Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#232210 Jul 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"not believing in any gods" is not what atheism means.
It's what atheists WANT it to mean, so that they are relieved any burden of argument.
What it means, and has always meant, is the belief that no god exists.
A newborn is neither an atheist or a theist, as far as we know.
Your belief in what atheism means is irrelevant, what counts is what is understood by atheists who after all is what counts when defining the word atheism, a definition accepted by most dictionaries as opposed to the belief of a pedantic criminal with a home school PhD in “I know best cos I said so”

New born babies do not believe in god(s)– end of story

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232211 Jul 10, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please explain the difference between these two statements as as far as I can tell they make the same claim.
"not believing in any gods"
"...is the belief that no god exists."
Hmm...I'd suggest that anyone who was raised in a religion and then rejected it, becoming atheist, would believe that deities don't exist.

I'd suggest that someone who was simply raised in the absence of deity belief, who couldn't fathom them, would simply "not have a belief about deities."

For the latter one, there are a few cultures that don't have deities. They have spirits or sorcery - so they wouldn't, until the concept was explained, bother to think about deities.

Not sure if this is close, but I know Japanese who think the entire concept of deities is silly and kind of funny. They don't understand it - it's basically incomprehensible to them - but, in their normal social lives, they still go about religious rituals. It's simply that they have social meaning, not spiritual meaning.

In my house, for example, we put the Butsudan in the closet. So we're being quite disrespectful to the kamisama (deity) but...ah...none of us care. It still gets beer and rice on the days it's supposed to, along with incense - but only b/c it's supposed to. Not because any of us are actually worried our house deity is going to be unhappy and cause our house to collapse.

However, I've gone to other people's houses and the first thing you do is pray to the kamisama. Then socialize. I feel silly doing it, but I don't let them know.
Patrick

United States

#232212 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein E=MC^2
President Obama 50.3 %
Gov. Romney 47%

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232213 Jul 10, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't actually. I would like to publish it intact for the physics prof who produced it. Unfortunately I cannot do that until I'm protected - but I don't really want to go giving this away. If someone else comes up with it in the meantime, more power to them.
You wouldn't understand it regardless.
Who knows, perhaps Buck and I can publish it together. We trust each other enough to let the criticism flow - and that can make for good analysis. Also, I don't fully understand the physics equations and I know I cannot derive them, despite that I have the final versions.
sorry to be the one to tell you, but there already is a comprehensive reference book that's been published and is widely accepted as the authority on the subject of the para-normal; IT'S CALLED THE BIBLE!!!;-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232214 Jul 10, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Public service announcement for you.
Bible study 101A
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
God shows Moses some tricks that he says are sure to impress. First, throw your rod on the ground; it will become a snake. Then grab the snake by the tail and it will become a rod again. Next, make your hand appear leprous, and then cure it. And finally, pour water on the ground and it will turn into blood.(That ought to do it!) 4:2-9
God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. Luckily for Moses, his Egyptian wife Zipporah "took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he [God] let him go." This story shows the importance of penises to God, and his hatred of foreskins. 4:24-26
Moses and Aaron ask the Pharaoh to let all the Israelites go into the desert to pray for three days, or else God will kill them all "with pestilence, or with the sword." 5:3
i'm sorry, but you must be mistaking me for someone who might listen to what an antichrist has to say. i hope you didn't put too much effort in this waste:-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232215 Jul 10, 2014
Godspeakinginmydreamslol wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are an idiot, and have absolutely no clue about the meaning of words.
I´m an atheist and I not only belief God exists but I know for a fact.
What people like you have trouble understanding is that it´s all in my HEAD, and in peoples heads. I treat it the same as schizophrenia, because it has all the similar symptoms.
It´s just accepted because over the years religions abused the weak minded to gain wealth and power, using it to brainwash people like you, influence politics (which they still do) and if all fails use their power and military
Please people STOP believing this shit before we attain technology to make our ideas into reality. Accept yourself as an individual and others as well, because together we can have much better lives. Or keep abusing others until they get their revenge. It´s YOUR choice.
You are equating theism with religion, which is in error.

And you do not know whether theism or atheism is correct "for a fact", which makes you also a liar.

I have been shunned and physically attacked by religious people.

The attacks did not go well for them.

The attacks from non-religious didn't go well, either, but that's another story.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232216 Jul 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the infinite universe is a mathematical impossibility.
I have already read and examined the theory you provide many times.
All it means is that the event horizon is not calculable, and physicists solve the problem by an indiscriminate and invalid use of the term "infinite" in their hypothetical modeling.
No physical entity or event that is susceptible to measurement in any of its parts can be infinite. A universe produced by expansion of a finite singularity - this universe - cannot reach infinity in extent, and even theoretically, the expansion would have to proceed for infinite time to do so.
The universe has expanded for 13.6 billion years, and can be no nearer to infinite in its extent than it was after the first 5 seconds of its existence.
Theoretical physicists have sponsored the creeping in of the invalid use of the term "infinity" into their hypothetical modeling. It is hypothetically intriguing, but technically incorrect.
In reality, such a result is impossible.
"physicists solve the problem by an indiscriminate and invalid use of the term "infinite" in their hypothetical modeling."
LOL Hand waving doesn't change it.

"A universe produced by expansion of a finite singularity"

There is no such thing as a finite singularity, but we weren't talking about a singularity anyway. We are talking about the event horizon of the universe and a distance in physical
reality. Nothing about this hypothetical , it is a mathematical certainty.
By calculating the rate of expansion of the universe and the speed of light, and the distance between the one point and the other.

