Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255574 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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#180302 Oct 17, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
And by "canned answer, recycled material" you mean "actual quotes from the bible"
How dare people use actual bible quotes!
Christians do not believe the Bible.
They only believe what they are told the Bible says.
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180303 Oct 17, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
And by "canned answer, recycled material" you mean "actual quotes from the bible"
How dare people use actual bible quotes!
The Bible is presented as the ultimate guide to moral principles, high standards and ethical living.

The so-called History Channel is now featuring shows about David and Goliath and Noah's Ark, and it presents these biblical yarns as history.

Even the Discovery Channel is bending to the pressure.

So, as long as society is flinging the Bible at us, and our politicians are quoting from it relentlessly, and Christians smugly and conspicuously carry the book with them everywhere, and Televangelists wave it dramatically, declaring it to be the "world's best-selling book for a reason,"

It may be the world's best seller, but not one in a thousand knows what's really in it.

The Bible is nothing to be proud of, which makes a Christian or Jewish defense of it all the more ironic.

Imagine a 100-page book of photos. 50 of them are hard core pornography, including bestiality, S & M, and child pornography. The other 50 pages are exquisite photos of sunsets, hummingbirds, waterfalls and daffodils.

This is the Pearl-In-The-Dung Syndrome. And the Bible suffers from it. If I must plow through piles of dung to uncover a pearl here and there, I refuse to do it.
Imhotep

Charlotte, NC

#180304 Oct 17, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians do not believe the Bible.
They only believe what they are told the Bible says.
Indeed. ;)

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough." ~Aldous Huxley
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#180305 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe as you wish my good Doctor. I still love you in my heart.
I don't believe it for a second, but this is what your "good book" claims. So apparently you DO believe it. I would love to know what could possibly make anyone worship a child murdering deity, a deity who according to your own holy book has murdered millions of his most prized creations. I still find such devotion to such evil as shocking!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#180306 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I might add I have touched the moon, or a small portion of it at NASA.
Some things are not proven by science at least not yet.
How does one prove they are in love?
Can science prove love?
Love is not something that is tangible is it?
Love is beyond science my friend.
Yet many of us feel love for someone else or our children. It’s something in the inner being of our heart. The same goes with God.
LOVE is a part of reality. LOVE is a human emotion and can be detected by science just as any other emotion.

Of course LOVE is tangible, you can see how love manifests itself between parents and children, between people, even between people and animals, dogs and cats especially. A parent sacrificing their lives to save their child is a tangible evidence of LOVE.

I repeat, science is the ONLY way in determining whether or not something is true. Do you know of another methodology is making that determination?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#180307 Oct 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a bit scattere3d their, lovey.
May I point out you are the one that refers to the Big Bang as the origin and no need for a deity?
I understand science, and I have posted links to the hot singularity at least 3 or 4 times. If and when NASA comes back online after the shutdown you can check their saying the same thing.
Sweetheart, the stuff I have been proposing is straight from mainstream science, just a different perspective. As I have said a few times, and now again, you don't understand what you "know". You learned the words, not what they represent. That wiouldn;t be bad, but then you get on here and bitch at anyone remotely theistic. You have an emotional issue with religion, particularly Christianity, NOT an intellectual and rational one.
Because I refer to the BB as the origin is simply a matter of agreement with the norm, with something that the average joe can relate to, something they have heard of and something that average fundy rants about. It was something universally big and it was a colossal bang (the echoes can still be heard). However there is no definition of what the BB actually was, what created it etc and of course we have seen how the mere mention of different theory sends you into scatty, illogical and ignorant denial. You appear so be saying because we do not know what it was then it must have been a singularity, in exactly the same way as you say we don’t know so goddidit by magic.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/what-...

Because you have posted links does not make it so. The very nature of a singularity means that all one can do is theorise.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/quant...

What you have been proposing is from old science. Note that I know what I know, unfortunately what you believe you know tends to be confused and fragmented bits of science that make sense to you and that you seem to think is the whole.

Honey the reason I “bitch”(your word) at theism is a direct result of the mockery, abuse, sexism and personality insults that theist have poured on me – including you. You don’t like payback then there is a simple answer, don’t invite it.

