Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247230 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.

Pat

Granby, CT

#150032 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are alive.
Even debating with me, proves Gods existence.
Without Him, you have no basis for absolute laws of logic.
By debating and occasionally using reason, you prove His existence...
You have the worlds largest ego and smallest morally challenged malfunctioning brain.
Pat

Granby, CT

#150033 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Still believe a rockdidit?
You just never grew up and stopped playing make believe.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#150034 Jan 25, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hello Mother Goose! Come on in!
Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep;
she didn't know where to find them.
She called the police, they followed the fleece.
Boy Blue was right there behind them.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150035 Jan 25, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>GOD S man made? That's a first LOL
No it's not.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150036 Jan 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry Christine, it is a paradox and will always remain one. It could never be recreated and while we can surmise a thousand different way it could have happened. We will never really know. Because you stated it yourself.
10^-34th of a second following the start of the event. Prior to that time the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist
Whether you are sorry or not there is a difference between not understanding how an event happened and a paradox.

Paradox

noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion

There is nothing contradictory, false or absurd and therefore not a paradox, The logic of mathematics used to theorise the event contradict nothing. However you would no doubt have been correct until Dr Param Singh invented the mathematics that resolved the problems of infinities. Perhaps you are out of date or perhaps you use the wrong word? I don’t know, I don’t do too well at reading minds.

Human knowledge increases, that is the nature of the human mind and of course the reason for science. Because there is a limit now does not mean that limit will stand next Thursday. Only in the last couple of years has the current limit been pushed back to 10^-34 of a second after the event.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150037 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Dreams can become reality, sweetness. Or seem that way.
It can get difficult figuring just where the dreaming actually started.
There's medication for that.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150038 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The seed makes the root, the root makes the stalk, the stalk makes the branch, the branch makes the bud, the bud makes the fruit, the fruit makes the seed. All following the same laws. In a garden, or in the wild.
But none of them grow unless they get nourishment. Garden varieties are tended to, wild ones have to reach out for it.
There is a message in there.
Yes - a message that you are still safely tucked up in davesworld. The universe is not a fruit or nut, no current theories imagine it as a fruit or a nut, as far as I know there has been no historical consensus that the universe is a fruit or a nut.

HI dave, ca va?

Rather belatedly I hope you had a good winter break.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150039 Jan 25, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe that all these chemicals came together in an ancient primordial soup stirred by winds and tides or whatever and this was the right location in the proper amounts to create life?God you have faith in miracles! The faith of a religious zealot.
Yes, that is the basic outline, although I don't know whether it happened in a pond or at a deep sea vent. Why do you call this a miracle? I tis an application of the laws of physics and chemistry over time. Definitely *not* a miracle.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150040 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to admire the perverse adherence to illogical rationale...
Is it an incapability of most atheists to be able to spot the most basic logical fallacies?
Or is it when God is mentioned that logic is abandoned faster than a piranha infested swimming pool?
You seem to have the meaning of logic confused with meaning of myth, a typical failing if the gobot.

There is no logic in mentioning any god. The missing element in any logical argument for a god is that of validity, proof, evidence. What you believe does not rate as logic

However if you can prove me wrong by supplying a logical (real logic, not the goddidit of your imagination) argument that a god (any of the 3700+ gods) can be logically proven to exist then please feel free to indulge yourself.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150041 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
How do you know that?
You are very good at making unsupported truth claims...
ActuallyAura was quoting me and it is supported, your ignorance of the facts does not make the facts go away

Evidence of that claim can be found in both the published documents of the perimeter institute and cern.

Who, I should think, considering that they actually research into that point in time they know considerably more than some godbot who thinks goddidt by magic 6000 years ago because a bronze age author wrote it in a book. A book that was selectively assembled by committee, copied and altered to the extinct that in the early 1600s it had to be rationalised from the 100s of different versions.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150042 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes - a message that you are still safely tucked up in davesworld. The universe is not a fruit or nut, no current theories imagine it as a fruit or a nut, as far as I know there has been no historical consensus that the universe is a fruit or a nut.
HI dave, ca va?
Rather belatedly I hope you had a good winter break.
:-)

Thank you, Christine. Hope you had a good one, too.

There is much empirical evidence to support my theory. Just look at the quantity of fruits and nuts posting on Topix.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#150043 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you are sorry or not there is a difference between not understanding how an event happened and a paradox.
Paradox
noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion
There is nothing contradictory, false or absurd and therefore not a paradox, The logic of mathematics used to theorise the event contradict nothing. However you would no doubt have been correct until Dr Param Singh invented the mathematics that resolved the problems of infinities. Perhaps you are out of date or perhaps you use the wrong word? I don’t know, I don’t do too well at reading minds.
Human knowledge increases, that is the nature of the human mind and of course the reason for science. Because there is a limit now does not mean that limit will stand next Thursday. Only in the last couple of years has the current limit been pushed back to 10^-34 of a second after the event.
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said
"the very laws that enable us to understand this universe did not exist" That should be worded, "The very laws that govern this universe did not exist" The problem is a infinitesimal turned infinite if you fail to see the paradox , the problem is yours.

