Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245024 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: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139373 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I have a choice to say today isn't Tuesday, but, here in England, at time of writing, it's generally accepted that it is indeed Tuesday.
<quoted text>
Ok, Ok, Ok, I believe it! lol

It's a very wet Tuesday!!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#139374 Nov 20, 2012
I hate to say it but for once I agree with bob.
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>21Nov12.....
.....Do NOT listen to dis schidt-for-brains 'bossDroppings', Clementia. You have more common sense den this eeejit has.
Ps:'bossDroppings' is fulla schidt to da eyeballs.
..and den sum tooooooooooo.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139375 Nov 20, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if it goes against the evidence?
noooooo! Why do you guys not understand? I was messing with Drew, because he keeps asking me too many weird questions! It's like me saying, God did it!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139376 Nov 20, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>21Nov12.....
.....Do NOT listen to dis schidt-for-brains 'bossDroppings', Clementia. You have more common sense den this eeejit has.
Ps:'bossDroppings' is fulla schidt to da eyeballs.
..and den sum tooooooooooo.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
Why? I thought he's a christian? What, don't christians like christians? please clarify!

He confused me with the hell and God being Omnipresent thing!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139377 Nov 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
I hate to say it but for once I agree with bob.
<quoted text>
Seriously, I have more common sense than him? What's so bad about him that both you atheists and christians don't like him?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#139378 Nov 20, 2012
And not in a good way.
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, Ok, Ok, I believe it! lol
It's a very wet Tuesday!!

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#139379 Nov 20, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
You glued your hands together for a bet?
Using what?
super glue

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#139380 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Supernatural is another way of saying "not understood".
So in reality supernatural "doesn't exist".^>

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#139381 Nov 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> super glue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate

Super Glue can ignite cotton. Variations of it are used to close wounds instead of sutures.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#139382 Nov 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Supernatural is another way of saying "not understood".
So in reality supernatural "doesn't exist".^>
That was pretty poor.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#139383 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, Ok, Ok, I believe it! lol
It's a very wet Tuesday!!
Not here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139384 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are dark energy, and the forces of dark matter supernatural? They certainly would be considered such unless they were needed to make your calculations appear correct.
But because they are subject to the laws of physics, they are not.
Would the EM of dark matter work the same as visible?
This is one things we know about dark matter: it does not interact strongly with light, i.e. E&M. So the answer is no.
If the gravity of dark matter originated in the BB, wouldn't the accompanying EM? Along with the nuclear forces? Could it be detected? Is it detected? Would the forces of this darkness cancel that of the visible?
There is no reason particles *have* to interact strongly with E&M: if they are uncharged, for example. I'm not sure how to interpret the rest of your questions: the gravity of dark matter 'originates' in the same way as for ordinary matter: from the energy density (mass included in the energy here). The best bet as of right now is that dark matter is composed of particles that interact primarily through the weak force, not E&M or the strong force. If dark matter is composed of axions, though, there would be a weak interaction with E&M, which could even explain the 511MeV glow around out galaxy. At this point, we need more data.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#139385 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relation...
I don't think you truly grasp the physical realities of quantum mechanics.
You are confusing problems with observing with the actual physical goings on.
Your "randomness" is "magic". POOF!!! Or it is mathematical fudge factors for incorrect observation and interpretation.
\Random may be a sequential set of events but to understand it is takes crunching the numbers to see the pattern. So by all intents and purpose a event that is only repetitive on a scale that large is "random".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139386 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relation...
I don't think you truly grasp the physical realities of quantum mechanics.
You are confusing problems with observing with the actual physical goings on.
Your "randomness" is "magic". POOF!!! Or it is mathematical fudge factors for incorrect observation and interpretation.
No, I am definitely NOT confusing problems of observation with what is actually going on. That is the whole point of Bell's inequalities:*any* deterministic system has to obey those inequalities, but QM does not and neither does the real world. Randomness is an essential aspect of reality.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#139387 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
SORRY!! I have a habit of talking in generalities and not being very articulate, I'm honestly sorry. I will definitely try to express my view more clearly.
An atheist never actually said that the world just created itself, that was just me being stupid and lazy to write out what he actually said, sorry again.
The problem is that most religious people don't want to understand atheists and vice versa. My belief isn't that different to most atheists. The main difference is that I use the word God where atheists use a question mark, other than that we agree on mostly everything else. If we all tried to understand eachother, I believe there wouldn't be any arguements.
There will always be arguments, and that's okay.

