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.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202377 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
People that still deny the fact of evolution are to be pitied in this century.
nobody denies evolution. Many think we're created. Just prove abiogenesis, can you? Show me how I got my conscience and came from mud.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202378 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your standard of acceptance?
I have a pretty good handle on human nature. I also know what a CINO is.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202379 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to convince everyone your perspective as to what is true or important is the only criteria for establishing such. That is why you try to force the argument down those logic paths that are trivial to most people. At the same time you totally blow off any logic and argumentation they have.
You are obsessive and doing the exact same thing as you accuse them of.
In addition, outside this petty assed forum you are grossly outnumbered.
Re-evaluate your motives for exhibiting such passions on relatively meaningless issues.
I "blow off" their logic, as you say, because it is not logic. If you actually knew anything about logic, you would understand this. But you have time and time again shown that you don't. So please, don't talk to me about logic.

I would say you should stick to topics you actually know something about, but so far you haven't displayed a single one.

Oh, my. And you even add in an argumentum ad populum. The truth of a position is not shown by the number of people that believe it to be true. This is one of the classical logical fallacies. And your use of it shows you don't know what logic is.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202380 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> nobody denies evolution. Many think we're created. Just prove abiogenesis, can you? Show me how I got my conscience and came from mud.
Evolution is already proven, you're scientifically illiterate.

You need to prove the god your cult tells you to lie to atheists about. That's all you liars need to do.
Jim

Cambridge, UK

#202381 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I have a pretty good handle on human nature. I also know what a CINO is.
Says the village twit who thinks the earth is 3000 based on no evidence at all.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202382 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. You're finally getting it.
You think my opinion should dictate public policy but you voice your opinion as if it should.
That's the hypocrisy.
So tell me RR, would you be happy if the star and crescent were made mandatory in courtrooms? Or if it even just displayed by a single judge? Would you have confidence in the impartiality of a judge that did so and you were being sued by a Muslim?

The problem with both of your positions...deny satanists religious freedom...allow religious symbols in courtrooms...is that both violate the 1st Amendment. And you also think my supporting the 1st Amendment makes me a hypocrite.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202383 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the village twit who thinks the earth is 3000 based on no evidence at all.
You lie. I don't claim that. Tell me, which THEORY of evolution has been proven? Which of the various guesses is the one? w hy isn't it the law of where life came from? Nobody disputes life evolves, only tell me precisely how man came to be.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202384 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You lie. I don't claim that. Tell me, which THEORY of evolution has been proven? Which of the various guesses is the one? w hy isn't it the law of where life came from? Nobody disputes life evolves, only tell me precisely how man came to be.
Oh, no. Not the "It's just a theory" meme again.

You really need read ALL the definitions of the word theory (there are many) and find the one that applies to science. It does not mean what you think it means.

Here is my standard post I used on the evolution threads when I was posting there...

----------

From the World English Dictionary...

Theory:

5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity

From the Britannica Online Encyclopedia...

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments,(2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202385 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You lie. I don't claim that. Tell me, which THEORY of evolution has been proven? Which of the various guesses is the one? w hy isn't it the law of where life came from? Nobody disputes life evolves, only tell me precisely how man came to be.
BTW, Bongo...

Scientists rarely use the term "law" today. That is because many of the laws that were previously thought to be indisputable have turned out to be incomplete. Scientist have realized that all of science is a work in progress, adding to our previous knowledge.

An excellent example is the Law of Gravity, which was derived by Newton. It was considered unassailable...that is until Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity and experimental data confirmed it. Newton's Law of Gravity is just a special case under General Relativity. In other words, the THEORY superseded the LAW.

