Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239131 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.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#129385 Oct 13, 2012
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> God does not intervene in there lives,
You mean, after the flood or after jonah? Or maybe after Jericho? No, it would have to be after he came down and had the jews kill him.

When did he stop intervening?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129386 Oct 13, 2012
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> I answered it, but obviously you're unwilling to read the bible.
I have. What you fail to understand is it's a myth.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129387 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are like that damn cat that ate the parrot.
There’s feathers sticking out of your mouth while you shake your head no.
Still no post numbers of where I have lied.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129388 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure what the point the person who said this is trying to make.
Scanning the previous posts, I think they are trying to tell you that the individual does not change in a way that is after birth. They are changing due to the way their genes mixed or mutated. So at the conception they were different than the parent. If the mutation is conducive for the environment, the change may be passed on many times by its offspring and so on.
So a fish without legs can give birth to a fish WITH legs?
Many terms and phrases that science uses is not always exact to the common lexicon of lay persons. So the phrase 'a species evolves' may not be what you think it means.
Ya, because the words "a", "species" & "evolves" are very complex words that only scientists understand...
Sometimes it is hard for us to explain in terms all can understand.
There are arguments within the evolution community on some points, so what one person claims is not necessarily what is of the whole of the scientific community.
"the evolution community"? Are those, like, smart people?
I certainly do not claim to know all about evolution.
Good.
I would seriously doubt anyone here would claim they know all about evolution.
Nobody does, that's the point. It's a theory of guesses & facts all compiled together. People with an anti-theist agenda will call it "fact". At least you're a little more honest.
So do not expect me to always back what another evolutionist says.
And if I am corrected or disputed, I remain open to be corrected.
As do I. I'm don't think I'm MrKnowItAll... I'm not.

I'm just a squirrel tryin to get a nut.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129389 Oct 13, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It's
I know, honey. I know...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129390 Oct 13, 2012
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> It' tragic to see people who are well educated in english and how to write so but can't grasp what the bible says. It's going to take more than proper grammer to gwt to heaven, but I commend you on your earthly scholastic status. You may please your fellow man on your expertise in the use of proper grammar I hate to say you're batting zero with God, and that's really sad and very tragic.
No what is tragic is seeing so called adults who still believe in myths and fairy tales.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129391 Oct 13, 2012
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> God does not intervene in there lives....
You have got to be joking... your god myth did "not intervene in there lives"??

Then why the commandments in the first place? Why the so called flood?

I don't know about you but killing somebody tends to intervene in their life.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#129392 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, honey. I know...
Your Jesus is showing.

Don't forget the Jesus and the naked guy in the garden.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#129393 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How is it going? I have been on the political debate thread.
Someone on there just told me, non believers are superstitious for being non believers.
I await him to explain that one.
I'm just crossing my fingers that he's wrong.

LOL

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129394 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>By this logic, it would have made it even more easy on the slaves if god had told someone slavery was an abomination and immoral?
Hummmm logic??? godbot??? I think one would need a lot of LSD to see the connection.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#129395 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
....I'm don't think I'm MrKnowItAll... I'm not.
....
We know.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#129396 Oct 13, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been shown through some preliminary tests that trees and plants react when another plant or tree in the same forest or field sustain damage or injury. Nothing conclusive, but it's interesting.
I know this.
Trees will try to kill you if they can when you cut them<=(exaggerated and anthropomorphic statement, not to imply it is reality).
They do, however, sometimes appear to do things completely unexpected when felling them.
Sinister ba5tards
I never cut one without a well defined and clear path of escape.
I brought down a maple today. I'm glad we had a cable in that one to pull it down.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129397 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Hawkins sucks in logic.
<quoted text> Energy used in creation by what? Something has to use it. Where did energy come from? Energy is something, not nothing.
Hawking explains that in the vacuum of all space ever tested, there is energy. We call this vacuum of space empty and nothing. Yes, it is not a good way to describe what is space, but that is our flawed language, not a flaw of the hypothesis Hawking offers.
In other words, in science, the word 'nothing' is relative. Nothing can have energy, in the way man uses the word.

"Were did it come from"? I explained that. The hypothesis says it is due to the forces in the vacuum of space.
It must have always been due to the vacuum of space always existing.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#129398 Oct 13, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I miss that show.
I don't miss Alf.

