Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180278 Oct 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
He is laughing because you are a cry baby and idiot for making these statement. Why would we bake you, when we know The Devil is waiting to do it. No need for over kill.
Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180279 Oct 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not change the topic, bobbing Bobby, all you worm meat are posting with hidden location. Are you afraid I'll do my Pagan magic, find you, then bake you. And you call us superstitious.
Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180280 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Atheist canned answer, recycled material.
It's in your book dumbass - you should read it sometime!

You're living proof that Snow White and Dopey had unprotected sex. ;)

Reality check time for dumbass Christians:

IS THE BIBLE INSPIRED?

If it is, it should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It should be true.

QUESTION...???

Does the Old or NewTestament satisfy this standard?

Is there anything in the Bible in history, in theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science, above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived?

Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source?

NO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180281 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh don’t feel bad about what you did to Catcher1. Heck fire the same thing happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare. One day one of her good ole buddies just shot her dead. You Atheist are funny about such things.
.
Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180282 Oct 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't know me. The thought of even running for local office has never crossed my mind.
Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180283 Oct 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Judging by what I read online, they may have been murdered for being a bunch of jerkoffs that had to have the last word all the time. Nazi's had to kill someone they captured too many. They were lucky they could feed their own troops.
Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180284 Oct 16, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe in a Perfect God, your statements are not true about my God. But yours on the other hand, ye without soul.
The following describes your god PERFECTLY:

Seven Godly Sins

When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH

When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY

When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH

When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY

When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE

When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED

When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#180285 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I hated all that crap and still do. What a waste of classroom time.
Of course you hated it: it made you **think**.

And you know that thinking ruins faith.

So it's quite natural-- you prefer ignorance and faith to **thinking** and learning.
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180286 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignored, until you learn to write for yourself.
You're too dense to ignore me - and you won't because you can't - you're obsessed.

I find you highly entertaining. ;)

A perfect example of religious dementia.

“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”~Saul Bellow

Give up Eagle... you'll never be the man your mother is.
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180287 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe as you wish my good Doctor. I still love you in my heart.
What a steaming pile! LOL
You have a heart? Say it ain't so!

I have you're nightly prayer for you... ;)

My Vibrator, which brings me to heaven!
Rabbit be thy name!
Till kingdom come!
Thy make me cum!
On earth!
Oh it is heaven!
Give me this daily thrill!
And forgive me my screams!
As i forgive thos who sold me dud batteries!
Lead me straight into temptation!
But deliver me from frustration!
For thine is the vibration!
The power and the rotation!
For ever and ever!
Amen or No men!
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180288 Oct 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Seven Godly Sins
When god destroys people for not obeying him, it is WRATH
When god punishes people for believing in a different god, it is ENVY
When god lets tragedies and disasters happen of which he could have prevented, it is SLOTH
When god allows anyone to hunger unnecessarily while he has enough for himself, it is GLUTTONY
When god expects his followers to dedicate their lives to worrshipping and praying to him, it is PRIDE
When god insists his followers pay tithes and offerings for his approval, it is GREED
When god intends on being party to every marriage, it is LUST
Let's address these one at a time shall we Sir Robert?

The Vatican has spoken out on the subject of the Seven Magnificent Deadly Sins, and has come up with a modernised version of 'things to go to Hell for'.

The original seven sins - Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth - have become outdated, says the Vatican, as everyone in the world indulges in those sins every day of their lives.

A new up-to-date list of sins is thought to have been the idea of the Pope himself.

To reflect the state of modern life, the new Seven Magnificent Deadly Sins, as decreed by the Pope, include sins against minorities, as well as against the environment, which is always complaining about being shat upon.

The revised list is:

Pollution.

Calling gay people names like Arse Bandit, Rear Admiral or Cackpipe Cosmonaut.

Kiddyfiddling (unless the kiddyfiddler is a trusted religious person)

Calling Muslims names like ...well...you know, and laughing at their beards.

Drug-taking if you're an athlete (forgiveable after 2 years)

Can't think of one for number 6.

Being a sloth.

Priests have applauded the revision, and say that anyone discovered committing more than four of the sins within a 7-day period, could leave themselves open to Eternal Damnation.

Father Feargal O'Birmingham, a professor of moral theology at the University of Alum Rock, said:

"The world has changed since the original seven deadly sins were written down in 1977. Sins have changed, and we must change with them. It may have been fine to call a faggot a 'faggot' 30 years ago, but that kind of thing is no longer permissible."
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180289 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where were you when I was being forced to learn Greek Mythology in Jr High?
I sure wish some Atheist would have stood up then and had that crap thrown out the window.
I throw that crap "Gideon Bibles" out the window every time I see one. You still eat that crap daily - how does it taste?
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180290 Oct 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you hated it: it made you **think**.
And you know that thinking ruins faith.
So it's quite natural-- you prefer ignorance and faith to **thinking** and learning.
Don't they all Bob?