Just as the cosmological argument has been waged for 4 thousand years, and in your arrogance and haughty reasoning will not change it from being the paradox it is. It is hardly been solved though our understanding greater yes, but the heart of this mystery will forever be shrouded in a impenetrable fog of absolutes that defy reason to explain.

Param Singh has hypothesis but like so much wonder it is but one possible explanation of many , in cosmology there are many flavors of possibility , but they only hold favor awhile till the next scheme is devised . But like all theory and hypothesis into before the beginning is nothing more than conjecture.
Else the cosmological argument would be no longer a topic and all the rage even here and now , within this very forum.

We you and I can only say the evidence leads us to think it was not a caused event, or better said caused by a uncaused causer of causers. We can go further saying it is possible that quantum fluctuations caused a potential difference in space/time/matter/energy and this was likely due to the nature of minute quantum perturbation, but it takes not away from mystery and paradox of the resulting infinite/infinitesimal.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150044 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Which version of quantum theory are you presenting?
I am not talking about any of the *philosophical interpretations* of quantum theory. I am talking about the quantum theory as actually used by physicists.
If something decays, it means it has a prior condition.
yes, the prior condition is that of being a muon. But here's the point: there is no difference between a muon that decays now versus a muon that decays at some later time (or that never decays). When that muon decays is random and uncaused.
Now you can claim that such decay is evidence of a lack of a cause, but that would seem to be very illogical...
Why would you say that? It is illogical only if you *assume* that all events have causes. But that is exactly the point at issue, so that assumption is not one you can make without justification.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#150045 Jan 25, 2013
"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep;
she didn't know where to find them.
She called the police, they followed the fleece.
Boy Blue was right there behind them.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150046 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
Thank you, Christine. Hope you had a good one, too.
There is much empirical evidence to support my theory. Just look at the quantity of fruits and nuts posting on Topix.
Yes thanks

Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150047 Jan 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes thanks
Yes there are a considerable number of fruit and nut cases posting on topix but topix is not the universe
It's a window looking out on it that you can watch the squirrels from.

On the more serious side, your brand of physics is preoccupied with examining thingies, which makes it difficult to see the whole. The secret is in looking at it as a process. The laws of nature is a process.

Since: Sep 08

La Junta, CO

#150048 Jan 25, 2013

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150049 Jan 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor God.
He's going to have to leave town.
His life will be pure Hell after all of these righteous Topix atheists show up on his doorstep.
Hope he doesn't turn over the keys to the kingdom to them.
I'm sure he would, rather than be bored for all of eternity by a bunch of bleating sheep.

1787 August 10.(Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#150050 Jan 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is understanding what it means when you said
…

Sorry word count limits
I have no problem with what I mean, those laws exist, and they help us to understand the universe. They came into being at a point in time, that does not mean to say that outside this universe other laws are not in effect.

Please provide evidence of such tuning? From what I have read no such tuning exists and everything in this universe is the result of time coupled with those universal laws. Those laws may or may not exists outside the domain of this universe and came in to existence after the event as a random result of that event and time.

I quoted the definition of paradox, the current understanding of how the universe was created is not paradoxical, there is nothing contradictory, the meshing of quantum and atomic domains are now calculable and seamless.

Yes the argument has been waged for some time and in very recent years the boundaries of that argument have expanded. Actually not arrogant and haughty reasoning but the reasoning of world renowned physicists and cosmologist as there knowledge and understanding increases. Just because you believe it to be contradictory does not make it contradictory, all it means is that you believe it to be contradictory. Nope, the heart of this mystery is being investigated and with all probability within my lifetime this mystery will no longer be a mystery. Whether you or anyone else accepts that progress is your choice.

Singh’s mathematics provide logical solutions to several possibility’s by quantifying what is already known about both the quantum and atomic domains. And of course the people involved in pre big bang cosmological hypothesis and the quantim/atomic interface are for the most part, agreed that his mathematics are the best available for the job in hand. The time of some bronze age guy saying godidit is gone, science and mathematics has taken over.

Even when/(if) a solution is found it will not stop the arguments, just look at the YEC lot, the creationists bunch and the funnymentalist christards who are shown proof that the earth is millions of times older than they claim or that all fossils are transitional fossils or that Noahs flood was impossible or that DNA disproves Adam and Eve living at the same time.

This is where we disagree, evidence (even mathematical evidence) does away with the need for mystery. Personally I would prefer fact than bronze age mythology anytime, this of course does not diminish the wonder but enhances the joy.
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#150051 Jan 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"Mary was a little flirt
Men followed her like sheep
But though she liked the attention
She fancied little Bo Peep"
<quoted text>
Thinking was a little sh!t
Always chomping at the bit
Christine chose him as her cuckold
'Cause he has a drippy dikk

hahahahahahahaha.....you loser...

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) 39 min Who 12,435
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr JustASkeptic 47,755
Proof of God for the Atheist 2 hr Uncle Sam 96
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 2 hr True Christian wi... 2
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 7 hr thetruth 16
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus Thu Amused 25
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu thetruth 2,352
More from around the web