Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243292 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#179523 Oct 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
How could anyone that post under a hidden location call someone a coward. I doubt very much that is your real name. You have to be without a soul.
My location is not hidden if you care avert you’re your eyes from your deliberately ignorant blindness you would see that my avatar tells you Leyland (or close enough). I live literally just outside Leyland, Leyland is the closest town.

And what you doubt is irrelevant. Who actually cares what you doubt, we know you are a guess merchant and liar anyway.

When you finally grow a set of balls and admit that you repeated a godbot lie for no other reasons than your own deliberate ignorance and belief that you would earn extra god points (how pathetic) that coward brand may even begin to dissipate.

You are too cowardly to apologise for your abuse of the many atheists who gave there lives so that you could lie about them because you don’t actually see you LIE as wrong, as immoral. That is the mark of true christian fundamentalism even if you claim not to be a christian

Of course I am without a mythical soul, that black magic is your belief however I consider myself to be far more moral than you could ever be, for example unlike you, I would never lie. And if you blame lying for your god on a soul that is just pathetic.

Long live your god crutch, you will need it

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179524 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope you are again confused, what you are should be claiming is the BB caused energy to expand which generated heat
At the BB stage of the universe atoms did not exist so you atom analogy is irrelevant.
What gives you the impression that a singularity it hot? There is no evidence, nor given current technology can there any evidence either way. So you are guessing.
There may be a circular logic you your interpretation of the theory but not to cosmological theories.
And again you are guessing about my education because you are clueless of my education, This is a very bad habit you have, it may if course consolidate your davesworld dream but actually bares no resemblance to reality
You have asked this before and I have responded by stating that you are requesting the contents of a 3 year university course on topix. Such godbot simplistic (mis)understanding explains your confusion.
So define which energy? There are several sorts (14 that I know of) and sources (millions, billions, trillions, who knows), this appears to be where you fall down, its a concept that you are incapable of understanding.
?

Total evasion. Reflecting total lack of understanding of what you claim to know.

Just like a woman.

Which of those 14 you know of is the E in your favorite formula?

As I asked, define energy.

The singularity that expanded is always represented as being extremely hot and dense. That is a math model used to "explain" the distribution of energy throughout the ubiverse. If NASA comes back online after the shutdown, check their description.

Basically, according to modern physics, a creation event occured very, very suddenly. A magic poof. You have posted references to it repeatedly.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#179525 Oct 10, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You bring up a good point. Christianity has grown in Africa since the 1900‘s. Lumping in Christians in the same category as Muslims works for Atheist. In reality it’s like trying to mix oil and water.
Africa today has 54 countries. Most of the continent remains unstable due to terrorism by radical extremist particularly of the Muslim Faith. We have had our share of radical terrorism right here in the United States. But Africa is a hot bed of terrorism which seems to be growing because governments aren’t able to keep them in check.
Rest assure that Atheist are no safer in these countries than visiting Christian Missionaries. The only difference is they may use a dull knife cutting the head off an Atheist versus using a sharp one on a Christian.
But to the question Bob asked. God is not a micro-manager. He allows mankind to govern himself and that goes all the way from major governments to each of us individuals. So why does God allow this to happen and that to happen?
If you ever get the chance to work for a micro manager on your job you should at least one time. Micro managers are terribly inefficient and end up costing companies in the bottom line.
Why are you sick a sick minded moron? You dream of beheading atheist with a dull knife, that is so sad, it’s sick and is a definite indictor of your intolerance taught to you by the babble. Tell me are those nails in your wrist and ankles a real christian joy?

Wrong, your god, one of over 3700 claimed gods does not exist, has never existed. However if you want to believe in the godmagic of bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves because it satisfies your blood lust then that’s fine.

I have more business acumen than to employ a micro manager however since when did world governance come under the heading of micromanagement. Oh I get it, you are attempting to make a metaphorical link between the real world and your faith and failing

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#179527 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
?
Total evasion. Reflecting total lack of understanding of what you claim to know.
Just like a woman.
Which of those 14 you know of is the E in your favorite formula?
As I asked, define energy.
The singularity that expanded is always represented as being extremely hot and dense. That is a math model used to "explain" the distribution of energy throughout the ubiverse. If NASA comes back online after the shutdown, check their description.
Basically, according to modern physics, a creation event occured very, very suddenly. A magic poof. You have posted references to it repeatedly.
Say what, are you saying that there is only one form of energy?

