Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245192 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

#125407 Sep 25, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So when she/he masterbates it's not "self-love", it's a pity f!ck? Gotcha.
And you lying, legs open with some good christian screwing you for 10c it’s just to add to you Sunday church collection fund – right?

Don’t bother replying we know how it is.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#125408 Sep 25, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You have a lot of pointing out anybody elses' deficiencies when you refuse to admit your own. You haven't spent any time determining probabilities of any sort.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
You should stop fighting it, bend over, and take it like a man. We both know you want it.
xD
You know, you got nothing if you have to stoop to this.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#125409 Sep 25, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ad hom attack the concession speech of one who knows they are losing.<quoted text>
If that is true then what does that say about Skeptic?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#125410 Sep 25, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
Do you really wnat to know if God exists? You will find out either way. Better sooner than later.
You're guessing, and we both know it. You have no senses or faculties that I do not have. There is nothing you can know about gods that I cannot also know.

To claim otherwise as a known fact is lying. And your implied threats of torture for those disagreeing with you is an attempt at terrorism. To threaten others like that indicates a poverty of spirit.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#125411 Sep 25, 2012
scouse55 wrote:
Try theorising about gravity when that brick drops on your head.
Good post!

What brick?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#125412 Sep 25, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You made me laugh out loud.
How rare is that?
L. Ron Smurf lol
I'm glad that you liked that. Me, too.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#125413 Sep 25, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do! Murder is against every nations' rules. The lunatic fringe does not play by humanity's rule. Are you asking me to abide by their rules? "Don't do anything to offend us or we will kill innocent people?"
Get this: You are not allowed to commit murder, even if you are highly offended.
You asking me to abide by their rules, "commit murder if I am offended", has highly offended me! Are you sure that you want me to take their rules into consideration?
Murder is murder, incitement is incitement. No there is no excuse for murder but that does not give people cart blanch to incite hatred, if they do then they must accept responsibility for its possible consequences.

In many countries execution on religious grounds is not against the law particularly Moslim countries, the film was an affront against the Moslim religion and the film maker was fully aware of the anger his film would stir up. He knew the possible consequences prior to publication, hell he is know for his anti Muslim stance anyway. He made the film and therefore is responsible for making the film, there is no argument there. Ignorance is no excuse however in this case the filmmaker was not ignorant, it was a deliberate act of aggression.

Of course murder is wrong and I am not saying that murder is excusable, it horrifies me under any circumstances. I realise though that those particular murders would not have happened if the film had not been made.

No I am asking you to consider that other people have a different outlook on life and to think about the trail of events that lead to these atrocities.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#125415 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do u need to try so hard to denounce the possibility that there's a God when the odds are undeniably and impossibly NOT in your favour??
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.(Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts About The Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", p. 336)
Francis Crick and James Watson won the Nobel Prize for discovering the magnificent structure of DNA.
That is to say that even if we assume that all the necessary nucleotides are present in a medium, and that all the complex molecules and enzymes to combine them were available, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the desired sequence is 1 in 41000, in other words, 1 in 10600. Briefly, the probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, which is beyond even being astronomical, means in practice "zero" probability. This means that such a sequence has to be effected under the control and with the knowledge of a wise and conscious power. There is zero probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."
Take the evolutionists' advice... Wake up and smell the truth... Evolution theory is MYTH.
Prove to me just ONCE that there has EVER been evidence of MACROevolution.... In just ONE instance....
MICROevolution is completely invalid, because it is the Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies.
Evolution as a method to Explain the universe is beyond impossibly far fetched. It's sci-fi bologna.
Wrong, I don’t need to try hard, e=mc^2 proves that the god of the babble as described in KJV 19:6 cannot exist in this universe

Why do you need to try and attribute nature to a Bronze Age myth?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125416 Sep 25, 2012
scouse55 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try theorising about gravity when that brick drops on your head.
That is enough to show the phenomenon of gravity exists, but is certainly not enough to distinguish between Newton's model of gravity and Einstein's.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125417 Sep 25, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
So the supersmart are the ones with the science degrees and theology and law degrees are 2nd rate degrees?
Shall we say that they are degrees where reality isn't as important? Where logical argument is less important than winning the current battle? Where the rules change in an instant?
Elitest to say the least. You must really think your sh*t don't stink.
I have no problem with a certain amount of elitism when it is backed up by ability. I'm actually in favor of a meritocracy: where demonstrated ability determines chances of promotion, etc.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125420 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess what u r saying, with your arrogant, bigot-minded assumption, is that everyone who is not as 'highly educated' in science as you does not have the capacity to understand life?
If you want to understand the processes of life, you should at least know some biochemistry. That generally requires some organic chemistry and some general chemistry. In addition, you should probably know some physical chemistry (to better understand issues of entropy and activation energies).

