Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243483 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: Sep 08

United States

#233134 Jul 20, 2014
Anonix Mercer wrote:
I'm an atheist, that does not mean that I have faith in science, I just don't care if there is a god, and my daily routine has nothing to do with him, the only time I actually think about him is on sites like these, I know people have reasons to believe in him an I respect their views, but religion has a small part in my life, I have needs of my own to worry about every day.
Well, welcome. You are NOT a Topix atheist. You are more mainline and intellectually based. They are clones deployed to blather and rant for political purposes.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#233135 Jul 20, 2014
ChristINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
I don't put the character of Buck, nor any of the other characters created by a very limited nuber of puppet masters, as sociopaths, the are not charming leaders of any groups. They are simply getting their kicks from being anonymous and keeping an argument going. They will say whatever it takes to do so. I am guessing that labs28's puppeteer is the same as eagle's and several others. To me, they make life boring. I have learned a few things and I am very interested in why people are like that, but I don't think that I will ever get a straight answer as long as they are anonymous.

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.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233136 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give an example of a physical infinite.
..Is God's love 'unconditional'..?

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233137 Jul 20, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Um....
Those gotsta be the dumbest scientists ever.
Everyone knows there's no electricity in Canadia yet....
..well , I blame the white man .oops .!!...I MEAN THE JEWS ....

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233138 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
ChristineM wrote:
Wow, you have a big one…
Cheers
__________
Thanks, Christine.
..Chris , likes girls ...she looks at our mutated clitorises ..and , by golly they are 'big'..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233139 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't what I've been explaining to you, but the entire content is impossible to measure also.
The event horizon and the recession of galaxies faster than light is something entirely different matter that shows the infinite extent of the universe a mathematical certainty by general relativity.
You're a moron.

"Faster than light" is a finite speed.

Over a finite elapsed time.

Anything receding as such would cover a finite distance.

"Finite" x "Finite =....what?

Finite. Always.

You have a religious point of view. You are willing to believe an IMPOSSIBLE proposition when one of your PROPHETS tells you it is so.

They are pulling your leg. They are fudging the terms - creating a religious mythology for you.

And you lap it up. Like a dumb fucking hound dog.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233140 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what they call appeal to authority fallacy. Or Argument from authority.
You are dismissing evidence direct taken from the measurements of the universe by the latest findings.
No. I'm dismissing an abstraction from measurement taken to hypothesize an impossible phenomenon - an infinite physical universe.

There was no appeal to authority. It was an example of someone saying what I'm saying a different way.

Your whole case is an appeal to authority. And the problem is you don't understand one jot or tittle of what the authority is saying.

Why won't you answer my question:

What values for A and B make it true that "A" (average rate of expansion) X "B" (elapsed time)= Infinite Distance.

What are "A" and "B"?

Guess at it. Pick a number. Any number.

Pick a hypothetical number. What can you do to make the equation work?

You have to make it work if your assertion is true.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233141 Jul 20, 2014
Anonix Mercer wrote:
I'm an atheist, that does not mean that I have faith in science, I just don't care if there is a god, and my daily routine has nothing to do with him, the only time I actually think about him is on sites like these, I know people have reasons to believe in him an I respect their views, but religion has a small part in my life, I have needs of my own to worry about every day.
My understanding , is we are the only creatures who consider ...."what , comes after ..?"...

You've must of thought about it ...

It's hard to accept , we just end ..

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#233142 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a moron.
"Faster than light" is a finite speed.
Over a finite elapsed time.
Anything receding as such would cover a finite distance.
"Finite" x "Finite =....what?
Finite. Always.
You have a religious point of view. You are willing to believe an IMPOSSIBLE proposition when one of your PROPHETS tells you it is so.
They are pulling your leg. They are fudging the terms - creating a religious mythology for you.
And you lap it up. Like a dumb fucking hound dog.
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

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#233143 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm dismissing an abstraction from measurement taken to hypothesize an impossible phenomenon - an infinite physical universe.
There was no appeal to authority. It was an example of someone saying what I'm saying a different way.
Your whole case is an appeal to authority. And the problem is you don't understand one jot or tittle of what the authority is saying.
Why won't you answer my question:
What values for A and B make it true that "A" (average rate of expansion) X "B" (elapsed time)= Infinite Distance.
What are "A" and "B"?
Guess at it. Pick a number. Any number.
Pick a hypothetical number. What can you do to make the equation work?
You have to make it work if your assertion is true.
Um science isn't a religion, I'm not sure what they learnt you in prison about it. But you may want to check in on it .:)

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.

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.

Since: Sep 10

Long 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?

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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!

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?

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.

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?

Since: Sep 10

Long 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.

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?

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) 3 min Incognito4Ever 1,252,244
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sun Earthling-1 6,277
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Sun GoGoGrandMaHillary 1,653
News Trail Blazers 'like what Tim Frazier brings' at... Sat Fartman 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat tom wingo 29,828
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) Jul 2 Fartman 24
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 30 KeS 201,820
More from around the web