Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255309 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.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181856 Oct 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, technically...
There's the Jovian moon Europa. Only a tad smaller than our own Moon, which deserves classification as a planet itself...
And hasn't been collecting the matter from the sun like we have over the eons.

:-)

Jupiter and Saturn are planet nurseries. They grow up and get kicked out.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181857 Oct 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's the Turkish Massif, you epic idiot!
It's volcanic!
Name of Lúgh, you're stupid.
It's all jagged as the result of local conditions - rain and snowmelt.
Sheesh.
Uh huh.

Been 40 years since I saw it. Just remember a very sharp and jagged area for a good ways that looked running water sculpted. Can't remember if it was the drive from Izmir to Sardis or Lake Van.
Very interesting landscape across there. Some really gorgeous areas. Denizli was stunningly beautiful. Think that was the city's name. Was the last one before Lake Van. Minarets and women in traditional clothes with gorgeous colors glistening in late afternoon sunlight. I was gobsmacked by the beauty of it. And the beauty of Turkish women.

Turkey is a very interesting place to visit.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#181858 Oct 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, technically...
There's the Jovian moon Europa. Only a tad smaller than our own Moon, which deserves classification as a planet itself...
Ahh, I agree, but a moon, not a planet and frozen surface so no surface tidal actions. I believe Dave actually meant a liquid water planet because he stated that a wave would go right around it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#181859 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
The solar wind blows away more than it adds? Be advised gravity is what holds that hydrogen and helium here. They will not wander off on their own.
I'll alert the scientific community.
Dave Nelson wrote:
They would also have to escape the magnetosphere the same as incoming is affected by it. The sun and earth magnetic fields do connect every few minutes that bypasses that block inward.
Much of that was unintelligible to me. But the part I understood is not correct. The earth's and sun's magnetic fields - called the earth's magnetosphere and the interplanetary magnetic field - never cease interacting.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Look up changes in orbital distance. You will see different ideas and nothing concrete. But the simple fact is a lighter earth will have to slow down to maintain its distance, a heavier will be drawn in or speed up to maintain that distance based upon gravity. I have posted before about alternative methods.
The earth is getting larger. That mass and energy is being caught in the very energetic swirl that we are.
Sorry, Dave, but your reports are not reliable information. If you want me to read something, link me to it and specify the passages, or cut-and-paste them into your post with a link. I'm not motivated to confirm or disconfirm your opinions.
Dave Nelson wrote:
I made a few posts about how your simple minded view of the physics won't work. Be sure to read the ones about average elevation and tides.
I saw those. They were irrelevant to the topic being discussed - the feasibility of a global flood as described in the Christian bible. The average elevation of the land is not a factor in determining how much water it could take to completely submerge it. Nor is the tide.

I'll tell you what I told Robert Stevens: unsupported claims from unknown or unreliable sources are not worth much to a skeptic. You'd have to say something pretty provocative or interesting for me to want to try and confirm or disconfirm it on your say so.

If you want your words to have an impact, support them yourself. Demonstrate their validity with evidence and cogent argument when you can. Without that, they are only statements of what you believe, which are only meaningful to you. And failure to try when it ought to be easy to do so were it possible is a pretty good reason to believe that you can't.

So,yeah,I saw your posts. Your opinions were noted, and I moved on without a comment.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#181860 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
God didn't write the book
We know. But don't tell the people that base their lives on it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#181861 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And hasn't been collecting the matter from the sun like we have over the eons.
:-)
Jupiter and Saturn are planet nurseries. They grow up and get kicked out.
No, yet AGAIN, you quarter-wit.

Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun EAT planetoids. Heve you not paid attention??

They do NOT grow planets.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#181862 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh.
Been 40 years since I saw it. Just remember a very sharp and jagged area for a good ways that looked running water sculpted. Can't remember if it was the drive from Izmir to Sardis or Lake Van.
Very interesting landscape across there. Some really gorgeous areas. Denizli was stunningly beautiful. Think that was the city's name. Was the last one before Lake Van. Minarets and women in traditional clothes with gorgeous colors glistening in late afternoon sunlight. I was gobsmacked by the beauty of it. And the beauty of Turkish women.
Turkey is a very interesting place to visit.
Yes. and the local erosion is the result of rainfall and snow melt.

