Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202498 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Verses 4-7?
Lev. 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it , and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
They made me smile, too. Do you think a god wrote that?
This is the World Health Organization's version:
Multibacillary (MB) leprosy - For adults the standard regimen is: Rifampicin: 600 mg once a month Dapsone: 100 mg daily Clofazimine: 300 mg once a month and 50 mg daily for 12 months.
Paucibacillary (PB) leprosy - For adults the standard regimen is: Rifampicin: 600 mg once a month Dapsone: 100 mg daily for six months
Single Skin Lesion Paucibacillary leprosy - For adults the standard regimen is a single dose of: Rifampicin: 600 mg Ofloxacin: 400 mg Minocycline: 100 mg
Men wrote that. How do you account for the differences? Which do you trust?
You show your ignorant inability to argue the Bible. You fail to note the general Hebrew term used most likely did not even refer to Hansen's disease.

Moreover, you show your bias by avoiding the issue of quarantine and cleansing expressly commanded in the passage. Something that would expose a knowledge of germs and infection.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/j...

First the Alien radiation, now leprosy. Wonder what will be strike three?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202499 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, either that, or maybe it's mythology.
You certainly have failed to discount one simple passage.

Oops, make that two...

How would you know?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202500 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
So Christians...answer this.
If your Jesus so loved the world, why didn't he inform his followers (and the world at large) about germs and their link to disease. He could have at least given them some basic rules about hygiene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Apparently you missed passages like Leviticus 13,14...

Maybe you should have asked about shellfish???

Smile.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202501 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
"Congress" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was pretty nearly all of the Federal government.
Since then things have changed.
And, as I have pointed out, limiting the bans mentioned in the 1st Amendment to JUST Congress means that none of those guaranteed freedoms would actually exist. If you interpret the free press provision..."Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." as applying to ONLY Congress, then freedom of the press does not actually exist, since by your interpretation any state legislature could shut down any media outlet it wanted to...and it would be perfectly constitutional. At least under your interpretation.
Which is why (I strongly suspect) the vastly brighter individuals who were on the court expanded the meaning to be all governmental bodies. The whole 1st Amendment would become moot if you were in charge.
And you, smarter than me? Since when? A box of rocks is smarter than you. At least a box of rocks knows to keep its mouth shut when things are being discussed it knows nothing about.
Wrong.

The First Amendment has not changed. It originally applied to Congress, and it has not been amended or repealed.

Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. Freedom of speech in the federal Constitution served as a model for most of the states.

So state legislatures could not shut down free speech rights.

What happened is the U.S. Supreme Court simply decided, by fiat, with no consent of the people, to encroach in state government business. It used the 14th Amendment as a ruse to do so. The 14th did not accomplish the subsequent goal of the courts, so they did it on their own.

That is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers, and a breech of the sworn oath of the Supreme Court justices.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202502 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe there's a Satanist out there who'd like to ritually abuse a child. They don't get to do that, do they?
<quoted text>
I'll do better than just one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_...
It's a huge list.
Take your time.
"In the United States, major allegations of Satanic ritual abuse occurred in the Kern County child abuse cases, McMartin preschool trial and the West Memphis 3, which garnered world-wide media coverage. It was eventually determined that no satanic abuse ever took place in these cases due to false testimony and police misconduct."

If you would care to actually read the article that you posted, you would find that this is a running theme. In most cases, abuse did take place, but not "satanic ritual" abuse.

"In October 1987 children were removed from their families in Nottingham, and in February 1989 a Broxtowe family was charged with multigenerational child sexual abuse and neglect. A 600-page report on the incident concluded that there was no evidence of the SRA claims made by children or corroborating adults. Though the children may have been 'sadistically terrorized', allegations of organized satanic abuse were found to be baseless and the indicators used by the Social Services department were without validity."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202503 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I think your bigotry is making you stupid. List for me all the types of risks that combine deadly danger, multiple shielding, and a repeating glow effect. This ignores the facts that the passage speaks of an Alien visitor, who is able to hover above the ground, and accurately predicts a result that we still observe today. Smile.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're discussing it like it isn't fiction, and expecting others to do so as well. It's mythology. It doesn't need explaining any more than magic beans, beanstalks, and giants need explaining.
When it predates an understanding of radiation and flight, it certainly does deserve an explanation.

