Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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

#216545 Mar 4, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth hurts Buckmeister!
Wiki always lies!
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president.[1]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_adminis...
You can also thank your hero for the Wall Street deregulation that led to 2008 greed meltdown.
Nice actor, stupid president.
Like I said - 138 people investigated. Wow, O.G. FuckMe.

Reagan's deregulation had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Quit watching the Ed Shultz show for your news, O.G. FuckMe.

I could explain to you exactly what caused the 2008 meltdown. But you wouldn't understand if it didn't contain the words "right wing" and "deregulation".

You Marxists have your own language. You no habla truth.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216546 Mar 4, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So this is your style, name calling and false accusations rather than intelligent conversation?
I don't think you can argue against either one of these guys, their arguments against religion and the tenants that accompany them are rock solid.
I would now dare you to offer your evidence for the creator of the universe. Follow that with any examples of why anyone should even consider reading the bible.
Now shows as how being religious and having a belief in God has its benefits over not having a belief in God.
I'll wait!!!
Sure, Sam Harris' arguments are rock solid.

I particularly admire the argument he made that secular humanists are more irrational than religious people in America, but the religious people cause the secular humanists to be irrational.

Yessir. That's rock solid stuff.

I like his claim, too, that he sometimes feels one with other planets.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216547 Mar 4, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
You lost SORE LOSER, get over it.
The majority spoke, you refused to listen.
Will a little luck, the next POTUS will be a gay, Latino with Chinese roots or Snoop Dogg!
I think voting is a waste of time.
This is a oligarchy - you have NO rights, only privileges that can be removed at a whim.
ASK ANY JAPANESE AMERICAN ABOUT RIGHTS DURING WWII.
Where were the camps for Italian and Gernan Americans? Why did they keep their homes and businesses?
I fully agree that you should never vote. Not ever, O.G. FuckMe.

In fact, you might consider staying indoors completely.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216548 Mar 4, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Evolution:
If you see footprints in the snow it is evidence that someone walked there.
Creationism:
If you see footprints in the snow it is proof that God made them.
Why would God be walking in the snow?

And if he can walk on water, he wouldn't leave footprints in snow.

What the hell are you talking about, BenAssFucked?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216549 Mar 4, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually not. It follows directly from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Cf. quantum fluctuation. But then, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Yes. Yes indeed. We actually do observe something coming out of nothing. Happens all the time on the quantum level.
BTW...it is a really bad idea to expect things at the quantum level or the relativistic level (really really small and really really large) to act according to "common sense". Relativity is strange. Quantum mechanics is flat-out weird. Both are non-intuitive.
No, you are wrong. Something does not come out of nothing, not in the quantum "world", not in any world.

Again, you pop off without a effing clue of what you're talking about.

Before you make such statements, you should talk to someone with experience in math or science.

I would help you myself, but I have no patience for assholes.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216551 Mar 4, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious you demonize Harris. I will admit he has said some things I greatly disagree with. But most of those things, like hatred for Islam, is the same thing we hear from so many evangelicals.
Why aren't you demonizing Pat Robertson as well? He has said a lot that is just as bad, or even worse.
So your standard for being a good secular humanist is "being no worse than Pat Robertson"?

That's quite a recommendation.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216552 Mar 4, 2014
virtuanna wrote:
<quoted text>According to Harris, the pooch was begging for it...
xD
According to Harris, raping the pooch is moral, if it helps humanity to flourish.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#216553 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, Sam Harris' arguments are rock solid.
I particularly admire the argument he made that secular humanists are more irrational than religious people in America, but the religious people cause the secular humanists to be irrational.
Yessir. That's rock solid stuff.
I like his claim, too, that he sometimes feels one with other planets.
Goandfuckyermother.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216554 Mar 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant to the argument that atheism is a religion. Some of us may want to participate in a community of atheists. I do. I also participate in a community of bridge players. We also have meeting places and Internet sites.
<quoted text>
As I already noted, none of this is essential to atheism, and holding such views doesn't constitute religious belief or make atheism a religion.
Your bridge club is not defined by a common deity belief.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#216555 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said - 138 people investigated. Wow, O.G. FuckMe.
Reagan's deregulation had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Quit watching the Ed Shultz show for your news, O.G. FuckMe.
I could explain to you exactly what caused the 2008 meltdown. But you wouldn't understand if it didn't contain the words "right wing" and "deregulation".
You Marxists have your own language. You no habla truth.
Spoken like a spoiled little child with a poor vocabulary. What's next junior... Nanny nanny boo boo?