Now shut it.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181863 Oct 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, I agree, but a moon, not a planet and frozen surface so no surface tidal actions. I believe Dave actually meant a liquid water planet because he stated that a wave would go right around it.
Tidal forces work on liquids beneath frozen surfaces just like they do on solid matter and liquids. You will get a wave period. It is how the material can react that makes the difference. If you fractured that frozen surface you will get a different dynamic.

A few feet rise in ocean levels floods coasts. For every increase, even in centimeters, the flooding will reach even further by miles. Even if it isn't raining. Sloshing water can cover a lot of territory. Tidal actions, change in rotational speed, axial tilt, orbital velocity, or orbital position will all cause that water to slosh. Walk with a full cup of coffee and stop suddenly, or tilt the cup, or move your hand in or outwards to see what I mean. Try all at the same time. Make sure it is hot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#181864 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. I mentioned driving across an area of Turkey that was around an elevation of 1000 foot, or more, that was extremely jagged and could only have been produced by a flood. The glaciers didn't reach that far south.
Your science is a little out of date, Dave. The whole world was covered in ice, possibly twice:

"The snowball Earth hypothesis was originally devised to explain the apparent presence of glaciers at tropical latitudes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth#E...

You might ask how the geologists know that the glaciated landforms were at or near the equator when the glacial evidence was produced - an excellent question.

"Paleomagnetic evidence indicates that much glacial debris was deposited in low-latitude settings (Harland, 1964; Evans, 2000; Hoffman
and Schrag, 2000, 2002; Kilner et al., 2005)."
http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/Snowbal...

There are other opinions as well. Here they are cataloged with rebuttals.
http://www.snowballearth.org/against.html

See how that's done, Dave? I don't merely contradict you - I offer you supporting argument for my opinion as excerpts, and link you to their origins. You can judge the validity of that evidence and argument yourself rather than just take my word.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181865 Oct 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, yet AGAIN, you quarter-wit.
Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun EAT planetoids. Heve you not paid attention??
They do NOT grow planets.
Uh huh. Explain how the moons formed. Is accretion involved?

We started out as a Saturn moon. Picked up some weight since then.

Massive dinosaurs would have functioned better in that gravity well.

How well adapted to the harshness of the sun's radiation were dinosaurs as revealed in fossil remains?

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181866 Oct 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your science is a little out of date, Dave. The whole world was covered in ice, possibly twice:
"The snowball Earth hypothesis was originally devised to explain the apparent presence of glaciers at tropical latitudes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth#E...
You might ask how the geologists know that the glaciated landforms were at or near the equator when the glacial evidence was produced - an excellent question.
"Paleomagnetic evidence indicates that much glacial debris was deposited in low-latitude settings (Harland, 1964; Evans, 2000; Hoffman
and Schrag, 2000, 2002; Kilner et al., 2005)."
http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/Snowbal...
There are other opinions as well. Here they are cataloged with rebuttals.
http://www.snowballearth.org/against.html
See how that's done, Dave? I don't merely contradict you - I offer you supporting argument for my opinion as excerpts, and link you to their origins. You can judge the validity of that evidence and argument yourself rather than just take my word.
I believe the extant of the ice sheets did not go further than the Ohio River area in all of the glaciations. There were glaciers local to mountains, but the big sheets were limited in their range.

If you have evidence there were huge sheets, such as on Antarctica now, in the Equatorial regions,then you are looking at evidence of axial tilt. Refer to my slightly earlier posts.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#181868 Oct 29, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24787...

Speaking of arks.

