Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
169,921 - 169,940 of 224,378 Comments Last updated 39 min ago

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177158
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you or, others, to criticize, Christine? Especially when those criticisms are so emotion based.
Go back and read your older postings on occasion.
Nope those criticisms are based simply on zero tolerance for your deliberate ignorance born of davesworld stupidity and of course you obvious and antiquated penchant for chauvinism.

Your fragile emotions are seriously effected by such criticism and hence the projection but hey, this is the real world and this is a PUBLIC thread. Have you ever considered the concept of a PUBLIC thread? Or perhaps you would prefer something more private where only people who agree with your chauvinistic mentality and davesworld stupidity lurk?

And why do you want me to go back and read what I have written, are you trying to waste my time as you waist every one elseís? You want to highlight something I posted then I suggest you provide links to that post and donít rely on others to do your work for you.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177159
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope those criticisms are based simply on zero tolerance for your deliberate ignorance born of davesworld stupidity and of course you obvious and antiquated penchant for chauvinism.
Your fragile emotions are seriously effected by such criticism and hence the projection but hey, this is the real world and this is a PUBLIC thread. Have you ever considered the concept of a PUBLIC thread? Or perhaps you would prefer something more private where only people who agree with your chauvinistic mentality and davesworld stupidity lurk?
And why do you want me to go back and read what I have written, are you trying to waste my time as you waist every one elseís? You want to highlight something I posted then I suggest you provide links to that post and donít rely on others to do your work for you.
One of your typical emotional rants. Again.

It's waste, not waist. Getting fat?
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177160
Sep 12, 2013
 
Thin people also have waists, you waster.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
One of your typical emotional rants. Again.
It's waste, not waist. Getting fat?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177161
Sep 12, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
One of your typical emotional rants. Again.
It's waste, not waist. Getting fat?
Nope just a comment that you are using your disturbed mind to interpret as emotion.

Yeh well, as far as Iím concerned (and my spell checker) it spelled correctly so it will do for me. Just because you are an honorary member of the pedantic godbot brigade who will not let his emotion admit that some people have disability is not my problem.

Tell me, is you finger working properly now?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177162
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused about the difference between obedience to men and obedience to a deity.
Either way, it is giving up moral judgment to another. That is immoral.
You are also confused about compassion.
And why would you think that? Compassion is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another and understand their perspective. That is the basis of morality. It isn't everything, but it is the basis. You also have to think for yourself and understand the consequences of your actions. That makes the two central moral rules: think and care.
You have too many morality issues to be a truly objective scientist. You observe and measure by your own yardstick. It isn't calibrated to the greater reality.
And how do you 'calibrate to the greater reality'(whatever that means)? How do you know when you are correctly calibrated?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177163
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could spare 1 minute and 50 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
There are many mistakes in this short video. The first is when it claims that nothing can come from nothing. This is known to be false becaus3e of quantum mechanics: it is actually quite common for particl3es to be formed out of exactly nothing.

The second is the claim that there must have been something before the universe because the universe had a beginning. That is false because time itself began with the universe. Without time, there could be no 'before'.

The third problem is that the video incorrectly describes the first law of thermodynamics. Instead of claiming that energy is eternal, it merely says that the total energy at one time has to be the same as the total energy at any other time. In other words, energy and time are co-existent.

In particular, if time had a beginning, that beginning was the same as the beginning of energy and the universe.

Further, the law of conservation of energy says that the total energy balance *of the universe* is constant. In particular, any energy transfer *into* the universe would be a violation of that law. Your video proposes just such a transfer, so it is in direct contradiction to the very law it claims as support.

Finally, it claims that anyone who does not agree with the failed argument is just being stubborn, instead of actually being interested in the *correct* applications of the known laws of physics. Since it gets so many particulars wrong in ways that directly affect the argument, this is simply rank dishonesty.
While on youtube you may enjoy this one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Church lady was wonderful!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177164
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope just a comment that you are using your disturbed mind to interpret as emotion.
Yeh well, as far as Iím concerned (and my spell checker) it spelled correctly so it will do for me. Just because you are an honorary member of the pedantic godbot brigade who will not let his emotion admit that some people have disability is not my problem.
Tell me, is you finger working properly now?
My damaged fingers do forget what they are attached to. They are still in school and learning physics and obedience training.

