Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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

#233693 Jul 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

You cant subtract an infinite amount from a infinity,...
You can if the extent of the universe is infinite.

You just subtract the radius of the universe from the radius of the universe, and you get "O".

R - R = 0.

Do you see a problem?

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233694 Jul 27, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So does the U.S.A.
I see a trend here. Somebody stole some land and now somebody is finding a way to get it back, yes?
This is the paradox , I can't wrap my head around ..If you believe America is responsible for so much suffering and horror outside of our borders ..

Why , do these so called oppressed risk everything , just to come here ..

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233695 Jul 27, 2014
Patrick wrote:
Britain’s Prince George, who is celebrating his first birthday this week, is facing a rising chorus of criticism within the United Kingdom, with many calling the first year of his reign a major disappointment.
Alistair Strott, a journalist and one of George’s most outspoken critics, calls the Prince’s first year “long on hype and short on solid achievement.”
“Like a lot of us, I followed the royal birth last year with a great deal of excitement and anticipation,” says Strott.“But one year in, we all have to look at each other and say,‘That’s it?’”
While defenders of Prince George cite a packed schedule of events during his first year, Strott is unimpressed.“Yes, he’s been on TV and magazine covers,” he says.“So have the Kardashians.”
The journalist is not alone in criticizing Prince George, as a recent U.K. poll called his inaugural year the worst first year for a royal baby since the Second World War.
Strott acknowledged that George had spent much of his first year in office learning to walk, but added,“If he’s learned to talk, he certainly hasn’t said anything memorable.”
On most of the major issues facing Britain today, from unemployment to its relationship with the European Union,“George has been missing in action,” Strott says.
Buckingham Palace has already started the drumbeat of publicity for Prince George’s second year, but Strott remains skeptical.“People can call this child ‘royal’ if they like, but the word I’d choose is ‘overrated,’” he says.
He has been quite the disappointment , It's my understanding he even shits his bed ...

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#233696 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is a physical infinite, you can subtract from it.
You can subtract from any physical quantity.
Hey,...maybe that means there is no physical infinity?
If the universe were infinite, and you subtracted a portion, which you are always allowed to do with physical quantity, the remainder would still be infinite.
So, under your system of mathematically representing the physical universe, "less than", "equal to", and "greater than" are all the same.
Do you see a problem?
That's what I was saying goofus, except that you can't extract an infinite amount from an infinity , because you cant count that high and it would take an infinite amount of time.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233697 Jul 27, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you be such a jerk as to send pictures of your genitalia? Do you really think women like to see your dong?
Or is it you are like an animal pissing on stuff to show your dominance? And want the women to know you are full of it.
You must be such a good Christians for those thoughts and actions.
... wait...WHAT..?!..women ..don't...wanna see my goodies ..?
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#233698 Jul 27, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>He has been quite the disappointment , It's my understanding he even shits his bed ...
Youre projecting,again

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#233699 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How far from the starting point did that box have to grow to be infinite?
How long did it take?
Let's see. We have to divide the distance, infinity, by the rate of expansion, to get the elapsed time of the expansion...
Or...
Infinity/X = 13.8 billion years
What number for rate of expansion (X) must we use to get 13.8 billion?
Or,...
Infinity, divided by what number, equals 13.8 billion?
Or,....
13.8 billion multiplied by what number equals infinity?
Do you see a problem?
Are you aware that physical distance can be divided and multiplied?
Are you aware that you are claiming a completed physical distance at this very instant that cannot be divided or multiplied?
Do you see a; problem?
The problem is in your head, a singular point expanded to the observable universe.
But it expanded from infinite points around the cosmic horizon. The horizon also shrouds what is not casually connected to us, because the expansion was faster than light.
This means because of general relativity the space beyond the cosmic event horizon is at infinite distance. No amount of travel for any duration of time will get you there.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233700 Jul 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
..much obliged ..

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233701 Jul 27, 2014
ChristINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre projecting,again
.Unfair ....tequila should be outlawed ...!!

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#233702 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You can if the extent of the universe is infinite.
You just subtract the radius of the universe from the radius of the universe, and you get "O".
R - R = 0.
Do you see a problem?
If you could assign a radius it would be finite goofus, bit there is no known number large enough to span it. If you extract infinity from infinity you get black holes sucking the space/time out the universe. Which is the whole point it takes an infinite amount of time to extract an infinity and the singularity will close before it can extract the infinity, when the singularity closes. it becomes finite again. But remains shrouded and moving towards infinity while open.
Patrick

United States

#233703 Jul 27, 2014

CREDIT NASA
MINNEAPOLIS —Historians studying archival photographs from four decades ago have come to the conclusion that the U.S. must have believed in science at some point.

