Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255492 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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#222826 Apr 3, 2014
The geology texts that I've read indicate that we are still coming out of the last ice age. As such, global warming is an inevitable part of warming and cooling cycles that occur on a geologic time scale. The only real question is whether human activity is accelerating the process and , if so, by how much. I'm not convinced that the science is conclusive as of yet. Even without human activity, the polar caps would eventually recede,,perhaps even melting altogether, until they no longer contributed to the pattern of ocean currents that regulates the climate, at which point ocean temperatures would drop, initiating the next ice age, which is probably inevitable.

Climate's only real constant is change. Expecting it to be stable and getting upset that it is not is utterly clueless.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#222827 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was amended to eliminate slavery.
It was not amended to eliminate school prayer.
Are you trying to prove my point?
The "people" amend the Constitution. Judges are not allowed to. Theoretically.
It need need to amend It just had to enforce what twas already there.

What SCOTUS said in the 1940's was that the US Constitution applies to State and Local Governments.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222828 Apr 3, 2014
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely everything you wrote there^ is WRONG...basically an out-right lie. Research the Global temp for the past 20 years,. then get back to me :)
Already did. There is no global warming.

You fell for it, Thumper.

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax
by Alan Caruba March 31, 2014

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book,“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.
Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222829 Apr 3, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Our schools are closed for the worship of the God Saturn and Sol Invictus.
Congratulations.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#222830 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's deceptive, no matter who said it.
"Science" is a field of study. It is neither true, or not true.
People who do science, that's a different subject.
Some say things that are not true. Whether Mr. Tyson believes it or not.
Agreed. It would be more accurate to say that the scientific method is the best way to determine what is real in the physical universe. That's kind of long-winded, though, and a little pedantic. I think Tyson may have intended his statement as a shorthand for that concept.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#222831 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree with Snow Board that the design of a computer chip exceeds that of the human brain?
I don't think you're that dumb. I'll wait to see.
I'll give your judgement all the weight and authority it deserves.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#222832 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

And no, the Constitution does not mean what the court says it means.
BWAHAHAHAHA!

Well, now I know why you never became a legal scholar.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#222833 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Already did. There is no global warming.
You fell for it, Thumper.
A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax
by Alan Caruba March 31, 2014
“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book,“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.
Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988."
"Ball has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, organizations funded by the fossil-fuel industry which advocate against taking action to combat climate change."

Ooops!

Wait, there is more!

"Ball has said he opposes the mainstream scientific community and has stated that he believes global warming is occurring but he believes that human production of carbon dioxide is not the cause."

Sorry Buck, but your boy does acknowledge that climate change is happening, he just doesn't happen to believe that those he takes money from happen to be responsible for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#222834 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for the CONSTITUTIONAL basis.
You gave me what some guys said in 1962. For the 170 years or so previous to that, the Court said there was no such prohibition.
They were both talking about the same Establishment Clause, and the prior courts had over a hundred years of precedent in their favor. The 1962 court had none.
The Establishment Clause restricts one group of people, and one only. See if you can guess what group it is:
"Congress shall make no law..."
And the clause is specific about what kind of law Congress is prohibited from making - one that establishes a national religion.
You want me to believe a teacher leading a prayer in a local school violates an injunction against the United States Congress from establishing a national religion?
And no, the Constitution does not mean what the court says it means. The Constitution means what the words written in it mean, coupled with the original intent of the authors.
Your scenario - the Constitution meaning what the court says - means we have no Constitution.
Why are you against having a Constitution? Why are you against self-government?
I knew that you would see it that way, which is why I also provided the constitutional basis for accepting he ruling of the Court. In combination, they provide the authority that you demanded. During the 170 years prior to that, the Court did not say that there was no such prohibition. They said nothing at all because no case before the Court required them to consider the question. Perhaps at some point in the future, lawyers arguing for your point of view will persuade the Court to reverse itself. But I doubt it, and until such time, the Constitution requires all levels of government to abide by the rulings.

The Constitution is a very complicated document that works as a whole, not in bits and pieces. You can't simply ignore the authority that it gives to the Court and expect to understand it in its entirety.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#222835 Apr 3, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You're getting angry in your old age.
I asked if she was praying out loud.
If she was, it was disruptive. And yes. So would shuffling cards be.
It might be disruptive, you don't know that. Maybe all the other kids in the class really enjoy it. Stop presuming, stop acting like you know everything because you sure as hell don't.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222837 Apr 3, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
It need need to amend It just had to enforce what twas already there.
What SCOTUS said in the 1940's was that the US Constitution applies to State and Local Governments.
SCOTUS can't do that.

