Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 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.

Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139262 Nov 20, 2012
So why do so many children die of childhood leukaemia? Don't enough people want them to survive?
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do anything and everything, you just have to believe!:-)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#139263 Nov 20, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow, I doubt her rifle skills.
Which end hurts the people again?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#139264 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I think the danger would be adhering vital surfaces, the windpipe being the most likely? If (big if) you survived the glue setting, I think you'd pass it through fairly safely. I once glued my hands together for a bet, warm water undermined that bond soon enough.
Wouldn't recommend it though.
<quoted text>
You glued your hands together for a bet?

Using what?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139265 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
All of your gravity based theories of the origination of the universe need new thingies to prop them up.
Shoulda got it right the first time. Or at least the first several.
There is a difference between having the right theory of gravity and having the right theory of the different types of matter. Modified gravity theories all require dark matter to agree with the observations. There is simply no other way to account for the *detailed* observations of lensing and stellar/galactic velocities. But the standard theory also works under the assumption that there is dark matter. It is also easier and more motivated than the modified gravity theories.

And no, it is NOT a requirement that we 'get it right' the first time, or the second time, or even the hundredth time. The scientific method works by *continually* subjecting our ideas to tests and modifying or rejecting those theories that don't hold up. Even when the basic theories are correct, the specifics of any particular situation are still unknown, so the details are still subject to testing and re-evaluation.

In the case of dark matter, the basic theory of gravity (i.e, general relativity) stay intact, but we add a new type of matter to what was known previously. This type of matter is also consistent with our modern views of particle physics (there are many different possibilities for the identity of dark matter), so this is not a stretch. Why would we expect all types of matter to interact with light?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#139266 Nov 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between having the right theory of gravity and having the right theory of the different types of matter. Modified gravity theories all require dark matter to agree with the observations. There is simply no other way to account for the *detailed* observations of lensing and stellar/galactic velocities. But the standard theory also works under the assumption that there is dark matter. It is also easier and more motivated than the modified gravity theories.
And no, it is NOT a requirement that we 'get it right' the first time, or the second time, or even the hundredth time. The scientific method works by *continually* subjecting our ideas to tests and modifying or rejecting those theories that don't hold up. Even when the basic theories are correct, the specifics of any particular situation are still unknown, so the details are still subject to testing and re-evaluation.
In the case of dark matter, the basic theory of gravity (i.e, general relativity) stay intact, but we add a new type of matter to what was known previously. This type of matter is also consistent with our modern views of particle physics (there are many different possibilities for the identity of dark matter), so this is not a stretch. Why would we expect all types of matter to interact with light?
I agree with much of what you posted.

Now, why the outright denial a supernatural force is responsible? You certainly don't have enough evidence to make that a fact.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139267 Nov 20, 2012
A veritable palm full of Loctite Super Glue. Took about 50 minutes to work loose.
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
You glued your hands together for a bet?
Using what?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139268 Nov 20, 2012
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>STOP!!! STOP being so friggin childish. The world didn't "just create itself." Why the hell don't you quite the dumb broad routine, and learn some science!! Grow the frig up and read a science book, anyone will do for a start. In this era of abundant information, making a statement like "the world just didn't create itself" is almost criminal. The information is there for all to learn, refute it all you want, but learn what science says about how stars and planet are formed. Being willfully ignorant is one of the worst traits a human can have. Educate yourself, you're looking incredibly stupid!!!!
Hold your horses! I surrender to your criticism, now put the friggin pistol of scrutiny away.

Thanks, sometimes I need a good telling off to calm be down!

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#139269 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
A veritable palm full of Loctite Super Glue. Took about 50 minutes to work loose.
<quoted text>
Wait.

So you glued it, allowed it to set, then worked it loose, instead of washing it off?

On a tangent, what did you have to drink before said event?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139270 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
So why do so many children die of childhood leukaemia? Don't enough people want them to survive?
<quoted text>
I was joking with 'Tide', that had nothing to do with you or anybody else!

Ask that question to people who think we can control death. Also ask those people that think they know what God is upto. I don't have the answer!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139271 Nov 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes you should gay with an old science book.
Face palm
Oh and Catholics are Christian, sorry but they really are.
<quoted text>
Catholics aren't Christian.

der

This is why they have different names.