Are you saying it can be explained in a topix post?

Wow, how limited your intellect… And then to vomit a sexist, even misogynistic comment to hide behind your ignorance is really quite pathetic.

Here, educate yourself
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_i...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/proper...
Actually this simple 101 explanation goes on for several pages, just hit the “Next Section” link at the bottom of the page

Nope, consider the word “expanded” your wording here and the key to your error/misunderstanding - whatever. Expanded, therefore not a singularity. The math of Param Singh do not need or use heat and that is the ONLY math that can be used to describe a singularity. And the mathematical model of the universe is relevant from after 10^-34th of a second after the event, sure a tiny fraction of a second after the point of singularity but certainly not at the point of singularity.

As I have said before - now and then - are two different concepts, unfortunately you do not even seem to comprehend there is a difference. Here try spending a few hours reading the research at http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ . The worlds leading authority on everything BB, all research areas are relevant

Yes, well done, perhaps you are capable of educating yourself, pretty soon you may even comprehend that no heat was required to trigger the BB

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179529 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what, are you saying that there is only one form of energy?
Are you saying it can be explained in a topix post?
Wow, how limited your intellect… And then to vomit a sexist, even misogynistic comment to hide behind your ignorance is really quite pathetic.
Here, educate yourself
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_i...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/proper...
Actually this simple 101 explanation goes on for several pages, just hit the “Next Section” link at the bottom of the page
Nope, consider the word “expanded” your wording here and the key to your error/misunderstanding - whatever. Expanded, therefore not a singularity. The math of Param Singh do not need or use heat and that is the ONLY math that can be used to describe a singularity. And the mathematical model of the universe is relevant from after 10^-34th of a second after the event, sure a tiny fraction of a second after the point of singularity but certainly not at the point of singularity.
As I have said before - now and then - are two different concepts, unfortunately you do not even seem to comprehend there is a difference. Here try spending a few hours reading the research at http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ . The worlds leading authority on everything BB, all research areas are relevant
Yes, well done, perhaps you are capable of educating yourself, pretty soon you may even comprehend that no heat was required to trigger the BB
You are so FOS.

Your "energy" is your God, and you can't explain or describe it.

Hiding behind complexity, not knowing what you know, just to argue. Just like a woman.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179530 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what, are you saying that there is only one form of energy?
Are you saying it can be explained in a topix post?
Wow, how limited your intellect… And then to vomit a sexist, even misogynistic comment to hide behind your ignorance is really quite pathetic.
Here, educate yourself
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_i...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_...
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/proper...
Actually this simple 101 explanation goes on for several pages, just hit the “Next Section” link at the bottom of the page
Nope, consider the word “expanded” your wording here and the key to your error/misunderstanding - whatever. Expanded, therefore not a singularity. The math of Param Singh do not need or use heat and that is the ONLY math that can be used to describe a singularity. And the mathematical model of the universe is relevant from after 10^-34th of a second after the event, sure a tiny fraction of a second after the point of singularity but certainly not at the point of singularity.
As I have said before - now and then - are two different concepts, unfortunately you do not even seem to comprehend there is a difference. Here try spending a few hours reading the research at http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ . The worlds leading authority on everything BB, all research areas are relevant
Yes, well done, perhaps you are capable of educating yourself, pretty soon you may even comprehend that no heat was required to trigger the BB
Oh, forgot.

"At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

You will find that same description everywhere.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#179532 Oct 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
One more thing. Let's get back to what is this message tread "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" When you ask me for prove you are going off topic. The truth is you can not prove that the universe had no creator. You can not prove mankind had no creator. You have faith in your beliefs not fact, and when I say you can't prove it. it is not you personally. With the knowledge mankind no has, it can't be proven. You can't even prove how The universe started. Sure there was a big bang, but was the the first. Was there energy before time? If you had these answers and proven, it would be more valuable than the winning mega ball ticket. Ok continue now, let's jump off topic again.
You cannot prove anything to a person not willing and able to be convinced by a proof. It is necessary that you be able to understand the proof, which is why I could not prove the Pythagorean theorem to toddler, and that you be willing to be convinced by compelling evidence supported by a compelling argument, which is why Christians reject proofs of their god's nonexistence.