One would imagine with all the Internet information available: that... they would at least make a effort to determine what their religion is - what it originated from - why competing religious ideologies exist.

Sadly, they are so brainwashed, that "thinking" is verboten! "God will get me for that"

If religionists applied reason and science to their faith, their religion would simply die. That's why faith must oppose science for its very survival.
No philosophy, moral outlook, or religion can be inconsistent with the findings of science and hope to endure among educated people.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#180291 Oct 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignored, until you learn to write for yourself.
Another theist canned answer, recycled material.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180292 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
"Science isn't something that you need to believe in to accept, like astrology or Jesus. Science is definitely real."
Most sciences true but there are two exceptions. Mans Evolution and Cosmology.
And by the most amazing of coincidences, they are happen to be the two that contradict your bible's creation story. What are the odds that the same types of people using the same methods as the ones that developed the science that you do accept would get it wrong in the most important of areas?

Incidentally, if you want to defend Creationism from scientific progress, you'll want to begin attacking abiogenesis and plate tectonics as well, and probably archeology, too.
Eagle 12 wrote:
If man evolutionary science and cosmology is real why is there so many artist conceptions in it’s practice?
How are artist's conceptions a refutation of the theory of biological evolution?
Eagle 12 wrote:
That doesn’t sound like real science to me but imagination of the artist. You can’t read or go through a evolutionary course without being bombarded with artist conceptions. Why? The evidence is not there but the imagination is.
Yes, drawings not made of things that you are looking at are the imagination. Were you aware that there is other evidence apart from drawings? Are you disregarding that and attacking the theory based on drawings?
Eagle 12 wrote:
If the evidence of mans evolution is so solid why does evolution have a enforcement arm? It’s the only science that come with thugs to beat up and cast out non believers. The baseball bats and beatings are definitely real. All the scientist are forced to proclaim it is real or they will be fired. That doesn’t sound like solid scientific evidence to me.
Really? An enforcement arm? Do you have drawings to support those allegations?

Michael Behe still has his job. How did the enforcement arm let that happen?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180293 Oct 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's true with you. You wrote, "Ribs are the only part of a human that will regenerate. If a portion of a rib is cut away. It grows back new."
That's wrong. Did you know that the liver regenerates itself if there is healthy liver tissue to do so? Apparently not.
Furthermore, there is almost no data to support that ribs regenerate in humans, at least not in the sense that you implied. What little there is suggests that under special circumstances, periosteal osteoblasts can sometimes generate new bone and marrow. Resected ribs are generally removed with their periostea, so this has no clinical significance after removal of ribs as occurs with some times of thoracic surgery.
It looks like you're getting your science from Christian apologetics sources, like Answers In Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/...
Let me give you a hint: if you can only find it in a Christian apologetics source, they made it up. There is nothing true about the world known only to Christians. If it is true, it can be found in a secular source.
Eagle 12 wrote:
Off the shelf canned Atheist answer.
That is incorrect. I wrote that answer myself. It was completely original. I doubt that you'll find my answer anywhere else on the Internet.

And what difference would it make if I copied a canned answer if it were a correct answer? Canned answers are perfect for frequently offered false claims.Don't you think that you should rebut the claim's content rather than its novelty?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180294 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
People are murdered by murders.
Yes, I know.

Do you know what a tautology is? That's one.

It's also irrelevant to your comment that it was ironic that an atheist killed another atheist, and my question asking you why you thought that that was ironic.

I'm starting to get the impression that it's going to be impossible to get you to cooperate in focused dialectic. I'm quite used to it. These discussions generally evolve through three phases, these types of apologetics arguments being the first. These are where you do what looks like debate, but use assorted evasive tactics tactics such as diversion and deflection. The irrelevant comment about an answer I gave being oft repeated as if that invalidated it falls into that category.

If you follow the usual pattern, I expect you to start making claims of faith in frustration next - how you believe what you believe, and nothing can change that.

Then will come the anger, where you attack my character and threaten me with hell.

