Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247201 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.

bohart

Newport, TN

#154942 Feb 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt such an experiment would be run for ethical reasons.
Define ethical?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#154943 Feb 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Number based reality versus reality.
You have a car with an EPA 30mpg. You drive it for months and keep scrupulous records and work out your own average. It turns out to be 28.34488865996 mpg.
Cool. You have something to bank on there.
One day you get up and realize you forgot to fill the tank on the car. You cruised home on fumes and didn't realize it. Maybe you were pre-occupied thinking about how many billions of years it takes for matter to collide and make organic life, and considerably less to make such a genius as yourself for understanding that.
Anyhow, you are out of gas. The nearest gas station is 27 miles away. But you are in luck. You have exactly one gallon of gas left in the lawn mower gas can. So you very carefully pour it in, making sure it all goes into the tank.
You grab your wallet, jump in, fire that puppy up and head for the gas station, being careful on acceleration.
Hopefully you remembered to put the gas can in the back, because you will walk that last little ways.
Unless a truck comes out of nowhere, passes you, and you can slipstream it.
Got the hot tub working, huh?

You may want to turn the heat down.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#154944 Feb 18, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In reference to the number of interpretations to the bible.
OMG, dude, OMG.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#154945 Feb 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
So the atheists say that life came about because atoms somehow got together at random to form self repeating patterns uniformly at a random basis?
Nope. Atheists say that they have no belief in deities.

Beyond that, they can say anything else they want.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#154946 Feb 18, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Got the hot tub working, huh?
You may want to turn the heat down.
Haven't turned it on yet. Was hoping you would stop by and help me heat it up. You can bring your friend.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#154947 Feb 18, 2013
Just to make sure that we have things straight. You told polymath257 that he was only giving his opinion. I took polymath257's post and split it out into individual sentences, so that you could point out polymath257's opinion.

I am sure that polymath257 can not only speak for himself, but he can also do it much better than I can.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, you a living thing are made..
everything alive is made ...
See we can agree ,..we are made.
Don't you feel, at least, a bit stupid? You have to break apart sentences to try to pull the wool over someone's eye. You really should feel stupid, but I would have to be that you feel quite pleased with yourself.
bohart wrote:
You admit to not knowing the mechanism , then contradict that at the end by saying , no life substance is added to dead lifeless atoms to obtain life.
Do you mean, like god breathing life into our nostrils? What substance is added? The God Substance?
bohart wrote:
Everything is made of matter, something IS REQUIRED to activate that matter to life, and its not part of the matter.
I like to think that I am open minded; what is this substance? Don't tell me what you believe or what you were taught, tell me what it is and how we can study it.

The one thing that you cannot or will not get through your head is: I don't care if there is a god or not. Until I can plug him into an equation, it doesn't matter. I am not talking about a completely unknown, incalculable, ever changing variable.
bohart wrote:
Its beyond science and telling the same old lies will not change it.
What lies? Science does not care if there is a god or not. They only want to get to the truth. If one or a group of scientists go off track, there are a 100,000 scientists who are trying to discredit or confirm their findings. Hence that is why science is self-correcting.
bohart wrote:
The absolute best science can say is we don't know, to say as you do that nothing else is required is a personal opinion backed by nothing but your belief.
The testable hypotheses with repeatable results states life only comes from existing life.
You are playing the god of the gaps, again. Go back 60 years and damn few scientists thought that we would have home computers, let alone dozens of them.

150 years ago, who thought that it was possible to fly?

300 years ago, appendicitis was a death sentence.

Get out of the gaps!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154948 Feb 18, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! 44 of them are in English!
Ok.

There are different versions of English, man.
Imhotep

United States

#154949 Feb 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly atheist....
It's in different versions for different languages....
Silly True Believer™

Thou hast been deceived by thine own lies. ;)

Protestant Bible:
It includes an Old Testament with 17 historical books, five books of poetry and 17 books of prophecy. Its New Testament includes the four gospels, Acts, the 21 letters and the book of Revelation. The Protestant Bible has a total of 66 books.

Catholic Bible:
The Catholic Bible includes 73 books, seven more than the Protestant Bible, and includes Greek additions to the books of Daniel and Esther. The additional books, which the Council of Trent approved, include Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon and First and Second Maccabees.

