Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244721 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.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#212125 Feb 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie about facts.
You made a mistake by referring to what the Catholic church accepted, evolution wise, as "Darwinism".
That is factually false and intentionally misleading.
Rather than admit the mistake, you just doubled-down and lied repeatedly.
This is a consistent pattern with you. You employed it with your blunder on E=mc^2 disproving God.
I figured you out long ago.
Pope John Paul II revisited the question of evolution in a 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Unlike Pius XII, John Paul is broadly read, and embraces science and reason. He won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”

John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#212127 Feb 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie about facts.
You made a mistake by referring to what the Catholic church accepted, evolution wise, as "Darwinism".
That is factually false and intentionally misleading.
Rather than admit the mistake, you just doubled-down and lied repeatedly.
This is a consistent pattern with you. You employed it with your blunder on E=mc^2 disproving God.
I figured you out long ago.
Wrong, you lie whenever you are beaten and nowhere else to go. So really every time you open your mouth to speak or type on the keyboard. I suppose it helps you masturbate at night thinking you have won by ignorant lying.

Just because you do the buck and place you own particular meaning on a word does not mean anything other than you are clueless and require the help of BS to boost your self ego

And I figured you out when you were promoting paedophilia, claiming genital mutilation was fine for Jews but not for Muslims and claiming that youtube was proof of god. Note I am not including your propensity for general day to day lying here

And you have still not provided any evidence other than the usual buck incredulity that E=MC^2 does not show that the god of KJV revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe. The very fact that you used the internet do make such denials is absolutely hilarious and typical of fundy lies and ignorance.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212128 Feb 12, 2014
This is aimed at Buck and his single, dogmatic definition of atheism.

From The Oxford Handbook of Atheism:

Quote

Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:

1 ‘Atheism [...] is the belief that there is no God or gods’(Baggini 2003:3)

2 ‘At its core, atheism [...] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’(Eller 2010: 1)

3 ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’(Martin 2007: 1)

4 ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’(Cliteur 2009: 1)

5 ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean — a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’(McGrath 2004: 175)

End quote

I believe that #3 is IANS position, one that Buck has rejected as NOT being a definition of atheism.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212129 Feb 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
For all your bluster, you have not come up with one detail on which Barton was untruthful.
Not one.
On the bluster portion, you are hitting on all cylinders.
Congratulations to you, and also to Crockthumpington.
Notice the projection.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212130 Feb 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You wasted your morning. I had breakfast outdoors at the plaza with my wife and two other couples. Did you give them your money?
KiMare wrote:
LOL, there is some deeeep reasoning. You sound angry. Did you just get bitch slapped by reality? SMile.
You did give them your money,didn't you? How much?

And what did they give you in return? Did the promise you anything, like heaven?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Have you ever stopped to consider the cost of faith? You might be aware of Pascal's Wager. You probably have no concept of the cost in dollars, hours, and lost opportunity of losing that bet.
Cat got your tongue? Don't think I don't understand. It would be pretty embarrassing for you if gave so much on a lie, huh?

You didn't give them your children, too, did you?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Did you think that those things that you mentioned constituted offering something?.
< crickets chirping >

Me, neither.

I sure hope you get that heaven that they promised you, because if you don't, you gave away everything for nothing in return. Seriously - what did you get for all of that time, money and lost opportunity if you don't get heaven?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212131 Feb 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Crockthumper.
That is an inaccurate and fraudulent quote. Your quotation shows no indication of the deleted words and presents it as an intact passage.
If you wrote it as "Buck is...an idiot", it would be an exact quote, but it would still be fraudulent in that the idea presented is the opposite of the original idea.
If quoted exactly, an incomplete quotation's integrity depends on the implication it is used for.
I don't expect you to understand this.
By your reasoning, a biblical quote could not be accurate unless the entire Bible were quoted with any passage cited. Can you imagine citing a passage from War and Peace?
You are a dumbass.
More exact quotes from Buck...

"I don't understand this."

"Buck is a dumbass."

Note that Buck is now whining that the meaning has been changed...while ignoring the fact that his "exact quotes" from Barton changed the original meaning as well.

Buck is a hypocrite. He will use "exact quotes" to bolster his position whenever it is to his advantage. And when it is pointed out that such tactics are dishonest, he whines.

Sadly, I don't think Buck will ever see what is wrong with what he is doing. His mind just doesn't work that way. For Buck, Buck is never wrong. If he can ignore the parts of a quote that he doesn't like, and produce an "exact quote" that reinforces his beliefs, he is perfectly willing to do that. And he will never change.
Bongo

Medford, NY

#212132 Feb 12, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>fuckoffyoupatheticassc lown
Perhaps a competent psychiatrist can help you with your intolerance of Buck always being right. For now I suggest you breath into a paper bag.
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#212133 Feb 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You really believe that?
Atheism is a REJECTION of Theistic claims.

In a court of law the accused is either guilty or innocent. If I am a member of the jury I have no information about this individual other than what I am told, and this of course could be untrue. I do not declare the accused either guilty of innocent, I wait for the evidence to be presented. It is based on this evidence that I decide whether this person is guilty or innocent.

So I can't say I don't believe God exists, just like I can't say this accused person is guilty, until I have sufficient evidence,reliable demonstrable evidence, that clearly shows this person guilty, or in the case for God, that he exists.

Someone claims the accused is guilty without examining any evidence, I say, "There is no evidence to justify your claim"

Someone says God exists, and I say "There is no evidence to justify your claim." Therefore: An Atheists REJECTS the Theistic claims that God exist.

There are people who will not be able to understand this, people like ButtCrack, who feign intelligence, but do not have the mental capacity to grasp such a simple concept of rejecting a positive claim, poor slob!!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212134 Feb 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Nailed you didn't it. Smile.
Yeah, I'm the one who got nailed.

