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

#219979 Mar 17, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a Communist.
Or a traitor of some sort.
No patriotic American would besmirch our judicial officers that way.
Spare me.

I sat in court and watched a judge award child support to an ex that was equal to the guy's monthly pay plus 1 dollar.

It went to the state court of appeals and they upheld it 4 to 1.

I saw a Judge go straight up a farmer's ass because his pants were dirty because he worked for a living.

Our judicial officers are crooks and leaches that sponge off the taxpayers for years, then continue to sponge for retirement. I am backed up on this opinion by the few honest lawyers that have watched the system work for decades.

And you can always appeal? Right?. Newsflash Counselor - the appeals sit in a file for 12 months, then a clerk reads them, and the judges stamp them in agreement with the trial court. There is no appeal process.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219980 Mar 17, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>If I may...
"Atheist's Statement:
1. There is no evidence to support the existence of any deity.
2. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in any of them.
3. Therefore, I don't.
Those statements do not qualify one as an atheist.

An atheist is one who believes no god exists.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#219981 Mar 17, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that by Barton's own criteria he is a purely selfish bastard?
No, but I agree by your own statements you are a lying bastard.

How's that?

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219982 Mar 17, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>You are confused
What I ignored was you
If you you think a link to an individual case disproves the notion that not enough is being done to expose ALL abuse then you really are too ignorant to be in the conversation. One that you also can't seem to grasp included me repeatedly saying I support all abuse in the church being exposed. But when disproportionate coverage gives people the wrong idea about how widespread the problem is through society they tend to only focus on where they incorrectly think it is more prevalent, thus allowing other abuse to go unnoticed. I want a better effort to see it ALL exposed.
I think I'm gonna need to break out the hand puppets for you two. That someone would choose to look as clueless as you two appear content to look just so they can maintain their line in the sand is pretty sad. How petty. How hypocritical. Set the imaginary Topix battle you think you are in to the side at least long enough to find the obvious common ground that all abuse needs to be exposed and that its dangerous to narrow the focus.. That way you at least don't look like a total joke. Although not the funny kind.
And nobody thinks I'm a fundie. Good luck trying to push that idea. Unless you were just so giddy you made a play on words that you couldn't help yourself despite the total lack of sense
What I ignored was you, dumb fellator. Mostly because your whiny little rants aren't worth the trouble.

I was referring to that KiHorsesAss, who is too busy attacking everyone to notice I mentioned a young girl molested by a pedophile murderer, protected by another pastor. But it's all about YOU, self-centred little prat. As for the rest of your tantrum, save it to run crying to Mummy. Get her to change your nappy while you're at it.

Here's the article again. Ignore it to fixate on yourself again I bet, fundie f**kwit.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland...

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219983 Mar 17, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>How is it the supposed smarter demo is so enthralled by making a play on words?
What is that even supposed to be a play on? Rice Crispies? How in the world is that relevant to anything that was being talked about? That's kinds the point when someone makes a play on words.
Well keep those Asian cereal jokes coming. I think it showcases your intelligence nicely. I'd love to see the context you stole that from. Maybe then it'd be worth a chuckle
:)
Apologize or GFY, whiny prison bitch.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219984 Mar 17, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No. They're only "Christians" because their church gives them rice.
Happy Paddy's Day, mate. At least someone isn't a complete drongo here.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219985 Mar 17, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
This hardly surprises me-- most Evangelical Christian Leaders™ are guilty of multiple moral failures of one sort or another.
Rampant infidelity seems to be the most common complaint, but pedophilia is just as prevalent among Evangelicals than it was among Cat'Lick priests. It's just that the Evangelicals are more fractured, so anytime one gets busted, he typically gets jail time, but not much national news time-- it's too common to be newsworthy.
But it's quite obvious KillMare (or whatever he calls himself) is a flaming gay-homosexual.
All he ever does is talk about gay sex... he's obsessed with it, it seems.
Hooray! Finally someone gets it.

Funny how the only other person who cares about Melissa Bridges and the other victims, is my fellow infidel. The forum Pharisees are too busy loving themselves.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219986 Mar 17, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I call'em as I see'em.
And I do prefer brutal honesty-- especially on Topix.
:)
Honesty is the best policy, Bob.
:-)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#219987 Mar 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW TO PROVE DARWIN'S STEPCHILD A BALD-FACED LIAR
__________
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________
Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:
Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it is.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it does.
__________
Game, set, and match.
And Buck slams the serve into the net again.

On further questioning...

Quote

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

<note the "YOUR definition">

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

End quote

And there you have it. Behe considers ID to be science under his personal redefinition of what is science. Not under the accepted definition of science. And under Behe's definition, astrology is science.

Saying ID is science using a different definition of science is NOT saying that ID is science.

Note that Buck adheres to strict definitions of words...except when he doesn't.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219988 Mar 17, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No-no-no-- it's FLAMING gay-homosexual.
You gotta get all the terms in, or KillMind will get really mad.
Do try to keep up.
Anytime that thing tries to insult me by calling me a lesbian, I can always call him a poofter. Or maybe a fellator.

Smirk. LOLOL

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#219989 Mar 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I agree by your own statements you are a lying bastard.
How's that?
Show where I lied.