Jewish Bible:
Aka the Torah, this collection of Holy scripture includes the five books of Moses, eight books of prophecy and the 11 books of writing, which include books of poetry such as Psalms, Proverbs and Song of Songs.

Anglican Bible:
This Bible accepts the New Testament in conjunction with the books of the Jewish Bible of the Old Testament. It excludes the additional 15 books of the Old testament found in the Protestant Bible.

Greek Orthodox Bible:
This Bible is the largest of any Bible in print today, including the most books of scripture. In addition to the Catholic Bible, Orthodox Christians read First Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Third and Fourth Macabees and Psalm 151.

Honorable mention:
The Quran
The Book of Mormon
bohart

Newport, TN

#154950 Feb 18, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
Just to make sure that we have things straight. You told polymath257 that he was only giving his opinion. I took polymath257's post and split it out into individual sentences, so that you could point out polymath257's opinion.
I am sure that polymath257 can not only speak for himself, but he can also do it much better than I can.
<quoted text>
Don't you feel, at least, a bit stupid? You have to break apart sentences to try to pull the wool over someone's eye. You really should feel stupid, but I would have to be that you feel quite pleased with yourself.
<quoted text>
Do you mean, like god breathing life into our nostrils? What substance is added? The God Substance?
<quoted text>
I like to think that I am open minded; what is this substance? Don't tell me what you believe or what you were taught, tell me what it is and how we can study it.
The one thing that you cannot or will not get through your head is: I don't care if there is a god or not. Until I can plug him into an equation, it doesn't matter. I am not talking about a completely unknown, incalculable, ever changing variable.
<quoted text>
What lies? Science does not care if there is a god or not. They only want to get to the truth. If one or a group of scientists go off track, there are a 100,000 scientists who are trying to discredit or confirm their findings. Hence that is why science is self-correcting.
<quoted text>
You are playing the god of the gaps, again. Go back 60 years and damn few scientists thought that we would have home computers, let alone dozens of them.
150 years ago, who thought that it was possible to fly?
300 years ago, appendicitis was a death sentence.
Get out of the gaps!
God substance? that sounds good!,it sure beats the hell out of the life coming from the goo.
I'm sorry I don't think you could plug God into an equation.
What lies? that life is a simple collection of chemicals in their proper proportions, that lie, supported by no evidence what so ever.

Great comedy!
throwing home computers, flight and appendicitus in to support your beliefs,ha,ha.You left out the ole puddle gooist stand by, gravity,ha,ha.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#154951 Feb 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Define ethical?
I certainly don't mean to speak for polymath257, but

eth·i·cal
1. Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
2. Morally correct.

Now you will want to know where we get our moral values from.

It is very simple. Just sit back and think about this.

Picture this: A man, it could be a women, doesn't matter, and his family comes into a valley where no other human has been. This man is very protective of his family and doesn't ever want to see them hurt.

Another man, could be a women, it doesn't matter, and his walk in from the other direction. He too does not want to see any of his family members hurt.

They meet for the first time; they realize very quickly that if there is a fight, their families maybe wiped out, so they talk!

Hi, my name is Fred.

Hi, my name is Barney.

There is plenty of land here for both families.

I agree. What are the rules that we should live by?

Well, the first rule should be, "Don't kill one another!"

Makes sense! We want to live, not dying plays very well into that.

Agreed. Next rule. Don't steal my cattle!

Agreed. You don't steal my corn.

Agreed. When do you allow your daughters to marry?

18.

Well, we allow ours at 16. We will make it 17, with parents' consent.

Agreed.

You see how this is going? No god required.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#154952 Feb 18, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
God substance? that sounds good!,it sure beats the hell out of the life coming from the goo.
I'm sorry I don't think you could plug God into an equation.
That is why god is not part of science. Goddidit is not an answer, it is either a cop out or something that must be proven.
bohart wrote:
What lies? that life is a simple collection of chemicals in their proper proportions, that lie, supported by no evidence what so ever.
No evidence? Are you sure? I will use one of your arguments. Billions of people believe that we came about through evolution. Billions believe that the fossil record and DNA fully support that belief. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists! Billions of them believe the evidence for evolution.