But thanks again for showing us your infinite knowledge that this statement is even known.

"The universe has expanded for 13.6 billion years, and can be no nearer to infinite in its extent than it was after the first 5 seconds of its existence."

We don't know that it wasn't infinite in extent to start with, we only know the time of expansion is finite. But again we arrived at the 13.6 billion years by the same calculations, that make the distance past the cosmological event horizon infinite and no number long enough to reach past it.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232217 Jul 10, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm...what's a twink? Is that some kind of term for Asian?
yes - for an asian transgender;-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232218 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Your belief in what atheism means is irrelevant, what counts is what is understood by atheists who after all is what counts when defining the word atheism, a definition accepted by most dictionaries as opposed to the belief of a pedantic criminal with a home school PhD in “I know best cos I said so”
New born babies do not believe in god(s)– end of story
It's not my belief - it is the academic definition in philosophy.("the belief that no gods exist")

What atheists believe about the definition is no more relevant than what I believe.

If atheists don't like what the term means, they are free to adopt a different one.

And how did babies communicate to you what they believe?

Baby talk?

Is that where you learned the Pope is not catholic and infinity is a place?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232219 Jul 10, 2014
gort wrote:
atheism demands that one be easily persuaded, violently gullible, A FOOL
besides being fools, athesits are also often gay and/or ALWAYS gay advocates. hence the term that i coined - Gaytheists!

i thought this term would have gone viral by now.....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232220 Jul 10, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry to be the one to tell you, but there already is a comprehensive reference book that's been published and is widely accepted as the authority on the subject of the para-normal; IT'S CALLED THE BIBLE!!!;-)
Find me the part where it describes physics equations.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232221 Jul 10, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

Who knows, perhaps Buck and I can publish it together. We trust each other enough to let the criticism flow - and that can make for good analysis. Also, I don't fully understand the physics equations and I know I cannot derive them, despite that I have the final versions.
I knew you wanted to collaborate with me. It's a curse.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#232222 Jul 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree with anything here.
I have long argued the results of the PEAR experiments, against vicious opposition.
Einstein: "If quantum theory is true, strange things would happen over long distances".
Whether your conclusions about afterlife, etc. are true remains to be determined.
PEAR shut down in 2007, after nearly three decades of research. Is anyone benefiting from almost three decades of intense scrutiny of PSI? Are there any practical applications in use now that you're aware of?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232223 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"physicists solve the problem by an indiscriminate and invalid use of the term "infinite" in their hypothetical modeling."
LOL Hand waving doesn't change it.
"A universe produced by expansion of a finite singularity"
There is no such thing as a finite singularity, but we weren't talking about a singularity anyway. We are talking about the event horizon of the universe and a distance in physical
reality. Nothing about this hypothetical , it is a mathematical certainty.
By calculating the rate of expansion of the universe and the speed of light, and the distance between the one point and the other.
But thanks again for showing us your infinite knowledge that this statement is even known.
"The universe has expanded for 13.6 billion years, and can be no nearer to infinite in its extent than it was after the first 5 seconds of its existence."
We don't know that it wasn't infinite in extent to start with, we only know the time of expansion is finite. But again we arrived at the 13.6 billion years by the same calculations, that make the distance past the cosmological event horizon infinite and no number long enough to reach past it.
The singularity is finite in volume, which approaches zero.

If the intervening distance between particles was not finite, there would be no way to know it was expanding.

It is incoherent to apply infinity to any measurement regarding physical objects.

If the universe, or event horizon, is physical, it is not infinite.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232224 Jul 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The singularity is finite in volume, which approaches zero.
If the intervening distance between particles was not finite, there would be no way to know it was expanding.
It is incoherent to apply infinity to any measurement regarding physical objects.
If the universe, or event horizon, is physical, it is not infinite.
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232225 Jul 10, 2014
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
PEAR shut down in 2007, after nearly three decades of research. Is anyone benefiting from almost three decades of intense scrutiny of PSI? Are there any practical applications in use now that you're aware of?
Yes. People keep their cats' veterinary appointments secret from the cat until the last minute.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232226 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_si...
Theoretical mumbo-jumbo.

Nothing physical can be infinite. It is self-contradictory.

You can theorize as many as you want.

I can theorize infinite beer. Want one?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232227 Jul 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretical mumbo-jumbo.
Nothing physical can be infinite. It is self-contradictory.
You can theorize as many as you want.
I can theorize infinite beer. Want one?
No but you can give me some of those infinite donuts. hahsahah

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232228 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_si...
A point half as dense as the infinitely dense point would also be infinitely dense.

But it would also be less dense.

A universe where this relation is not contradictory is not a physical universe, would be a universe with no objects possible, and cannot exist in physical reality.

Physicists say "infinite" because they don't know what else to say.

Since: Sep 13

Dubai, UAE

#232229 Jul 10, 2014
Which kind of faith lol

If you don't believe in god

So why faith

You don't believe in hell ve heaven

Why u tired u self to compete religion

Is that excuse to revert people

Lol

There is nothing interesting in being atheist

Drinkin wine and losing mind

Every thing is allowed no one know difference between good and evil

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

I don't see difference between rest religion and atheist

They allow both adultery, wine,...... etc

Gambling

Evil is mixed with truth

Gambling in Vegas is legal and main life source and people simply enter gambling places and end suciding

Watch how they sucide ;

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

There religion didn't make difference

Except islam

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) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 23,543
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min scientia potentia... 48,729
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr Uncle Sam 72
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Richardfs 5,706
News In defense of faith 9 hr karl44 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 18 hr Amused 3
More from around the web