Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233144 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I cant give you a measurement of the immeasurable, but have shown you the universe is immeasurable and meets the criteria and definitions in several ways.
No, you have not.

Infinite does not just mean "immeasureable".

It has a number of principles embodied.

The simpliest one is "non-finite".

Everything physical is finite, by definition, whether measureable or not.

Another principle is "no finite quality".

Something with no finite quality is not physical. The extent of the universe has finite quality.

If it is finite in any part, it is finite in the whole.

Another principle of infinity is "unrealizable".

You claim the extent of the universe realizes an unrealizable distance.

That's impossible.

The extent of the universe may be indeterminate. It cannot be infinite.

You should concede again. I hate having to win arguments multiple times.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233145 Jul 20, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

I would like to meet Buck and see if my predictions are true; either a 90 lbs weakling or a 300 lard ass who still lives at home with mommy.
You would be in for a surprise.

I would like to meet you, too, Plaid Sheet.

I can be quiet charming.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233146 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have not.
Infinite does not just mean "immeasureable".
It has a number of principles embodied.
The simpliest one is "non-finite".
Everything physical is finite, by definition, whether measureable or not.
Another principle is "no finite quality".
Something with no finite quality is not physical. The extent of the universe has finite quality.
If it is finite in any part, it is finite in the whole.
Another principle of infinity is "unrealizable".
You claim the extent of the universe realizes an unrealizable distance.
That's impossible.
The extent of the universe may be indeterminate. It cannot be infinite.
You should concede again. I hate having to win arguments multiple times.
OK Buck, let's say you're correct.

What difference does it make, though?

I mean, in practical terms, how does it matter?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233147 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have not.
Infinite does not just mean "immeasureable".
It has a number of principles embodied.
The simpliest one is "non-finite".
Everything physical is finite, by definition, whether measureable or not.
Another principle is "no finite quality".
Something with no finite quality is not physical. The extent of the universe has finite quality.
If it is finite in any part, it is finite in the whole.
Another principle of infinity is "unrealizable".
You claim the extent of the universe realizes an unrealizable distance.
That's impossible.
The extent of the universe may be indeterminate. It cannot be infinite.
You should concede again. I hate having to win arguments multiple times.

My how you wiggle and squirm.

Infinite flat universe, it isn't called the indeterminate flat universe.
Then we have the little problem with the definitions..remember?
Want me to show you again forrest?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#233148 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be in for a surprise.
I would like to meet you, too, Plaid Sheet.
I can be quiet charming.
I am sure that you would be quiet if we met!

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233149 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> GREAT Genius, now tell us the distance you will have to travel to traverse the distance of the event horizon . Hint, it's called an event horizon for some reason... doofus
Easy. I would have to travel the distance from here to the event horizon.

If it is a physical phenomenon, it has a distance. Whether I can travel that distance, or even know what the distance is, is a different question.

Is that all you have?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233150 Jul 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Buck, let's say you're correct.
What difference does it make, though?
I mean, in practical terms, how does it matter?
In practical terms, it just shows my steadfast resistance to accepting popular nonsense.

Like an infinite universe.

Or,...stare decisis. Or,...incorporation doctrine.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233151 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
My how you wiggle and squirm.
Infinite flat universe, it isn't called the indeterminate flat universe.
Then we have the little problem with the definitions..remember?
Want me to show you again forrest?
You have a little problem, moron.

Here's your problem:

A x B = Infinity

You accept the above product, so your problem is A and B.

How do you get around it?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233152 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
In practical terms, it just shows my steadfast resistance to accepting popular nonsense.
Like an infinite universe.
Or,...stare decisis. Or,...incorporation doctrine.
I know, I know.

If only we could reinstate the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.

The good old days, when men were men and black people were chattel.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233153 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

Then we have the little problem with the definitions..remember?
Here's a definition of infinity for you:

"that which cannot be reached"

Another problem for you, huh?

You say the extent the universe has reached is "that which cannot be reached" (infinity).

In logical terms, that puts you in a box called "self-contradictory assertion".

It goes like this:

If,(a) infinite cannot be reached,

Then,(b) the extent the universe reaches cannot be infinite.

How many ways do you wish to lose this?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233154 Jul 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I know.
If only we could reinstate the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.
The good old days, when men were men and black people were chattel.
You're saying the SC sometimes gets it wrong? I agree.

But at least the Constitution was appropriately amended.

Not be the 9 people in robes, but by "the people".

