Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#202254 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Congress shall make no law..."
That applies to any law granting special status to a particular cult or its symbology - including the Ten Commandments of Old Testament folklore.
It also applies, by extension, to any US legislative body.
And no, it's not "fiction". It's the law.
Really hacks you off when other people will insist on having the same rights you do, dunnit?
Buck thinks he can make stuff up and call it truth.

He doesn't realize that law isn't like religion.

He is demonstrably wrong but to stupid to know it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#202255 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>The dependence on that reading for knowledge and understanding instead of developing the skills you were given to develop those concepts and ideas on a personal level is what makes the "quitters".

Your blind acceptance of the perceptions of others because you think they are smarter and have letters behind their names stunts your growth.

You read a book, you think you know something. You fulfilled an obligation you think you had. Wasn't so hard. So you run down to the bar and have a drink and a good time ridiculing those idiots that read another book and think they know something.

Welcome to Topix atheism 101, where you can enjoy the illusion of being "informed" and intelligent. Makes for a fun life.
So thinking for one's self eludes you?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202256 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't talk about SCOTUS re-writing the Constitution without talking about ideology.
Did the court re-write the Constitution when it held that corporations are persons?

Off to the gym.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202257 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You were unable to change my mind about either the quality of Barton's work or Jefferson's intent. What you presented hardly constituted proof that Barton was correct about Jefferson. You simply insisted that Jefferson's intent with the treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe was what Barton said it was without ever addressing the counter-evidence - Jefferson's letters to Dearborn and Harrison.
Then you presented a few more claims that you failed to support either actually occurred or were done for the reasons you said.
And your entire rebuttal to a large paragraph about assorted challenges to Barton's credibility, including "Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. The book's publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there." was "Your assertions are simply factually false."
That's not proof, Buck. Actually, it tends to strengthen my feeling that there is no defense for the criticisms of Barton's book, nor to Throckmorton's rebuttal that Jefferson's actual purpose - supported twice with Jefferson's own words - was to acquire their land peacefully, which contradicts Barton's claim that Jefferson's intent was to convert the Kaskaskia Indians.
Jefferson wrote a goddamned book based on the four gospels and provided it to the Indians.

He voted multiple times for acts which stated, specifically, the purpose of advancing Christianity among the Indians. He built them a goddamned Catholic Church. Do you know what they do in those Catholic churches? They promote a religion. I'm dead certain of that.

These are not nuances. If they are not enough to convince anyone of the fact that Jefferson sought to promote religion, as Barton says, as Throckmorton denies, then there is no point in discussing it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202258 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Of course, there is another definition of natural that means not artificial. This is the meaning of "natural" in the phrase "natural selection." Animal breeding, which is artificial selection, is not natural by this second definition. By your definition above, both types of selection are natural incontrast to supernatural.
Dave Nelson wrote:
That concept of artificial is based upon man not being natural, meaning not following the laws of nature and physics of it.
No it isn't. Its based on the idea that some things are made by man and some aren't, and that each of these concepts needs a name. Who thinks that man does not follow the laws of nature or physics? Nobody.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are elevating mankind to "godhood" thinking that way.
Plants and man both arose from the dirt of this planet, IANS. Extensions of the mass and energy that it is to accomplish balances of matter and energy. As the plant will produce chemicals to bend leaves to the light, man will do things to enhance its existence within the constraints imposed by the planet itself. Per your evolutionary thinking, man is not a guest on this planet, he is just part of the mechanism of it. Man can do no wrong. All of the conflict and opposing forces are part of a larger process beyond your comprehension.

Disagree with me, IANS.
I disagreed with the coherent part.

The rest was your usual assortment of unsupported speculations ("You are elevating mankind to godhood" and "Man can do no wrong") and your sciency poetry ("Extensions of the mass and energy that it is to accomplish balances of matter and energy" and " As the plant will produce chemicals to bend leaves to the light, man will do things to enhance its existence within the constraints imposed by the planet itself").

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202259 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The current court has held that corporations are "persons".
For the first time.
The "liberals" on the court dissented.
They urged that the meaning of the word is clear.
What do you say?
I think a corporation is not a person, but it is a legal agreement of persons for persons.

I am less irritated by that ruling, since the Court did not actually take an amendment in the Bill of Rights and change the wording of it to something they liked better - as they did in religion cases.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202260 Jan 13, 2014
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202261 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the court re-write the Constitution when it held that corporations are persons?
Off to the gym.
I'm not sure. Did they?

You don't exactly have good standing for resisting that, if they did, since you support rewriting it on other occasions.

I could be consistent in opposing the rewrite. You cannot.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202262 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson wrote a goddamned book based on the four gospels and provided it to the Indians.
He voted multiple times for acts which stated, specifically, the purpose of advancing Christianity among the Indians. He built them a goddamned Catholic Church. Do you know what they do in those Catholic churches? They promote a religion. I'm dead certain of that.
These are not nuances. If they are not enough to convince anyone of the fact that Jefferson sought to promote religion, as Barton says, as Throckmorton denies, then there is no point in discussing it.
youre dealing with bounded rationality and possible anti-process . Topix atheists are as faithful to their cause as the faithful are to being faithful.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202263 Jan 13, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck thinks he can make stuff up and call it truth.
He doesn't realize that law isn't like religion.
He is demonstrably wrong but to stupid to know it.
Demonstrably wrong?

Why don't you demonstrate, then?