Please try not to do that if that is something that you would do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180295 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
There are lots of Medical Doctors that some how by the skin of the teeth were able to graduate medical school. The bottom dwellers, the forth and fifth string quarterbacks sort of speak. I know you claim to have been an “Ex” Medical Doctor. But I seriously doubt you were one of the “Real” Doctors. You know the one’s at the top of their class that go on to be professors in major teaching hospitals.
Why are my credentials relevant to you?
Eagle 12 wrote:
I worked in a scientific field for over 32 years. I learned there are Engineers and then there are real Engineers. The same goes for Scientist and Medical Doctors.
Were you a scientist or just work around them? Which kind? Were you trained or educated in science? Which science do you have expertise in?
Eagle 12 wrote:
You are outdated Doctor, the medical school you went to in the 60’s is obsolete as well as most of what you learned. If you are going to make claims that ribs don’t regenerate I would strongly suggest you enroll in medical school again. This time listen and don’t be staring at the legs of the student in the isle next to you.
Is this how you intend to defend your claims or rebut mine? You didn't even try to defend your claim about ribs being the only human tissue that regenerates or that removed ribs will grow back, and you changed mine to a much stronger and more generalized statement than the one I actually made.

Speaking of canned answers, I was correct that you got you argument about ribs out of Answers in Genesis, wasn't I? It was probably the exact link I cited:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/...

You simply ignore that.

Actually, you ignored the entire post and went right to attacking my education. Did you care to address any of the following:

Eagle wrote: "Ribs are the only part of a human that will regenerate. If a portion of a rib is cut away. It grows back new."

[1] IANS countered: "That's wrong. Did you know that the liver regenerates itself if there is healthy liver tissue to do so? Apparently not."

You were silent.

[2] IANS wrote: "there is almost no data to support that ribs regenerate in humans, at least not in the sense that you implied."

You had no comment.

[3] IANS wrote: "It looks like you're getting your science from Christian apologetics sources, like Answers In Genesis.

You remain silent.

[4] IANS wrote: "Let me give you a hint: if you can only find it in a Christian apologetics source, they made it up. There is nothing true about the world known only to Christians. If it is true, it can be found in a secular source."

And again no comment.

Can we assume that you have no argument with any of these comments, or that if you do, that you are unable to articulate it?

And shall we forgo any further pretense of debate and have you just jump into the phase where you frustratedly proclaim your faith and attack my character? You're already halfway there calling my alma mater obsolete, demeaning my education, and refusing to answer my questions or rebut my claims.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180296 Oct 17, 2013
IANS wrote: "Science isn't something that you need to believe in to accept, like astrology or Jesus. Science is definitely real."

Eagle rebutted: < crickets >

IANS wrote: "Speaking of Gestapo, evolution is the only science with its own Christian pseudoscience institution - the Discovery Institute - dedicated to trying to undermine it by promulgating intelligent design disinformation."

Eagle rebutted: < crickets >
Eagle 12 wrote:
Doctor, I love you Atheist like German Shepherd loves a chew toy. Ya’ll are just too much fun.
Can we call this phase 2 now? We seem to be past the pretense of debate. Maybe it's time for you to tell me about how secure you are in your faith, and about how bad atheists are.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180297 Oct 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Why is that ironic? Most Christians murdered in America are killed by other Christians.
Eagle 12 wrote:
according to your point of view all those killings in Chicago, are not turf wars and gang related?
I haven't expressed an opinion about murders in Chicago other than that like all other murders in America, most are done by Christians. Do you disagree? Almost everything done in America is mostly done by Christians. They're the majority.
Eagle 12 wrote:
These are upstanding Christians that go to church and sing a bit loud in the choir? Pay their tithes and contribute to the community, then at night go on killing sprees?
I don't know which killers do that. Does it matter? Is that part of the definition of a Christian?
Eagle 12 wrote:
That’s not what the FBI and the Chicago Police are saying and they are on the front lines in Chicago.
Why do you think you know anything about what the FBI and Chicago police are saying about the religious affiliation of the people murdering other people in America? And how would they know? Do the FBI or police collect and tabulate that data? If so, would you share it?
Eagle 12 wrote:
Your blind statement seems to be full of holes. Gang war holes I might cars in add.
My statement was correct, just like a statement that most cars in America are Christian, most people wearing Levis in America are Christian, most people that ate in an American McDonalds yesterday are Christian, and most Americans whose last name begins with the letter "L" are Christians. Do you doubt any of those claims?

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 38 min Russian Amb Grope... 2,630
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 119,219
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 679,164
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr earthly science f... 445,839
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 hr Holy Jehowa Witness 46,214
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 4 hr Trumps worshiper 33,216
Melania Trump's hair shines in Saudi sun 4 hr Trumps worshiper 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) Thu UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 982,141
More from around the web