I understand the theistic perspective very well. Many of the other atheists on Topix do too. Understanding and agreeing are very different things though.

I like how you seek to join instead of divide. That's worth a lot to me.

:)

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#139388 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do anything and everything, you just have to believe!:-)
I'm not a fan of unbridled optimism.

I'm a realist.

I calculate.

I'm not cold though. I'm a warm calculator.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#139389 Nov 20, 2012
Good catch ;)
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> super glue

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#139390 Nov 20, 2012
Dave, did you know that computers never generate random numbers? Not at all, it's impossible for them to. This is because random is mathematically impossible, once an algorithm is developed to map out events it ceases to be random, because we just stop perceiving it as random. Computers simulate the unknown quantities by producing what we call pseudo-random values, based on a stored set of values in the chip set, these values are the response given whenever a "random" number is requested by the program. They are always in the exact same order, what changes is the starting location, often called the "seed." Seed values are typically determined by the clock value, the milliseconds since epoch typically, then the program uses that seed as the starting point in the list of numerical values. The best approach is to change the seed often, based on a specific queue from the program to poll the time value and apply that as the new seed.

However, no matter how well someone codes this, if you're keen on patterns you will see the pattern. I can see the pattern in video games all the time, to me, nothing in a computer game is ever random, because I spot the pattern and the queue becomes autonomic for me. It's one reason people don't like to play against me in any game that depends on the random method calls.

The point of all that, nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the universe is random, however, just because nothing is random doesn't mean everything has to have a "purpose."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#139391 Nov 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But because they are subject to the laws of physics, they are not.
<quoted text>
This is one things we know about dark matter: it does not interact strongly with light, i.e. E&M. So the answer is no.
<quoted text>
There is no reason particles *have* to interact strongly with E&M: if they are uncharged, for example. I'm not sure how to interpret the rest of your questions: the gravity of dark matter 'originates' in the same way as for ordinary matter: from the energy density (mass included in the energy here). The best bet as of right now is that dark matter is composed of particles that interact primarily through the weak force, not E&M or the strong force. If dark matter is composed of axions, though, there would be a weak interaction with E&M, which could even explain the 511MeV glow around out galaxy. At this point, we need more data.
"In 1968, the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction were unified, when they were shown to be two aspects of a single force, now termed the electro-weak force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

Same process it appears. Not different and unique forces. They will find the same with the others once they clean their toy box out of particles, and all of their flavors. They have collected so many in their game they got confused about what they were doing.

Like a water stream, you can't see the basic energy flow when you are in it. But you can see ripples and whirlpools in it when it encounters obstructions. Just slowing down a section will do that. They make what is then called an object, or a particle.

Weren't particles "made" after the Big Bang? Wasn't there a shrinking? That was back and forth motion, was it not?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#139392 Nov 20, 2012
The UK government has run a lottery since 1957 using analogue mechanisms to create the random numbers on behalf of the digital computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERNIE#ERNIE
KittenKoder wrote:
Dave, did you know that computers never generate random numbers? Not at all, it's impossible for them to. This is because random is mathematically impossible, once an algorithm is developed to map out events it ceases to be random, because we just stop perceiving it as random. Computers simulate the unknown quantities by producing what we call pseudo-random values, based on a stored set of values in the chip set, these values are the response given whenever a "random" number is requested by the program. They are always in the exact same order, what changes is the starting location, often called the "seed." Seed values are typically determined by the clock value, the milliseconds since epoch typically, then the program uses that seed as the starting point in the list of numerical values. The best approach is to change the seed often, based on a specific queue from the program to poll the time value and apply that as the new seed.
However, no matter how well someone codes this, if you're keen on patterns you will see the pattern. I can see the pattern in video games all the time, to me, nothing in a computer game is ever random, because I spot the pattern and the queue becomes autonomic for me. It's one reason people don't like to play against me in any game that depends on the random method calls.
The point of all that, nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the universe is random, however, just because nothing is random doesn't mean everything has to have a "purpose."

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 37 min ChristineM 10,971
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min dirtclod 20,643
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,667
John 3:16 9 hr thetruth 83
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Sat NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" Fri Shizle 20
More from around the web