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.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233169 Jul 20, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, after one puppet is busted, it is common for the puppeteer to send another puppet to defend!
I am sure that there is not one christian on this forum and that is a shame.
Why would there have to be one?

The topic is about atheists having faith in their belief. Totally independent of any religious doctrines.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233170 Jul 20, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes?
Hmmm...
Is that just the top of the pin head, or does it include the rim and underneath portions?

This can get infinitely complex.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233171 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there have to be one?
The topic is about atheists having faith in their belief. Totally independent of any religious doctrines.
The topic of atheism is not totally independent

Religion is also part of the topic title.

A comparison is being made.

I accept your apology.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#233172 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...
Is that just the top of the pin head, or does it include the rim and underneath portions?
This can get infinitely complex.
It's not my Angel, dude.

I fuckedthat one up, seriously.

Do you play 9 ball?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233173 Jul 21, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

Absolutely amazing!
Thanks, man.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233174 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it does it's "infinite" .lol
Sure it is. And I'm a married bachelor.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233175 Jul 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are correct about infinity/noninfinity.
But this I know something about.
And I can tell you, with complete confidence, that you are dead wrong.
Four of nine justices voted against free-speech in Citizens United.

They are consistent, as they voted against religious freedom in Hobby Lobby.

Those four apparently want to repeal the entirety of the First Amendment. Actually, they have proven they don't recognize the U.S. Constitution at all.

Interestingly, they overturned recent precedent - 2003 McConnell v. FEC, and 1990 Austin v. Chamber of Commerce, proving once again that precedent is important except when it isn't.

Fortunately, 5 justices still recognize the Constitution. They say, rightly, protecting the New York Times Company spending millions of dollars to distribute an election editorial and not protecting Koch Industries doing the same thing is not upholding free speech.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233176 Jul 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been into knotting energy for quite some time. I'm not into magical pre-existing particles going poof like you are.
You are way too focused on Bronze Age myths to approach this matter in anything but an emotional perspective.
It does seem that your abscence has modified your view compared to what you used to say, it seems you have changed your mind about god magic, welcome to the club.

But you still have much to learn and ignorant mockery of what you still fail to comprehend is not going to make it any easier.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233177 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How does evolution not interfere with that when it says:
"evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
And the Pope says: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution."
How does the Vatican accept both???
They don't.
You're lying. And I nailed you.
Not my problem to bend the ethics adopted by christianity. I cannot speak for the Vatican, I can only provide evidence of that they document, sorry if that upsets you.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233178 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so stupid. I don't know why I bother to correct you.
Even if expending energy is required to exert power, which it isn't always, the two are still not synonymous. Great power could come from little energy; small power from great energy.
Your contention that power = energy is moronic. You are a moron.
What?

Are you really this stupid? Are you really this clueless as to what energy is? What power is? You need to have a private chat with dave on this one.

Please advise how anything can be exerted without expending energy

Here, what you have nothing else to do while the shower block is off limits try educating yourself
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/wor...

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233179 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. They did not accept the evolutionary framework.
Please tell Christine.
You are such a cherry picking dickehead, note Hiding’s statement “They did, however, officially accept evolution.” Which for some unknown reason you chose to completely ignore, could it be because it proves you are a dimwit and lying moron? That’s the only explanation I can think of.

3 popes to 1 archbishop. How they handle the quandary they have set for themselves is not my problem

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233180 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
ChristineM wrote:
Wow, you have a big one…
Cheers
__________
Thanks, Christine.
Honey, we all know you are stealing Thinking’s thunder by lying. But if theft and lies is the only way you can big yourself up that’s ok by you if by no one else.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233181 Jul 21, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..Chris , likes girls ...she looks at our mutated clitorises ..and , by golly they are 'big'..
http://dinmerican.files.wordpress.com/2013/11...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233182 Jul 21, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Are you really this stupid? Are you really this clueless as to what energy is? What power is? You need to have a private chat with dave on this one.
Please advise how anything can be exerted without expending energy
Here, what you have nothing else to do while the shower block is off limits try educating yourself
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/wor...
That's not what you said.

Your claim is that power = energy. Your calculation is quantitative - that a quantity of power = a quantity of energy, thus an equation involving "energy" applies in duplicate fashion to "power".

But that's not your biggest error. You take a quantitative science term, a specific NOUN and apply it to the term "all powerful", which is an ADJECTIVE, non-specific, and means:

"sovereign, supreme, transcendent; authoritative, chief, majestic, masterful; mighty, etc."

How does something that "transcends" become subject to your definition of one element of the universe - energy?

That is moronic. And you are a moron.

How can "power" be exerted without expending energy?

1. Mutually assured destruction - having nuclear weapons held Soviet agression in check without firing a shot.

2. Laws detering violence or theft.

3. A protective order on a piece of paper influencing whom a person contacts.

4. A hitter's power to pull a pitch causing a pitcher to throw low and outside, before the hitter takes a swing.

5. A "Protected By Smith and Wesson" sign hanging in a store window causing robbers to choose alternative sites.

The list is unending.