Yes, if you do not have at least a grounding in these topics, you cannot understand the processes of life. Sorry to break this to you, but ignorance is no excuse.
Did YOU compose all those experiments?? Are YOU verifying that everything in The text books is absolute truth??
Nobody does *all* of the experiments backing up their subject. But science students typically do enough to show that the principles are correct.
So u read a coupe books and did some philological research. Who's to say I didn't??
Your blatant ignorance of the science shows you didn't comprehend any science you read. perhaps you should go take a directed course?
Not everything revolves around what other people say or think. We all have a mind of our own... For a reason.
Of course. But it is crucial for reason to have the basic facts and assumptions. If you do not know what entropy is, don't argue about it. if you don't know how to correctly calculate probabilities, don't use arguments based on such calculations. If you don't know relativity and quantum mechanics and the evidence for them, don't argue that they don't make sense to you.

What we have found through long, hard experience is that logic alone is not enough to learn about the world. That was the fundamental mistake of the middle ages: that we could know about the universe while never actually observing the universe. Another hard won lesson is that we have to try to show our ideas are *wrong*, not simply attempt to prove them. Confirmation bias is too easy to fall into. It is those ideas that survive after people attempt to show them wrong again and again and fail that are worthy of being accepted. Another aspect of this is that only ideas about the world that can actually be tested (in the sense that there is some test that could show them wrong if they are) are acceptable for true investigation.

So here's a question: what evidence would, if it could be found, show that your idea of a deity is wrong? If you cannot produce *one* test, then the whole idea can be discarded as useless for knowledge.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125421 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
My point exactly... And in your case, the theories u cling to are illogical and highly improbably to the degree of impossible.
My 'theory' has a solid foundation and explanation for all life. Many Scientists regretably admit to claiming there must be an intelligent designer behind life.
So... Why r u so biased towards atheism?
Why do u so pig-heatedly reject theism completely?!
Hypocrite
Show me this claim in *any* peer-reviewed scientific journal. Say, Science, or Nature, or Physical Review, or any other such journal.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125423 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the circular- reasoning bigot who contradicts himself, saying nothing can exist or operate out of time. Ok, genius, how did we get here? Time had to start somewhere.. Otherwise, by default, we must suppose time extends back to eternity.
One possibility is that time started about 13.7 billion years ago. Another is that it goes infinitely back into the past. We cannot at this point test between the two.

You discount the possibility of time going infinitely into the past, when that is a quite valid option.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#125426 Sep 25, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Er...you don't understand how science works. Theories are not provable. The theory of gravity remains a theory. The germ theory of disease remains a theory. The theory of evolution enjoys about the most evidence for any theory - we can measure evolution directly in the lab, in breeding populations in the wild, through genetic analyses of ancient bones and compare them to extant species.

Science is driven by disproof. A scientist makes a hypothesis - a testable relationship between two or more variables - and then tries to disprove it. If it cannot be disproved, it's supported. Hypotheses that are supported over and over again demonstrate relationships between phenomena. These are unified through theory - a model for explaining how a related set of phenomena work.
The theory of evolution unifies all biological sciences and provides a framework to understanding all biological phenomena. No scientist ever talks of "proving" their hypotheses or theories. It's never done.

So when you say "you don't have proof of X theory," you just sound ignorant. You quite clearly don't know the first thing about science and you make it painfully obvious.

Hence your opinion on all things science is quite worthless.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for writing all of that out.
You know, honestly, this time I did it with slumped shoulders. I stared at the screen for long while thinking "why should I bother?" Eye Heart here - is it possible to grow from such a position of ignorance? I don't think so. Of all the Creationists on here, only Eagle12 has come out and said "you convinced me of microevolution." It was as far as he could go, given his indoctrination and lack of education in bio-science, yet almost unbelievable, unreachable intellectual growth compared to short earth creationists.

And so the words just wouldn't come. After some force, I got it out. I seriously doubt Eye Heart will learn from it - did you see RiverSide's answer? Pure idiocy.

