Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256612 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

#216620 Mar 4, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is simply the rejection of Theistic claims.
Thanks for altering your definition of "atheism" after I corrected you.

But it's still wrong.

Atheism is the acceptance of a claim - that no god exists.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#216621 Mar 4, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, you attack Buck personally like you did again here. Instead you are to much of a coward to make an argument and try to appeal to others by using links that do not allow anyone to question. Convenient for you, huh?
Did I miss anything?
Now here is where you tell me I'm stupid and need to read a science book and I'm fat, ugly and dress funny...right?
Or you can use the old "your to smart to waste time on this...blah, blah"
Wow...now pointing out that someone is wrong on a subject is a personal attack?

And I see you making personal attacks (real personal attacks) against me all the time.

Hypocrite, much?

I won't say you are stupid. Nor will I say you are "fat, ugly and dress funny". I will say that you are ignorant on the subject of math. Your own words prove that.

That isn't a bad thing. We are all ignorant on some subjects. In fact, most subjects. But we have people like you and Buck that are ignorant of math yet profess knowledge. That is known as LYING.

Oh, and the comment on links??? Give me an effing break. If I post long discussions on the topic, you complain. If I post links, you complain. Face it. You just want to remain ignorant. There is nothing stopping you from asking me questions about the link. Ergo, your "do not allow anyone to question" is pure BS.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#216622 Mar 4, 2014
He was sitting there beating dead horses to death, munching on a infinite donut.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#216624 Mar 4, 2014
Rev. Paul Raushenbush, a Baptist minister, gives an interesting argument against the "sincerely held religious belief" laws going around many state legislatures.

Quote

For instance, who is to decide what is sincere? Are the religious beliefs sincere if a cake seller will sell a cake to two divorced individuals for their second marriage but not to a same-sex couple for their first? Or does this cafeteria-style approach to Christianity expose a lack of sincerity of religious belief? This raises the question of who will determine the sincerity of a belief. The courts? If so, which religious leaders will advise the courts on that question, as it is clear that religious leaders increasingly disagree on the question of gay marriage and the full dignity of LGBT people?

Also, will the freedom to refuse to serve those who offend “sincerely held religious beliefs” extend to people of one faith expressing hostility toward people of another faith? If a Christian believes that Hindus worship a deity or deities that she finds offensive, will she be allowed to refuse to photograph a Hindu wedding or make a cake for a Hindu holy day based on her “sincerely held religious beliefs”?

And what about sincerely held beliefs that are not religious? At a time when 40 percent of people under 30 hold no specific religious affiliation, and when many of those identify as “spiritual but not religious,” how will the laws address those with “sincerely held spiritual beliefs”? And given the rise of atheism and secular humanism, will those who espouse no formal religion also have their sincerely held beliefs protected?

Religious people should be very hesitant to go down the path of discrimination based on “sincerely held” beliefs, as it could be used against them. What if someone were to claim that their sincerely held belief caused them to not serve fundamentalist religious people? If these bills pass, you can guarantee that the reputation of religious people is gong to take a serious hit.

Laws that say we can pick and choose whom we work with based on our “sincerely held religious beliefs” are dangerous to our society. These bills promote further division at a time when America is already deeply divided, and they encourage self-segregation into isolated communities that only serve people with whom we are “sincerely” compatible…

Bills that encourage communities to rip apart the fabric of America should be seen for what they are: discriminatory and deeply un-American. That is my sincerely held religious belief.

End quote

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#216625 Mar 4, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another example of the ignorant following the ignorant.
It's sad, really.
This expert guy is upset with your "ad homonym" attacks.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#216626 Mar 4, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>I'll try not to start the riots near your neighborhood, geezer.
Hey, you've been away from home now for quite a while.

What's up?

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#216627 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He advocates murder of people innocent of any wrongdoing.
If that's not evil, I'd say it gets you within hollerin' distance.
Why don't you start an I Hate Harris thread?

The constant repetition is getting really old.

Your 58% posts are too--I'll bet you know what I'm referring to.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216630 Mar 4, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW...
Buck CLAIMS to have made straight As in calculus, yet he fails to understand this rather simple example of a path (a concept discussed in calculus)...
t = 0 to infinity
x = cos t
y = sin t
The path defines a circle of radius 1, centered on the origin. And, yes, the circle is finite (a better term is compact, but most non-math people wouldn't know that term). But the path described is of infinite length.
The length is given by...
integral (t = 0 to infinity) square root (cos^2 t + sin^2 t) dt.
Since cos^ t + sin^ t = 1, this simplifies to...
integral (t = 0 to infinity) 1 dt
Which is given by...
t (evaluated at t = 0 and t = infinity)
or
infinity - 0
which is
infinity
To be rigorous, the concept of infinity here must be dealt with using limits. Replace "infinity" with "n".
This gives you
integral (t = 0 to n) square root (cos^2 t + sin^2 t) dt = n
And as n -> infinity, the integral -> infinity. And thus, the path is of infinite length.
This is pretty basic calculus. And Buck doesn't know about it. Which put the lie to his claim of straight As in calculus. Heck, it puts the lie to his ever having been in a calculus class at all.
Is that the best you can do?

