Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 6,241)

Showing posts 124,801 - 124,820 of223,976
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129393
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129404
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129405
Oct 13, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?
Do you need to be a smart ass? I am trying to be civil.

How can you 'know with 100% certainty" of something that has zero evidence?

Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty without massive amounts of evidence.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129406
Oct 13, 2012
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
The case you described would surely be in the news paper!
It was in the local paper. It is a small local paper.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129407
Oct 13, 2012
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
That was Centralia, IL, right?
Nope but you are close.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129408
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?
No, Hawking does not claim this to be fact. All I am pointing out is that there are other possibilities to how the universe came to be without a god.
You insist it must be of a god because the science cannot show how it could be created without a god.
So it stands to reason if I can show how the universe might be caused without a god, your claims would fall flat.

So I need not show it must have happened in any certain way, all I have to show is it might be possible without a god.

And BTW, can you show how a god creates anything out of nothing? Can you show how a god could be, without being created?

You see, you are expecting way more from us than you can supply of your own concept.
Atheist Silurist

Neath, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129409
Oct 13, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
LOL' I licked this line. "Biology has little to do in my life so i don't spend a lot of time on it"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129410
Oct 13, 2012
 
preterism wrote:
<quoted text> Matter, now can you prove he didn't? Now prove how and when matter was made, as God says, in the beginning he created the heavens and earth and that would include matter.
Great now show in the bible where it says "in the beginning god created matter" . You just wont face the truth the bible is as about as accurate as using a sick of gopher wood to measure the universe with.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129411
Oct 13, 2012
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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?
He understands, but he is a funded/troll. Or maybe he really is stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 124,801 - 124,820 of223,976
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 41 min Richardfs 151
How anti-atheist stigma affects the mental heal... 4 hr NightSerf 1
A Really Good Thing 5 hr NightSerf 1
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 6 hr Richardfs 2
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr Richardfs 830
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 hr Mikko 21,376
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 12 hr religionisillness 349
•••
•••