We dropped that troublesome formality. Now liberal justices just pencil in their whims.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#233155 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How,many angels will fit on the head of a pin?
That is what this infinity argument is all about.
The scenery changes, but it is the same old story.
yawn
How many angles will fit on the head of a pin?

At least 360 of them.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233156 Jul 20, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure that you would be quiet if we met!
I might introduce you to the "Buck YO-YO".

That's where I pull your underwear out the top of your pants, and lift you with one hand, tilting your head over and bouncing you up and down by your shorts with your head banging the floor until your draws rip out.

It's a big hit at parties.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233157 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying the SC sometimes gets it wrong? I agree.
But at least the Constitution was appropriately amended.
Not be the 9 people in robes, but by "the people".
We dropped that troublesome formality. Now liberal justices just pencil in their whims.
Are you referring to those liberal justices who have decided corporations are persons?

Oh.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233158 Jul 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>

OK Buck, let's say you're correct.
Thanks, man. I am correct.

Seriously, as an attorney, have you ever seen anyone take a case like that of the alleged "infinite universe", tear it apart, dismantle it, and destroy it with more searing force of logic than ole' Buck has done?

If I had gone to law school, I would be a dangerous man.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#233159 Jul 20, 2014
Patrick wrote:
Pro-Russian separatist militiamen have seized custody of the bodies of about 200 victims of the Malaysia Airlines passenger jet that was blown out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile, Ukrainian officials said on Sunday, and rebels continued to limit access to the crash site in eastern Ukraine, blocking the work of experts even as hundreds of untrained local volunteers were picking through the wreckage with sticks.
World leaders have voiced a growing chorus of outrage over the delay in recovering remains of victims, and over the refusal by rebels to cede authority over the disaster site, where Flight 17, a Boeing 777 carrying 298 passengers and crew from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed and burned on Thursday afternoon.
Ukrainian emergency responders, working under the watchful eyes of armed rebels, had recovered 196 bodies but were forced to turn them over to the separatists, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, said at a briefing in Kiev on Sunday. Mr. Lysenko said officials believed that 38 of those bodies were taken to the morgue in Donetsk, a regional capital that is controlled by separatists.
The Koninklijke Landmacht are sharpening their spikes and pitchforks as we speak.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233160 Jul 20, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you referring to those liberal justices who have decided corporations are persons?
Oh.
They didn't decide corporations are persons.

I read the decision since you brought it up previously.

The ruling is constitutionally correct.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233161 Jul 20, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
How many angles will fit on the head of a pin?
At least 360 of them.
Which angels - 90 degrees; 45 degrees?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233162 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, man. I am correct.
Seriously, as an attorney, have you ever seen anyone take a case like that of the alleged "infinite universe", tear it apart, dismantle it, and destroy it with more searing force of logic than ole' Buck has done?
If I had gone to law school, I would be a dangerous man.
It troubles me to cause damage to your ego, Buck, but I must be honest with you.

Your argument put this member of the jury panel to sleep a long time ago.

May you someday have the privilege of watching Catcher perform in the courtroom.

But hey, don't worry, you do remain a very dangerous person (let's not be sexist).

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#233163 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I might introduce you to the "Buck YO-YO".
That's where I pull your underwear out the top of your pants, and lift you with one hand, tilting your head over and bouncing you up and down by your shorts with your head banging the floor until your draws rip out.
It's a big hit at parties.
Absolutely amazing! You will say anything just to get some reaction from people! I would love to meet you and discover what makes you tick. I am sure that you lack attention from "loved ones" and you fight so hard to get it; even if it has to be from anonymous people.

You must know by now that I know you are not tough... not at all. I would guess that you run from every encounter.

I really would love to figure out what makes people like you tick! Why did you pick Joe King? Did you know him or just a lucky search? Now that everyone knows that he is in ICU at the hospital, why do you continue to pretend to be him? Why do these others continue to talk to you as if you care about your replies? As if you won't say anything to keep them on the hook?

Please, there is no need to reply to me. I, of course, realize that you will say anything to keep me on the hook as well and I don't need that. I hope that one day I get to read the research done on people like you. Very curious.

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 min moshx 1,599,666
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 13 min cpeter1313 317,380
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 19 min Unhealthy People 11,541
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 11 hr Poster X 34,162
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 14 Hellepsoaio 12
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep 12 Love 292
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 11 Rose of Tralee 201,880
More from around the web