Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255853 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: May 10

Location hidden

#202474 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then do it.
Give us a flat-out statement that, by calling a corporation a person, the court rewrote language in the Constitution.
Chastise your hero Scalia and his cohort for this despicable deed.
I'll consider it when you state that SCOTUS rewrote the First Amendment multiple times.

Which they did.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202475 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>But it isn't actually true that Christianity is more violent than Islam.

Your bias against Christianity makes you think otherwise.

It's ok.
I agree with Tide and actually comprehended his post.

Right now islam might be more violent a religion in nature but a true comparison is not possible until they catch up with christianity's 2000 years of mass murder and genocide. Besides, islam is just another branch of christianity so y'all disputing each other is as ridiculous as xtians disputing satanists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202476 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

I think religious icons should not be placed in secular courtrooms.
They have witnesses swear oaths on a Bible.

I thought you said SCOTUS banned such things as violating the establishment clause?

The 10 commandments are contained in those Bibles, by the way.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202477 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>

Go on then god, test me. Test me now god.
OK. Here goes.

Pull your thumb out of your ass and sniff it.

If it don't smell like shit, it's a miracle.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202478 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you read. Charles Darwin admitted it - Matthews described natural selection before him.
Darwin responded to Matthew’s in the Gardener’s Chronicle for April 21 1860 as follows:
‘I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection".
Darwin was forced to preface his 3rd edition of "Origin" to give credit to Matthews and others.
I was right - you never get anything right.
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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202479 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I "blow off" their logic, as you say, because it is not logic. If you actually knew anything about logic, you would understand this. But you have time and time again shown that you don't. So please, don't talk to me about logic.
I would say you should stick to topics you actually know something about, but so far you haven't displayed a single one.
Oh, my. And you even add in an argumentum ad populum. The truth of a position is not shown by the number of people that believe it to be true. This is one of the classical logical fallacies. And your use of it shows you don't know what logic is.
Dogpile talking about logic.

Bwahaahahahhahahahahahahahahha ahhah...cough

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#202480 Jan 13, 2014
Senecus wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."(Gen. 1:1)? <smiles>
Hello Stevie, I pass these parts now and then, sometimes interesting - always entertaining, now, to the subject-
As you know , I attended Catholic schools too, through high school level. Albeit I started 16yrs.(knowing your age ,I approximate)before you did, pre-Vatican II. We did learn some OT in elementary, the "standard fare" - Genesis,Exodus, Samuel 1&2(the Patriarchs, Moses,Joshua, David) along with the Gospels. There was never a heavy emphasis to memorize scripture of the OT, one just retained any through repetition in course of study. NT was different . There was an emphasis to learn words of Jesus, and how it could be applicable in our own lives(the novelty of such!). And ,by the way, those Franciscan nuns made sure you did-LOL!(Think they could have displayed some of that.."application" themselves ;)
High School was much different, more emphasis was placed on "social aspects"- meeting community needs,really -the WWJD in situations. That was general studies, if one wanted to go another direction, church history,Studies in Catholicism,Latin - were some of the other offerings.
Though I no longer consider myself a Catholic , I am catholic(katholikos) when it comes to those in the Body.
And boy, thinking back...those yardsticks hurt,too <grins>
Thinking back we did discuss Genesis. Adam and Eve, Noah, and creation to be specific. But definitely the emphasis was to learn the teachings of Christ and the gospels. I had never heard about anything in the OT that would be considered a 'darker' aspect of the OT. Even the flood was pretty much focusing on the warning so life could be saved.

Clearly with kids ages 5-12 things were simplified and primarily about the love of Jesus and our responsibility to love out neighbor and to do into others as we would have them do into us

And year they had the rulers back then too! Although it was just one nun that took on the role of disciplinarian. But she had access to everyone and didn't play around:)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202481 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
It doesn't matter Dave. Its a public forum. Public forums have to allow both religious and political speech. What part of this do you not get?
__________
No they do not.
The government can subject speech to what are known as "time, place and manner" restrictions that regulate when, where and how a speaker can express a message.
It can shut down speech altogether in certain public forums, if it determines the speech is disruptive to government function.
Dogpile still batting zero. Hang in there, Pooch.
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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202482 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogpile talking about logic.
Bwahaahahahhahahahahahahahahha ahhah...cough
Thank you Buck for agreeing with me. by using vile nicknames.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I conclude from being on this thread the the quantity of hate people will pour onto a person is directly proportional to his effectiveness at annihilating their arguments.
Let it roll, boys.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202483 Jan 13, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I've seen claims of 99% similarity.
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/201...
I didn't say we were 95% similar to chimps - I said that there is a small difference between our respective genomes, and that the mystery was how humanity comes from this small difference.
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?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202484 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They have witnesses swear oaths on a Bible.
I thought you said SCOTUS banned such things as violating the establishment clause?
The 10 commandments are contained in those Bibles, by the way.
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202485 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.
David Rothmann wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mate poacher, God endowed you with a very very small brain didn't he, how many lies and simple minded fallacies have you introduced this forum to? I got a joke for you-
Kirschmann (a.k.a. KiMare), went into a bar and started ranting on perpetually about the evils of anal sex. After about an hour of this unintelligible ranting, the bartender ask "why are you so obsessed with what adults do with their anuses , in which Kirschmann replied "because it's a family matter, I'm a as...hole
And first out of the hole is a gay troll with a hateful, bullying personal attack.

And to top that off, he brings up something my post doesn't even refer to.

However, just for you, how do you excuse anal sex that is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning???

Normal people want to know.