Me niego a discutir con idiotas. Tratan de reducirme a su nivel y luego me golpearon con experiencia!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216556 Mar 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not taught as undisputed fact , nothing in science is undisputed fact.
Agreed, although I'd modify that slightly. Nothing is taught as unmodifiable fact, but some ideas are considered so well grounded that it is impossible for their opposites ever be shown to be the case. Would you agree with that language?

Consider this comment:

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory)... Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Th...

I agree with that in spirit, but it is not difficult to put it under the microscope and find a level at which we can dispute it. For example, when the author says that "no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun," that has to be understood to mean that the opposite will never be shown.

That is, we can add another layer of detail and modify the claim slightly by saying things that the sun and planets all orbit their common center of gravity, which is a point which position varies relative to the center of the sun, and is at various times either in or near the sun, but tt will never be shown that the sun orbits the earth. It could also be said that the sun and earth are orbiting galactic center, another refinement (or tweak).

As you undoubtedly know, faith based critics of science like to seize on these types of things in an effort to discredit science by claiming that since it is constantly changing, it is should not be believed or trusted, hoping to make room for magic..

Incidentally, for anyone interested, you might like to look at this, which shows the sun orbiting the center of mass for the solar system:


Regarding a single common ancestor for all life on earth, that seems to be the case. But if a parallel line arose, survived, and is eventually identified, it would not overturn the theory of evolution - just tweak it. What will never be discovered is that all life did not evolve from microscopic replicators over deep time. That much appears infrangible.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216557 Mar 4, 2014
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Goandfuckyermother.
Nice rebuttal.

Notice the spacing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216558 Mar 4, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
You are a coward and my 8!tch


Oh look! Church must have just let out. Have you been freshly charged by the Spirit since your last visit here?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216559 Mar 4, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a spoiled little child with a poor vocabulary. What's next junior... Nanny nanny boo boo?
Me niego a discutir con idiotas. Tratan de reducirme a su nivel y luego me golpearon con experiencia!
Nice try, Blob.

I'd recognize your brand of stupid anywhere.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#216560 Mar 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look! Church must have just let out. Have you been freshly charged by the Spirit since your last visit here?
He seems to have some residual carnal nature they didn't get cleansed out of him.

Maybe they'll dunk him again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216561 Mar 4, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Just as I said.
3% of the money that goes in the collection plate, on the national average, ends up outside the church itself on so-called "missions and outreach".
That leaves what?
97%. That's how much of "charitable giving", on average, pays for nothing but salaries, insurance, heat, light, maintenance - administrative costs of the church.
Like I said, this argument of yours, that gets trotted out endlessly by Xtians and conservatives alike, glosses over the fact that 97% of Christian "charitable giving" supports the church, NOT a bona fide charity.
And of course that raises interesting implications for churches' legitimate tax status. Why should taxpayers underwrite such an organization, especially since much of the other 97% is used to work against the interests of most unbelievers.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#216562 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, Blob.
I'd recognize your brand of stupid anywhere.
That reminds me, how's Fountain doing these days?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#216563 Mar 4, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Now that's odd. You zip off all these factoids at your fingertips when you want them - why is it you can't seem to confirm (or refute) this simple fact?
I get this from my days as a Christian, when I served in church administration. I could tell you what the figures were at my church, right down to the individual if wanted, and how these numbers contrasted against the national average. Any church administrator could do the same, if they're any good at their job. It is vital to planning and budget-setting. The fact is, the average for "tithing" is something less than 3% of income
By th way, you cite a 10% tithe - nothing in the NT supports that assertion, and, when it's convenient, you claim the OT doesn't apply to Xtians. So there's another of your "factoids" you threw out there with no real number backup, which you then disparagingly contrasted against the REAL percentages of Buffet, Gates, et al.
Never mind the actual numbers if they overtask your factoid bank - The long and short of it is that the vast majority of so-called "Christian charitable donations" go to internal church functions, NOT external charity. Contrast that against Buffet's numbers now.
Riverside Redneck and I have had this conversation already. He was tasked with finding us any church proud enough of its record that it was willing to post audits of its finances. He only found two, and neither was able to demonstrate much charitable giving - well under 10% in each case. We discussed those at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... It seems that his second link (in the quote section) has removed its audit from the Internet.