Moron

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139272 Nov 20, 2012
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No, the bibles description involves human characteristic, as In "he created man i. HIS image and LIKENESS. Like "Who can know the mind of God." "And God LOOKED down", means he's got eyes, "and God SAID", a mouth also. "And God picked up the dirt" he's got hands, and blew on it, mouth again, and lungs. So your full of shit, once again,m it your bible and you Christians who have displayed your God with many human characteristics.
Yes, he has both, according to your holy book, human characteristics and FLAWS. like this:
Idiot. That sums you up in one word....

"God SAID", so He has a mouth? Why does God need a mouth? Why do you want God to have hands? Why do you want God to have eyes?

So you can try to scrutinize Him. Good luck with that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139273 Nov 20, 2012
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No, some of us LACK a belief!!!
No, some of you BELIEVE there is no god.

OK!!!
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139274 Nov 20, 2012
I was 16, my peer group a couple of years older. They decided it would be a great idea to let a match burn its complete length across the back of our hands. I decided I didn't want a permanent burn scar, but felt obliged to do something daft. Yes, beer was involved.

The working loose was aided by the tip of my tongue, which was very sore by end of it all. If you ever feel the need to waste 5g of Super Glue, I recommend you try to part the first fingers - where they join your hands - first.
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait.
So you glued it, allowed it to set, then worked it loose, instead of washing it off?
On a tangent, what did you have to drink before said event?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139275 Nov 20, 2012
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>In your case, it shouldn't make much difference, anything with the basic, here's how stars and planets form.
Idiot.

You ignored my questions.

Let's try again.

Should we get an old science book about star formation? You know, back when they "knew" the Milky Way was the universe?

Or should we get a newer one, where they "know" more about gravity & hydrogen?

Or should we wait for a future science book where they'll "know" even more?
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139276 Nov 20, 2012
The childhood leukaemia argument is the main reason I turned my back on belief.

An all powerful god has no reason to inflict or to allow unnecessary suffering to get what it wants because it has, by definition, no needs at all.
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
I was joking with 'Tide', that had nothing to do with you or anybody else!
Ask that question to people who think we can control death. Also ask those people that think they know what God is upto. I don't have the answer!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139277 Nov 20, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Somewhere out here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =58fs5yI8K9IXX&feature=sha re
Our Universe is amazing and we are mere specks ~ but we are mere specks for a reason :)
I think He's everywhere out there.

Nice video, thanks.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139278 Nov 20, 2012
Very few believe 100% there is no god.

Many however believe that the all powerful compassionate god that christians worship can not under any circumstances exist because there is avoidable suffering.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, some of you BELIEVE there is no god.
OK!!!
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#139279 Nov 20, 2012
Why don't we use the best books at the time?

Newton's great for getting to the Moon.
Getting to Mercury, or resetting GPS satellites takes a bit of Newton, plus a bit of Einstein on top for relativistic rounding.

What we don't do is this: ask women to burn a dove after every period (Old Testament) and endorse slavery as jesus did (New Testament).
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot.
You ignored my questions.
Let's try again.
Should we get an old science book about star formation? You know, back when they "knew" the Milky Way was the universe?
Or should we get a newer one, where they "know" more about gravity & hydrogen?
Or should we wait for a future science book where they'll "know" even more?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#139280 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I was 16, my peer group a couple of years older. They decided it would be a great idea to let a match burn its complete length across the back of our hands. I decided I didn't want a permanent burn scar, but felt obliged to do something daft. Yes, beer was involved.
The working loose was aided by the tip of my tongue, which was very sore by end of it all. If you ever feel the need to waste 5g of Super Glue, I recommend you try to part the first fingers - where they join your hands - first.
<quoted text>
LOL! I am glad that you admit to it being a daft idea.

Meh, but what is youth without doing stupid things?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#139281 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It disturbs you that you are just a fancy holograph? You would like to believe that your will is greater than the forces of the universe?
We use those principles in our technology.
Ever try the magnet and hanging rock thing? Add just the smallest bit of iron to the rock and see how it bends to your will.
Chips off the old block?
No, it wouldn't disturb me. In fact, it would have no effect on me, or how I live my life.

And about the magnet/hanging rock. So what? You can't assume that the same is true of humans, and you can't explain the mechanism by which we could be controlled via the iron in our blood. These are your pipe dreams, and that's fine, but stop acting like you have a shred of proof for them.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 18 min lightbeamrider 2,633
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr replaytime 61,038
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 11 hr Eagle 12 452
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 hr Subduction Zone 28,307
Deconversion Mon Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... Mar 3 Eagle 12 126
More from around the web