Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247218 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: May 10

Location hidden

#233250 Jul 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's designed to maintain heterosexual supremacy.
And to deny equal rights to homosexuals.
But have it your way if you must.
There's even a Flat Earth Society for the likes of you, who refuse to learn and grow.
No offense--we can still be friends.
You are master of the simpleton's legal argument.

It is rational and legitimate to base policy on gender differences, but not racial differences. It is rational to have separate public bathrooms for different genders, but not separate for blacks and whites of the same gender. Your health policy is legitimate if it covers prostate treatment for one gender, but not if it covers it for one race.

Gender difference is a fundamental principle of marriage. Race is not. Racial classification for marriage was a moral aberration. Gender classification for marriage is a moral norm. Anti-miscegenation was about keeping two groups apart, whereas marriage is fundamentally based on the principle of bringing two differing groups together. The unification of the two groups is based on gender difference, by definition, whereas anti-miscegeneation was non-definitional, but based on bigotry against a factor, race, which was peripheral.

Furthermore, the impetus behind anti-miscegenation was a bigoted principle of avoiding the mixing of white and black blood in the offspring, which was believed to contaminate the white blood. No such principle applies in same-sex oppostiion.

It's a bogus analogy.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233251 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I did already , but you change the definition of infinite to suit yourself at every goal post you move.
No, you did not.

You showed a hypothetical mathematic computation, and substituted the term "infinity" for "unknown".

You compounded your ridiculousness by self-contradiction - claiming the universe had expanded to a distance "that cannot be reached".

Then the piece-de-resistance, you entered "infinite sum".

Infinite means that which can have no sum.

You can't answer what satisfies your hypothetical calculation "A x B = Infinity".

Show an example of a physical infinite.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233252 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly her argument, you're not even capable of thinking on her level apparently.
Stick to the constitution, you have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
You are correct in one thing.

I am not capable of thinking on her level.

Or yours.

Self-contradiction ain't my thing.

Being stupid like you and Christine ain't my thing.

I suppose you also side with her on Stalin being a Christian and the Pope an atheist.

Congratulations. Enjoy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233253 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Are a buffoon or a baboon?
An infinite sum is a series of values that never reaches capacity or conclusion.
indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infini...
There are no infinite sums of money. The sum of money in the universe is finite. Fact.

You claim simultaneously "never reaches" and "reaches".

The expansion "never reaches" but "reaches" infinity.

And you don't see a problem.
.......



Congratulations. Your stupidity is intact.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#233254 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are master of the simpleton's legal argument.
It is rational and legitimate to base policy on gender differences, but not racial differences. It is rational to have separate public bathrooms for different genders, but not separate for blacks and whites of the same gender. Your health policy is legitimate if it covers prostate treatment for one gender, but not if it covers it for one race.
Gender difference is a fundamental principle of marriage. Race is not. Racial classification for marriage was a moral aberration. Gender classification for marriage is a moral norm. Anti-miscegenation was about keeping two groups apart, whereas marriage is fundamentally based on the principle of bringing two differing groups together. The unification of the two groups is based on gender difference, by definition, whereas anti-miscegeneation was non-definitional, but based on bigotry against a factor, race, which was peripheral.
Furthermore, the impetus behind anti-miscegenation was a bigoted principle of avoiding the mixing of white and black blood in the offspring, which was believed to contaminate the white blood. No such principle applies in same-sex oppostiion.
It's a bogus analogy.
Credit when due.

Good argument.

Very cold and logical and persuasive.

My problem is, it completely ignores the human factor.

Discrimination hurts.

Catcher out.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233255 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct in one thing.
I am not capable of thinking on her level.
Or yours.
Self-contradiction ain't my thing.
Being stupid like you and Christine ain't my thing.
I suppose you also side with her on Stalin being a Christian and the Pope an atheist.
Congratulations. Enjoy.
You are a classic example of an egotistical maniac suffering from Dunning Kruger effect.

"You showed a hypothetical mathematic computation, and substituted the term "infinity" for "unknown"."

No I didn't , what I showed you is a mathematical certainty that arises due to there being a cosmological event horizon.