I will confess I read that wrong. I was on another computer not in an optimal location. Perhaps it was my clairvoyance that made me read it wrong. I do know you lost your girlish figure, you are that age, and such things can get to a girl. It's a funnymental fact of life. Perhaps that is why you can be such a bitch. Not all your fault.

But look on the bright side, love. As you get older and wealthier you will find young men, gay and straight, and young women, also, that will find you irresistible, and oh so wise. Especially around those spas you will be spending much more time at. Another funnymental fact of life.

A poochy gut and flatter as* is normal, but at least you shouldn't get hairy ears.

:-)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177165
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Either way, it is giving up moral judgment to another. That is immoral.
<quoted text>
And why would you think that? Compassion is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another and understand their perspective. That is the basis of morality. It isn't everything, but it is the basis. You also have to think for yourself and understand the consequences of your actions. That makes the two central moral rules: think and care.
<quoted text>
And how do you 'calibrate to the greater reality'(whatever that means)? How do you know when you are correctly calibrated?
When you know you just think you know and you know you don't "know". You just follow paths that seem right at the time.

Will keep you off atheist forums claiming you know there ain't.:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177166
Sep 12, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
When you know you just think you know and you know you don't "know". You just follow paths that seem right at the time.
Which is a good start. The next level comes when you start to *test* your ideas to see whether they work to predict new events. By repeated testing while attempting to prove your ideas *wrong*, you can gain more confidence that they are *right*. This is an ongoing process and is the basis of the scientific method.
Will keep you off atheist forums claiming you know there ain't.:-)
Most atheists don't claim an *absolute* knowledge. They do claim that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of deities.
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177167
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Testing atheism and come up with the usual emotional dodges, mumbo jumbo, and amusing posts

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177168
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many mistakes in this short video. The first is when it claims that nothing can come from nothing. This is known to be false becaus3e of quantum mechanics: it is actually quite common for particl3es to be formed out of exactly nothing.
The second is the claim that there must have been something before the universe because the universe had a beginning. That is false because time itself began with the universe. Without time, there could be no 'before'.
The third problem is that the video incorrectly describes the first law of thermodynamics. Instead of claiming that energy is eternal, it merely says that the total energy at one time has to be the same as the total energy at any other time. In other words, energy and time are co-existent.
In particular, if time had a beginning, that beginning was the same as the beginning of energy and the universe.
Further, the law of conservation of energy says that the total energy balance *of the universe* is constant. In particular, any energy transfer *into* the universe would be a violation of that law. Your video proposes just such a transfer, so it is in direct contradiction to the very law it claims as support.
Finally, it claims that anyone who does not agree with the failed argument is just being stubborn, instead of actually being interested in the *correct* applications of the known laws of physics. Since it gets so many particulars wrong in ways that directly affect the argument, this is simply rank dishonesty.
<quoted text>
Church lady was wonderful!
An input and an output would appear to give a balance in a closed system. Called a power cord in some places. Check out Ohm's and Kirchoff's Laws.

You have it all in those3 laws. Difference in potentials, mass in motion, resistance, and heat. Aren't your electrons elementary particles? Do you not have to go through them to get to a nucleus? Doesn't the nucleus tend to unwind or decay, or transform charges if those electrons are removed? Sort of like the center of a whirlpool when the pressure is taken off? Can you not move a pound of the strong forces within a nucleus anywhere you want with a strong enough magnetic field, or electrical charge?

Your quantum effects are caused by waves. EM and gravity are the only known forces to carry these across the universe, and gravity is arguable on that.

The expansion of the universe indicates there is still power hooked up. Otherwise your gravity wouldn't let it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177169
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

LCNLin wrote:
Testing atheism and come up with the usual emotional dodges, mumbo jumbo, and amusing posts
One has doubts about your ability to test gravity by standing under a falling anvil.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177170
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is a good start. The next level comes when you start to *test* your ideas to see whether they work to predict new events. By repeated testing while attempting to prove your ideas *wrong*, you can gain more confidence that they are *right*. This is an ongoing process and is the basis of the scientific method.
<quoted text>
Most atheists don't claim an *absolute* knowledge. They do claim that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of deities.
The evidence is just insufficient. There is nothing it to say what did the creating. All it is doing is identifying a methodology and building blocks used in the construction.