I apologize for this, but I'm glad they're not from my country :) How disheartening! We don't have this kind of ignorance in Japan. Different kinds, for sure, but not like this.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125427 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, u obviously quit ahead of the game and let your arrogant selfishness get the best of u.
We all go through these stages... Call it 'spiritual evolution' if u will.
Look deeper. Seek and ye shall find.
If u are lOoking for a material, empirically defined God... You've already lost.
God is beyond all human mental capacity... That's what makes Him God.
Take a few extra steps out of your atheist comfort bubble... And realize that man isn't the be all and end all of the universe.
Well, duh. We live on one very small planet orbiting a rather ordinary star among hundreds of billions in a largish galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies that we know. No, we are hardly the 'be all and end all' of the universe. We could easily disappear tomorrow and the universe as a whole would be unaffected.
Who do u think u r?? Because something is beyond your scope of understanding or scientific grasp, u have the presumptuousness to completely denounce it?
No. But when it derives from the already discarded superstitions of the past, when it provides no observable and testable consequences, and when it goes against the vast majority of science done in the past 400 years,*then* I think it fair to denounce it *as science*. In addition, when it promotes bigotry and ignorance, when it consistently holds back the progress of knowledge and the development of real moral feelings, when it supports and comforts those who are attempting to ruin our educational system, then I will denounce it as wrong for society also.
Science isn't the end all and be all... There is only so much u can empirically evaluate. It is obvious that there is much out of the realm of science that can be grasped... Scientists are coming to terms with this... As hard as they try to fight it.
It's ok dude.... It's ok... Just .... Let... GO.
Science is not everything. There is art, poetry, literature, love, compassion, music, food, hiking, swimming, walking, etc, etc, etc. These are crucial to the well-being of a human. The difference between these and science is that science attempts to attain knowledge about the world. These others are experiences and opinions, not knowledge. If religion would be content to stay in the realm of opinion and experience and affects society no more than someone enjoying music, I would have no issue with it. When it claims knowledge, I will point out its flaws.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#125428 Sep 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds like a good description of Al.
Nietzsche said that the last good Christian died on the cross, but that's not completely true. I have known at least four that didn't sicken me - one in the seventies, Al Garcia, and two other Christians posting on Topix - one named Nettie, and a geologist from the evolution threads named Fossil Bob.
It's all about compartmentalization the faith. If you can limit it to the supernatural realm - faith in a heaven and a reward there - it can be harmless, and you can still be one of us.
But most of them let it bleed into this life, and start shaking their fingers in judgment, making stupid comments about science, calling man filth, and telling us how worthless this world is. That's when they cease being my fellow anything.
Did you see this yesterday? It sums up what I think of Christian philosophy and psychology:
==========
Charles Idemi wrote: Christians, are generally not interested, in the things of the world, but in heaven.
IANS wrote: What a remarkable confession. It kind of makes you a liability to the rest of us who do care about the world, don't you think? I mean, you just told us that you are not interested in one thing that matters to me and billions of other people (and trillions of animals).
You also are looking to the skies hoping praying for our annihilation in a great conflagration, aren't you? Millions more just like you are as well. God forbid one of you ever gets the chance to touch off such an apocalypse.
Furthermore, you have chosen to divert your attention and respect to something that probably doesn't exist. Even if it does, you couldn't know that, meaning that you are guessing. And if you guessed wrong. you missed the only show. I can tell you that it has been a fun ride. Somehow, you let people convince you that that was bad or wrong. You gave up so much on a promise that doesn't have to be kept, and undoubtedly won't be.
So, like some pathetic character from literature, you stare at the ceiling waiting for the end, missing and disesteeming your only only life, demeaning reality - you do it when you say "worldly" with a sneer - and demeaning yourself and your very substance with a similar sneer about "the flesh."
These have got to be among the worst ideas ever.
==========
It's great. Your posts were refreshing to read tonight. I like the way you take their confessions.:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125429 Sep 25, 2012
Eye Heart Jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between u and I Is that I grew up and used my logic.
That is certainly not clear from your posts here. You start with your conclusions and ignore everything that goes against them. That isn't logic.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#125430 Sep 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still you.
Nobody here has denounced the possibility of an intelligent life force. Or a stupid life force. Or a humor force. Or an aqua teen hunger force.
What has been denounced is your behavior, faith, and your church and religion.
<quoted text>
You act as if that is a trivial error. If you think so, then you haven't spent much time thinking about either science or the philosophy of science. The validity of rational skepticism is my fundamental belief, and is based in experience - its fruits. The fundamental idea of rational skepticism is that knowledge is derived from evidence, and that it is tentative.
Proof in the logical and mathematical sense is rarely possible in the world of abstract ideas, and certainly not in science. A huge revolution in thought occurred in the philosophy of science, with special attention to the concept of proof. The concepts of a scientific statement and falsifiability emerged.
When you use the word proof as a synonym for support, you reveal that you have seen none of this, know none of this, and have thought about none of this. That would be OK if you weren't pontificating about what is true and possible. You are too ignorant to know how ignorant you are. And you too arrogant to stand down.
* and too arrogant to learn.

In his vast and unending ignorance, he thinks he has it all figured out in the remarkably lazy "god did it."

I cannot imagine that level of intellectual laziness. But here, for our viewing pleasure, we have it!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#125431 Sep 25, 2012
TheGoodTheBadTheUgly wrote:
<quoted text>I may have killed a lot of people, but I still consider myself a Christian.
What do you think?
You thought God told you to do it?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#125434 Sep 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now try doing a probability calculation that actually uses the laws of probability *correctly*. You do not get to multiply the different probabilities until you know that they are independent. That is certainly NOT the case in chemical reactions. A correct calculation could use the statistical mechanics of the situation, which would involve computing the entropies both before and after and comparing them. Unfortunately, there is no good estimate for the entropy of a cell. That said, we can calculate the entropies of all the chemical reactions we know are involved and see what happens. Guess what? Your BS unveiled.
Thank you, as you know math is not my thing but I tried telling him yesterday that 1 in 10210 is 1/10210 and not 1e-210. He seems to have done the same with 1 in 10600.

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min aragwen 600,168
News Crowds flock to see religious wall sign 10 min Vote UKIP 2
News What If Jesus Is not God? 14 min -Stray Dog 386
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min ChristineM 20,720
News 'Some of us still have balls left' 35 min flame of truth 1
News Louis Farrakhan: If the Federal Gov't Does Not ... 38 min flame of truth 2
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 43 min Thinking 11,077
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 4 hr CONFEDERATE DARK ... 6,741
More from around the web