And to equate it to beans and giants is silly stupid.

Man up or quit playing.

Smile.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202504 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
christians murder in the name of their Satan god almost as much as they murder in the name of their three in one war god. They also like to blame their Satan god for all the evil they do. No christian has any standing in labelling anyone either a liar or a hypocrite.
--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.

--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.

--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202505 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You are getting confused. The ancient passage lists five events, simply as a general explanation of what happened. 1. A extra-terrestrial visitor came 2. His presence emitted such a danger, that three types of shielding were required to prevent death. 3. The affect was a glowing on the skin 4. That affect was repeated every time Moses returned to the Alien presence 5. The Alien was able to hover over the group for an extended time. Any one of these events is now understood to some degree scientifically. The ability to hover in flight alone is profound. But combined in one account, they become a fatal conundrum for atheists. Now here is where you expose your ignorant bias; People traveling in the desert would be shocked by Moses returning from an Alien visit because he had a 'sunburn'. LOL, that was priceless... To top that off, I've made no claim whether the passage is true or not. I simply have asked those who brush off the Bible as nothing but meaningless fiction to explain how this single event, with multiple aspects of modern understanding got into a fake book. I've listed five aspects, and I'm still waiting for a single atheist to explain them in context.
SMile.

Dave Nelson wrote:
You have presented good points that are impossible to brush off in a rational manner. Swami Dave predicts you will not find a single Topix atheist capable of responding to those points in a rational manner. It is the nature of those beasts. Let their bleating and bellowing begin.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It's wonderful that you two found each other. You have just about the same understanding of science and just about the same personality.
LOL, a personal troll attack masquerading as intelligence.

Still, no atheist rising to the simple explanation of optional passages.

And this from a near senile old jack ass!

Man up or concede punk.

SMirk.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202506 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You used the figure 97%.
And it's not a small difference. That's the dishonesty.
Is there anything else I can help you with?
What was I dishonest about?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202507 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Alien didn't intend the account to explain radiation.
What is profound, is that it took science 4000 years to understand what was happening.
Forget 10 different people, 10 ATHEISTS can't even give me single answer!
I think your bigotry is making you stupid.
List for me all the types of risks that combine deadly danger, multiple shielding, and a repeating glow effect.
This ignores the facts that the passage speaks of an Alien visitor, who is able to hover above the ground, and accurately predicts a result that we still observe today.
Smile.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, you've been watching to much ancient aliens. That stuff rots your brain.
LOL, scoffing masquerading as intelligence?

That's the best you can come up with?

Sounds like a chicken concession to me...

SMirk.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202508 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right...in a very limited way...but it still leaves you as being WRONG...since you are claiming Barton is right and the Founding Fathers debated evolution v. creationism. Even if you give Matthew the credit for natural selection, that only moves the date back to 1838...still long after the time of the Founding Fathers. Ergo, you are still wrong and Barton is lying (or else far from the "expert" you claim him to be).
BTW...Darwin gets the credit because Darwin was the first to publish the idea backed up by evidence. All Matthew did was present an idea...with no data. Matthew and Darwin had their ideas about natural selection within a year or so of each other, and independently. Matthew said "interesting idea" and dropped it. Darwin said "interesting idea" and spent twenty years delving into it.
From Wikipedia...
The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler has gone so far as to say that:
Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors.[12]
Ernst Mayr's opinion was even more clear-cut:
Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever.[13]
The ORIGINAL point of this discussion was whether or not the Founding Fathers debated evolution v creationism and came to a conclusive decision. You bringing up Matthew is a non-sequitur to that discussion, for the reasons I have given.
You are clearly grasping at straws, Buck, and throwing out red herrings to divert the discussion.
As I have pointed out before, you are not here to gain understanding, you are here to "win" in some weird egotistical sense.
Wrong.

Matthews work was also published, in several languages. Before Darwin's.

First, I needed to prove you wrong about Darwin being the first to describe natural selection.

That is done.

Your claim against Barton was not that he claimed the founders debated natural selection, it was that they debated evolution.

You claimed this cannot be true, because Thomas Paine, in particular, died before Darwin's "Origins".

