Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213753 Feb 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a religious movement. To believe in the tenets of atheism one must be in her heart a fool.
I have no belief of any kind-- none at all.

I did not **choose** to be an atheist.

It is just that I keep looking for the FACTS-- and all the FACTS show that there is no reason to think gods are real.

Thus, atheism.

It's not a religion either, you silly buffoon.

But your insanity is showing. Again.

Next, I bet you will gleefully condemn me to your imaginary hell.

How sad for you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213754 Feb 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
"DOJ Declares Atheism A “Religious Movement”, Eligible For Religious Tax Exemptions"
The U.S. Justice Department says in a legal filing leaders of an atheist group qualify for the same housing tax exemption priests receive. UPI Aug. 26, 2013
Indeed it did.

It was necessary to combat RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY from people like .. you.

It's what is called a convenient legal fiction.

The same sort of legal fiction that says a company or business is a body (corporation).

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213755 Feb 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Child, most couples don't have property when they get married.
I guess you don't understand the what the property being exchanged was.
KiMare wrote:
Why would you 'require' procreation when marriages need protection NOT to procreate.
On the other hand, ss couples could never procreate if it was a requirement anyway. In fact, gay couples need protection just to have intercourse!
However, its not just that normally marriages procreate and ss couples NEVER mutually procreate, its that a union of 'Mars & Venus' is vastly distinct from the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
Ss couples are incapable of measuring up to marriage at any level of comparison, making ss marriage an oxymoron.
SMile.
If procreation is not a requirement, how exactly are you measuring marriage?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213756 Feb 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
unnecessary. Topix posters who believe in the faith atheism plaster it frequently here and through other advertising media
Faith is a mental disease.

And you are suffering from it... a great deal.

I'm sorry for your loss of sanity.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213757 Feb 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
have you thought about working? have you had a job?
I have a job, Oh Most Hate-filled of God-robots.

Do you?(have a job)

No?

We thought as much.

Your insanity is showing. Again.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213758 Feb 21, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Correct. Truth not reader dependent. You left that out. No surprise there. Removing quotes from context.
Yet you never-- EVER manage to say anything that is true...

... why is that?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213759 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Bullshit.
I made a vow to God.
JustWow wrote:
Incorrect.
You made a vow to your spouse and you signed a contract with the state you live in.
Oh.

Gee whiz, I wish I knew that.

Since you're omniscient, will you recite my wedding vows?

Go.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#213760 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
"Who gives this woman to this man"
The answer traditionally is the father.
The reason for this is that the daughter was the property of the father
Ah, the good ole days....

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213761 Feb 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mac.
Still making moving plans?
Yes.

It'll take most of a year, and a better job. But I'm in the wrong place.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#213762 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw it's cool, I got it.
I know it was loooong time ago (yesterday).
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I know the difference between theory and scientific theory long before coming here.
What we think happened 1 million years ago is not fact, it's a theory, an educated guess. Archaeology is more of an art form rather than hard science. Archaeologists will find bits and pieces and call them clues to a larger puzzle. Then they fill in the blanks to fill in the puzzle to make what they believe is an accurate picture of the past.
It's theory, not fact.
macumazahn wrote:
And yet again, you show that you do NOT know, or will not acknowledge, that a scientific theory is not a simple guess.
Gravity is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
The theories involved are the best-available explanations of the same.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Mac..... I did not say a scientific theory is a simple guess.
I explicitly said "educated guess".
If you ain't gonna read the post, don't bother responding.
---
Somehow when I wrote "educated guess" you got all offended and read it (and repeated it as) "simple guess".
I don't know how an educated guess becomes a simple guess.
I'll give you a free pass, cuz yer English and all....
Mac: I said nothing whatever about "guesses".
-preceded by-
Mac: a scientific theory is not a simple guess
~snigger
Erm, I'm not English. Or even British.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

#213763 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Bullshit.
I made a vow to God.
<quoted text>
Oh.
Gee whiz, I wish I knew that.
Since you're omniscient, will you recite my wedding vows?
Go.
Doesn't matter what you said in your vows.
The only two entities you made a commitment to are your spouse and your state.

And, unfortunately, both of those commitments can be broken just as easily as your "vow" to your god.

But, just for fun, what exactly did you say in your vows and who were you talking to when you said the words?

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213764 Feb 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ensure coverage?
There are 30 million uninsured.
The CBO says after 10 years of Obamacare, there will be...31 million uninsured.
50% of those presently uninsured are uninsured by choice.
The result is coverage is not provided for everyone, half of those added to coverage did not want it, and the cost to those paying for coverage skyrockets.
Only a liberal could devise such an absurd, transparent wealth transfer.
The language of Obamacare, which is now statute, specifies when the mandates begin. It is restrictive language, not permissive language. It is written as "MUST", not "MAY".
Obama changed that. How does that square with your Constitution and Separation of Powers? Are you aware that the President cannot legislate law?
Do you recall when the government shutdown over de-funding or delaying Obamacare, Obama and all the dems shouted, "IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!"
Guess it wasn't, huh?
You Obama voters need to apologize and make restitution.
My health insurance went up $700 a month because of ACA. Are you going to start sending me a check each month, or what?
You ignored my question about your take on Ted Nugent's comments.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#213765 Feb 21, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have coverage, neither do my kids.
I can't afford the cost hike and I make "too much" to get free coverage.
Helluva price, man.
Boo hoo.

If you had pursued an education, you would be able to afford coverage.

