Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177559 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you equate "spontaneous start" or "spontaneous beginnings"
the bottom?
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#177560 Sep 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.
I can't prove the start is at the top?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177562 Sep 17, 2013
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.

1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.

What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.

Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.

2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.

So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?

One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

3) Now lets look at TIME itself.

Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time

Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.

Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.

Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#177564 Sep 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't prove the start is at the top?
The Alrighty Then said:

"And the Bible is evidence of creation"

Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH and Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH the Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH bible Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH was Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH poof Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH of Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH poof Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH so Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH said Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH the Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH pooftard Hahah hah hah HAH hahHAH hahahahahaHhah harde har har ha hA HUH hua ha Ha hahA jah HAH

The bible is proof you can be dumber than dirt.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177565 Sep 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
First of all, the time on the sun (or even in the center of the sun) is noty that different than time on earth. The difference would amount to milliseconds over the course of a year.

Second, time doesn't fly that much faster in empty space. Again the difference is on the order of milliseconds over the course of a year.

Third, the answer to your basic question is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old in the co-moving frame of the overall expansion. In other words, the frame in which the expansion of the universe is uniform in all directions.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact.
Would you care to support this 'fact'?
In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
Yes, but none older than 13.7 billion years.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
Because that is what fits the data we have?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
yes, that is an important part of the data.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
You mean like the data from the background radiation?
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
Since you don't understand what I've already told you, I don't see any reason to answer it yet again. This is not the problem you seem to think it is for science.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177566 Sep 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Time is proof of creation.
Wrong. Time is evidence that creation didn't happen.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
Wrong. The Bible is evidence that some people have active imaginations.

Since: Sep 08

Alamosa, CO

#177567 Sep 17, 2013
http://scitechdaily.com/nasas-magnetospheric-...

http://scitechdaily.com/data-suggests-the-sun...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/sun...

There was an article yesterday where NASA stitched together photos from Sept 8 that showed NO hurricanes, cyclones, or large storm systems on any of the oceans. A very unusual event.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#177568 Sep 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
That is case by case. A combination of your soul and your inherited DNA.
Your proof of god's existence is the soul - which also can't be proven to exist?

And, again, inherited DNA is proof of evolution rather than god.

You're really not making very much sense.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#177569 Sep 17, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
It has come to my attention that Robert Stevens is a basic moron. There is no question or doubt about it.
Correct.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177570 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Science, perhaps nature, a spontaneous start with many spontaneous beginnings, you can't prove it that is the bottom line
basic coward with no proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177571 Sep 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
When in doubt, the creationist trolls simply spam their cult rubbish.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177572 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not matter how you put it you believe it and you can't prove it.
There's this thing called science that proves we evolved and basic logic proves you have a cult associated mental illness.

You suffer from denialism - you actually know that you;re lying about god to yourself, but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

To deal with it you harass atheists online.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177573 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>I say the same thing about your respect for the definition of the vocabulary involved. If you want to claim you have scientifically proven fact. The word prove is there. Until you do that you have a belief. By sharing your belief and labeling it with in a group, and a very large group indeed you are partaking in spreading your beliefs. If you are disturbed by Atheism being a religion, there are people you could talk to, to change that. I am not one of them. Would you want me to lie to you, because what I am posting is he truth. gain you vs Richard Dawkins on the topic of atheism. I am sorry, I am taking his word, on atheism requiring faith.
Again...the word faith is not a religious word... There are two definitions... One which is secular and one is a religious.

faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination,(religious) persuasion,(religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More
a system of religious belief.
plural noun: faiths
"the Christian faith"
a strongly held belief or theory.
"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"
Origin

More
Middle English: from Old French feid , from Latin fides .

Atheism is not a religion. It does not coincide with the definition at all. This is not opinion this is fact. You arguing the subject makes it no less fact.

