Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#128353 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Cut your post for space. There are actually three references. Papyrus Ipuwer
2. Ermitage Papyrus.[The Ermitage-Leningrad]
3. Monolith of El-Arish.[Museum of Ismailia]
Now when His majesty fought against the evil-doers [Israelites] in this pool, the place of the whirlpool, the evil-doers prevailed not over his majesty. His majesty lept into the place of the whirlpool.''It was said he was lifted by a great force.''
http://scienceandhistoryfaith.com/9.html
The land is utterly perished and nought remains.
Perished is the land
The sun is veiled and shines not in the sight of men.
None can live when the sun is veiled by clouds...
The river is dry (even the river) of Egypt.
The earth is fallen into misery...
Ermitage Papyrus.
Also, the link above, didn't work.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#128354 Oct 7, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this link
http://sciencehistoryfaith.com/9.html
Thanks.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#128355 Oct 7, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to take days off just "because".
I might even use my day off to watch a show about nothing.
There's nothing wrong with that.
I can agree with that, because, there is nothing to disagree with that I can find wrong with it.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#128356 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.
Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.
Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.
Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
Identify what you are railing against before railing.
Dave, I commend you for going easy on the booze tonight.

I can tell because you wrote such a long post.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#128357 Oct 7, 2012
Well, another day.

Time for bed.

Still nothing intelligent or witty from Catcher.

Evolution produced such things faster.

Hmmm, maybe in his case it changed course. Need to check him for red shift.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#128358 Oct 7, 2012
So long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Speaking of majority I wonder if Mormon Mitt has his concession speech written?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy.
Majority rules.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128359 Oct 7, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie.
Thanks for letting us know.

Here's how it goes:

This is a lie. No wait, that's not true.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128360 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The man is a product of those disciplines.
If you had an advocate of specific thought in those disciplines you would be writing a blank check for them.
Science can be wrong and it is supposed to correct itself, right? You won't get that if you have the gatekeepers with no counterbalance to their agenda.
Bet you'd change your tune if an atheist politician proclaimed that the bible was a fairy tale. Or would you support his right to use his power to undermine your religion?

A politician should not let his personal beliefs, beliefs that are not founded on anything but the bible, affect his behavior. It is even more ridiculous that he sits on the science committee. Now, it would be one thing if he had anything of substance with which to back up those claims, but he doesn't, and you and I both know it. If he had any legitimate evidence to back up his claims, I would have no problem with it. He is coming from the same place that all science deniers do - willful ignorance inspired by their religion and their need to believe in god.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128361 Oct 7, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
How long will it be before the US becomes a basket case and the laughing stock of the world.
A little over 29 days?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128362 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did. They have their own.
Can't you see the logic? Evidently not.
Creationism is actually more logical. You were created by people that were created, and so on. Every device you use was created. There is nothing poofed into existence that you have seen. So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow. Abiogenesis could even be a product of that creation process. Part of a process.
Just because a book recorded something wrong doesn't mean the basic process or beginning does not exist. You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong. But they seemed to be right when they were written. They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
Identify what you are railing against before railing.
Creationism absolutely is not the most rational choice. Following your logic, whereby we cannot believe that life has a non supernatural origin because we did not directly observe the start of the universe, or the beginning of life - then we also cannot believe in a god, because not only have we never directly observed him/her/it, we have zero evidence for anything supernatural ever occurring.

Why should we assume a supernatural mechanism for the universe and for life when we don't have even the slightest bit of solid evidence for the supernatural? This is not for lack of effort, people desperately search for a "sign" but none have been forthcoming.

Doesn't it make more sense to assume a naturalistic explanation, when naturalistic means are the only ones we have ever observed and have evidence for?

I know you will disagree, because you need to believe in god, for some reason.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128363 Oct 7, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy.
Majority rules.
Actually, in a democracy, at least in theory, the majority is supposed to have a responsibility to the minority - one that includes not forcing the religion of the majority down everyone else's throats.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128364 Oct 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
So long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Speaking of majority I wonder if Mormon Mitt has his concession speech written?
<quoted text>
I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#128365 Oct 7, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.
No more strange than the book of Enoch , which this is based on.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#128366 Oct 7, 2012
Maroni be praised! Lol! Hey you gotta be a pervert to be a Mormon they teach God literally had sex with Mary. Joseph had to listen to that outside their home in Nazareth/Bethlehem depending on what gospel you are reading.

Maybe Mitt will talk about if Mary got hers? Lol!
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I hope it invokes the power of Joseph Smith and the glorious planet of Kobol.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#128367 Oct 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Maroni be praised! Lol! Hey you gotta be a pervert to be a Mormon they teach God literally had sex with Mary. Joseph had to listen to that outside their home in Nazareth/Bethlehem depending on what gospel you are reading.
Maybe Mitt will talk about if Mary got hers? Lol!
<quoted text>
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.

As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:

The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.[1]
This answer has a long history. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth "was the only begotten of the Father." It is not stated in either text cited that he was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the "power of the Highest" that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was "the Son of the Highest." The Holy Ghost came upon her, she "conceived" under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Concept...

Mormons are no different than other christian sects.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#128368 Oct 7, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.
As the Church responded to this question posed by Fox News:
The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.[1]
This answer has a long history. In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth "was the only begotten of the Father." It is not stated in either text cited that he was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the "power of the Highest" that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was "the Son of the Highest." The Holy Ghost came upon her, she "conceived" under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc
http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Concept...
Mormons are no different than other christian sects.
Yeah, they're all equally out there.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#128369 Oct 7, 2012

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#128370 Oct 7, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
I even have some videos by former Mormon head preachers on the subject.
Former Mormon head preachers.

That's not a title I would walk to with open arms.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#128371 Oct 8, 2012
The one guy on the atheist experiance was in the inaugural class at BYU and was considered a superstar on the Mormon world.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Former Mormon head preachers.
That's not a title I would walk to with open arms.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#128372 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
None of my atheist friends talk about deities. They think it's stupid that I come on here to bother with ignorant, uninformed people who despise the wonderful variety of human cultural expression and belief like yourself.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to your friends.
No kidding. My friends mean the religious here, btw.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min RiversideRedneck 977,422
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 5 min RiversideRedneck 243
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min New Age Spiritual... 665,429
Liberals say INCEST marriage is okay 7 min Guest appearance 2
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min Scaritual 88,323
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 45,844
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 284,610
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 2 hr Joe Fortuna 619
More from around the web