For example, it's easy to demonstrate to an open mind that no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists to watch over us and protect us. The human condition rules out that possibility. If there are gods, they either don't know us, can't help us, or don't care enough to do so. Only people committed to believing otherwise reject such an argument.

Want more? Of course you don't. But here it is anyway:

Perfection doesn't allow for change, since either the before or after state would have been less than perfect. You cant change the shape of a perfectly straight line or perfect circle without making it imperfect. Likewise, a perfect god couldn't create anything or even think anything without losing perfection.

Here's more evidence of your god's nonexistence:

If your god existed, it wouldn't tolerate blasphemy, its church wouldn't be withering away, it couldn't have been expelled from grade schools, its intelligent designs would be unmistakeable, the bible's creation myth wouldn't have been so incorrect, and there would be only one religion, which wouldn't even be recognized as religion - just more science.

Don't you think that it's a little insincere for faith based thinkers to argue about proof since evidence and proof are of little interest to them? They don't require it of the things they believe, and when the evidence contradicts those faith based beliefs, they ignore it. What else do we have to offer to prove anything apart from evidence and reason to which the closed mind is as impervious as Superman is to bullets? How can even that which is provable be proven to such a mind?

"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.”- Mike Huben

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#179533 Oct 10, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
He really should seek help for why he hates believers. He'd suggest I hate atheist. Not at all.
Is this one of your gifts or fruits of the spirit - the ability to discern what motivates people that you suggest are unable to do the same regarding your motivations?
Robert Stevens wrote:
The North American atheist are clowns, because they are so political, they have became very much like the groups they are against. I really don't think they should be called atheist.
Why do you hate atheists?

[I think that I must just have gotten the gift myself.]

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#179534 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, forgot.
"At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
You will find that same description everywhere.

Yeah but what was it before that instant?
Notice your description starts....

At this time.........

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#179535 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, forgot.
"At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
You will find that same description everywhere.
Keep reading to where it say's.

The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation.

So right preceding the instant of hot inflation and expansion.
Is still under investigation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#179536 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
As I asked, define energy.
The quantity that is conserved because the laws of nature are independent of time. Noether's theorem is relevant here.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179537 Oct 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah but what was it before that instant?
Notice your description starts....
At this time.........
Something got it all heated up.

A single source has been identified by science.

There is a bipolarity to the universe.

Examine our technologies using bipolarity coupled with design to accomplish desired ends. From flashlight batteries creating light to nuclear using heat to produce electricity. Heat is bipolar, too.

We are not in a position to second guess the ultimate intents of this construction, or of just what constructed it. All you can do is follow your programming and conscience. Second guessing just confuses things. Take your licks from the experience and love them. What happens next is beyond your control.

You are a machine, my man. Shine brightly. Or the best you can.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179538 Oct 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The quantity that is conserved because the laws of nature are independent of time. Noether's theorem is relevant here.
Oh, that is one hell of an explanation and description. Just really brings the whole thing into objective and definitive perspective. Thanks, it must have taken many years of schooling to to be so erudite.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179539 Oct 10, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/20...

Amazing!!

Topix atheists are making their move. Their enlightenment is bearing fruit. They are going to take over the world!
Imhotep

Sevierville, TN

#179540 Oct 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this one of your gifts or fruits of the spirit - the ability to discern what motivates people that you suggest are unable to do the same regarding your motivations?
<quoted text>
Why do you hate atheists?
[I think that I must just have gotten the gift myself.]
I have 2 weeks in Appalachia as suspected.
Ironic, isn't it?
I move abroad, only to find my "value", is to still work here!
Apparently our clients in Appalachia are reticent to deal w/foreigners.
It is eye candy here, Beautiful scenery.

Biblical rant recant... 10 CMD

The first 4 commandments are all cut from the same piece of cloth.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make thee any graven images or bow down to them, and if you do I'll get you and your kids and their descendants.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.

In essence, the first four commandments all scream that "the lord thy god" has an uneasy vanity, and like most dictators, must resort to threats, rather than intellectual persuasion, to promote a point of view. If there were an omnipotent god, can you imagine him or her being concerned if some poor little insignificant creature puttered around and made a graven image? Do you think that any god, possessing the modicum of good will you could expect to find in any neighbor, would want to punish children even "unto the third and fourth generation" because their fathers would not bow down? How can anyone not perceive the pettiness, bluster, bombast and psychotic insecurity behind the first four commandments? We are supposed to respect this!