Your claim is unfounded. I proved volution was an up and coming theory long before Darwin.

Barton is batting 1000.

Do you have anything else?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202509 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting confused.
The ancient passage lists five events, simply as a general explanation of what happened.
1. A extra-terrestrial visitor came
2. His presence emitted such a danger, that three types of shielding were required to prevent death.
3. The affect was a glowing on the skin
4. That affect was repeated every time Moses returned to the Alien presence
5. The Alien was able to hover over the group for an extended time.
Any one of these events is now understood to some degree scientifically. The ability to hover in flight alone is profound. But combined in one account, they become a fatal conundrum for atheists.
Now here is where you expose your ignorant bias; People traveling in the desert would be shocked by Moses returning from an Alien visit because he had a 'sunburn'. LOL, that was priceless...
To top that off, I've made no claim whether the passage is true or not. I simply have asked those who brush off the Bible as nothing but meaningless fiction to explain how this single event, with multiple aspects of modern understanding got into a fake book.
I've listed five aspects, and I'm still waiting for a single atheist to explain them in context.
SMile.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, silly, the banana is the ultimate conundrum for the atheist.
And we have the best of the atheist brigade wielding his wisdom with a whoosh of wind.

A brain fart!

Snicker.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202510 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck's usual nit picking.
Can you say OCD?
BTW, Buck. This is topix and tyour posts are limited to 4000 characters, which include the quoted text you are responding to. Having limited space, I am NOT going to write a precise dissertation. I expect people to use a tiny fraction of their brain and understand the finer points that shouldn't need to be said.
But I forget just how tiny a brain you have and that even a tiny fraction of a normal brain exceeds your brain power.
The finer points don't matter because you were wrong on the larger point.

Nice try, though.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202511 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, it has been determined that one does not have to swear on a Bible, or on anything else.
We are clearly still dealing with cultural baggage from Medieval times. Some habits are very hard to break.
You really are an idiot.
They don't have to, but many still do.

You said SCOTUS banned such symbols.

Obviously, this is not true.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202512 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
I think your bigotry is making you stupid. List for me all the types of risks that combine deadly danger, multiple shielding, and a repeating glow effect. This ignores the facts that the passage speaks of an Alien visitor, who is able to hover above the ground, and accurately predicts a result that we still observe today. Smile.
<quoted text>
When it predates an understanding of radiation and flight, it certainly does deserve an explanation.
And to equate it to beans and giants is silly stupid.
Man up or quit playing.
Smile.
The explanation is that the human mind is prone to irrational thinking and confirmation bias.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202513 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting confused.
The ancient passage lists five events, simply as a general explanation of what happened.
1. A extra-terrestrial visitor came
2. His presence emitted such a danger, that three types of shielding were required to prevent death.
3. The affect was a glowing on the skin
4. That affect was repeated every time Moses returned to the Alien presence
5. The Alien was able to hover over the group for an extended time.
Any one of these events is now understood to some degree scientifically. The ability to hover in flight alone is profound. But combined in one account, they become a fatal conundrum for atheists.
Now here is where you expose your ignorant bias; People traveling in the desert would be shocked by Moses returning from an Alien visit because he had a 'sunburn'. LOL, that was priceless...
To top that off, I've made no claim whether the passage is true or not. I simply have asked those who brush off the Bible as nothing but meaningless fiction to explain how this single event, with multiple aspects of modern understanding got into a fake book.
I've listed five aspects, and I'm still waiting for a single atheist to explain them in context.
SMile.
<quoted text>
And we have the best of the atheist brigade wielding his wisdom with a whoosh of wind.
A brain fart!
Snicker.
I'm just trying to help you. Trust me, challenge an atheist to explain the banana, and you automatically win the debate.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#202514 Jan 13, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, atheist site twirl. The Hebrew confirms no such conclusion.
However, it's not what we don't understand or disagree about that creates a problem. It is the things like germs that I noted, or radiation, or even the command to not eat shell fish that create a situation you must explain to brush aside the Bible.
Leviticus 14 describes the treatment for leprosy. Have you read it?
Smile.
<quoted text>
And yet you still fail to note the specifics of Leviticus 14. Yet you continue to mock the passage.
I challenge you, be specific with each one. The only reason you would be afraid to do so is that you picked out of context, and to be thorough would expose your duplicity...
Smile.
So you're really going to try and stick to that, eh?

