Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254934 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

#231765 Jul 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Remained – outdated history – because you are unable to grasp modern understanding based on actual measurements and not philosophy is not my problem.
The passage I cite is using the word in the true scientific sense, just because you refuse to accept measured facts because they mean your god is tiny and limited to your mindset is not my problem
You have not read it properly, or understood it. The term used is “observe a finite volume”– note the word observe - not admit
True I do not understand idiocy.
Impossible or not, the finite measurable and observable universe is expanding into infinite universal space. Measurements show this to be so.
Measurements show infinite space?

But "infinite" is not measurable, by definition.

I see. That's great stuff. Thanks for clearing that up.

1. "the finite measurable and observable universe is expanding into infinite universal space"

No, the universe is all there is. If there is space, it is part of the universe. Space is created by separation of particles - expansion. The universe cannot expand "into" anything.

2, An infinite universe would exist in every direction infinitely. It could not further expand. What is "Infinity + 1"? It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both. That is a contradiction in terms, and a contradiction of logic.

3. The number of particles in the universe is determined to be FINITE. Physicists have calculated the number to be in the range of 10^78 to 10^82. Here's your question:

HOW IS IT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SPREAD A FINITE NUMBER OF PARTICLES OVER AN INFINITE DISTANCE?

It is not possible.

Game, set, and match.

Welcome to Buck School.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231766 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Look at all the things science has delivered... versus you've got an old sandwich to lever poor people with.
<quoted text>
Science never delivered anything. Science is a field of study. It does not have hands to carry an item for delivery, nor feet to deliver it on.

People have delivered things, and sometimes they deliver it from what they learn from science.

Like the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Like Hitler using the science of Darwinism to deliver 7 million dead Jews and Christians. Like Mengele delivering grotesque experiments to human twins.



Thinking

Poole, UK

#231767 Jul 4, 2014
You often talk about those christians killing those jews.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Like Hitler using the science of Darwinism to deliver 7 million dead Jews and Christians. Like Mengele delivering grotesque experiments to human twins.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231768 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
You often talk about those christians killing those jews.
<quoted text>
It was Darwinists killing Jews and Christians.

Have you been told you are a moron? Someone close to you should tell you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231769 Jul 4, 2014
WHY AN ACTUAL INFINITE QUANTITY IS ABSURD

Logic of the Infinite Tug of War:

Team 1 and Team 2 have infinite members, all equally strong, all tugging at opposite ends of the rope.

The rope doesn't move.

Now, remove all the odd numbered members from Team 1. Guess what? The rope doesn't move.

Now remove every member from Team 1 except for each one-millionth member.

The rope doesn't move.

Now chop off one arm and one leg from every remaining member of Team 1.

The rope doesn't move.

Now grease Team 1's end of the rope, give them all sedatives, feed them chemicals that cause nausea and vomiting.

The rope doesn't move.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#231770 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Science never delivered anything. Science is a field of study. It does not have hands to carry an item for delivery, nor feet to deliver it on.
People have delivered things, and sometimes they deliver it from what they learn from science.
Like the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Like Hitler using the science of Darwinism to deliver 7 million dead Jews and Christians. Like Mengele delivering grotesque experiments to human twins.
That's why you went in the barn to beat a dead horse ?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231771 Jul 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why you went in the barn to beat a dead horse ?
I'm betting you have a very punchable face.

https://www.google.com/search...

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#231772 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm betting you have a very punchable face.
https://www.google.com/search...
I bet you have a very mushy brain.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231773 Jul 4, 2014
Rarely. Only by people far less intelligent than me.

Darwin was hardly a Darwinist because he said not to apply survival of the fittest to society.
Neither am I.
Religitards that oppose universal healthcare are Darwinists.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Darwinists killing Jews and Christians.
Have you been told you are a moron? Someone close to you should tell you.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231774 Jul 4, 2014
Your basic premise is wrong because infinity minus infinity can't be said to be zero: it is an indeterminate form, like 0/0.

The initial set up is almost certainly not static, so the rest of your post is bollocks.

Think!
Buck Crick wrote:
WHY AN ACTUAL INFINITE QUANTITY IS ABSURD
Logic of the Infinite Tug of War:
Team 1 and Team 2 have infinite members, all equally strong, all tugging at opposite ends of the rope.
The rope doesn't move.
Now, remove all the odd numbered members from Team 1. Guess what? The rope doesn't move.
Now remove every member from Team 1 except for each one-millionth member.
The rope doesn't move.
Now chop off one arm and one leg from every remaining member of Team 1.
The rope doesn't move.
Now grease Team 1's end of the rope, give them all sedatives, feed them chemicals that cause nausea and vomiting.
The rope doesn't move.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231775 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Rarely. Only by people far less intelligent than me.
Darwin was hardly a Darwinist because he said not to apply survival of the fittest to society.
Neither am I.
Religitards that oppose universal healthcare are Darwinists.
<quoted text>
Darwin was not only a Darwinist, he invented it.