I find it amusing that godbots can lie and cheat and abuse and mock to their hearts content but any (and I mean ANY) reciprocation causes an outbreak of whinging self pity.

Actually I have an intellectual problem with some christians in that I have zero tolerance for deliberate ignorance. This in no way means I have a problem with christianity, in exactly the same way as many christian don’t have a problem with my beliefs. However just like a christian (or believer in any other thought experiment), I will defend my beliefs as best I can based on what I know of the there arguments, usually based on the O and NT. If you see using facts to dispel the myth that is christianity then fine, your view is, after all your view.

Because you do not like the fact that others should be given the same privileges of freedom as you do is not my problem

Freedom of expression under you rules is not freedom but dictatorship.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#180308 Oct 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I said hat and you said bat. I say car and you say bar.
I said bold and you say sold.
"Houston we have a problem."
Wrong, bat bar and sold were not in my statement – so you lie, I win…

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180309 Oct 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
If he wasn't a god - that is, if he didn't do miracles or rise from the dead - then he was just another nice guy who didn't say or do anything remarkable.

What do you think makes Jesus a better man than say my neighbor, who is also a nice guy that would also likely tell you that the Golden Rule is a good rule to live by?

Did Jesus say anything worthwhile that was original?

You could have built the same religion around billions of similar nice guys in history including my neighbor, especially if you could control the stories told about them.
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Your questions just tell me you have issues.
Your evasive answer tells me that you have nothing more substantial than your faith to offer us regarding these very valid questions:

IANS worte: "What do you think makes Jesus a better man than say my neighbor, who is also a nice guy that would also likely tell you that the Golden Rule is a good rule to live by?"

Robert Steven replied: < crickets chirping >

IANS worte: "Did Jesus say anything worthwhile that was original?"

Robert Steven replied: < pin dropping >

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180310 Oct 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>LOVE is a part of reality. LOVE is a human emotion and can be detected by science just as any other emotion.
Of course LOVE is tangible, you can see how love manifests itself between parents and children, between people, even between people and animals, dogs and cats especially. A parent sacrificing their lives to save their child is a tangible evidence of LOVE.
I repeat, science is the ONLY way in determining whether or not something is true. Do you know of another methodology is making that determination?
You use the term science so loosely. There is something to be said for examining some things, but that is in the strictly physical realm. Like component parts of a car or plant or living creature. You can see how something was put together. If you are really lucky you can directly observe for what purpose such was, and even where the parts came from.

However...

In regards to our existence you aren't going to be that lucky. Our history is a trash heap we have been picking through. There is a lot missed, and a lot of focus on misleading found items. And then, of course, you have the intangible elements of our existence and how it came to be. Lost many years ago and still lost.

On an existential basis, the proof of the pudding is what survives to tell the stories.

As far as mankind and his civilizations go, religious ones have survived the ages, usually evolving. Atheism has died with every generation.

Religion has spawned atheists forever. Atheists are always a reaction to the status quo. There is not one civilization that started out "atheist". And their social movements are always shortlived.

Is that true or not?

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180311 Oct 17, 2013
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/10/...