In several thousand years a Topix atheist will claim it was a myth.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181869 Oct 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
But nothing from Japan, as you originally stated. Interesting…
I find it amusing to note that in both cases you specify, the conclusion was based on “assumed” technology and building methods while omitting some major constraints such as what the babble actually says happened. You know, I find such deliberate sloping shoulders quite noticeable even if you don’t
There is no argument as to whether wood floats. Small scale models are structurally sound however even using today’s technology it is unfeasible to build an ark of the specification given in the babble, with available materials and technology of the time is simply impossible.
What cargo? Shearer and Associates assumed a maximum of 36000 animals. In the real world there would have been about 55 to 65 million animals, 8.7 million species times 2 or 7 depending if you can eat them or not, most from continents and oceans that were not known about. Ranging from blue whales though elephants, lions, tigers, honey badgers, beavers, termites, woodworm to the smallest microbe including such necessities as Ebola.
You really would have though god would have told Noah to at least leave out mosquitoes
You will also note the sentence “Therefore, it is my opinion that the Ark had no watertight integrity and, if damaged, would have sunk.”. Are you saying that the down pouring of 9 metres of water per hour for 40 days would not have caused sufficient weather anomalies to create storms capable of damaging a wooden craft?
And “But, it was God’s design (Contract Plans and Specifications) so I’m sure He incorporated all of the required design features in the vessel.” Assumption and of course is a great indication of whose axe he is grinding.
And MOERI (KRISO). How can one study Noah’s ark? Perhaps it was found and no one said anything about it. You guys keeping it secret or what?
Funny how no one, even the professionals (and several have attempted) have been able to safely duplicate it unless using materials that were not available in biblical times
"There is no argument as to whether wood floats."

[two thumbs up]
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181870 Oct 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The first rehab of the Crown oil refinery in Pasadena, TX in 25 years. 1976. The cracking tower was 150 feet. Very, very oily and greasy. Temp job I had after getting out of the Army. Very scary place to work. A collection of drunks, druggies, ex-cons, girlfriends and boyfriends, and guys like me in desperate need of work assembled by a contracting company to do that job. They were the low bidders. I walked off the job after a couple of weeks and two weeks before bonus time. After a drug crazed crane operator tried to sweep a bunch of us off an area with a large pipe hanging from the crane. And it taking several minutes for the supervisors to realize something was wrong and stopped him. I had a 5 year old son in a strange town. I didn't need the money that bad.
You have very large nuts and bolts on those valves they used. You use a large steel wrench with a big block of steel on the end you hit with a 12 pound sledge to loosen or tighten. Standing on ooze on pipes or steel grating high above the ground. The cracking tower was dome shaped. No place to stand.
I was a lightweight guy, but very strong. Pure muscle and electrical energy. 135 pounds, 5'8"x8". Still am, but don't have the stamina anymore. Plus a tad more belly than then, and hairy ears.
I know where that is Dave. I drove by there everyday on Hwy 225.

I also agree there was a hell of a lot of druggies in those days. Including the engineers.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181871 Oct 29, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Even most theists doubt the ark story. Animals eat animals, but your cult probably explains this away by claiming the devil is in the details.
The only people I've seen that doubt the story of the Ark are atheist.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181872 Oct 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You're not even good at being deceitful, and dishonest. Your friggin holy book had no idea that snow was composed of H2O, so when it said covered by water it meant WATER, not f--king SNOW. You continue to twist and turn like every other deceitful dishonest Godbot. You seem to be getting more stupid in your old age, is that even possible???
Doctor it's ok, calm down, no one is saying you're stupid. I will say your pride can get in the way of learning. You just have a closed mind thats all.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181873 Oct 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Come on old man, you can't be this stupid. Are you saying no wooden boat has ever sunk? Is that your argument? The Ark was made of wood so it was unsinkable? Holy shit. Just so you people will stop laughing at you, do a quick google search on how many wooden boats have sunk, it's a VERY LOING LIST, Whatafuckingdope!!!!!!
I’ve noticed with you Doctor I have to repeat myself two or three times.

The Ark was designed for a one time use only. It was designed for that one time use as a large life boat. In fact if you will bother to look at its design you will see it looks like a modern day life boat found on deep sea ships and oil rigs.

I wouldn’t even call it a ship. It had no sail or rudder. It was more like a barge.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181874 Oct 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You're not even good at being deceitful, and dishonest. Your friggin holy book had no idea that snow was composed of H2O, so when it said covered by water it meant WATER, not f--king SNOW. You continue to twist and turn like every other deceitful dishonest Godbot. You seem to be getting more stupid in your old age, is that even possible???
Since man has been walking on the Earth. Men knew what snow was made of. I’m sorry I have hurt your pride Doctor. But it’s the way you view things. You have a very narrow view and this is why you are having such troubles.