"You compounded your ridiculousness by self-contradiction - claiming the universe had expanded to a distance "that cannot be reached".
Then the piece-de-resistance, you entered "infinite sum"."

The universe *has expanded to such great distances in space/time that one part, can never be affected by the other. I also showed you an example of how a sentence can contain the phrase of infinite sums. As multiple phenomena are capable of multiple infinite sums.
So plural and sums are correct as the concept of expressing them. In both math and geometry.

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

http://www.mathwords.com/i/infinite_geometric...

You can't bullsht , strong arm or logically free yourself from your arrogant and
goofy attempts to change what is true.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233256 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a classic example of an egotistical maniac suffering from Dunning Kruger effect.
"You showed a hypothetical mathematic computation, and substituted the term "infinity" for "unknown"."
No I didn't , what I showed you is a mathematical certainty that arises due to there being a cosmological event horizon.
"You compounded your ridiculousness by self-contradiction - claiming the universe had expanded to a distance "that cannot be reached".
Then the piece-de-resistance, you entered "infinite sum"."
The universe *has expanded to such great distances in space/time that one part, can never be affected by the other. I also showed you an example of how a sentence can contain the phrase of infinite sums. As multiple phenomena are capable of multiple infinite sums.
So plural and sums are correct as the concept of expressing them. In both math and geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathemat...
http://www.mathwords.com/i/infinite_geometric...
You can't bullsht , strong arm or logically free yourself from your arrogant and
goofy attempts to change what is true.
One infinite sum, or multiiple infinite sums is impossible.

"Infinite" and "sum" are mutually exclusive.

A physical infinity is impossible.

"Physical" and "infinity" are mutually exclusive.

But don't let that interfere with your stupidity.

Oh, almost forgot...

Why won't you answer what figures make A x B = Infinity?

That is what you are proposing. Why won't you back it up?

I'll let you express it this way: Infinity/A = B; and Infinity/B = A

...where "A" is average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.

This is the proof of your contention - so why will you not supply your numbers?

Is it because you don't know? Or is it because you are shy?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233257 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a classic example of an egotistical maniac suffering from Dunning Kruger effect.
"You showed a hypothetical mathematic computation, and substituted the term "infinity" for "unknown"."
No I didn't , what I showed you is a mathematical certainty that arises due to there being a cosmological event horizon.
"You compounded your ridiculousness by self-contradiction - claiming the universe had expanded to a distance "that cannot be reached".
Then the piece-de-resistance, you entered "infinite sum"."
The universe *has expanded to such great distances in space/time that one part, can never be affected by the other. I also showed you an example of how a sentence can contain the phrase of infinite sums. As multiple phenomena are capable of multiple infinite sums.
So plural and sums are correct as the concept of expressing them. In both math and geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathemat...
http://www.mathwords.com/i/infinite_geometric...
You can't bullsht , strong arm or logically free yourself from your arrogant and
goofy attempts to change what is true.
If you were not stupid, you would realize the reference to "infinite sums of money" is figurative, not literal.

I'm not going to start explaining that distinction to you.

But here's one hint: It is figurative because it cannot be true.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233258 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

An infinite sum is a series of values that never reaches capacity or conclusion.

Did you not realize this portion of your definition proves you wrong?

For the universe to reach infinite extent, it would be a completed infinite, though still continuing.

Your definition says that can "never" happen.

"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"

-German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss



“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233259 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not realize this portion of your definition proves you wrong?
For the universe to reach infinite extent, it would be a completed infinite, though still continuing.
Your definition says that can "never" happen.
"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"
-German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss
You idiot, the universe would have been infinite from the start.
But the discovery it is and repeated the repeated attempts to measure it would not.
You can only measure a finite amount , but you can take a sequence of measurements and add them up . But for an infinite sum you will have to measure an infinite string of sequences that are never completed. This is expressed by &#8734;
I showed you the math , but like a fool you keep saying it doesn't exist.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233260 Jul 22, 2014
Well the infinite symbol wont work in topix , but we all know ur as the sideways 8.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233261 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
One infinite sum, or multiiple infinite sums is impossible.
"Infinite" and "sum" are mutually exclusive.
A physical infinity is impossible.
"Physical" and "infinity" are mutually exclusive.
But don't let that interfere with your stupidity.
Oh, almost forgot...
Why won't you answer what figures make A x B = Infinity?
That is what you are proposing. Why won't you back it up?
I'll let you express it this way: Infinity/A = B; and Infinity/B = A
...where "A" is average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.
This is the proof of your contention - so why will you not supply your numbers?
Is it because you don't know? Or is it because you are shy?
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233262 Jul 22, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>God made Angels , Quasars and Dinosaurs " first " ...
God is not looking for excitement ..
Perhaps they didn't have the imagination he was looking for.

