Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255970 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208970 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Christinemc^2 will counter you with a reference from The Huffington Post.
Lol

That would've been better than her lie.

"At the time it was not known as DNA as I have said all along"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208971 Jan 29, 2014
mtimber wrote:
You are clearly labelling your own behaviour as you continually refuse to engage in any meaningful manner.
There is no engaging you. There is merely refuting your claims.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208972 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:

Nope, I have reinforced it with FACT
It isn't a fact that Watson and Crick discovered DNA.

Just stop.

Accept your loss with some dignity, geez.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208973 Jan 29, 2014
mtimber wrote:
So then, if morals are not absolute then child molestation is ok??
Not even close, and this is after weeks of trying to teach you. It's apparently not for you to understand. You should probably stop asking.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208974 Jan 29, 2014
Jim wrote:
No evidence of god and no evidence against evolution a usual.
Creationist Cult members are so predictable.
Hi Jim.

How's tricks?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208975 Jan 29, 2014
mtimber wrote:
Why should that be an absolute moral standard? You are merely expressing a subjective opinion...
This is what I mean. You're still stuck on "absolute" despite being told repeatedly for several weeks that we do not invoke such a concept nor accept that it exists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208976 Jan 29, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know I know nothing of Osteen? He is on TV you know there for the world to see. And you are the one talking about his book sales.
So do you think you are relevant or just an agitator?
I know because you described him in terms ludicrously inaccurate.

You either know nothing, or lied about it.

I don't care which.

There is a troubling pattern among atheists - character assassination of dissenters.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208977 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting that.
Because your "not directly observed" argument is exactly like "only eyewitness testimony counts as evidence".
By your stated view, fingerprints would not count as evidence that a person did a crime, they are only evidence of fingerprints.
And you still have not dealt with the fact that there IS evidence of black holes, just not direct observation...yet there is neither evidence nor direct observation of your god. Attempting to put them in the same class is just being disingenuous.
Ok..... Let's see....

Finding a fingerprint at a crime scene is not evidence that the person holding that fingerprint commuted the crime.

It is only evidence that the person's fingerprint was at the crime scene.

But we have the person to directly correlate with the fingerprint, to prove that's his fingerprint.

Relate that to black holes. There's a fingerprint, there's effects, but that's it. There's no black hole to match the fingerprint to.

It's like when they find a fingerprint at a crime scene, run it through the database and find nothing.

Who are they gonna blame?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208978 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Observing a thing's effects is different than observing the thing.
Where is your god? All you have offered is what you assume are its effects, like touching you, answering your prayers, and unexplained phenomena..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208979 Jan 29, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another day of hard work for Catcher.
It's a tricky, quirky case.
Hard work?

LMMFAO

Going through files? Checking emails? Making phone calls? Taking a 2 hour lunch?

You must be exhausted.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208980 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Chrissy and Darwin's Dog Turd know nothing about science, math, philosophy, or anything else.
They repeat stupid lines they have heard, then when proven wrong, try to google enough conflicting information to wiggle free.
They are nothing but an Atheist Idiot Caravan, rolling through the internet forums.
Sad, really.
Huh....

You'd think the Freething Skeptic Topix Atheist! would be a little more interested in learning than they are...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208981 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incorrect. Attacking a person is merely insulting them. Ad hominem refers to a logical fallacy in which one attacks an argument by attacking the person making it. Saying that a person is an ahole is not an ad hominem. Saying that his argument is wrong because he is an ahole is what ad hominem refers to.
From Wiki:
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument"
There is also the combo - attacking the argument, and throwing in personal insults against the person. What's fun is if the two can be combined in a way where they seem indistinguishable. Sorta' like a right hook combined with a knee to the groin.

As in, "Barf Balloon, evidence suggests dinosaurs had DNA".

Or faulting the argument of a muslim guy, then calling him "Hazel Goldstein".

Possibilities abound.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#208982 Jan 29, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
The creationist troll is here spouting all these stupid questions that have NO meaning. When I hear the first "world view" I think of Yellowdog and all the years of arguing till her repetitions drove everybody crazy. Never answer a question, just keep on the same rote words. Time for the white sheet.
I find that responding to mtimber is still productive. His cognitive deficits and their relationship to his faith become the subject of discussion

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#208983 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
On a worldwide scale, Christianity is rising.
25 million new adherents per year.
Prayer works.
Factor in the roughly 19 million Christians that die due to old age etc., each year and that drops to 6 million per year.