Snow = Water

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181875 Oct 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Here I did your homework for your lazy ass. This is a partial list ALL WOODEN BOATS
Longest known wooden ships[edit]
This transport-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Length Beam Name Service Current status Comment
55 m
(180 ft) 9.1 m
(30 ft) Bounty 1960–2012 sunk in Hurricane Sandy An enlargement of HMAV Bounty which was scuttled by mutineers; built by MGM for the movie Mutiny on the Bounty.
54.71 m
(179 ft 6 in) 9.8 m
(32 ft) HMS Surprise 1970 museum ship Originally commissioned and operated as a sail training ship, HMS Rose was renamed Surprise for her part in the movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. She was sold to the Maritime Museum of San Diego in 2007. She again appeared on film as HMS Providence in the Disney film Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.
47.5 m
(155.8 ft) 11.7 m Vasa 1628–1628 museum ship
This Swedish warship sunk on its maiden voyage when a gale forced water onto the ship, it fell over on its port side and sank.[1] Her sparred length is estimated at 69 meters, but her measured deck length (between perpendiculars) is 47.5 meters (155.8 ft).[2]
48 m
(162 ft) 13.5 metres (45.5 ft) Mars 1564 sunk after battle A Swedish warship with 107 guns, that sunk after the battle known as Action of 30 May 1564 of the Northern Seven Years' War. Wreck possibly relocated in 2011.[3] A possible sparred length has been estimated by divers as 80 meters.
51 m
(167.3 ft) 12 m Peter von Danzig Before 1462 – late 1470s wrecked A Hanseatic League caravel, built in the French Atlantic port town La Rochelle, and the first large vessel in the Baltic Sea with carvel planking.[4]
58.3 m
(191.2 ft) 16.0 m
(52.5 ft) HMS St Lawrence 1814–1815 turned into a hulk then sunk Constructed in the Kingston Royal Naval Dockyard in Upper Canada during the War of 1812 to fight on the Great Lakes. After never seeing action it was decommissioned and became a storage hulk before sinking.
58.5 m
(191.9 ft) 11 m Götheborg 2003– operational This Swedish ship is 40.9 m (134.2 ft) long without the bowsprit, and a replica of the original that sank off Göteborg in 1745.
61.3 m
(201.1 ft) 16.2 m Santísima Trinidad 1769–1805 sunk after battle One of the few four-deckers ever built. 136 guns.[5]
You have told us that you are a sailor and an accomplished seaman.

I lived in a city that had one of the busiest ports in the world, Houston. Including the home of BB-35. I was raised up around boats and ships. So let this Texas boy teach you something about ships.

The Ark was NOT a ship. It had no sail or rudder. It was more like a barge. It did not go to war and was not hit by cannon balls. There were no pirates sword fighting on it’s top side. It was a one time survival craft.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#181876 Oct 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I found secular references to KRISO aka MOERI, but when I added the word "ark" to search, all I got was Christians making the claim.
Do you have a source for that that isn't a Christian apologetics site or page? Would you agree that if it is true, you should be able to find the source that the Christians are using, and that if you can't, a skeptic is justified in assuming that the claim was made up until somebody can?
Doctor,

I do not have the study on my desk. At the same time I can’t find a study that says a wooden barge the size of the Ark wouldn’t be seaworthy for at least one year.

You don’t have to be a marine engineer to believe that wood floats, right?

Cut timber weight thousands of pounds each. Timber was floated down rivers for over a hundred years. That method is still in use today.

We are not talking about a concrete barge. But one made out of wood. People have made rafts out of wood that have sailed across great spans of the ocean.

Wooden ships have sailed for hundreds of years. The Mayflower was made out of wood for goodness sake. What science do you have that says a wooden barge could not be sea worthy for at least one year?

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge 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
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 min RiccardoFire 104,663
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min lightbeamrider 38,101
Male public nudity exhibitionism (Apr '14) 10 min Kizz2938 18
Can you suggest best maried dating site for cas... (Feb '14) 11 min Labia9105 11
Realtors love the Housekeeping Police 12 min Kisses7644 2
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 13 min Cuddles7668 53,755
Moroccan men have the largest penis (Oct '13) 14 min Glitter2639 91
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 19 min Ricky F 618,388
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Rosesz 641,507
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 30 min ffj 969,959
More from around the web