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun
1.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

If you trust something then you have faith in it. However, remember the secular definition of faith. Richard Dawkins is a respected atheist and you are taking his words and twisting them just like you would anyone else's and that's expected, but do not expect me to give you any merit at all.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#177574 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all! Education systems prove this every day. A person could be taught Spanish, while another can't. While that person whom can't could do much better at math. No offence but, how do I know the person I told this to, has the ability to comprehend a book on thought. In this case, I don't think the person I am responding to has a soul, if I am right and pushed the person the wrong way. It just wouldn't go well.
It was a ridiculous and contradictory statement.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#177575 Sep 18, 2013
Where's your proof? "Past" Uranus?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Science and the Big Bang theory has a problem. And it's about Time science fess up to their inability to over come this obstacle leaving creation as the only viable solution.
1) science dates the universe at 13.7 billion years old.
What time are they using? Time on earth is vastly different then Time on The Sun. Gravity effects time, what of time at the center of our universe?
The GIANT black hole there should have time crawling right along. Or maybe they are using time out in dead space where time really flys.
Ok so some where we believe we have the universe age set at 13.7 billion years.
2) This does bring up another issues. Why is the universe 13.7 billion years old and we see stars 14.8 billion light years away? Weird fact. In fact the further out the Hubble telescope looks it ALWAYS come back with older stars.
So why does science insists on 13.7 billion years as the age of the universe?
One answer....
The "Big Bang" radiation only works with this age.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
3) Now lets look at TIME itself.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can happen without time
Nothing can change without time
Time can't pop into existence without time! This is a problem for science and it's Big Bang theory. Science must get past the Time paradox. All of science relies on this.
Science at this point will play the "that's not part of the Big Bang theory" card.
Our answer is so what? Without time there could not be a Big Bang.
Time is proof of creation.
And the Bible is evidence of creation.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177576 Sep 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? It couldn't be more true. Who did primitive man attribute Thunder and lightning to? Did they know about how Lightning was caused and how thunder was a result of the effects of lighting on the atmosphere? What was the 18TH century belief as to the cause of illness, and the death caused by these diseases. Did they know anything about germ theory? What did our ancestors attribute natural disaster to? Did they know anything about plate tectonics as the cause for earthquakes and tsunamis? What about volcanos? Why did early Hawaiian's throw virgin into the active volcanos if not to please the volcano God Pele.
For every natural disaster, for every unexplained event, for every plague or sickness, God or God's where believed to be the cause.
Has not science taught us what causes earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, thunder and lighting? Has not science revealed the cause of most illnesses?
God, demons, Satan, evil spirits, all where blamed for the unexplained, until science came along and revealed the REAL causes.
I dare you to came back and refute any of this, I double dare you. You say this is false, step up to the plate skippy and show me where any of this is false. I don't think you have the balls!!!!!!!

Robert Stevens quote>

It's not a question of me having Balls, I believe you when you say "I have no soul." I do believe you do know yourself as do I. Know myself, and I do have a soul.

Since you have completely changed the subject and refuse to address my post above, I'll take it that you no longer consider it false as you did in a previous post. You're either a complete coward, or simply realize I am right about your God becoming an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. So thanks for agreeing with me.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177577 Sep 18, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When in doubt, the creationist trolls simply spam their cult rubbish.
Yep. Tzarina is on a spamfest in a couple of groups. He has been posting the same cr*p repeatedly for quite a while, even after being soundly refuted. The posts about the Big Bang and the 'edge' of space show a *complete* lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the BB viewpoint. The others are just as bad.

Once again, there was no 'edge' to the BB expansion. The expansion occurs throughout space.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177578 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a question of me having Balls, I believe you when you say "I have no soul." I do believe you do know yourself as do I. Know myself, and I do have a soul.
I'm sure you do believe you have this "soul" thing. Can you define exactly what a "soul" is? If you are so sure you have one then it should be no problem for you to define what it is. Is it simply a feeling that you have? How do you know that you have one and other do not? What methodology do you use to determine if someone has a "soul" or not?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#177579 Sep 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you I didn't watch it all but the Earth and humanity is just too many miracles. I'd go into details but you just see things as you do.
So, IOW, there's just too much you don't understand and don't have any desire to learn about.

That's the religious way.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#177580 Sep 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>What methodology do you use to determine if someone has a "soul" or not?
Gingers apparently dont have souls :) according to Eric Cartman. Only joking to any gingers out there.

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) 7 min Cheech the Conser... 1,508,085
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr YeahPhart 32,814
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 hr silly rabbit 313,638
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
NCAA Basketball Tournament Feb 27 needhelp01 1
More from around the web