To do so requires an amendment consented to by the people.

When did the people consent to that?

And what does it mean to say to state and local governments, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."??

It specifically names Congress, and therefore CANNOT be applied to others unless the wording is changed.

The wording was not changed.

For further proof, Congress twice considered bills to incorporate the First Amendment, making the establishment clause apply to state and local governments. It failed both times.

So there is no such application.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#222838 Apr 3, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>I'll give your judgement all the weight and authority it deserves.
http://youtu.be/gx4jn77VKlQ

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#222839 Apr 3, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that.
I borrowed it.
I don't care who said it, you wrote it right here. No matter who said it originally, it's a lie.

"Science is true whether you believe it or not."

Science is not truth and it isn't certainty.

Scientists seek truth, they don't know or generate truth. They propose and test theories.

Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that ..." or "Our current understanding is ...".

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#222840 Apr 3, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Our schools are closed for the worship of the God Saturn and Sol Invictus.
Then you have somewhere schools out there, because all the schools here have a calendar, and that calendar says they're off for Christmas.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#222841 Apr 3, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
It need need to amend It just had to enforce what twas already there.
Can you try that again please, in English?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222842 Apr 3, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew that you would see it that way, which is why I also provided the constitutional basis for accepting he ruling of the Court. In combination, they provide the authority that you demanded. During the 170 years prior to that, the Court did not say that there was no such prohibition. They said nothing at all because no case before the Court required them to consider the question. Perhaps at some point in the future, lawyers arguing for your point of view will persuade the Court to reverse itself. But I doubt it, and until such time, the Constitution requires all levels of government to abide by the rulings.
The Constitution is a very complicated document that works as a whole, not in bits and pieces. You can't simply ignore the authority that it gives to the Court and expect to understand it in its entirety.
Bull shit. A constitutional basis for accepting a court's ruling is not a constitutional basis for the ruling.

I am not arguing that we don't have to accept the ruling. We do.

My argument, and it is the correct one, is that the ruling has no basis - constitutionally.

Again, if you can show it, do so.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222843 Apr 3, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care who said it, you wrote it right here. No matter who said it originally, it's a lie.
"Science is true whether you believe it or not."
Science is not truth and it isn't certainty.
Scientists seek truth, they don't know or generate truth. They propose and test theories.
Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that ..." or "Our current understanding is ...".
You are correct.

Mr. Tyson does not understand the distinction between science and philosophy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222844 Apr 3, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ball has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, organizations funded by the fossil-fuel industry which advocate against taking action to combat climate change."
Ooops!
Wait, there is more!
"Ball has said he opposes the mainstream scientific community and has stated that he believes global warming is occurring but he believes that human production of carbon dioxide is not the cause."
Sorry Buck, but your boy does acknowledge that climate change is happening, he just doesn't happen to believe that those he takes money from happen to be responsible for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
No.

First, you employ the genetic fallacy.

Second, Ball says the warming has occurred, but now is not occurring.

Third, Ball says the warming is exaggerated, and climate models are inadequate to prove it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#222845 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct.
Mr. Tyson does not understand the distinction between science and philosophy.
He'd fit in well with the Topix Atheists! ideologies.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#222846 Apr 3, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew that you would see it that way, which is why I also provided the constitutional basis for accepting he ruling of the Court. In combination, they provide the authority that you demanded. During the 170 years prior to that, the Court did not say that there was no such prohibition. They said nothing at all because no case before the Court required them to consider the question. Perhaps at some point in the future, lawyers arguing for your point of view will persuade the Court to reverse itself. But I doubt it, and until such time, the Constitution requires all levels of government to abide by the rulings.
The Constitution is a very complicated document that works as a whole, not in bits and pieces. You can't simply ignore the authority that it gives to the Court and expect to understand it in its entirety.
"the Constitution requires all levels of government to abide by the rulings."
Not entirely correct sir.
It depends upon what type of ruling is being considered. If it concerns a subject which has been priorly placed under the jurisdiction of the several states by the Constitution, then any Federal Court ruling on that particular matter is not a constitutionally binding ruling in a state court or any lower court within that state. Correct?

" the Constitution requires all levels of government to abide by the rulings."
State your Article and section, or any amendment where the constitution says what you claim ^there^.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Eagle 12 14,835
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min One way or another 34,016
Reasoning with Insanity 1 hr Reason Personified 39
News Is Atheism Just a Religion In Disguise? (Feb '08) 1 hr Reason Personified 33
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 3 hr Eagle 12 4,463
News Why I quit atheism 3 hr Eagle 12 259
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 3 hr Eagle 12 107
More from around the web