Dude, you're screwing up on your own "proof".

Lev 14 does not, in fact, "describe the treatment for leprosy". It speaks of the ritual cleansing of the person >after< they've been found healed, in order that they can resume normal relation with the community and in Temple worship.

As for the cleansing of the leprous walls, isn't it interesting that God claims responsibility for the pestilence? hmmm... But ok, I'll play. First, the house is closed up for seven days? Uh, if you have any homeowner experience at all, you might know that ventilation, or lack thereof, is a primary cause of mildew, er, excuse me, "leprous walls". So, the Bible is starting right off telling you how to make it worse. But, sure, then they go to tearing out bricks, replacing, and mortaring. Does this fix the problem? Uh, not if you didn't address the moisture and ventilation issue, which "Moses" doesn't address at all.

If one maintains homes according to the "Mosaic method" I'm guessing they'd be front-runner for Slumlord of the Year.

I wonder, can you be more obtuse? Is that your game? When you run up against someone that actually knows the book, just drag it on with snide retorts and misdirection ploys? Helluva witness, Father O'Sham.

The point is, stop trying to pretend that ancient tribal nomads had some kind of prescient insight into "science". It's a book of faith, not home improvement or nuclear science.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#202516 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>the pupil cant be greater than the teacher. You cant quit, even if you have a valid point. The forfeit is not worth it. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Nah I'm roight, I like knowing that, when I talk to myself, I AM in fact, talking to myself. Or my kids, they are boys after all.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202517 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept your surrender.
It comes down to where it always eventually comes down:
SCOTUS SAYS SO.
That's it. It is not in the Constitution.
You are conceding that, though you will not admit it per se.
By the way, preference is not establishment. I already posted what constituted a state establishment of religion.
It's not "preference".
I'll give you credit. You fought hard. Stupid, but hard.
Next.
"SCOTUS says so" is an effective argument because SCOTUS is the final authority on the subject. What I think doesn't matter. What you think sure doesn't matter. At the end of the day, when it comes to the Constitution, what SCOTUS thinks is all that matters.

And sorry to say Buck, though the words may be different, if a government gives preference to one religion, then it HAS established that religion. That is what I think. And, judging from SCOTUS decisions, that is what SCOTUS thinks too. And, as I said, what SCOTUS thinks is what matters.

AND...the Constitution itself says that SCOTUS is the one that gets the final say. Too bad for you.

BTW Buck, what is your take on Citizen's United?

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202518 Jan 13, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>So you're really going to try and stick to that, eh?
Dude, you're screwing up on your own "proof".
Lev 14 does not, in fact, "describe the treatment for leprosy". It speaks of the ritual cleansing of the person >after< they've been found healed, in order that they can resume normal relation with the community and in Temple worship.
As for the cleansing of the leprous walls, isn't it interesting that God claims responsibility for the pestilence? hmmm... But ok, I'll play. First, the house is closed up for seven days? Uh, if you have any homeowner experience at all, you might know that ventilation, or lack thereof, is a primary cause of mildew, er, excuse me, "leprous walls". So, the Bible is starting right off telling you how to make it worse. But, sure, then they go to tearing out bricks, replacing, and mortaring. Does this fix the problem? Uh, not if you didn't address the moisture and ventilation issue, which "Moses" doesn't address at all.
If one maintains homes according to the "Mosaic method" I'm guessing they'd be front-runner for Slumlord of the Year.
I wonder, can you be more obtuse? Is that your game? When you run up against someone that actually knows the book, just drag it on with snide retorts and misdirection ploys? Helluva witness, Father O'Sham.
The point is, stop trying to pretend that ancient tribal nomads had some kind of prescient insight into "science". It's a book of faith, not home improvement or nuclear science.
Same as ever.
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 703,532
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min science is god 87,156
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 hr Tony 6,912
mgtow 5 hr the enlightened man 10
The tax bill's loopholes for the wealthy benefi... (Dec '17) 7 hr Fhrung Choc Fu Chu 10
emergency:. don't touch any thing! 8 hr Infinite Force 3
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 8 hr Walter 199
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 hr science is god 996,403