Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215736 Feb 28, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a close friend at all, but I have socialized with Jerry Brown at several functions.
I have called him Jerry when in a group and others called him that. One on one, I call him Governor and he calls me by my first name.
Brown is one hell of a nice guy, by the way. And his wife wears the pants in many respects.
Great. How did he get the name "Moonbeam"?

Was it before, or after, he said this:

"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215737 Feb 28, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
If they had Christian birth parents, they were going to be tortured and killed anyway. Right?
Not literally in the US.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215738 Feb 28, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has ever killed for atheism.
Hope that helps.
Then all those people were buried alive?

Thanks for solving this mystery.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215739 Feb 28, 2014
Jacob wrote:
And just to expand on that thought, the churches who killed and tortured weren't following the laws God had said – specifically the law that says Thou shalt not kill. So, they weren't good churches.
You really are new at this.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#215740 Feb 28, 2014
Jacob wrote:
Whoever did those things may have claimed to be Christian, but it sure doesn't sound like it. Just read the 10 Commandments. They violate them in all of what you're saying.
Are the Ten Commandments still in effect? We have been told here that they were overturned by Jesus.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215742 Feb 28, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just like Gone With the Wind is proven non-fiction in part.
That still doesn't make Rhett Butler a historical figure.
The book doesn't make General Sherman a historical figure, or the burning of Atlanta a historical event.

But they are.

Look up "Red Herring". Moron.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215743 Feb 28, 2014
OK. What did you guys do with Dave Nelson?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#215744 Feb 28, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has ever killed for atheism.
Hope that helps.
It helps, River.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#215745 Feb 28, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Great. How did he get the name "Moonbeam"?
Was it before, or after, he said this:
"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs."
I think before.

Jerry had an identity crisis. In some ways you could call him a hippie, yet he trained in a Seminary for a priesthood of some sort. Then he sorted it all out, and he is who he is.

He's a good and decent person, and worthy of our respect though we might disagree with his views.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#215746 Feb 28, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
OK. What did you guys do with Dave Nelson?
I know.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215747 Feb 28, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
OK. What did you guys do with Dave Nelson?
The Dave Nelson stepped into a cromlech time portal carrying walmart bags filled with twine, Marlboro cigarettes,:*¨`*The Unknown*¨`*:, paper clips, Universal Logic™, Jesusism, the Magnetonomicron, "energies", do it yourself monolith plans, beer, swine flesh, "thingies", sippy box wine, a couple of Radio Shack® speaker magnets and a cat.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#215748 Mar 1, 2014
scaritual wrote:
The Dave Nelson stepped into a cromlech time portal carrying walmart bags filled with twine, Marlboro cigarettes,:*¨`*The Unknown*¨`*:, paper clips, Universal Logic™, Jesusism, the Magnetonomicron, "energies", do it yourself monolith plans, beer, swine flesh, "thingies", sippy box wine, a couple of Radio Shack® speaker magnets and a cat.
"The night is dark and full of terrors."

I hope he took one of those wind-up radio flashlight thingies.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#215749 Mar 1, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
"The night is dark and full of terrors."
I hope he took one of those wind-up radio flashlight thingies.
While sitting on the toilet and thinking really, rrrrrrreaaly hard, Dave Nelson has come up with a new toy idea.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#215750 Mar 1, 2014
Jacob wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, how do you explain everything got here? Just asking. If the Big Bang Theory (key word- THEORY) is real, then what was there before the Big Bang? There has to have been some sort of bomb to explode. So, how did the bomb get there? I'm just wondering how the heck you explain it all.
In the context of science...

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.

You clearly don't understand what "theory" is in science, and you don't understand the Big Bang. Please refrain from posting on things you know nothing about.

For REAL information about the Big Bang...

NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-ar...

National Geographic: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science...

Cal Tech: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang...

University of Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

If this isn't enough, Google will find you more.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#215751 Mar 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
OK. What did you guys do with Dave Nelson?
Dave's not here!

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#215752 Mar 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The book doesn't make General Sherman a historical figure, or the burning of Atlanta a historical event.
But they are.
Look up "Red Herring". Moron.
Ah, but Sherman and the burning of Atlanta are referenced in a great many other works, many that are eyewitness accounts.

But you are the one claiming that the book of fiction known as the Bible proves the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion...even though he and it are mentioned no where else except in works based on the Bible.

There is a HUGE difference there. Jesus is analogous to Rhett Butler...who is only mentioned in GWTW...as Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible.

Speaking of red herrings...yours smells like week old fish.

You mentioned having been raised Christian though you aren't Christian now. You don't seem to have been able to shake loose from all that Bible school nonsense you were taught as a kid. Most people don't.

Please understand that I am NOT saying Jesus didn't exist. What I am saying is that he is not an historical figure since there are no historical sources for his existence. My father's father's father's (go on another 20 generations) father existed. There is no doubt that he did. But he is not an historical figure. No records (that I am aware of) exist for him.

The existence of Jesus is much more problematic. There MAY have been a person that was the seed for the stories in the NT. But then again, there may have not. We don't know. We can't tell.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215753 Mar 1, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but Sherman and the burning of Atlanta are referenced in a great many other works, many that are eyewitness accounts.
But you are the one claiming that the book of fiction known as the Bible proves the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion...even though he and it are mentioned no where else except in works based on the Bible.
There is a HUGE difference there. Jesus is analogous to Rhett Butler...who is only mentioned in GWTW...as Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible.
Speaking of red herrings...yours smells like week old fish.
You mentioned having been raised Christian though you aren't Christian now. You don't seem to have been able to shake loose from all that Bible school nonsense you were taught as a kid. Most people don't.
Please understand that I am NOT saying Jesus didn't exist. What I am saying is that he is not an historical figure since there are no historical sources for his existence. My father's father's father's (go on another 20 generations) father existed. There is no doubt that he did. But he is not an historical figure. No records (that I am aware of) exist for him.
The existence of Jesus is much more problematic. There MAY have been a person that was the seed for the stories in the NT. But then again, there may have not. We don't know. We can't tell.
How many times can you be wrong?

I have not claimed the Bible proves anything, particularly not the crucifixion.

Also, you are wrong about it being the only reference to these.

Also, you are wrong in your analogy concerning General Sherman. Your original analogy was to suggest being included in a book of fiction is negative proof of a person or event.

You are also wrong in your claim that there are no historical sources for the existence of Jesus.

You are also wrong about your great, great grandfather. If he existed, he was a historical person, whether there is any record of him or not.

That's 5 misstatements in one post. Not bad for you. Moron.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#215754 Mar 1, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think before.
Jerry had an identity crisis. In some ways you could call him a hippie, yet he trained in a Seminary for a priesthood of some sort. Then he sorted it all out, and he is who he is.
He's a good and decent person, and worthy of our respect though we might disagree with his views.
I disagree with his views.

I also think he is unworthy of respect, and he is a raving idiot who could only be elected by a collection of raving idiots.

But if you guys want $15 gas, all your earnings going to taxes and public employee pensions, and Mexicans over-running your state, go ahead. The smart ones among you have already moved to Texas.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215755 Mar 1, 2014

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#215756 Mar 1, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
"The night is dark and full of terrors."
I hope he took one of those wind-up radio flashlight thingies.
Homemade glow sticks.
http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/88/49/63475246...

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 4 min Frindly 1,157
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Science 1,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 hr Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web