I'm not sure how many people Christianity loses each year due to people rejecting non-evidence supported(faith only) deity belief - or de-conversion/indoctrination - but things aren't looking too good for Christianity.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#208984 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Again, observing a thing's effects is not observing a thing.
Observe a wake all you want, that won't tell you much about the boat.
<quoted text>
Nope. You're assuming it was a boat that caused the wake because you know that boats cause wakes.
You did not witness the boat causing the wake.
You're doing what science does, you're filling in the blanks because you must have an answer.
The wake might've been caused by a whale.
it could be a natural phenomenon.
You don't know.
But you "know" it was a boat....
Observing a wake can tell us much about what caused it. A Whale, because it was once a land mammal, swims with an up and down motion of it's tail much like how the spine flexes on a running land mammal, would leave a very different wake. The size of the wake would tell us about the size and approximate weight of boat, and since there was never been a natural phenomena observed that produced a wake like one caused by a boat, you'd have to discount that. Since the only wakes we have ever observed are left by boats, the most probable and accurate answer would be a wake caused by a passing boat.

Of course it could have been left by Poseidon swimming by, but much like your God, there is no evidence that Poseidon exists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208985 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I mean. You're still stuck on "absolute" despite being told repeatedly for several weeks that we do not invoke such a concept nor accept that it exists.
Absolutely?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208986 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Mankind.
We appeal to the subset of people that appear to be working to maximize the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number.
Appear to whom?

Is "maximizing the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number" an absolute standard?

Who says so? Why?

What's wrong with maximizing the greatest satisfaction for only a few?

What's wrong with maximizing it just for myself?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208987 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You still seem terribly confused over the initial subject of our conversation. It was how we verify if something is REAL, not if the real event can be understood. Pay attention boy!!!!
These were not guesses I gave you, science understands everything you mentioned. Your scientific knowledge is outdated, for example, science does now understand why the suns corona is hotter than the surface. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves transport energy from the surface of the sun out through the chromosphere into the corona, making it hotter than the surface.
1. FACT....both the sun and all of the planets in our solar system where formed from the same accretion disk, hence the center of the Earth contains much of the same material as our sun.
2. FACT......Birds navigate using the earths magnetic fields, to that end they have tiny grains of magnetite in their heads to aid in detecting these magnetic fields
3. FACT......The flame is hotter near the tip of a fire or around its edges
4. FACT...There are many theories as to how the universe came into existence, or NOT
5. FACT....There are many theories as to how life came to be, abiogenesis is the front runner since amino acids have been created from non-living material, panspermia is also a possibility.
Once again, try your best, I know it's very difficult for you, to understand the difference between proving something is real, or understanding completely these things that are REAL.
Science doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. Unlike religious beliefs, which claims to know all of the answers without question, science is a self correcting system that continually adjust it's stance on any issue as new information is discovered. That is how progress is achieved, not by assuming to already have ALL of the correct answers. In doing so, any journey of discovery ceases and you are locked in a dark age mentality.
To avoid a bunch of quote blocks, I numbered your "facts".

1. That is not a fact, that's a hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot be tested today.

2. NOT a fact. Scientists who study bird migration don't all agree on how birds migrate. You can't pigeonhole all birds and make a wild claim like that.

3. NOT a fact. The temperature of a flame depends on the volume of fuel and air and the temperature surrounding it.

4. Correct. There are many theories. Science doesn't know how the universe came to be.

5. Correct. There are several theories about how life began. Science doesn't know how life began.

I doubt you'll look into any of this. You don't wanna learn that many things exist outside the realm and knowledge of science.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208989 Jan 29, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
show me a society where child molestation is acceptable and we'll discuss it.
Child marriage and pederasty are tolerated in Muslim societies.

Discuss away.

They find it moral.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208990 Jan 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Where is your god? All you have offered is what you assume are its effects, like touching you, answering your prayers, and unexplained phenomena..
God is everywhere.

Accept that you're a sinner.

Accept that God offers you salvation.

That'd be the best start.

If you do, God will reveal Himself to you.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 23 min IB DaMann 235
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 24 min SoE 40,537
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min ChristineM 16,015
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Thinking 4,665
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 2 hr Thinking 12
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 24,074
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr ChristineM 3,750
More from around the web