Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but remember that the OT god said that the rapist got to marry the woman he raped. So it's OK.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That is one of the worst and most horrible commands in that vile book. It makes me ill to consider that people actually followed that.

troc wrote:

<quoted text>damm you fugly

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>There is an eagle, not a mile from my home now. I think he is the reason so many of my small chickens and ducks are dissapearing, but.....
Well, I guess that is as good as an attempt at deflection as any. Though it does nothing to counter your earlier attempt at insult.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That is one of the worst and most horrible commands in that vile book. It makes me ill to consider that people actually followed that.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That is one of the worst and most horrible commands in that vile book. It makes me ill to consider that people actually followed that.

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>Still follow that.>>>>
news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16189226
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114884/Moro...

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Boss, you aren't capable of discriminating between what education is and isn't useful.
You have a religious bias, so you make poor choices. That's why your country has a legal separation of Church and state.
If you were correct, and evolution wasn't true, all biological disciplines would be wrong. Since they produce excellent new knowledge and technology, you're quite clearly incorrect. People with your view of the world had their chance - but nothing useful came of it. You guys demonstrated, over and over, that your view was totally useless at producing knowledge and new technology.
Other than a few holdouts, your particular way of understanding the universe has gone extinct.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but remember that the OT god said that the rapist got to marry the woman he raped. So it's OK.

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Rape is clearly against the law in the Bible. It’s very clear it is an illegal act punishable by death.
The issue of rape is found in Deuteronomy 22 but not the particular scripture presented. The scripture on rape is verse 25-27. It is clear and easy for all to understand.
Notice the key word here in verse 25 is “FORCE.”
Deuteronomy 22:
25. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Ok, lets look at each verse in detail.
Duet 22: 25. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
“A betrothed damsel.” Betrothed means; engaged. Damsel means; a young unmarried woman of noble birth . Force is easy enough to understand. Lie with her is have sex with her in this case by force,“Rape.”
“then the man only that lay with her shall die.” Punishment for rape was death.
26.” But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing;” No punishment warranted because the man forced her,“there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death:”
“for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:” This matter is like murder, rape was considered just like a unjustified murder.
27.“For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried,” He found her in the field, alone. She cried for help during the attack.
“and there was none to save her.” There was no one to save her.”
None of this is hard to understand. It’s simple Simon. This is the issue of rape. Your right it is quite clear.
Let us finish this bible study. Verse 28:
Deuteronomy 22:
28. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,[ Not engaged] and lay hold on her, and lie with her,[ Have sexual relations] and they be found; [They are caught in the act].
Notice verse 28 does not use the word “force” as it was written in verse 25.
This is consensual sex, not by force. The use of force was described in verse 25. It is absent “force” in verse 28. Also absent is the cries for help by the damsel.
29.“Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Verse 29 deals with the penalty phase. You play, you pay. The man must marry the damsel. There is a reason for this. She probably going to be pregnant. The father must work and provide support for the mother and child.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I just noticed, you did put a citation but no link. However, at least you admitted it is an old source, but that's only the beginning of your problems ....
"Evidence for God from Science: Christian Apologetics
Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?" for the title, this means the article was written with a bias, intent on discrediting scientific research, not to state actual facts. Which is why creationists fail to get any evidence for their claim, starting with a presupposition and discarding anything that disagrees with it means discarding reality, and all evidence as well.
However, all but one source is verified and actually supported by the community. So, the numbers are probably at least based on reality at least. Just the commentary itself is meaningless.

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>Still follow that.>>>>
news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16189226
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114884/Moro...

Tony Longfellow wrote:

<quoted text>
The survey is legit. A summary of its results are in the graphic here:
http://www.quora.com/Roughly-speaking-which-p...
But as with fundies and the Bible, there always is a need to cherry pick to make their worldview work.
About 70 percent of phycists in the survey responded that there is no god or no way to know; that is, they were either athiests or agnostics.
Another eight percent said there was a higher power but not a god. I assume that higher power is either math, a multiverse, or a case of Jack Daniel's. But I could be wrong. Regardless, I'd personally put them in the atheist category.
About 16 percent claimed to believed in god but admitted doubt.
Only about 8 percent were sure there was a god.
And only roughly 3 percent believed one religion had more truth than other religions. Of those, 99 percent said the one religion with the most truth was Pastafarianism.(OK. I made that last part up.)
Of course, if the physists all had been athiests, the poster would have claimed that was proof physicics is an atheist conspiracy.

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed.

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.
You ae as incorrect as the Christian apologists.
If you read it in the Hebrew, it is nothing more than pappy catching billy slamming his daughter. We used to cal it a 'shotgun wedding'.
Nothing mysterious, evil or sacred about the passage. Just a 6000 year old custom still going on to this day.
The word translated as 'rape' is better translated as 'seduce'.

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
From Wiki: Islam is the majority religion in Morocco, which is the case for the Moroccan Berbers as well. Only a fraction of the former number of Jews has remained in the country, many having moved to Israel.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, that would have been part of my rebuttal if someone tried to claim the NT had replaced the old law. Jesus hadn't even been conceived yet, let alone die on the cross...meaning the old law was still in effect.

troc wrote:

<quoted text>damm you fugly

Eagle12 wrote:

If evolution is mandated to be taught in schools then why is Abiogenesis skipped over?
Abiogenesis is a theory life self started and replicated from non living matter. Basically from nothing came something. There are at least two dozen theories on Abiogenesis and maybe more.
The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950’s failed to produce one living cell. Scientist don’t even have a clue how life started here on earth. For the last100 years this subject has been debated, scrutinized, picked over, and still today, science doesn’t have anything but a few wild ass guesses.
To believe life self started from dead lifeless material is like believing a BMW self assembled. Or a Harly Davidson Motorcycle self created, assembled, manufactured the fuel and started up all on it’s own. Then began to replicate others.
Yet to the Atheist, this unknown beginning is accepted as the “Sh** Happens Theory.” My Dear Atheist friends. There is a hole in your ideology. The beginning is missing. This question of Abiogenesis will continue to be unanswered by science.
Abiogenesis is not taught in schools at any serious level because the answer of how life started is missing. Oh sure there are plenty of “if’s, maybe, might, could have‘s but no conclusive answer backed up by real scientific evidence.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, but there are many zealots who believe that the translation is correct, and that was sort of a more important inference.