Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256555 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.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#234032 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He spent 4 posts explaining what he meant, and none of them agreed with what you and I say about it.
It was clear what he meant. He was just wrong.
Actually no. I posted responses to other posts.

It is sort of odd that you are still trying to justify your viewpoint.

*shrugs*

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#234033 Jul 31, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The age of the complimentary measuring system(S) has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measuring system(S)- or perhaps you can show an alternative scenario using ancient and complimentary measuring systems that can be validated with observed facts?
And I love you avatar that indicates you are crap in bed
yes - i can prove that i'm not a crap in bed whenever your ready to conduct our 'test';-)

(i don't know why i do, but i like you!:)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#234034 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

The future has not happened. Time occurs as it happens.
Still trying to promote a finite entity?

"The future has not happened."
- incorrect again.
- A supernova that occurred in the past requires 'time' to pass in order for the light to extend to our eyes. When the supernova occurred - it was in the past, but it took "time" into the future for us to finally see it. In other words, at the time of the explosion - only the local vicinity could have actually witnessed it in real-time......but in the future, we were able to see it occur.

But since you live in the past - it appears you can't get perceive this angle of thought.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234035 Jul 31, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure - what do you think you are? Right or wrong?
FYI - I can disagree all day long - if I so choose. Requiring me to define "which is it?" isn't up to me - because I've never been able to provide clear details (except what I've already provided) on 'infinity', but only using scientific information as my guide.
But since you differ in your perception than mine, you really don't have an definitive answer to it, either, huh?.
Thanks for responding.
To the contrary, I have a definitive answer, which I have stated and supported numerous times.

Infinity is an abstraction, a figure of speech, an idea. It exists nowhere in physical reality, and has no relevance to physical reality.

It is a constructive concept of math.

Any model of a physical universe which relies on infinity is wrong, because an actual infinity would render the model incoherent.

Mathematicians and physicists who understand the concept involved know this.

I can't be any more definitive than that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234036 Jul 31, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Still trying to promote a finite entity?
"The future has not happened."
- incorrect again.
- A supernova that occurred in the past requires 'time' to pass in order for the light to extend to our eyes. When the supernova occurred - it was in the past, but it took "time" into the future for us to finally see it. In other words, at the time of the explosion - only the local vicinity could have actually witnessed it in real-time......but in the future, we were able to see it occur.
But since you live in the past - it appears you can't get perceive this angle of thought.
I can perceive it. The problem is it's absurd.

Nothing related to the supernova happens in the future. Sequential instants of present time coincide with each and every aspect of the supernova, and each and every event took place in the present, including the moment the light reaches our eyes.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234037 Jul 31, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Still trying to promote a finite entity?
"The future has not happened."
- incorrect again.
- A supernova that occurred in the past requires 'time' to pass in order for the light to extend to our eyes. When the supernova occurred - it was in the past, but it took "time" into the future for us to finally see it. In other words, at the time of the explosion - only the local vicinity could have actually witnessed it in real-time......but in the future, we were able to see it occur.
But since you live in the past - it appears you can't get perceive this angle of thought.
You are simply confusing past, present, and future time by utilizing different temporal reference points of the observer.

So I am still correct.

What else you got?
Patrick

United States

#234038 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply confusing past, present, and future time by utilizing different temporal reference points of the observer.
So I am still correct.
What else you got?
"Buck Crick"
"I dish out the embarrassment around here"
LOL
---
Republicans who were angered to learn on Wednesday that the former I.R.S. official Lois Lerner had referred to them as “crazies” and “assholes” responded later in the day by voting to sue the President of the United States.

“Calling us crazy assholes is insulting, derogatory, and beneath contempt,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters.“And now if you’ll excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, I have to go sue Obama.”

Determined to burnish their reputation as extremely sane people who are not assholes at all, House Republicans in their lawsuit accuse the President of “coldly and arrogantly seizing power granted to him by the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit alleges that “having signed 181 executive orders to date, Barack Obama seems intent on chasing the records of such notorious renegades as Dwight Eisenhower (484) and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081).”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234039 Jul 31, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Buck Crick"
"I dish out the embarrassment around here"
LOL
---
Republicans who were angered to learn on Wednesday that the former I.R.S. official Lois Lerner had referred to them as “crazies” and “assholes” responded later in the day by voting to sue the President of the United States.
“Calling us crazy assholes is insulting, derogatory, and beneath contempt,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters.“And now if you’ll excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, I have to go sue Obama.”
Determined to burnish their reputation as extremely sane people who are not assholes at all, House Republicans in their lawsuit accuse the President of “coldly and arrogantly seizing power granted to him by the United States Constitution.”
The lawsuit alleges that “having signed 181 executive orders to date, Barack Obama seems intent on chasing the records of such notorious renegades as Dwight Eisenhower (484) and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081).”
The number of executive orders is a red herring.

The issue is the content.

3 pennies is a larger number of coins than a quarter.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#234040 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is a constructive concept. You cannot trip over it.
It is a way to catologue, or order physical events, and units of quantity are assigned in linear fashion.
You don't see past time, or any time, but the difference in past time and future time is that it is detected, recorded, or remembered in it's association with events.
If you want to claim future time exists, you may present the physical future events with which you detected such time.
If you lived in the future and came back here to provide that for us, I suspect you could make lots of money on the movie rights.
Hollywood loves fantasies like the one you live n.
Relativistic thinking requires the anticipation of future time , as does all cosmological event and the reasoning is solid as a rock.
You can whine and cry about it all you like, but if you exclude future time, you must exclyde past time, and you are only left with now.