Do you have a rational answer?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202486 Jan 13, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Inflation coupled with expansion by dark energy is faster than the speed of light, since space is flat and boundless, it became infinite as it has a event horizon. Everything beyond this event horizon IS infinity. A simple truth that is hard to accept, but is a real property of the universe...infinity exists whether you like it or except it, it's still there.
No, it is not.

Show it to me, and I'll tell you if it's infinite.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202487 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is why Catholics and Protestants were joyfully killing each other in Northern Ireland...right? Because there is only one flavor of Christianity and they are all one big happy family.(This is just one example out of a vast number of cases of sectarian violence within Christianity.)
Despite what you may believe, there are 40,000 sects of Christianity, and most of them insist they are the only True Christians (tm).
I recall growing up in the Southern Baptist Church, every year we would have one Sunday School lesson that taught us the only Southern Baptists had the right interpretation of of the Bible. We were told all the other sects had it wrong, which was why we should be good little Southern Baptists.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
-- Emo Phillips
--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.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202488 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
All a soft heart brings when around christians, is pain and betrayal. Your heart is no softer than any other religious hypocrite's I've ever come across. You have less credibility than a Buddhist stray cat.
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202489 Jan 13, 2014
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.
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>And again, not even artful, Dodger.
1) Yes, I have in fact, "read it". When not accompanied by a refutation, this is a dodge for the disgruntled weakly attempting to dismiss a counterpoint.
2) There is nothing in the remainder of the text that explains why sprinkling the blood of pigeons would be integral to the "scientific process". Much less does context explain listing a bat as a bird, or the "method" for producing striped goats, or any of the rest. You know that, which is why you dismiss rather than rebut. "Sincere" seeker, indeed.
3) In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't expect, nor pretend to convince my fellow posters, that bronze-age nomads would have "miraculously" hit upon a description of nuclear radiation, when any number of explanations are perfectly plausible. My post was a satirical response, not an argument for preternatural knowledge of (relatively) recently "discovered" science.
4) Sure, I have bias. So do you. Another weak attempt at marginalization. You see, my "bias" is examination of facts and evidence, and following them to a conclusion that exists independent of my observation. Yours is exactly the opposite: first holding a conclusion - an inherited conclusion, mind you - and then combing and cherry-picking facts and evidence to underscore your bias.
Which "bias" is most likely to lead one to truth, seeker?
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202490 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>o.O
Erm, no - what's your source for these extraordinary claims?
Exodus 33:18-23 (NASB)
18 Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"
19 And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."
20 But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
21 Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;
22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
23 "Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Note;
-Seeing God was a life-threatening danger.
-God used three forms of protection for the radiation;
Behind a rock
Shielded with His hand
Only allowed a partial view (back)

Exodus 34:29-35 (NASB)
29 It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses' hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him.
30 So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him.
31 Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers in the congregation returned to him; and Moses spoke to them.
32 Afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them to do everything that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai.
33 When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.
34 But whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded,
35 the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him.

Note; The effect of radiation.

Please explain how a accurate description of radiation's danger, affect and protection appeared in a story about a Alien visiting humans in a fiction book written by numerous authors, distorted by time and translation occurred.

Smile.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#202491 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Any port in a storm.:-)
Remember the days when you had to check in as Mr, and Mrs? Now you just need a credit card.
Another favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =8Q6tjiZS5wMXX
And another
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
I had this thing for illicit affairs. Was fun.
You have evolved since then. My idea of fun included this.

http://www.sylviasmother.com/covers/bellyup.j...

Remember this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202492 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
RR, if you want to see a case of extreme bias, look at Buck here.
Atheism does not provide any direction.
A person can believe they are killing for atheism, or because of it, just like a person can believe anything, but since atheism provides no direction, their motivations necessarily come from some other source.
Incidentally, when Buck posts stuff like this, it crosses the line from funny to sad.
You don't know what you are talking about.

Atheism provides plenty of direction. Stalin used it to find direction - he wanted an atheist state, and he pursued it with mass murder.

This is such a chicken-shit argument atheists make. "Yeah, one can be an atheist, but it can't cause him to kill".

It's not worth a response. But I'll do it for free. It's bull shit.

It's a total fucking coincidence that 58% of the major atheist regimes in history mass murdered a portion of their own citizens, right?

Look into the rationale.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202493 Jan 13, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>And again, not even artful, Dodger.
3) In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't expect, nor pretend to convince my fellow posters, that bronze-age nomads would have "miraculously" hit upon a description of nuclear radiation, when any number of explanations are perfectly plausible. My post was a satirical response, not an argument for preternatural knowledge of (relatively) recently "discovered" science.
4) Sure, I have bias. So do you. Another weak attempt at marginalization. You see, my "bias" is examination of facts and evidence, and following them to a conclusion that exists independent of my observation. Yours is exactly the opposite: first holding a conclusion - an inherited conclusion, mind you - and then combing and cherry-picking facts and evidence to underscore your bias.
Which "bias" is most likely to lead one to truth, seeker?
Oh please then, humor me specifically with a couple of those plausible explanations!

I hold no preconceived conclusion, nor have I cherry picked the evidence. Those clearly belong purely to the atheist camp at this point. I'm simply asking you to explain the information in the passage completely and in context.

Smile.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Buck Crick 55,636
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min Steve III 649,626
TRUTH about illegal aliens (Aug '14) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 12
Does anybody know Doctor REALITY'S race or nati... 1 hr Knock off purse s... 36
rajkot gey (Nov '15) 2 hr Hemant patel 77
TARABYA PROFILO TARABYA SERVIS 212) 202 62 35 P... 2 hr sertek 1
SARIYER Profilo Sariyer Tamir Servis 212 ) 202 ... 2 hr sertek 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr DebraE 106,050
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 6 hr Noname 69
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 hr Hangman 972,378
More from around the web