Interesting. Info creates the material. Think I have posted similar some time ago, and something countless others have also thought likely.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180312 Oct 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I refer to the BB as the origin is simply a matter of agreement with the norm, with something that the average joe can relate to, something they have heard of and something that average fundy rants about. It was something universally big and it was a colossal bang (the echoes can still be heard). However there is no definition of what the BB actually was, what created it etc and of course we have seen how the mere mention of different theory sends you into scatty, illogical and ignorant denial. You appear so be saying because we do not know what it was then it must have been a singularity, in exactly the same way as you say we don’t know so goddidit by magic.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/what-...
Because you have posted links does not make it so. The very nature of a singularity means that all one can do is theorise.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/quant...
What you have been proposing is from old science. Note that I know what I know, unfortunately what you believe you know tends to be confused and fragmented bits of science that make sense to you and that you seem to think is the whole.
Honey the reason I “bitch”(your word) at theism is a direct result of the mockery, abuse, sexism and personality insults that theist have poured on me – including you. You don’t like payback then there is a simple answer, don’t invite it.
I find it amusing that godbots can lie and cheat and abuse and mock to their hearts content but any (and I mean ANY) reciprocation causes an outbreak of whinging self pity.
Actually I have an intellectual problem with some christians in that I have zero tolerance for deliberate ignorance. This in no way means I have a problem with christianity, in exactly the same way as many christian don’t have a problem with my beliefs. However just like a christian (or believer in any other thought experiment), I will defend my beliefs as best I can based on what I know of the there arguments, usually based on the O and NT. If you see using facts to dispel the myth that is christianity then fine, your view is, after all your view.
Because you do not like the fact that others should be given the same privileges of freedom as you do is not my problem
Freedom of expression under you rules is not freedom but dictatorship.
Sweetness, you are horribly confused.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#180313 Oct 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You use the term science so loosely. There is something to be said for examining some things, but that is in the strictly physical realm. Like component parts of a car or plant or living creature. You can see how something was put together. If you are really lucky you can directly observe for what purpose such was, and even where the parts came from.
However...
In regards to our existence you aren't going to be that lucky. Our history is a trash heap we have been picking through. There is a lot missed, and a lot of focus on misleading found items. And then, of course, you have the intangible elements of our existence and how it came to be. Lost many years ago and still lost.
On an existential basis, the proof of the pudding is what survives to tell the stories.
As far as mankind and his civilizations go, religious ones have survived the ages, usually evolving. Atheism has died with every generation.
Religion has spawned atheists forever. Atheists are always a reaction to the status quo. There is not one civilization that started out "atheist". And their social movements are always shortlived.
Is that true or not?
Sorry, I refuse to have conversations with the mentally impaired!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#180314 Oct 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Merry Christmas to you and family if I do not get back prior to that time.
Gracias igualmente.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180315 Oct 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I refuse to have conversations with the mentally impaired!!
I can understand your reluctance to do so. You would have to kick your mind into a higher gear.

Have you tried those energy drinks for short time efforts? Of course it would hurt, but no pain, no gain.

Hey, I ran across this yesterday. You would have been in that MA group. Luckily I had mine in Florida.

http://www.viewzone.com/sv40x.html

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#180316 Oct 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You use the term science so loosely. There is something to be said for examining some things, but that is in the strictly physical realm. Like component parts of a car or plant or living creature. You can see how something was put together. If you are really lucky you can directly observe for what purpose such was, and even where the parts came from.
However...
In regards to our existence you aren't going to be that lucky. Our history is a trash heap we have been picking through. There is a lot missed, and a lot of focus on misleading found items. And then, of course, you have the intangible elements of our existence and how it came to be. Lost many years ago and still lost.
On an existential basis, the proof of the pudding is what survives to tell the stories.
As far as mankind and his civilizations go, religious ones have survived the ages, usually evolving. Atheism has died with every generation.
Religion has spawned atheists forever. Atheists are always a reaction to the status quo. There is not one civilization that started out "atheist". And their social movements are always shortlived.
Is that true or not?
Its astonishing to atheists how Creationists like you can stand by a story invented at a time when most of the world was malnourished, illiterate and diseased?

The world kept slaves at the time, women had no rights and nobody understood where lightening came from.

To elevate this body of ignorance to anything more than a cute story is to be will fully ignorant & totally dishonest.

You would never hope to defend this rubbish with someone face to face because they would never be able to keep a straight face while hearing your outrageous religious lies.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180317 Oct 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I refer to the BB as the origin is simply a matter of agreement with the norm, with something that the average joe can relate to, something they have heard of and something that average fundy rants about. It was something universally big and it was a colossal bang (the echoes can still be heard). However there is no definition of what the BB actually was, what created it etc and of course we have seen how the mere mention of different theory sends you into scatty, illogical and ignorant denial. You appear so be saying because we do not know what it was then it must have been a singularity, in exactly the same way as you say we don’t know so goddidit by magic.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/what-...
Because you have posted links does not make it so. The very nature of a singularity means that all one can do is theorise.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/quant...
What you have been proposing is from old science. Note that I know what I know, unfortunately what you believe you know tends to be confused and fragmented bits of science that make sense to you and that you seem to think is the whole.
Honey the reason I “bitch”(your word) at theism is a direct result of the mockery, abuse, sexism and personality insults that theist have poured on me – including you. You don’t like payback then there is a simple answer, don’t invite it.
I find it amusing that godbots can lie and cheat and abuse and mock to their hearts content but any (and I mean ANY) reciprocation causes an outbreak of whinging self pity.
Oh, my dearest lovey, NASA is noe back on line. An excerpt for your edification, or is that education?