Instead of pulling assertions out of your stupid ass, huh?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202264 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think your siblings in christ know that anymore than you do, go tell them.
That may be but Jesus words are still true even if man is a liar.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202265 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am very familiar with Story. I acquired learning in Story Hall.
Stare decisis is adherence to court precedent, not to Constitutional language.
And stare decisis is not binding--the supreme Court may reassess, just as some today want the Supreme Court to do on Roe v. Wade. Do you?
In other words, if the court determines a prior decision got it wrong, it so decides. Do you think the court got it right on abortion? If not, what can be done--under our system?
Challenge it on the grounds of interstate commerce or the common good.

The government has a right to limit activities that can be harmful to the maintenance of the nation or public good by improper use of resources. Personal decisions of whether to continue the process of creating a resource the nation needs to stay a viable entity providing for the good of all can lead to the supply of such resource being reduced or even eliminated. People are the prime resource for humankind. They can't live without them.

The act of creating was initiated voluntarily in most cases. Such usually then draws upon public resources in some fashion, such as pre-natal care, which I believe is a given under Obamacare. I believe termination is also included, as is prevention. Prevention allows for personal choice before drawing upon public resources.

The child is needed for future taxes and support of the whole. Society has an investment in its production that trumps the ill conceived actions of the individual that initiated the process.

It isn't a matter of personal liberty, it is a matter of survival of the species.

There is probably a considerable body of law already in practice that has supported similar legislation, and even in advancement of your social agendas.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#202266 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>That may be but Jesus words are still true even if man is a liar.
Then why don't christians pay attention to them at all? You're so full of sh!t.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202267 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson wrote a goddamned book based on the four gospels and provided it to the Indians.
He voted multiple times for acts which stated, specifically, the purpose of advancing Christianity among the Indians. He built them a goddamned Catholic Church. Do you know what they do in those Catholic churches? They promote a religion. I'm dead certain of that.
These are not nuances. If they are not enough to convince anyone of the fact that Jefferson sought to promote religion, as Barton says, as Throckmorton denies, then there is no point in discussing it.
What you suffer from, can't be regarded as mere opinion - it is certifiable mental illness.

Nobody sane thinks the earth is 3000 years old. Its a fact even the great buck cannot deny.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202268 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year
Creationists always point fingers at others when it is they who must provide answers for their continued fraud.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202269 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!........ Im pretty sure RR has facts about how satans influence ramped up starting that year
What?
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202270 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> youre dealing with bounded rationality and possible anti-process . Topix atheists are as faithful to their cause as the faithful are to being faithful.
Atheism is a simple disbelief in god and religious liars like you Creationist Cult Members.

When creationists realise they have no points to make against Atheists, they start trying to refine Atheism thanks to religious arrogance.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202271 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't made the case that imaginary in this context means divorced from reality as it does in other contexts, like an imaginary friend. Many other concepts that you would call imaginary - concepts like negative numbers, zero, pi, complex numbers, dx, and e are essential to predict and at times control matter.
<quoted text>
That describes everything in mathematics. Seven doesn't exist except in the mind, just like red. It's only physical correlate is photons with a certain wavelength and frequency - both mathematical quantities.
Merely calling infinity an imaginary thing does not mean that reality doesn't contain infinites.
Numbers represent quantity in the real world.

For infinity, you have to alter rules of operation with those numbers, so as to avoid absurdities - bizarre conflict with those representations in the real world. That's a clue.

Nothing infinite can exist. It is impossible, by virtue of the term itself. For anything that exists in the universe , we can begin to count it, or quantify it.

That proves it cannot be infinite. It's existence in the universe disproves it's infinity, no matter what item we are talking about. Why? Because we begin with a quantifiable presentment, it is finite, and no addition to it can reach infinite. Each addition becomes the next finite quantity, and so on, and so on. So if it exists, it is not infinite. Therefore, the infinite cannot exist.

If someone says otherwise, who has the evidentiary burden? I renew my invitation for an example.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202272 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No it isn't. Its based on the idea that some things are made by man and some aren't, and that each of these concepts needs a name. Who thinks that man does not follow the laws of nature or physics? Nobody.
<quoted text>
I disagreed with the coherent part.
The rest was your usual assortment of unsupported speculations ("You are elevating mankind to godhood" and "Man can do no wrong") and your sciency poetry ("Extensions of the mass and energy that it is to accomplish balances of matter and energy" and " As the plant will produce chemicals to bend leaves to the light, man will do things to enhance its existence within the constraints imposed by the planet itself").
Wow!

That one zoomed right over your head.

If man is exclusively a product of nature and physical forces then there is no such thing as morality as you proclaim. He just does what is directed by the forces that sprang him into action. Your passing judgement is nothing more than a link in the larger physical process that created us all. Not "right" or "wrong", just energies trying to find a balance.

What man makes is not artificial. It is just nature extended.

Like I said, you elevated man to godhood in believing you can destroy that which created and controls you.

You are confused, IANS. You seem to think man is holy and supernatural. Where ever could you come up with such a concept in this neighborhood of the Greater Universe and beyond?
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202273 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> That may be but Jesus words are still true even if man is a liar.
Who are you trying to convince? Atheists just don't believe your lies anymore.

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) 11 min THE DEBIL 1,642,252
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Wisdom of Ages 11,801
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr June VanDerMark 320,076
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Not who you think 34,827
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 9 Randy-From-Wooster 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web