"Honor thy father and thy mother" is the fifth commandment, and it is, of course, an extension of the authoritarian rationale behind the first four. Honor cannot be automatically bestowed by an honest intellect.

Intellectually honest people can honor only those who, in their opinion, warrant their honor. The biologic fact of fatherhood and motherhood does not in and of itself warrant honor. Until very recently parenthood was not a matter of choice.

It still is a mandatory, not optional, happening for many of the world's people. Why should any child be commanded to honor, without further basis, parents who became parents by accident--who didn't even plan to have a child? All of us know children who have been abused, beaten or neglected by their parents. What is the basis for honor there? How does the daughter honor a father who sexually molests her? Honor those who merit your honor would be a much more appropriate teaching, and if that includes your parents, great! It has been suggested that "Honor your children" would be a useful commandment.

Commandments six through nine--thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness obviously have merit, but even they need extensive revision. To kill in self-defense is regrettable, but it is certainly morally defensible, eminently sensible conduct.. So is the administration of a shot or medication that will end life for the terminally ill patient who wishes to die.

The tenth commandment, which riles the feminist blood, says: "Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's." In addition to rating a wife with an ox and an ass, the bible loftily overlooks the woman who might desire her neighbor's husband. Whether one accepts the apologist's definition of covet or the more popular meaning, the tenth commandment lacks real importance.

Little in Christianity is original. Most of it is borrowed, just as the celebration of Christmas was borrowed from Roman and earlier pagan times. When the "lord" supposedly wrote his commandments on two tablets of stone and delivered them to Moses (Deut. 5:22), he was only aping Bacchus, Zoroaster and Minos.



“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#179541 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Something got it all heated up.
A single source has been identified by science.
There is a bipolarity to the universe.
Examine our technologies using bipolarity coupled with design to accomplish desired ends. From flashlight batteries creating light to nuclear using heat to produce electricity. Heat is bipolar, too.
We are not in a position to second guess the ultimate intents of this construction, or of just what constructed it. All you can do is follow your programming and conscience. Second guessing just confuses things. Take your licks from the experience and love them. What happens next is beyond your control.
You are a machine, my man. Shine brightly. Or the best you can.
So you are bipolar , ok. lol

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179542 Oct 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> So you are bipolar , ok. lol
:-)

We all are. Stick a microammeter's probes to your tongue and your skin.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#179543 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
?
Total evasion. Reflecting total lack of understanding of what you claim to know.
Just like a woman.
Which of those 14 you know of is the E in your favorite formula?
As I asked, define energy.
The singularity that expanded is always represented as being extremely hot and dense. That is a math model used to "explain" the distribution of energy throughout the ubiverse. If NASA comes back online after the shutdown, check their description.
Basically, according to modern physics, a creation event occured very, very suddenly. A magic poof. You have posted references to it repeatedly.
Concentrate on the god you're here to lie to us about and see if you can present valid evidence.

You should concentrate on this because sayi anything else until you've proven your god makes you look like an idiot here...but then again that is all creationist liars like yourself....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#179544 Oct 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
We all are. Stick a microammeter's probes to your tongue and your skin.
Creationist are noted for their inability to answer straight questions like:

Where the f*ck is proof of he god you keep lying about?

Why do you lie about atheists?

Why do you try to lie and hide e fact that hitler was catholic?

All straight questions that creationist run away from because they are lying cowards at the end of the day...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#179545 Oct 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationist are noted for their inability to answer straight questions like:
Where the f*ck is proof of he god you keep lying about?
Why do you lie about atheists?
Why do you try to lie and hide e fact that hitler was catholic?
All straight questions that creationist run away from because they are lying cowards at the end of the day...
Do you remember those old 45 rpm record players that when you left the hold down arm up and to the side it would play the saem record over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over>>>>>> >>>?

I think you are a clone of one of them, and with the most obnoxious song of all time playing.

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 TheIndependentMaj... 1,251,210
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 min Earthling-1 6,245
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... 4 hr gamule 1,643
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) Thu Fartman 24
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 30 KeS 201,820
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jun 29 tom wingo 29,826
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... Jun 28 tom wingo 5
More from around the web