I'd make you a loan if you weren't such a sleazebag.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213766 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a nice video I just watched examining and relating concepts like truth, absolute truth, reality, and ways of knowing. that relates not just to your comment above, but to the ones from lightbeamrider and Riverside Redneck about accuracy and the stuff from mtimber on absolute truths and absolute morals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =GdXuoeI1Cq8XX
It's the second in a series - not the series called The Psychology of Belief from AntiCitizenX that you and I discussed yesterday on another thread, which links I can repost for those interested
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The series this was second in is this one called Responding to Objections, also from AntiCitizenX
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
There's a lot of good on the Internet for those interested and able to invest the time - material that is of value when disputing apologists, and when considering philosophical issues such as the nature of truth and the limits of knowledge.
Thanks!

I just listened to the first two-- heady stuff.

Way, way too deep for the god-robots on Topix, I'll wager.

I expect none of them could manage past the first 2 or 3 minutes, before their tiny little attention spans wandered off... "oooh! Shiny!"

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213767 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I've recently been apprised by some local philosophers that accuracy doesn't depend on the source, that either a proposition is accurate or it is not independent of the reader, which I think was meant to imply that I should trust material from Christian sources like that one.
Let me just ask you this: Might that arithmetic not be true on a flat earth visited by the Alien on a domesticated camel in the biblical Levant? After all, all things are possible to God, who is mysterious, and whose ways are beyond the ken of puny humans.
Indeed, a very excellent question.

If all things are possible to god?

Cannot god create a circle, who's constant is a pure 3, instead of an irrational 3.1415...?

Could not this god make a square-circle?

In short, can god create a weight so heavy, that even god cannot lift it?

If so-- god isn't all powerful.

---AND--

If not-- god isn't all powerful...

<laffin>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213768 Feb 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct, and thanks.
I added that if posters like lightbeamrider wanted seasoned skeptics to read their links, they should be to those respected secular sites, as it was overly optimisitic to think that we would be interested enough in theists' claims to visit their apologetics sites and chase down that independent confirmation ourselves.
I see a link to Answers in Genesis, for example, and that's the end of my interest even before I click it, and my guess is that I'm not alone. I've wasted enough time in the past on such resources to be willing to give them more.
The believers posting might not like that, but as I said, reputation and past experiences matter, and the apologetics sites have already expended all of their credibility..
Lightbeam is just a narcissistic egomaniac.

In that, he posts just to "hear" himself crow-- and has little or no interest in **convincing** anyone.

That is quite clear by the way he dismisses **all** questions posted to his stuff.

And also when he uses derogatory language to describe people.

So clearly, Lightbeam does not care about the actual argument at all-- he's just feeding his own bloated ego.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#213769 Feb 21, 2014
JustWow wrote:
Here is my primary problem with this statement as it applies to the right to marriage.
You imply that without the ability to produce offspring, the marriage is invalid and useless and thus should be outlawed.
Would this be a fair assessment of your position?
No.
Do you also have a problem with any heterosexual couples who are unable to produce offspring being married?
No.
The elderly, the infertile....
No. Single elderly seldom get married. There is a marriage penalty for one. They are better off living together. A lot of younger couples do not marry because of finances. Say the female has children and works. She gets child support and huge tax breaks in the earned income tax credit. Her man works also. If they marry they probably forfeit perhaps 1 to 3 grand per years. I don't know for sure how it is now but that is the way it used to be.
If not, why not?
It is legal and the male female pattern is still there.
If the only reason to be married is to produce children, why is the marriage between an opposite sex couple who either chooses not to have children or are incapable of having children valid while the marriage between a same sex couple is not?
If you want to redefine marriage between man and woman to two persons then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Most people when the marry do not know if they are infertile or not but I would say infertile couples does not justify SSM. The hard science indicates compatible reproductive organs are there for a reason. People are physically hetero. Assuming you are female then you have reproductive organs. That means you are physically hetero.

That is the hard science. Proper reproduction is important for the continuation of the species. Sure anybody can reproduce and many have children out of wedlock or they divorce and thus deprive the child of their rights. Children have rights to responsible loving mothers and fathers. Two mommies does not equal one daddy.

We could legalize a type of SSM in which adoption for these couples would be out and they would not go for it. Yet in Massachusetts Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because they could not allow children to be adopted to same sex couples.

Massachusetts is for all practical purposes the blueprint for SSM in the United States.

If you do not mind your tax money being used for sex reassignment surgery for 64 year old man/woman [?] then by all means go ahead. If you do not mind teaching children SSM is as legitimate as OSM then go ahead. Me? One of the worst things we can do as a nation is to further corrupt children and deny them their God given rights.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213770 Feb 21, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
didn't mean to pry.
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Your god is quite evil like that, I get it already.

You believe in a god who delights at the dashing of baby's brains on the rocks.

You believe in a god who delights at the drowning of **all** the word's babies at once.

In short?

You believe in pure, distilled evil.

Sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213771 Feb 21, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Here's a bit from AiG I think you'll find amusing:
"Arguments that should never be used
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.(If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day”(Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
There are no beneficial mutations.
Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.(In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
No new species have been produced.
Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible." - Answers in Genesis.
Complete article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/t...
Yet, the creationists use these every day...

LMAO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#213772 Feb 21, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone having the cheek to call you a liar is at least delusional.
"Lie" is not a word I use often or lightly, although I did so just yesterday. Some idiot (mighta been RR) tried running the "It's only a theory" argument, despite repeated explanations of the proper use of the word "theory".
When you know better, and proceed to repeat your error, that's not an error any more.
Correct.

Which is why the likes of Behe and Hamm are **liars**. They *have* been schooled in their mistakes.

Yet they continue to repeat them...

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Joe Momma 52,506
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Hedonist Heretic 24,962
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 12 min Eagle 12 256
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 16 min Thinking 22,234
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 16 min Eagle 12 11,475
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 29 min Hedonist Heretic 1,688
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 36 min Eagle 12 562
More from around the web