Okay, maybe a little.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#129399 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
HL - Liberty IS a gift from God.
Funny that you quote Mitt. Why not Obama?
"McCane hasn't asked me about my Muslim religion"...
No, and once again, you demonstrate the childish level of moral development that religion causes many people to get stuck at. To you, our system of morality hinges on nothing but a fear of punishment after death.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129400 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
Hawking explains that in the vacuum of all space ever tested, there is energy.
Energy is something, not no thing. In creation there is no thing. No energy included, no forces included. Nothing, no thing. Got it?
In other words, in science, the word 'nothing' is relative. Nothing can have energy, in the way man uses the word.
Nothing cannot have energy since energy is something. It s logical contradiction. If nothing can include energy then it is ad hoc exception. It is special pleading. Nothing means no thing.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129401 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Hawkins sucks in logic.
<quoted text> Energy used in creation by what? Something has to use it. Where did energy come from? Energy is something, not nothing. <quoted text> Where do natural laws come from?
<quoted text> i explained that. Natural forces have no life or intelligence to transmit. They are not there. Natural forces cannot transmit what they do not have. They are insufficient cause. Life gives life. Non life does not give anything since it has nothing to give. No motivation to give. No motivation period. If possible, you need to be deprogrammed.
Does gravity need motivation? Does gravity cause objects to move and thus form different objects?

I would imagine natural forces are due to what is in nature.

"Non life gives nothing"? Really? We can see matter that is not life form together by forces of gravity and magnetic attraction and blend together to form other objects.
No motivation needed.

Thus it stands to reason it may be possible for the same forces over time could form life.

But you again are taking a big leap from the big bang to life.

Try to keep the debate reduced to smaller parts. Reductionism.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#129402 Oct 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore you should expect whatever comes you way without complaint
There is nothing weak about civility and understanding, it shows more humanity than the fu[ckem attitude.
FYI: "The effort by a large portion of the Muslim world, including the Egyptian and Iranian presidents, to render blasphemy illegal around the globe is truly, really stupid, as well as immoral."

http://www.topix.com/religion/atheism/2012/10...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129403 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Energy is something, not no thing. In creation there is no thing. No energy included, no forces included. Nothing, no thing. Got it?
<quoted text> Nothing cannot have energy since energy is something. It s logical contradiction. If nothing can include energy then it is ad hoc exception. It is special pleading. Nothing means no thing.
I am fully aware the wording is a contradiction. But I thought I explained it is all in relative terms?
There is no such thing as 'nothing' in reality, as all of space has energy in it. So does that mean you will ever stop using the word 'nothing'?
When someone asks you what you are doing, you may say nothing, but in all actuality, you are at least breathing.
So the word is relative to the context of the conversation.

Now, assuming you understand that concept, can we move on?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#129404 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I cut out the preaching part of your post. Abiogenesis and self created universe is totally worthless in my life and i would add totally worthless in an objective sense to say the least. i know some believe these things and i also know i have no control over whatever fantasies haappen in the heads of others. Biology has little to do in my life so i don't spend a lot of time on it. Professionalism is expected and i do not see a lot of it in your posts. I tire of your self promotion and your browbeating concerning Biology. It is in bad taste. Obviously you do not care about truths of the first order and are content to live your life with blinders on when it comes to what really matters and you have that right. Have a nice night. By the way. Am skeptical of your claim you read the Bible four times.
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are running a gag on everyone here. Your posts are hilarious.

You go on and on about how science has gotten it all wrong, and then freely admit that you know next to nothing about the things you constantly dismiss out of hand.

To make matters worse, after you choose to simply ignore something that you don't even take the time to learn about, you chastise people for not taking the time to understand your personal myths. So let me get this straight - you expect everyone else to thoroughly study, and presumably *believe* your personal brand of religious belief (which is just one type out of many thousands, and for which there is no objective proof), yet you refuse to consider the ability of science to explain our universe.

That's just absurd. To you, people are *blind* because they don't seriously consider something for which there is no objective evidence and instead choose to put their "faith" in a mode of thought that has actually proven itself time and time again.

People like you are a dying breed. Even most religious people have been forced to accept the unparalleled ability of science to explain things. It takes a particularly hardy case of brainwashing to produce an individual who can look at the totality of the evidence and still remain a biblical literalist. This is why I'm starting to believe (or rather, hope) that you are a troll. The other option is just depressing.

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) 11 min MikeF 19,040
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 37 min Thinking 2,179
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 7,396
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 10 hr NoahLovesU 7,468
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 10 hr thetruth 115
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Sun hpcaban 30
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
More from around the web