Keep in mind that these were self-selected churches. Imagine what random, unannounced audits of a hundred churches selected at random would show.

I also shared this elsewhere:

From The Myth Of Religious Charity at http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/01/the-myth...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which touts its charitable work, spent 0.7% of it overall revenue on charitable causes. Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps ... The best of the worst appears to be the United Methodist Church which allocated about 29% of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010. Any secular charity that posted a 29% rate would be given a score of “F” by CharityWatch."

And this about Mother Teresa from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Crit ...

"The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. In 1998 an article in the German magazine Stern estimated that the order received about US$50 million a year in donations. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year. Critics have argued that this money cannot have all been spent on the purpose for which it was donated - aid to the sick and the poor - because the order's facilities, staffed by nuns and by volunteers and offering little in the way of medical facilities, are very cheap to operate and cannot cost anything like these sums to maintain.

"Critics have maintained that the majority of the money donated to the order is transferred to the Vatican Bank in Rome, where it is used by the Catholic Church for its general purposes, or is transferred to non-Christian countries for missionary work.

"In Britain, where the law requires charitable organisations to disclose their expenditures, an audit in 1991 concluded that 7% of the total income of about US$2.6 million went into charitable spending, with the rest being remitted to the Vatican Bank."

The claims for Christian charity seem to be so overblown as to constitute fraud.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#216564 Mar 4, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, although I'd modify that slightly. Nothing is taught as unmodifiable fact, but some ideas are considered so well grounded that it is impossible for their opposites ever be shown to be the case. Would you agree with that language?
Consider this comment:
"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory)... Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Th...
I agree with that in spirit, but it is not difficult to put it under the microscope and find a level at which we can dispute it. For example, when the author says that "no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun," that has to be understood to mean that the opposite will never be shown.
That is, we can add another layer of detail and modify the claim slightly by saying things that the sun and planets all orbit their common center of gravity, which is a point which position varies relative to the center of the sun, and is at various times either in or near the sun, but tt will never be shown that the sun orbits the earth. It could also be said that the sun and earth are orbiting galactic center, another refinement (or tweak).
As you undoubtedly know, faith based critics of science like to seize on these types of things in an effort to discredit science by claiming that since it is constantly changing, it is should not be believed or trusted, hoping to make room for magic..
Incidentally, for anyone interested, you might like to look at this, which shows the sun orbiting the center of mass for the solar system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1iSR3Yw6FXoXX
Regarding a single common ancestor for all life on earth, that seems to be the case. But if a parallel line arose, survived, and is eventually identified, it would not overturn the theory of evolution - just tweak it. What will never be discovered is that all life did not evolve from microscopic replicators over deep time. That much appears infrangible.
Well I was trying to keep it simple, but yes as far as barycenter go everything actually orbits everything , the highest concentration of mass determines the center and the distribution of the mass of each the parts determine their actual barycenter. So Earth's barycenter is only slightly off center of the center of the sun itself, and because the difference in mass between them we will never observe it physically as if the sun revolved around the earth at least not like a binary star where the two stars are of comparative mass.
Red

Long Beach, CA

#216565 Mar 4, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. since his meltdown, Thing Two has disappeared ..
.. maybe he's bathing in cucumbers with multicultural men ..
*spits out coffee*

HA HA HA !!

I'm not here...

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) 48 min Wisdom of Ages 95,341
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 3 hr superwilly 163
The atheists mind Fri Elganned 63
Why creation? Thu Elganned 55
News Atheism and Wonder Thu Eagle 12 - 50
A question for Christians... Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 115
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) Jun 13 Eagle 12 - 861