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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220270 Mar 19, 2014
He who has the most birthdays

Lives the longest.

-RR

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220271 Mar 19, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Electrical Engineer:
Just to show you what kind of liar Buck is, he stated just now that...
<quoted text>
What I said is that a path of infinite length can be mapped onto a circle (and hence the torus...or in Buck lingo a donut) by the mapping
x = cos(t)
y = sin(t)
for t = 0 to infinity
I also gave Buck links showing the circle has an infinite fundamental group...which is just another way of saying what I said above.
<quoted text>
And what I said here is that...
Sum(1/2^n) for n = 1 to infinity = 1.
Yes, an infinite number of non-zero terms can add to a finite value...something Buck claims can not happen. As you know, we are talking about convergent series here.
Being an EE, you will know a fair amount about convergent series since you probably use (and were certainly taught) Fourier Series.
And, get this. Buck claims to have made straight As in calculus...despite not knowing, or even grasping, the above facts.
You might also note that Buck seems to think calling me names makes his argument more valid.
Buck makes me laugh.
What you offer here is easily grasped. It's just not the argument you have made.

You argued for infinite quantities in the physical world.

You don't understand the difference in theoretical math and physical matter.

And there is also this from you, referring to Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller:

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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220272 Mar 19, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, I understand that math behind it. It was one of the hardest classes I took. Math Lab did a wonderful job of doing all that math for me though. ;)
I don't take what many people on this site take to heart. Most of the people on here are defensive and try to make bold claims with absolutely no source. Believe me, I do not take what Buck says seriously.
Do you accept a claim I make about Dagwood's words when I copy and past his own words?

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:[referring to Kitzmiller]

"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.
__________

Which element has no basis - his own words or the official transcript of the trial?

Obviously, both are authentic. Equally as obvious, I caught Dagwood red-handed in a lie.

What part of my claim is not credible?

I will wait for your answer.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220273 Mar 19, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>

Most of the people on here are defensive and try to make bold claims with absolutely no source. Believe me, I do not take what Buck says seriously.
Please supply a specific example.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220274 Mar 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
My dog eats rocks and turds.
He's also an atheist.
You are correct.

By the definitions supplied by atheists on this thread, both your dog and the turds he eats are atheists.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220275 Mar 19, 2014
....does that qualify as cannibalism?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220276 Mar 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Topix atheist, amateur biologist, and all-around fink, Blue Baboon.
And have you met Christine - who says the Pope is an atheist?
And what about WildeRide - who says EVERYONE is an atheist?
You can learn a lot around here, man. No shit.
...We have this one guy, Darwin's SumpPump, who claims to be a mathematician and a calculus professor. He says that a donut is infinite in length. He says you can slice a pizza into infinite pieces, of area greater than zero, and put the infinite pieces back in the same box.
It's a nut house, man. I was in prison for 12 years, and the people there are smarter than Topix atheists.
Buck, you should be more careful who you try to push your BS on. EE will have, at a minimum, almost a minor in math...and quite likely more than that. He will have taken Linear Algebra and Differential Equations...both post-calculus courses. Perhaps Vector Calculus and even Complex Analysis. Which means he knows far more math than you and will see you are just pulling things out of your arse.

You can pull this sh*t on RR because RR know less than most rocks. But the fact you try to pull this off on educated people is just pathetic. You aren't fooling anyone...except yourself and RR.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220277 Mar 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a mathematician can mathematically prove he's a geek.
Why thank you.

Math geeks rule.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220279 Mar 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
....does that qualify as cannibalism?
Um....

I'll have to ask the turds and get back to you.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220280 Mar 19, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Why thank you.
Math geeks rule.
Lol

I'm tellin the geeks in the biology lab.....

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220282 Mar 19, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Here is something to send Buck into a lather...
Barney Frank has been named Humanist of the Year by the Humanist Community at Harvard.
Not at all.

Apparently that award is given for being caught running a gay prostitution ring out of your house.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#220283 Mar 19, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mate, don't get off your bike. All they wanna do is go off like a bucket of prawns in the sun.
Let's just veg out, go out to the whoop whoop, get a Darwin stubby and act like yanks and have a barbie.
LOL!!

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#220285 Mar 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what they were depicting WAS false.
I haven't seen any case of the ID science guys, Behe, Minnich, Meyer, staging fake photographs to support their theory.
Seems ID guys are not only smarter than the Darwinists,...but also more honest.
This link gives a decent explanation.
http://www.textbookhistory.com/haeckels-embry...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#220286 Mar 19, 2014

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#220287 Mar 19, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Our little prison bitch is a classic male chauvinist pig. Jesus will be so pleased with you!
Would Italians call me a pizza chauvinist pig?

LOL,

And you don't believe in Jesus. Or are you another one that switched it up for Topix. I think you did Nose Sprinkles

I mean mate

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#220288 Mar 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Bollocks, I have had enough of your winging because you want the church to be squeaky clean. It isn’t so live with it.
They are fooking priests you moron, so it should be lower than the national average, those bum fookers are supposed to be trusted. It should not exist at all in the church, but it does so there is something else you’ll have to live with.
Yes those people are called priests. Or have you not been following the conversation?
Of course I want the church to be clean

I already admitted it wasn't

I already said I brought up the 1.8% not to minimize it but to illustrate the inherent danger that thinking it is way higher can cause when people don't also focus on additional places

You are way too stupid to try revisionist history on me. How many more times would you like to be corrected? I have no problem doing it a 6th time.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#220289 Mar 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I did say that the British media has was a deeper concern about exposing child abuse than the United States, which appears by the very nature and output of the British and US press machine to be true.
I also said the that US press were more interesting in protecting there national security with is also true.
Different perspective, so where am I lying?
Oh I get it, you have nothing else to offer. Fair enough
You said it as an insult about the United Stares

If you like I can post your old post to show you are lying? This is twice I've offered. You gonna go with revisionist history again?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#220290 Mar 19, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Here is something to send Buck into a lather...
Barney Frank has been named Humanist of the Year by the Humanist Community at Harvard.
Buck Crick wrote:
Not at all.
Apparently that award is given for being caught running a gay prostitution ring out of your house.
That's humanism for ya...

http://www.google.com/imgres...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#220291 Mar 19, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What you offer here is easily grasped. It's just not the argument you have made.
Then why have you had such a hard time grasping it? You have never shown one inkling of understanding it.

Perhaps if you are the calculus maven you claim, you can describe the Weirstrauss Theorem.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#220292 Mar 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that they should molest children and then cry religion when they are caught?
And you also seem to be saying that priest who rape children are not offenders.
Honey give up now before you dig yourself a hole so deep that you can’t hide under your religion
You may be the dumbest person on Topix

How did you come up with that?!

That's it, I'm getting the hand-puppets!

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) 1 hr Prince of Darkness 94,251
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 22 hr Eagle 12 - 139
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism Mon Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20
The atheists trick May 8 Eagle 12 - 3
News The Anti-Christian Movement May 7 blacklagoon 3 25
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) May 5 Eagle 12 - 5,971