In science today, theory is at the top.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#202386 Jan 13, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming "nuclear" radiation, as in radioactive. Fire is also radiation. Radiation is just energy waves being emitted. It can illuminate or it can incinerate. If it encounters something.
Smearing pigeon blood was not just a wild hair. Man learned a long time ago energy existed in organism, and that energy could be channelled. Hence your blood sacrifices. I will point out such did occur for a very long time. If such didn't have some observable effect that was turned into a technology the mass of people would have started to grouse about sacrificing their dinners and daughters and getting nothing in return for it. Science effected that technology. There was a reason for rituals and construction of altars in certain ways, just like wiring and combining chemicals in certain sequences and proportions. BTW, they did have chemistry back then.
Channelling life forces was the science of the time. If you delve into to it you may find that Christianity put an end to such technology, which then led to less personally disrupting means of manipulating the forces of nature. Much of that was caused by the need to dig a little deeper into how things were put together to effect such. An old science and technology was replaced with a kinder and gentler one.
"Channelling life forces was the science of the time. If you delve into to it you may find that Christianity put an end to such technology, which then led to less personally disrupting means of manipulating the forces of nature."

Really?

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying,“Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying,“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

No need to argue of the symbolism present, much less shall I get into Christianity assimilating a cannibalistic "power" ritual previously known only in so-called "pagan" religions - certainly not a part of Judaism. The point is, it looks like Christianity perpetuated the very thing you say it abolished.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202387 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Christianity has been more damaging than Islam thus far.
Islam is certainly more dangerous now, but they have a little catching up to do.
If we are comparing theology to theology, they have about the same potential for damage.
That's what you get for thinking....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202388 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious delusion is not an "opinion" or a "way of thinking", its a medical condition.
You are shouting and screaming at Atheists for not beliving the earth is 3000 years old - get some perspective on the situation.
I don't think the earth is 3,000 years old, you broken record troll.

And IANS had high hopes for you.....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202389 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell me RR, would you be happy if the star and crescent were made mandatory in courtrooms? Or if it even just displayed by a single judge? Would you have confidence in the impartiality of a judge that did so and you were being sued by a Muslim?
The problem with both of your positions...deny satanists religious freedom...allow religious symbols in courtrooms...is that both violate the 1st Amendment. And you also think my supporting the 1st Amendment makes me a hypocrite.
Islam is against holy symbols, or at least they're supposed to be. I doubt they'd want to display it in our courtrooms. But if I had to choose between and Islam Crescent or a Satan statue, I'd pick the Crescent any day.

I'm not suggesting denying Satanists their freedoms. I'm suggesting they put it somewhere else. To have a statue of Satan right next to the Ten Commandments is just petty bickering on their part. It'd b like having a strip club open across the street from a daycare center. Legal, sure. But not right.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202390 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's what you get for thinking....
You should try it sometime.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202391 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read any of them, did you?
"The murder became sensational news in the New York area and across the nation due to the torture of Lauwers and alleged Satanic ritualistic aspects of the murder."
It happens. Satanists are evil, cruel people hell-bent on anarchy and torture.
That kind of religion should get no monument.
You blithely ignore the fact that Kasso was an utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens at the time.

What's your excuse?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202392 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no. Not the "It's just a theory" meme again.
You really need read ALL the definitions of the word theory (there are many) and find the one that applies to science. It does not mean what you think it means.
Here is my standard post I used on the evolution threads when I was posting there...
----------
From the World English Dictionary...
Theory:
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
From the Britannica Online Encyclopedia...
scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments,(2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.
Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.
A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.
I think what Bongo meant to write was:

"Tell me, which set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms of evolution has been proven?

Which of the various guesses is the one?"

Can you answer? I know Jim can't.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202393 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
You should try it sometime.
You're biased, it's ok.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202394 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
You blithely ignore the fact that Kasso was an utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens at the time.
Oh.

You mean he wasn't murdering in the name of Satan?

Interesting turn around.

When a Christian goes nuts like that, all you Topix Atheists! blame it on his Christianity and claim he was murdering "for God".

But when a Satanist does it....

He's just an "utter nutcase, and totally wasted on hallucinogens".

Fucking hypocrites.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202395 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're biased, it's ok.
I care about what is actually true.

That's my bias.

It's okay if you have other priorities. I understand.
Chris Clearwater

Auburndale, FL

#202396 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on then god, test me. Test me now god. See nothing happened you liars.
Remember this in the future when you are on your deathbed.

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) 13 min Canuk 1,658,342
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 15 min Trojan 35,099
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 min Hah_ 322,227
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 5 hr Meat 11,915
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 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