According to the historian Davis Logsdon, who has been sifting through mounds of photographic evidence at the University of Minnesota, the nation apparently once held the view that investing in science and even math could yield accomplishments that would be a source of national pride.

While Logsdon has not developed a complete theory to explain the United States’ pro-science stance during that era, he attributes some of it to the liberal views of the President at that time, Richard M. Nixon.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233704 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sure Counselor.
Did you see how cleverly I "made up" that law defining refugees, and pretended it was copied from section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Devious, huh?
Not devious, Buck.

Naive and unrealistic.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233705 Jul 27, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could assign a radius it would be finite goofus, bit there is no known number large enough to span it. If you extract infinity from infinity you get black holes sucking the space/time out the universe. Which is the whole point it takes an infinite amount of time to extract an infinity and the singularity will close before it can extract the infinity, when the singularity closes. it becomes finite again. But remains shrouded and moving towards infinity while open.
That's the dumbest thing I ever read.

You don't "assign" a radius to a physical phenomenon. It HAS a radius.

Your claim is that the radius is infinite. But now you claim it would be finite, if it had one.

You have muddled it up so much now, it is impossible to know what your claim is, because you have contradicted yourself a dozen times.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233706 Jul 27, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not devious, Buck.
Naive and unrealistic.
Copying and providing the definition in federal law of a refugee is naive and unrealistic?

I see.

Thanks, man.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#233707 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
As U.S. law defines refugees, none of the illegal aliens flooding in from Central America are refugees.
That is assuming U.S. law means a damn thing to the present administration.
Obama is considering becoming "Coyote-'n-Chief". He wants to have taxpayers fund plane loads of immigrants hauled from Central America directly, cutting out the middle-man.
No wonder. He taught "Constitutional Law".
The illegal immigrants don't even call themselves refugees. They've told the DEA that the main reason they've come here is because they've been told that they won't be sent back.

""Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,” the report said."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/mi...

The violence in those Central American countries is nothing new, but now they're flooding in by the tens of thousands? Hmmm.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#233708 Jul 27, 2014
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
we have laws against torturing prisoners but that diddn't stop the Bush administration
we have laws against kidnapping people, imprisoning them without a trial and torturing them but that didn't stop the Bush administration
we have laws against committing war crimes, again that didn't stop the Bush administration.
we have laws against lying to Congress, doctoring up intel all to justify an illegal invasion of a foreign country, and yet that didn't stop the Bush administration
we signed the Geneva convention and it was ratified by the Senate, yet that didn't stop Cheney from using it to wipe his butt with
Nearly 6 years later and it's still all Dubya's fault.....

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233709 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
The illegal immigrants don't even call themselves refugees. They've told the DEA that the main reason they've come here is because they've been told that they won't be sent back.
""Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,” the report said."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/mi...
The violence in those Central American countries is nothing new, but now they're flooding in by the tens of thousands? Hmmm.....
El Paso Intelligence Service?

Faux News?

That's what you've got?

You're too much, Redneck.

Change that: too little.

Change that: nada.

You and Buck should seek refugee status and move away from the U.S.

Maybe to Texas.
Patrick

United States

#233710 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Nearly 6 years later and it's still all Dubya's fault.....
Mr. Bush displayed flashes of remorse, wit and humor when discussing missteps such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq,
his attempt to overhaul Social Security rather than take on immigration reform in 2005,
and the unfurling of a “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier shortly after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/... -

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233711 Jul 27, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Nearly 6 years later and it's still all Dubya's fault.....
Whose fault was the Holocaust?

And how long has it been?

The passage of time does not change the facts.

Oh, yeah, I forgot the Inquisition. Has it been 6 years since the Inquisition?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#233712 Jul 27, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
El Paso Intelligence Service?
Faux News?
That's what you've got?
You're too much, Redneck.
Change that: too little.
Change that: nada.
You and Buck should seek refugee status and move away from the U.S.
Maybe to Texas.
You didn't dispute the information, just the source of it. If the information is correct then the source of that information is irrelevant, wouldn't you agree?

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 Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 min ChristineM 11,391
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min scientia potentia... 51,228
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min scientia potentia... 24,626
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 33 min ChristineM 22,079
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 184
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,632
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr scientia potentia... 457
More from around the web