Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239229 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

#185356 Nov 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never claimed to be an atheist.
You claimed to be a non believer (atheist by any other name) and a vision/event converted you. You made that claim to me and you have since lied that you made that claim and been caught out lying because others also read your claim and verified your lies.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185357 Nov 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's a pretty lame excuse; "You wouldn't understand". I call bullshit. You won't even try.
No, I didn't bother.

But in the course of other discussion, a few of my disproofs came up and I referred you to them. Did you see any of them

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Sorry, amigo, but with all due respect, you've shown me as Dave Nelson did that doing this kind of thing with you is pointless. Unlike Dave, who won't cooperate in a discussion, and who prefers to either ignore requests to provide information such as to define terms, or dances off from them expressing fears of being tricked, you make the good faith effort to engage in discourse, but you can't do your part because you are unprepared for it. You and I don't make any progress at even the most basic level, and I find myself having to re-explain basics six times without benefit to you.

So naturally, I declined your request to present philosophical arguments for the nonexistence of the Christian god, but did think of you when I did so elsewhere. I am anxious to see if you found and responded to any of them.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
let's see what god you worship. Is Jehovah perfect? Did he write the bible? Is he omniscienct, omnipotent, and perfectly loving?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Jehovah" is a Hebrew word for "God". I don't speak Hebrew so no, I don't worship Jehovah, I worship God. Yes, I believe He's omniscient. No, I don't believe He's omnipotent. Yes, He's perfectly loving.
This is the problem right here. You ignored two of three questions asked of you, which is Davenelsonesque. Failing be able to learn is one thing. Failing to cooperate in discourse is another. You cannot expect me to take your requests seriously under the circumstances.

And I will take this opportunity to reinforce a point I just made in a post to Buck: you, Dave and Buck are all faith based thinkers, and I think I have demonstrated that you also all reason poorly, have poor habits of thought, and are largely unteachable. I think that those are all related.

I offer the methods and conclusions of rational skepticism as an alternative.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#185358 Nov 18, 2013
Buck remains incapable of the most rudimentary of tasks: posting a complete definition.

Sad Buck.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I didn't say either belief was silly or unfounded.
Just that both are beliefs.
And I am correct.
And it is not my opinion; it is the meaning of the term.
"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia)"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185359 Nov 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
People like Dawkins will let you call them anything if they get paid for it.
Bingo!

Dawkins is a cultural crusader pretending to be a scientist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185360 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Lie #2: "The courts and mainstream science consider it pseudoscience" One judge in one court in one district in Pennsylvania declared it unconstitutional, and did not declare it pseudoscience, since he had zero expertise and conflicting testimony to aid him in such a declaration.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That court and that judge speak for the entire legal system until I higher court intercedes.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, that is incorrect. Kitzmiller was not appealed, and has no legal relevance outside the middle district of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones affirmed this himself.
You might be correct. Let me amend my original comment:

Mainstream science consider intelligent design pseudoscience, which is nonscience offered as science. One court has affirmed the claims of the prosecution that ID is religious in nature, not scientific.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185361 Nov 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You are a Obama parrot me thinks, does he feed you cashews?
Yes, it is true.

Blob dines on Obama's nuts.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185362 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
How many arguments do you wish to lose to me over Kitzmiller? Your knowledge base for the case is obviously inferior, and you only know what you ask for from Google.
Thank you for your opinion, one which is obviously incorrect, one on very shaky ground, and one probably correct. Clearly, I have other resources than Google.
Bubblegum Is Your Friend

San Ramon, CA

#185363 Nov 18, 2013
how is faith a requirement for facing the ever-unfolding mystery of what is?

Honesty with oneself though is essential.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#185364 Nov 18, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how these "New" cults wear the soiled and discarded garments of the past.
"Those who do not know history..."
Bubblegum Is Your Friend

San Ramon, CA

#185365 Nov 18, 2013
For those of you still holding onto cherished religious beliefs passed down for generations, especially this time of year,

Why did you stop believing in Santa Claus?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#185366 Nov 18, 2013
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>Says the pathetic basement dweller with over 46,000 posts to his sad credit.
Your nano is showing, Sheila.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#185367 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo!
Dawkins is a cultural crusader pretending to be a scientist.
Just like creationist and ID 'scientists'.

OK

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#185368 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo!
Dawkins is a cultural crusader pretending to be a scientist.
He is a qualified scientist, are you a qualified scientist?

He has a point of view that does not gel with your goddidit by magic mythology? You seem to have a problem with that!

And of course he requires paying for his work. Tell me what do you do to feed your family?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#185369 Nov 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Those who do not know history..."
"... are lazy, ignorant and usually wrong."

<smile>

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#185370 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Your idea of convincing evidence is doctoring quotes from Michael Behe to support what you claim, cutting out the part that says the opposite of what you claim.
You probably thought that was "cogent".
In your defense, it was a widespread scam.
And you are badly mistaken - most of these Topix atheists are, sadly but truly, morons.
That's my supported opinion.
Your approach is not moronic; just corrupt.
Why pick on atheist posters?

Do you truly believe we are more moronic than the theist posters?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185371 Nov 18, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention those making $85k in Sweden qualify for the 57% tax rate.Thats 2nd highest worldwide. In Demark if you earn $70k you are in the 51% tax bracket,#3 worlwide followed by the Netherlands. Do you see a pattern here ?
Distribution of wealth.

So the poor, jobless crackheads can get their cable TV & their Obamaphones...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185372 Nov 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree-- it's not very good.
BUT IT IS BETTER THAN NOTHING--
Rescheduling a cancer patient's dr appointment 48 times is not "better than nothing".

I knew you wouldn't read it.

Just keep your eyes tightly clenched and keep your fingers in your ears.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185373 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I won the argument about Aguillard last year. But I could never get you to admit that 1975 was prior to 1987. Has your mind changed on that? Because I think I'm on the more solid ground that 1975 was prior to 1987.
You mean you won your straw man argument where you claim that I was arguing that 1975 came after 1987. You argued with yourself then just as you did with your straw man claims regarding the Behe and Dawkins matters. You also soundly defeated yourself in those, not me.

This is one your preferred methods of debate: mischaracterize your collocutor, provide insufficient or support for that, and then strut about claiming victory for yourself. Another would be your semantic sophistry.

You'll notice that I don't emulate you in any of those behaviors, although in one post, I did call you defeated - something I believe to be the case, but have never claimed in the self-congratulatory manner that you do.

I suspect that this is only the beginning of this. I commend you for limiting your abusive language to things like "liar" and "chicken shit" For reasons unknown to me, being called a liar doesn't annoy me like it used to. If you can keep your discourse to this level of rudeness or less, we'll be good.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#185374 Nov 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo!
Dawkins is a cultural crusader pretending to be a scientist.
Dawkins was a respected scientist.

Later, he became what you call a "cultural crusader."

He had already earned his science merit badge.

Be fair, dude.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#185375 Nov 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Then? Don't sign up-- if you have insurance? No problem.
As of 01-01-14 I won't have insurance.

And I can't sign up for your universal health care. They say I make to much to qualify.

Now what.

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 UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 min tom wingo 29,767
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min World Ceres 1,233,529
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr Phil Donahue 309,893
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 12 hr Earthling-1 5,599
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon Pietro Armando 201,809
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... Mon Timotion 7
Jayhawks dance team #1 Sun Jeff 1
More from around the web