Let me ask you this - did they at least give you magic beans, or did you give it all for just a promise that can't be verified and doesn't have to be kept?

Keep in mind that this promise comes from the same source that promised you that you could move mountains with faith and that Jesus would come again soon, and that promised that you the fruits of the spirit including, "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Did you get those?

You have yourself a blessed day, will you?
Bongo

Medford, NY

#212135 Feb 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
This is aimed at Buck and his single, dogmatic definition of atheism.
From The Oxford Handbook of Atheism:
Quote
Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:
1 ‘Atheism [...] is the belief that there is no God or gods’(Baggini 2003:3)
2 ‘At its core, atheism [...] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’(Eller 2010: 1)
3 ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’(Martin 2007: 1)
4 ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’(Cliteur 2009: 1)
5 ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean — a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’(McGrath 2004: 175)
End quote
I believe that #3 is IANS position, one that Buck has rejected as NOT being a definition of atheism.
Darwins DISSEMBLer, youre dissembling, again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#212136 Feb 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Here is a partial list of people said to be born to gods and virgins. Jesus made the list:

Augustus
Agdistis
Antiope
Attis
Auge
Adonis
Buddha
Danae
Dionysus
Glycon
Heracles
Horus
Jesus
Korybas
Krishna
Melanippe
Mithras
Odysseus
Osirus
Perseus
Romulus and Remus
Tammuz
Zoroaster
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-lik...
http://thinkerfromiowa.wordpress.com/tag/gods...
http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_virgin_birth...
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/12/19/...
KiMare wrote:
You lie. Please give specific references for the first five.
I already did. Put your cursor over the blue underlined words, click, and read. If that's not enough, look for a site called Google.com . Or just let me Google that for you (LMGTFY):

http://lmgtfy.com/...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#212137 Feb 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes and he lies a lot too.
I have requested several times for you to provide the slightest evidence that I have claimed any pope to be atheist, and each and every time you have failed miserably to the extent of the complete ignorance.
What has happened is that you lost the argument by 3 popes to one archbishop and so you concocted a lie based on your deliberate ignorance and poor education.
So yes it’s so easy to refute your own lies bit you seem to have sever problems when it comes to fact, problems enough to cause you to lie.
You claimed the Pope accepted Darwinism, which is atheistic.

You claimed it over and over.

But you failed to produce a spec of evidence for it.

Then you just lied and said you did.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is clear. It is not the Discovery Institute saying it:

"We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism;...

"Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions."

"This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside."

You lose again, Christinemc^2.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212138 Feb 12, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Just for my information, what tests have been done to prove God interacts with the natural world?
The ones that come to mind are studies on prayer. While some studies have come up with a positive result, meta-analysis of many studies show these to be statistical outliers.

What is a statistical outlier? Well, if you have a thousand people guess 10 coin tosses ahead of time, 1 person is likely to get all 10 right. He would be a statistical outlier. BTW...you would also expect 1 person to get all 10 wrong as well. Also a statistical outlier. The vast majority would cluster around 5 right and 5 wrong.

BTW...you can calculate the likely number of people to make a certain number of correct guesses using the binomial theorem

n!/r!(n-r)!

Where n is the total number of tosses and r the number of correct guesses. In the example of 10 coin tosses, with a total of 1024 possible results, approximately 1 in 1024 would get all 10 and approximately 252 in 1024 would get 5 right.
Bongo

Medford, NY

#212139 Feb 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
.
I sure hope you get that heaven that they promised you, because if you don't, you gave away everything for nothing in return. Seriously - what did you get for all of that time, money and lost opportunity if you don't get heaven?
Scripture clearly says that God is a debtor to no man. Anyone who gives in faith is reciprocated in some form. Those with spiritual discernment see and enjoy the benefits.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212140 Feb 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes and he lies a lot too.
I have requested several times for you to provide the slightest evidence that I have claimed any pope to be atheist, and each and every time you have failed miserably to the extent of the complete ignorance.
What has happened is that you lost the argument by 3 popes to one archbishop and so you concocted a lie based on your deliberate ignorance and poor education.
So yes it’s so easy to refute your own lies bit you seem to have sever problems when it comes to fact, problems enough to cause you to lie.
Buck doesn't do evidence. He just makes assertions.

However, he is very quick to DEMAND evidence...and then reject it when it is provided.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212141 Feb 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Darwins DISSEMBLer, youre dissembling, again.
http://www.randi.org/site/images/stories/Inig...

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212142 Feb 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Scripture clearly says that God is a debtor to no man. Anyone who gives in faith is reciprocated in some form. Those with spiritual discernment see and enjoy the benefits.
Bongo...

Haven't you got it trough your thick head yet that "scripture" holds no authority for IANS?

Come up with a different argument.
Bongo

Medford, NY

#212144 Feb 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Bongo...
Haven't you got it trough your thick head yet that "scripture" holds no authority for IANS?
Come up with a different argument.
It holds authority with the believer and is the basis for the action that Ians is asserting is ridiculous and futile.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212145 Feb 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> It holds authority with the believer and is the basis for the action that Ians is asserting is ridiculous and futile.
Yeah, well, that's your problem.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#212146 Feb 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> It holds authority with the believer and is the basis for the action that Ians is asserting is ridiculous and futile.
Ask yourself this...

If a Muslim quoted the Quran to support his argument, would you be convinced?

Didn't think so.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 56 min Just the Truth 201,853
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr ritedownthemiddle 1,262,073
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr tom wingo 29,848
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 hr John-K 310,312
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Jul 25 xxxrayted 1,714
News 3 Arkansas players arrested on forgery complaint Jul 23 Fart news 2
More from around the web