You said excitement. I said intelligent company. There is a difference.

Besides, watching lizards devour each other can get old on the excitement level, particularly if he could only watch them and not feel the action.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233263 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.
Which renders your observations and careful calculations totally useless.
CunningLinguist

Apopka, FL

#233264 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a class A nut, quite simply infinity + a + b + d + e = infinity
infinity + A x B = infinity. You will never get a or b to equal infinity , but infinity + any set of numerical addition will always equal infinity.
One thing is certain - this is an infinite meandering banter between an infinite narcissist in an infinite obfuscated loop.


'Heaven', is a place so inane, so dull, so useless, so miserable, that nobody has ever ventured to describe a entire day there, though plenty of people have described a great day at the beach.

“If you really believe in eternal bliss then why are you wearing a seat-belt”~ Doug Stanhope

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233265 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
Well the infinite symbol wont work in topix , but we all know ur as the sideways 8.
Which just so happens to be a closed loop of finite dimensions. You got dizzy running in circles.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233266 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot, the universe would have been infinite from the start.
But the discovery it is and repeated the repeated attempts to measure it would not.
You can only measure a finite amount , but you can take a sequence of measurements and add them up . But for an infinite sum you will have to measure an infinite string of sequences that are never completed. This is expressed by &#8734;
I showed you the math , but like a fool you keep saying it doesn't exist.
I see.

So you take a series of finite measurements and "add them up".

And get infinite.

Adding finites always gives you a larger finite. Always. By definition.

And you don't see a problem with your suggestion.

Amazing.

According to physics, the universe did not begin infinite. In fact, its volume began near zero.

Then expanded.

You need to tell us how A x B = Infinite, where "A" is the average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.

It's a mystery why you don't do that.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233267 Jul 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Credit when due.
Good argument.
Very cold and logical and persuasive.
My problem is, it completely ignores the human factor.
Discrimination hurts.
Catcher out.
You revealed some class in that post. Along with your believing your personal feelings trump natural selection and evolution. That your moral code is derived from something beyond organisms trying to maintain themselves. Which is what cultures and races are all about. Human or otherwise.

You claim there is no higher consciousness to direct such events.

So you will assume the morality of such and lead the charge.

Thoust are a hypocrite.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233268 Jul 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Which just so happens to be a closed loop of finite dimensions. You got dizzy running in circles.
Oh I'm not dizzy, you're dizzy in denial this symbol exists and it represents a sum that is infinite.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/...

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#233269 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you take a series of finite measurements and "add them up".
And get infinite.
Adding finites always gives you a larger finite. Always. By definition.
And you don't see a problem with your suggestion.
Amazing.
According to physics,In fact, its volume began near zero. In fact, its volume began near zero.
Then expanded.
You need to tell us how A x B = Infinite, where "A" is the average rate of expansion and "B" is elapsed time.
It's a mystery why you don't do that.
You must enjoy making sht up , because this isn't what I wrote.
And adding to infinite doesn't make it more infinite

"In fact, its volume began near zero.In fact, its volume began near zero."

WRONG!
According to physics the universe began as an infinitesimal.

infinitesimal =
1. infinitely or immeasurably small .

There goes your favorite word again. hahahah!

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 In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 47,747
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Agents of Corruption 12,415
Proof of God for the Atheist 2 hr thetruth 94
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus 16 hr Amused 25
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 16 hr Amused 15
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 19 hr thetruth 2,352
News Muslim World and Secularism Tue P_Smith 1
More from around the web