" its been 170 yrs since Darwin observed...there are still 13 finches..to this day. an evolutionist biologist says that..not me. The finches claim is false. fourth refutal...No Mr viking...it wasnt creationist that deemed the peppered moth example fraud. In a 2002 article in the "new york times" acknoeledge the example was a fraud. But for more credential this is what American lepidopterist says.."pepper ed moths do not rest on tree trunks, but on the underside of high branches". it turned out Viking..that the experiment was rigged. "the new york times" wrote 'the most famous example of evolution in action, must now become the infamous. fifth. Com'on Viking, why are you defending Haeckels??. you know better. This one is easy. British embryologist michael richardson published the actual photos in the "journal anatomy and embtyology august 1997 edition". richardson said its the most famous fake in history. sixth. you are very wrong. this is why the miller-urey experiment is important for evolution. for many years, there was no connection between non-life and life. so the failure of the experiment was extremely important to evolution, because it should show how after the big bang...life could begin. the experiment could not even produce amino acids which are not even protiens muchless life. There is no connection today in the theory of evolution that connects non-life to life. Your last refutal, the eye..you sourced . E. Nilsson and S. Pelger's article, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58). In the "politically incorrect guide to science". page 210 washington DC REGNEY 2005" The notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionaty development of the eye, is an urban myth. such a model does not exise. Richard Dawkins, the senior author of the study based his claim on DAN E. NILSSON, has explicitly rejected the idea that his lab has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye's development.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104960 Jun 1, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The fossil record refutes your religion.
2. Same as one.
1. Same
2.Ask God when you see Him.
3.Species to species evolution like a fish turning into a goat are the fairy tale teaching and pseudo science doctrine of your religion.
4.Ask God when you see Him.
5.Because Scientists have not put forth any evidence that humans evolved from any other species. Its all nonsensical pseudo-science that allows suckers like you to use to back a religious doctrine you have always wanted to believe. So crack scientist like yourself just believed "no God"...then went and created nonsensical theories and hypothesis to back your religious claims LOL. silly atheist.
6.How do you know that there are no biologists that are creationist? I don't believe you're an actual atheist.
7.I laugh at you atheist. So feel free to laugh at religion. Laugh until you choke. You will die, and you will meet Jesus Christ. You won't be laughing less than a second after you meet the Christ and you're damned.
Any further response can be summed up in the next post from a previous thread.
You are so deluded you cannot discern between fact and fiction. I still feel sorry for your blindness.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104961 Jun 1, 2012
bossdrop wrote:
The fossil record is in perfect accord with the modern Theory of Evolution. There is no lack of transitional species. In a very real sense all species are transitional, but even ignoring that, there are numerous significant transitional species. You're absolutely wrong there. This is what evolutionary biologist Robert Carroll says "Very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil records". Thats what a evolutionist biologists says. The example what evolutionists used...the archhaeopteryx bird was concluded it had No relation to modern birds, it was a dead end. The fossil records disputes Evolution, not proves it. Above addresses your second refutal. third refutal. I agree there were changes in the beak. but the finches when Darwin saqw them, He states the finches evolved from one single finch species. in 1991 "scientific american" Darwinist Peter Grant says.."natura l selection would transform one species into another withinn 200yrs" its been 170 yrs since Darwin observed...there are still 13 finches..to this day. an evolutionist biologist says that..not me. The finches claim is false. fourth refutal...No Mr viking...it wasnt creationist that deemed the peppered moth example fraud. In a 2002 article in the "new york times" acknoeledge the example was a fraud. But for more credential this is what American lepidopterist says.."pepper ed moths do not rest on tree trunks, but on the underside of high branches". it turned out Viking..that the experiment was rigged. "the new york times" wrote 'the most famous example of evolution in action, must now become the infamous. fifth. Com'on Viking, why are you defending Haeckels??. you know better. This one is easy. British embryologist michael richardson published the actual photos in the "journal anatomy and embtyology august 1997 edition". richardson said its the most famous fake in history. sixth. you are very wrong. this is why the miller-urey experiment is important for evolution. for many years, there was no connection between non-life and life. so the failure of the experiment was extremely important to evolution, because it should show how after the big bang...life could begin. the experiment could not even produce amino acids which are not even protiens muchless life. There is no connection today in the theory of evolution that connects non-life to life. Your last refutal, the eye..you sourced . E. Nilsson and S. Pelger's article, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58). In the "politically incorrect guide to science". page 210 washington DC REGNEY 2005" The notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionaty development of the eye, is an urban myth. such a model does not exise. Richard Dawkins, the senior author of the study based his claim on DAN E. NILSSON, has explicitly rejected the idea that his lab has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye's development.
Stop serving spaghetti! Or at least put some sauce on it.

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
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 11 min The swamiji 7,687
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Robert F 603,663
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min WasteWater 272,909
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min Tide with Beach 881,336
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 20 min WasteWater 8,378
Kathmandu Sex 28 min sxyguyktm28 2
The Christian Atheist debate 29 min Into The Night 4,096
More from around the web