I realize, and I am confident most other readers realize, that this calculus path has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of infinity in the physical world, and whether anything infinite exists.

We can use a path to describe a theoretical circular dick of infinite length.

Does one exist? Nobody would ever know from what you offer. But we do know what you blurted out is of no use whatsoever in answering any question that has ever been broached on this forum.

What was it then, exactly? It was you hoping you would convince someone you are smart.

Good luck with that, Crockthorton.

blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#216632 Mar 4, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah? So? Like it IS pardonable when an animal terrorizes a human?
Get real, you loon.
Animals don't "terrorize" humans, are you that ignorant of the world around you. They protect their young, they protect their territory, they attack when they feel threatened, and of course they are always looking to survive by eating. If the animal is big enough and hungry enough, and you're stupid enough to be in his territory, you just might be supper.

The only animal that terrorized humans are other humans.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216633 Mar 4, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, here we go then let's test your claim.
Please tell us "YOUR" argument that infinity exist in the material world.
What is the 'empirical' scientific evidence you base your assumption on?
His evidence for infinity is the plain glazed donut.

Other pastries do not suffice. I'm not sure why. Maybe the creme filling oozes out and interferes with the infinite path.

I think pretty soon graduate schools will require math Ph.D.'s to also be pastry chefs.

Bwhahahahahahahaahaaaa.a...a.. a.a.a.a.a.a.a......a.a.a



blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#216634 Mar 4, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>He drools at the thought of taking away peoples' will power, handicapping their minds in any way he can conceive, and he conceives of many ways. He's a deviant and a liar, lusting after the lives of those that "he" calls liars. Apparently, he considers his own lies as harmless, unlike those people that he stereotypes. He's an ideology bigot, who cringes at the thought of minds that he can't control, a classic megalomaniac. If anyone deserves a chemical lobotomy it is him; him and those that contribute to his "cause".
You are now required to give specific examples of these things you claim Harris is guilty of. Post the quotes and from which dialog they came from. You might even pick and example that occurred during a debate and paste it for all to see.

Show the evidence that he is "lusting" after the lives of those he calls liars. Provide evidence that he has attempting to control anyones mind.

Do this or I, and every one here, will know you're talking out of your azz. I'll wait.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#216635 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He advocates murder of people innocent of any wrongdoing.
If that's not evil, I'd say it gets you within hollerin' distance.
You're full of shit as usual.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216636 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I called a scientist and asked him about your Infinite Donut Theory.
The problem with this, Butt Cheeks? Is that you don't actually know any scientists.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216637 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, Blob.
I'd recognize your brand of stupid anywhere.
Nope, not me, Butt Cheeks.

You are some special kind of stupid, aren't you?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#216638 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming you are a blue baboon.
How is that different from you claiming to be a bad ass football player? A whimpy pig farmer I can believe!!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#216639 Mar 4, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, here we go then let's test your claim.
Please tell us "YOUR" argument that infinity exist in the material world.
What is the 'empirical' scientific evidence you base your assumption on?
I've never said that infinity exists in the material world. That is one of Buck's straw men.

I have always maintained that infinity is a mathematical concept.

Buck has disputed what that concept is. He has been very wrong. As in...
EXPERT wrote:
I pointed out the contradictions...

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#216640 Mar 4, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This expert guy is upset with your "ad homonym" attacks.
Hominy grits?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#216641 Mar 4, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you've been away from home now for quite a while.
What's up?
She misses your "touch".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#216642 Mar 4, 2014
tricki wrote:
what faith? requires absolute idiocy to reject the verified account of Christ. you have to be a total moron to ignore the proof
What proof?

You don't have **any**.

Your "account" of christ is a legend, a myth-- not verified by **anything** outside of the bible.

That's circular argument, and is false.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#216643 Mar 4, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe, how cute. Don't worry I'm sure AM knows he can count on you for a little @ss tickle from time to time...
We can expect garbage compactor explosions from.....Eggsquirt!

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr RoxLo 1,420,271
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr OzRitz 10,068
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Blue November 311,629
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Aug 27 Trojan 32,332
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web