But now is gone, as soon as I write it, and in the future you will tread this.
Just as sure as day turns to night.. and then.........another day.
Stop looking back, and look forward!

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#234041 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The number of executive orders is a red herring.
The issue is the content.
3 pennies is a larger number of coins than a quarter.
Are you familiar with the currency used in Ecuador?
Eagle 12

League City, TX

#234042 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you on parts.
Romney chose an excellent running mate for the economic times we were in.
If you have to pick a token minority to win, what's the point.
Romney is the best qualified republican candidate since Reagan, and likely would have been a very competent president. He proved his grasp of issues dwarfed that of Obama.
The people chose. And they deserve the result.
Romney was and is more qualified than the Jr Senator from the corrupt political State of Illinois. And Paul Ryan is a very good conservative man. But he is a representative that is too cheap to rent an apartment in Washington so he sleeps in his office closet. That scares the hell out of liberals and independents.

The Paul Ryan decision is what cause Romney to fall short. The next Republican nominee has to be able to win over the hearts of independents and Hispanics. If you want to be the President of the United States you have to show America the Republican party is not just a bunch of good ole rich white boys.

50% of the American population happens to be women. And women do think different than men. But there are women that can be President and should have a shot at the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. My good topix friend Romney blew it and I really don’t think he can get the momentum again.

If Romney would have asked Dr Condoleezza Rice or a Marco Rubio to be his running mate we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. These are just a couple of names he could have asked. And Republicans will lose again if we don’t diversify at the top of the ticket.

Who cares what race a person is or their sex as long as they have good solid qualifications and can lead this country back to prosperity and morality. And this nation is morally bankrupt. Our Dear President Obama has done nothing to make this nation stronger. I’m so sick and tired of liberals and their liberal inept leadership.

California is in the news everyday. It’s on fire, busted up, crumbling, broke, sliding into the abyss, running out of water, killing one another but hey, they have gay marriage. And according to the liberals that makes everything ok.
Eagle 12

League City, TX

#234043 Jul 31, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the currency used in Ecuador?
Is it true the American Express Card in LA is an AK-47?

Since: Sep 08

United States

#234044 Jul 31, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Relativistic thinking requires the anticipation of future time , as does all cosmological event and the reasoning is solid as a rock.
You can whine and cry about it all you like, but if you exclude future time, you must exclyde past time, and you are only left with now.
But now is gone, as soon as I write it, and in the future you will tread this.
Just as sure as day turns to night.. and then.........another day.
Stop looking back, and look forward!
The future arriving is only a hope or an expectation. It doesn't exist until it happens, then it is now. Even a happening event has a future aspect to it. That rock you see headed for your head may or may not reached its assumed destination for a variety of physical reasons. It may even hit an infinite wall along the way.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#234045 Jul 31, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The future arriving is only a hope or an expectation. It doesn't exist until it happens, then it is now. Even a happening event has a future aspect to it. That rock you see headed for your head may or may not reached its assumed destination for a variety of physical reasons. It may even hit an infinite wall along the way.
Vyllshit , the future, can be manipulated by acceleration.

There is a curve involved, this future event ,( arrival ) is directly related to the travel time (acceleration) between the two points . At c the event is simultaneous due to length contraction.
But the future point that intersects is directly related to the travel; time between them.
This is very rudimentary sht , and tyvm for being so very rudimentary.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#234046 Jul 31, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Vyllshit , the future, can be manipulated by acceleration.
There is a curve involved, this future event ,( arrival ) is directly related to the travel time (acceleration) between the two points . At c the event is simultaneous due to length contraction.
But the future point that intersects is directly related to the travel; time between them.
This is very rudimentary sht , and tyvm for being so very rudimentary.
The event is created by many present paths converging.

You are too simple minded and anxious to believe in magic to understand that.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#234047 Jul 31, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Vyllshit , the future, can be manipulated by acceleration.
There is a curve involved, this future event ,( arrival ) is directly related to the travel time (acceleration) between the two points . At c the event is simultaneous due to length contraction.
But the future point that intersects is directly related to the travel; time between them.
This is very rudimentary sht , and tyvm for being so very rudimentary.
Sport, your theory requires predestiny. Who does the destinating?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#234048 Jul 31, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sport, your theory requires predestiny. Who does the destinating?
~1/4 watt ,
Time and it's passage doesn't require anything, but acceleration alters the passage if time.
Think Donzi.


Since: Sep 08

United States

#234049 Jul 31, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> ~1/4 watt ,
Time and it's passage doesn't require anything, but acceleration alters the passage if time.
Think Donzi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =M38GhA-2QuoXX
You should have left a string to follow out of that rabbit hole, Alice.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#234050 Jul 31, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have left a string to follow out of that rabbit hole, Alice.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#234051 Jul 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct.
Infinity is an abstraction. It represents nothing in reality.
It is not even actually represented in transfinite math. It's only symbolically represented.
Nothing physical can be infinite.
you're a dimwit for believing in a god you have no evidence for.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 43,202
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 18,550
News Why I quit atheism 10 hr Eagle 12 708
Good arguments against Christianity 13 hr superwilly 209
A Universe from Nothing? 14 hr Mikko 533
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 19 hr Thinking 5,696
Atheism is a mental illness 19 hr Eagle 12 11
More from around the web