And Darwin himself appled survival of the fittest to society, as he was a racist.

The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin:

"The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Darwin’s ideas were logically and predictably used to launch the first eugenics society in Britain headed by his cousin, Francis Galton. Darwin’s son, Leonard, later served as President of that eugenics society. Margaret Sanger drew her inspiration for what became Planned Parenthood from Darwin, for what she saw a need to control the breeding of blacks and poor people since they are "less fit".

Since Darwin's view of humans puts them in a natural struggle for existence, then it logically follows that some tribes and races of humans will be more fit than others. And since with Darwin’s help, we now understand this struggle, why not help it along by slowing down the breeding of those less fit?

Or, as Hitler rationalized, eliminate them altogether.

That's Darwinism. It is called Darwinism because it was invented by Darwin.



Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#231777 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm betting you have a very punchable face.
https://www.google.com/search...
It would not help. They still would not learn anything. Welcome back.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231778 Jul 4, 2014
By today's standards, Darwin was racist. Yet he was a better person than you.
Remember, slavery was still legal in your country.
But not in Darwin's.

You always choose to blur the difference between Darwin's science and your social Darwinism.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was not only a Darwinist, he invented it.
And Darwin himself appled survival of the fittest to society, as he was a racist.
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin:
"The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin’s ideas were logically and predictably used to launch the first eugenics society in Britain headed by his cousin, Francis Galton. Darwin’s son, Leonard, later served as President of that eugenics society. Margaret Sanger drew her inspiration for what became Planned Parenthood from Darwin, for what she saw a need to control the breeding of blacks and poor people since they are "less fit".
Since Darwin's view of humans puts them in a natural struggle for existence, then it logically follows that some tribes and races of humans will be more fit than others. And since with Darwin’s help, we now understand this struggle, why not help it along by slowing down the breeding of those less fit?
Or, as Hitler rationalized, eliminate them altogether.
That's Darwinism. It is called Darwinism because it was invented by Darwin.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231779 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
By today's standards, Darwin was racist. Yet he was a better person than you.
Remember, slavery was still legal in your country.
But not in Darwin's.
You always choose to blur the difference between Darwin's science and your social Darwinism.
<quoted text>
Since I live in today, I have to conclude Darwin was racist.

And you don't have to have slavery to be racist.

If Darwinism is correct, it is perfectly sensible to be a social Darwinist and a racist.

You are the Darwinist, not me. The ramifications burden you, not me.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#231780 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I live in today, I have to conclude Darwin was racist.
And you don't have to have slavery to be racist.
If Darwinism is correct, it is perfectly sensible to be a social Darwinist and a racist.
You are the Darwinist, not me. The ramifications burden you, not me.
That's what I love about Buck, he can talk himself into anything!
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231781 Jul 4, 2014
150 years on it is not unsurprising we find some of what Darwin said to be cringeworthy today.
Sadly 0 years on many find all your opinions to be cringeworthy.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I live in today, I have to conclude Darwin was racist.
And you don't have to have slavery to be racist.
If Darwinism is correct, it is perfectly sensible to be a social Darwinist and a racist.
You are the Darwinist, not me. The ramifications burden you, not me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231782 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
150 years on it is not unsurprising we find some of what Darwin said to be cringeworthy today.
Sadly 0 years on many find all your opinions to be cringeworthy.
<quoted text>
Darwinism itself is cringeworthy.

Hitler liked it. But it did not go over well then.

Maybe you can hope for a more enlightened time when racial genocide doesn't make people cringe.

Sorry, can't wish you luck on that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#231783 Jul 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I love about Buck, he can talk himself into anything!
Sure. I talked myself into thinking that a statement of negroes being an evolutionary niche lower than caucasians and closer to baboons is racist.

Don't know what got into me.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231784 Jul 4, 2014
Straw man, Puck Frick.

I'm no social Darwinist, prison ponce.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinism itself is cringeworthy.
Hitler liked it. But it did not go over well then.
Maybe you can hope for a more enlightened time when racial genocide doesn't make people cringe.
Sorry, can't wish you luck on that.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#231785 Jul 4, 2014
All Puck Frick's posts prove is that religion from the past should not be applied to society day.

Puck Frick is an example of a Social Darwinist.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I love about Buck, he can talk himself into anything!

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) 22 min flack 1,374,883
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Three Days 310,980
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr IB DaMann 9,554
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 22 hr Trojan 32,248
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 28 Ela 38
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Apr 27 Jesse 201,845
News Kenny Drummond's Prep School Thingy (Jan '08) Apr 23 Bret Link 21
More from around the web