If anyone is a lying bastard, it is you. You accuse people, constantly, of lying when they haven't. That means YOU are the one lying.

Hoisted on his own petard!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#219990 Mar 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I agree by your own statements you are a lying bastard.
How's that?
You just can't help yourself, can you? You are compelled to lie.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#219991 Mar 17, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
Versus the FLAMING non-gay homosexual?
Gay still does mean "light-hearted and carefree", you know. Just like my father insisted it did.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/...

A homosexual whose boyfriend left him would hardly be too happy or light-hearted.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#219992 Mar 17, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>What I ignored was you, dumb fellator. Mostly because your whiny little rants aren't worth the trouble.

I was referring to that KiHorsesAss, who is too busy attacking everyone to notice I mentioned a young girl molested by a pedophile murderer, protected by another pastor. But it's all about YOU, self-centred little prat. As for the rest of your tantrum, save it to run crying to Mummy. Get her to change your nappy while you're at it.

Here's the article again. Ignore it to fixate on yourself again I bet, fundie f**kwit.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland...
I wondered if you were even talking about or to Skumbucket. Didn't think so.
Poor, persecuted lil chook.

Hey Rosa :-)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#219993 Mar 17, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>Gay still does mean "light-hearted and carefree", you know. Just like my father insisted it did.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/...

A homosexual whose boyfriend left him would hardly be too happy or light-hearted.
http://youtu.be/9Pq8TFptKR4

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219994 Mar 18, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And you have a blind faith in whatever a science magazine spits out, don't ya?

What researchers? What are their credentials? Do they have an agenda? Was their funding dependent of "finding" this new evidence? Where's the proof that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a second? Who conducted those tests?
You ask none of that. You think it's in a scientific journal, it MUST be true.
Blind faith would be believing that the Genesis creation story is factual because the bible says so. Believing an article in Scientific American is justified. The difference is their track records, which is evidence. Also, the two types of belief are different in their degree. Faith in the bible is not only not justified by evidence (blind), it is absolute. The trust in Scientific American is tentative, supported by reports in other sources, and would disappear if their standards fell.

You probably should stop comparing the two. It never world out well for religious faith.

=========

Notice that another prophecy of science was just confirmed - the second one this decade (the Higgs boson being the first).

When you find something like gravity waves exactly where you expected to find them with devices designed to look precisely where they were predicted by theory to be found, you have evidence that takes you FAR beyond blind faith.

“Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?”- Carl Sagan

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219995 Mar 18, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
Lets say I provide a quote that says "illegal immigration might provide a short term boost to a local economy but in the long run its a leading cause for the crumbling of a society" Now someone might be somewhat intrigued and inclined to take it somewhat at face value. Now what if after I told you I quoted it from a book called "dirty Mexicans - the termites of society". Would you then be more likely to think maybe that bias should have been expected and that perhaps it is a bias and not objective? Now does it mean definitely all their conclusions are wrong? Of course not. But I would tend to take it with a grain of salt P.S. I'm only using Mexicans because I don't know off hand who would be a bigger demo as far as immigrants in the U.S. It literally has no other implication for why I picked that group
I would agree with that certain habits of thought and manners of expression are reliable indicators that the source is tendentious and therefore not to be trusted even though it is possible that it got it right. We'd both rather see the same thing coming from a trusted source.

I've been making precisely that argument against apologetics sites, and why I tend to reject the opinions of people like Scott Lively and Bart Ehrman. Their writing tries to lead the reader to certain conclusions not with evidence and reason alone, but also with emotional appeals and innuendo.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219996 Mar 18, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If there was evidence, there's be no reason to believe.
LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219997 Mar 18, 2014
Did you ever answer my question about what you think faith and your religion have done for you with regard to your intellect, character and personality? Has it made you a better person in any of those areas? I see a whiny, angry airhead obsessed with anal sex and aliens who repeats the same insults and taunts in in almost every post, and who is pretty universally disliked and disrespected here. Do you care? It doesn't appear so.
KiMare wrote:
I answer your question with just about every post I make.

arrogant, ignorant,'rational atheist' oxymorons who don't like getting back what you dish out with every post.
.
Smirk.
I guess you do.

You should demand your money back.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#219998 Mar 18, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
I like you when you are polite :-).
.
You know, I had a boyfriend who simply had the hardest timing 'finishing' during sex unless I would turn around and suck on his big toe while he climaxed. I don't know WHY he needed that! My point is that what turns people on is different and individual for each person.
.
For some, the natural urge includes anal sex for others having their big toe sucked during sex. And for others, plain old missionary. I don't believe ANY of these are 'unnatural'- they simply are what make sex fun for different folks. And I am pretty sure my mind won't be changed on this. And I also think I am in the majority of opinion on this as well, but agree to disagree works fine for me.
Why thank you!

Agreeing to disagree is your right.

However. There is a vast difference between believing in God who one cannot see, and believing any expression of sexuality regardless of the physical consequences. In fact, one is called faith, and the other denial.

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... 48 min Baffled 1,176
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 5 hr Ben Avraham 100
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon 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
More from around the web