It takes faith to believe there wasn't a creator out of the possibilities of how this all began, which is an assertion, and which is not objective, and not scientific.

Criticizing old religious texts because of their age and terminologies is poor research. The same can be said for 20 year old science texts. If the old one was wrong, then so is the new. You meld it all together and take another look.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177171
Sep 12, 2013
 
every game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the ugly behavior of the typical unfriendly atheist.
"Did you know that you just admitted that God exists, albeit with a statement of a lie in doing so, but it is wonderful to see you contradict yourself and all of your unfriendly atheist cohorts."

This from you in a previous post. I responded with evidence, still haven't seen that you're brave enough to engage me. Do we Atheists scare you that much?

I made a claim that the God YOU worship murders little babies and destroys unborn fetuses, you accused me of lying, do you still believe I am lying? If so, I would be more than happy to provide the proof for my accusations against the God YOU worship.

Personally I think you're afraid of Atheists, I can see no other reason why you would avoid engaging me in conversation. Don't be afraid, I won't bite......much!!!! Quit being a Cowardly Christian, step up and defend your God thing, they say he is watching your every move and will be very disappointed if you let accusation like this go unchallenged. I'll wait!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177172
Sep 12, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice quote... who said it?
:)
Not sure Bob, I remember thinking it was a very nice quote and wrote it down. Very true isn't it!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177173
Sep 12, 2013
 
LCNLin wrote:
Testing atheism and come up with the usual emotional dodges, mumbo jumbo, and amusing posts
Says the "one sentence" wonder who refuses to engage in any argument, or meaningful dialog, primarily because the logic, reason, and critical thinking of Atheists scares him.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177174
Sep 12, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't your electrons elementary particles?
Yes.
Do you not have to go through them to get to a nucleus?
A strange question. No, you do not go through an electron. You go through the probability cloud of the electrons. That is similar to going through the orbits of planets as we approach the sun, but not going through the planets themselves. Further, something interact more strongly with electrons than others. Neutrons, for example, don't interact strongly, so they go through the electron cloud easier than, say, protons do.
Doesn't the nucleus tend to unwind or decay, or transform charges if those electrons are removed?
Not usually, no. A stable nucleus won't become unstable because the electrons are removed. Some unstable nuclei will become stable when they are removed (because they decay by electron capture).
Sort of like the center of a whirlpool when the pressure is taken off?
Nope, not at all.
Can you not move a pound of the strong forces within a nucleus anywhere you want with a strong enough magnetic field, or electrical charge?
You can move the protons and neutrons. But that isn't the same as moving the strong forces themselves. As asked, the answer is no, you cannot.
Your quantum effects are caused by waves.
The particles are described by probability waves.
EM and gravity are the only known forces to carry these across the universe, and gravity is arguable on that.
Well, except for the actual particles traveling, like for cosmic rays.
The expansion of the universe indicates there is still power hooked up. Otherwise your gravity wouldn't let it.
Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177175
Sep 12, 2013
 
Did you see that Lincock has claimed to be Irish?

WTFuck?!

All the Irish people I know can write.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>One has doubts about your ability to test gravity by standing under a falling anvil.
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177176
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure Bob, I remember thinking it was a very nice quote and wrote it down. Very true isn't it!!!
similar to the rest of your posts?
You and Bob are a funny team!
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177177
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Are they Christians making fun of Atheism?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min DEM Idiots 1,082,277
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr FLORIDA SWAMPER 26,704
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr The_Box 305,158
Carmelo Anthony, Wes Johnson, Dion Waiters faci... Sun engd 2
herbal cure for HIV aids and cancer contact san... (Jun '13) Jul 26 Towolawi abdullahi 21
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) Jul 24 jessirinneyswift 9
UMES Basketball Forward Ishaq Pitt Named to NAB... Jul 24 Dana McCarty 1
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••