To reiterate, you are a moron.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233183 Jul 21, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a cherry picking dickehead, note Hiding’s statement “They did, however, officially accept evolution.” Which for some unknown reason you chose to completely ignore, could it be because it proves you are a dimwit and lying moron? That’s the only explanation I can think of.
3 popes to 1 archbishop. How they handle the quandary they have set for themselves is not my problem
No, they have no problem. They are clear they do not accept Darwinist theory.

You said they do.

They are clear. You lie.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233184 Jul 21, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
It does seem that your abscence has modified your view compared to what you used to say, it seems you have changed your mind about god magic, welcome to the club.
But you still have much to learn and ignorant mockery of what you still fail to comprehend is not going to make it any easier.
Amusing. I haven't changed anything. It must be your perceptions that have. Perhaps you forgot those lengthy discourses I made about space in motion creating spinning bubbles called matter, vortexes, and etc. And notably, how magical particles don't go poof all by themselves. Oh, the seed thingy, too.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233185 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what you said.
Your claim is that power = energy. Your calculation is quantitative - that a quantity of power = a quantity of energy, thus an equation involving "energy" applies in duplicate fashion to "power".
But that's not your biggest error. You take a quantitative science term, a specific NOUN and apply it to the term "all powerful", which is an ADJECTIVE, non-specific, and means:
"sovereign, supreme, transcendent; authoritative, chief, majestic, masterful; mighty, etc."
How does something that "transcends" become subject to your definition of one element of the universe - energy?
That is moronic. And you are a moron.
How can "power" be exerted without expending energy?
1. Mutually assured destruction - having nuclear weapons held Soviet agression in check without firing a shot.
2. Laws detering violence or theft.
3. A protective order on a piece of paper influencing whom a person contacts.
4. A hitter's power to pull a pitch causing a pitcher to throw low and outside, before the hitter takes a swing.
5. A "Protected By Smith and Wesson" sign hanging in a store window causing robbers to choose alternative sites.
The list is unending.
To reiterate, you are a moron.
But her brain case probably makes a great looking ass.

Don't forget not telling an enemy a train is about to hit them.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233186 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what you said.
Your claim is that power = energy. Your calculation is quantitative - that a quantity of power = a quantity of energy, thus an equation involving "energy" applies in duplicate fashion to "power".
But that's not your biggest error. You take a quantitative science term, a specific NOUN and apply it to the term "all powerful", which is an ADJECTIVE, non-specific, and means:
"sovereign, supreme, transcendent; authoritative, chief, majestic, masterful; mighty, etc."
How does something that "transcends" become subject to your definition of one element of the universe - energy?
That is moronic. And you are a moron.
How can "power" be exerted without expending energy?
1. Mutually assured destruction - having nuclear weapons held Soviet agression in check without firing a shot.
2. Laws detering violence or theft.
3. A protective order on a piece of paper influencing whom a person contacts.
4. A hitter's power to pull a pitch causing a pitcher to throw low and outside, before the hitter takes a swing.
5. A "Protected By Smith and Wesson" sign hanging in a store window causing robbers to choose alternative sites.
The list is unending.
To reiterate, you are a moron.
That is exactly what I said, just because you are incapable of understanding it is not my problem

I did not write the babble. Again, not my problem if some bod 2000 years ago had no clues about what he was actually writing and the implications of those words.

Do you have any evidence of transcendence?– no – so your guesswork is just that, guesswork. But I am amenable to facts so when you are able to provide any facts then come back and try again

Are you really this ignorant of what energy actually is? Sunlight is one form of energy that is essential to life on this planet. Without it this earth would be a barren ball of rock, trees, humans and/or any other life, machinery movement, wind, even you denying that energy is energy requires energy.

1/ Are you now claiming that nuclear weapons do not require energy? Or even the threat of nuclear weapons? Are you claiming that the intelligence that created those weapons did not require energy to develop, that the forges and machinery required to manufacture those weapons worked by god magic alone, no energy required?

2/ Energy was required to consider those laws, compile them, publish them and even lock you away when you ignored them and it required in heating and light and food whiloe you are incarcerated fro ignoring them.

3/ How did that order magic it’s way on to that paper? Energy was required, and of course energy is required to read and understand it

4 Life and though requires energy, maybe yours doesn’t but the rest of life this is a fact

5 How was the sign printed, how was it hung, and of course energy is required to read it and process the information it contains

When you have discovered that actual meaning of energy then come back and try extending your list.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233187 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they have no problem. They are clear they do not accept Darwinist theory.
You said they do.
They are clear. You lie.
Who cares what lies you make up about me, they are simply lies.

You were the one moaning about Darwinism, not me, I simply provided evidence that three popes had accepted evolution and published documented to validate that belief

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#233188 Jul 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing. I haven't changed anything. It must be your perceptions that have. Perhaps you forgot those lengthy discourses I made about space in motion creating spinning bubbles called matter, vortexes, and etc. And notably, how magical particles don't go poof all by themselves. Oh, the seed thingy, too.
How could I forget, some of it even made since but are you saying god dunitwiv magic or not?

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 15 min Rose_NoHo 5,981
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Into The Night 94,322
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 2
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 142
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism May 21 Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20
The atheists trick May 8 Eagle 12 - 3