"According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this "recombination" occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today."

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-a...

A seed, sweetie pie. Expanded and then settled down to grow according to a pre-established pattern.

Look up seed imbibtion. There is a temperature increase to start the process.

BTW, neutral matter is a tiny portion of the total matter. Plasma is about 99%. It is the stuff that does the forming, and is quite sensitive to EM.

Now, pick up your cellphone and call someone, triggering a series of events over distance requiring EM to initiate and accomplish such through pre-arranged matter to channel it, and through random movement of matter in the atmosphere. Perhaps the person, or device, on the other end will do what you want. Maybe not.

Sorry, I had to cut some of your rant to make this response.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#180318 Oct 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, my dearest lovey, NASA is noe back on line. An excerpt for your edification, or is that education?
"According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this "recombination" occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today."
http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-a...
A seed, sweetie pie. Expanded and then settled down to grow according to a pre-established pattern.
Look up seed imbibtion. There is a temperature increase to start the process.
BTW, neutral matter is a tiny portion of the total matter. Plasma is about 99%. It is the stuff that does the forming, and is quite sensitive to EM.
Now, pick up your cellphone and call someone, triggering a series of events over distance requiring EM to initiate and accomplish such through pre-arranged matter to channel it, and through random movement of matter in the atmosphere. Perhaps the person, or device, on the other end will do what you want. Maybe not.
Sorry, I had to cut some of your rant to make this response.
Your failing because you're attempting to criticise science. The same science that guts your witless cult every day of the week.

Science is not wrong, its evidence based. Your mental illness prevents you from accepting science, without really understanding that it underpins our understanding of the entire universe.

You cannot critcise science, you may only present evidence for god.

But you won't because science sh*ts on it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#180319 Oct 17, 2013
Creationists like Dave are fearful of science because it exposes what they already know about their cult - its a shameless lie and there's no god.

This realisation scares a lot of cowardly creationists who grew up brainwashed to believe in this myth.

Its sad that they infected people argue back against science - the very thing that keeps them fed, heated and comfortable in today's age.

Maybe religious liars like Dave are just rebelling against what they cannot control - the REAL god of the earth - the science that is behind everything that keeps them comfortable and alive.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180320 Oct 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Its astonishing to atheists how Creationists like you can stand by a story invented at a time when most of the world was malnourished, illiterate and diseased?
The world kept slaves at the time, women had no rights and nobody understood where lightening came from.
To elevate this body of ignorance to anything more than a cute story is to be will fully ignorant & totally dishonest.
You would never hope to defend this rubbish with someone face to face because they would never be able to keep a straight face while hearing your outrageous religious lies.
Your sensitivities belie your abilities as a “Troll eater extraordinaire”.

Your digestive system just couldn't handle one. Neither can your intellectual prowess.

I think you are a wannabe. Sitting there bleating away, all naked and lovely.

I dunno. I guess salsa would be better than green chile sauce. Has more substance.

Let me check my fridge and I will get back to you. Don't go away, now.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#180321 Oct 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your failing because you're attempting to criticise science. The same science that guts your witless cult every day of the week.
Science is not wrong, its evidence based. Your mental illness prevents you from accepting science, without really understanding that it underpins our understanding of the entire universe.
You cannot critcise science, you may only present evidence for god.
But you won't because science sh*ts on it.
Shit!! I'm out of salsa.

Come back in a couple of days.

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 hr President Trump 1,396,590
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Bruin For Life 32,293
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 8 hr Into The Night 9,892
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 hr ThomasA 311,364
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 27 Barbi A 201,865
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web