Now back to science. I cannot force you to view, research or accept the vast amount of evidence that is out there, so I won't bother trying.
bohart wrote:
Great comedy!
throwing home computers, flight and appendicitus in to support your beliefs,ha,ha.You left out the ole puddle gooist stand by, gravity,ha,ha.
Again, why don't we start at a point where we know what happened? Why jump all the way back to a place where no knows, yet.

Well, you jump there because that is where you can still claim that your god was involved. You are playing the gaps. You have to play the gaps, because that is the only place that your god can live.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154953 Feb 18, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What does hubble show, as far back as it can?
Fully formed Galaxies?
Are you claiming something earlier than that has been seen, I cannot see how you could, as there is no documented evidence of such that I am aware of.
No, the earliest galaxies that Hubble has seen are NOT 'fully formed'. They tend to be amorphous and not regular spirals or ellipticals. They are also less luminous and smaller than those today.

"These early galaxies were a thousand times denser than galaxies are now and were much closer together as well, Ellis said. But they were also less luminous than later galaxies"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/...

"The census also shows that the first galaxies were packed more closely together than ones today but also were smaller and "more feeble,"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22611-h...

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#154954 Feb 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.
There are different versions of English, man.
Keep digging!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154955 Feb 18, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly don't mean to speak for polymath257, but
eth·i·cal
1. Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
2. Morally correct.
Now you will want to know where we get our moral values from.
It is very simple. Just sit back and think about this.
Picture this: A man, it could be a women, doesn't matter, and his family comes into a valley where no other human has been. This man is very protective of his family and doesn't ever want to see them hurt.
Another man, could be a women, it doesn't matter, and his walk in from the other direction. He too does not want to see any of his family members hurt.
They meet for the first time; they realize very quickly that if there is a fight, their families maybe wiped out, so they talk!
Hi, my name is Fred.
Hi, my name is Barney.
There is plenty of land here for both families.
I agree. What are the rules that we should live by?
Well, the first rule should be, "Don't kill one another!"
Makes sense! We want to live, not dying plays very well into that.
Agreed. Next rule. Don't steal my cattle!
Agreed. You don't steal my corn.
Agreed. When do you allow your daughters to marry?
18.
Well, we allow ours at 16. We will make it 17, with parents' consent.
Agreed.
You see how this is going? No god required.
I don't know where you're going with this, please continue.
bohart

Newport, TN

#154956 Feb 18, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly don't mean to speak for polymath257, but
eth·i·cal
1. Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
2. Morally correct.
Now you will want to know where we get our moral values from.
It is very simple. Just sit back and think about this.
Picture this: A man, it could be a women, doesn't matter, and his family comes into a valley where no other human has been. This man is very protective of his family and doesn't ever want to see them hurt.
Another man, could be a women, it doesn't matter, and his walk in from the other direction. He too does not want to see any of his family members hurt.
They meet for the first time; they realize very quickly that if there is a fight, their families maybe wiped out, so they talk!
Hi, my name is Fred.
Hi, my name is Barney.
There is plenty of land here for both families.
I agree. What are the rules that we should live by?
Well, the first rule should be, "Don't kill one another!"
Makes sense! We want to live, not dying plays very well into that.
Agreed. Next rule. Don't steal my cattle!
Agreed. You don't steal my corn.
Agreed. When do you allow your daughters to marry?
18.
Well, we allow ours at 16. We will make it 17, with parents' consent.
Agreed.
You see how this is going? No god required.
Is there a name for this planet ? The one called earth works like this, Two guys see a farmer who has a great farm and pretty daughters, they launch an attack, since the farmer isn't strong enough to protect his farm and daughters, he is killed and his daughters raped.

You see if the majority gets to decide morality. there is no morality, only shifting public opinion.

Why shouldn't humans experiment to create half man half ape hybrids? according to the evos there was one once wasn't there? Was that unethical, if we're nothing but higher apes there's no such thing as ethics,only needs and wants.
bohart

Newport, TN

#154957 Feb 18, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why god is not part of science. Goddidit is not an answer, it is either a cop out or something that must be proven.
<quoted text>
No evidence? Are you sure? I will use one of your arguments. Billions of people believe that we came about through evolution. Billions believe that the fossil record and DNA fully support that belief. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists! Billions of them believe the evidence for evolution.
Now back to science. I cannot force you to view, research or accept the vast amount of evidence that is out there, so I won't bother trying.
<quoted text>
Again, why don't we start at a point where we know what happened? Why jump all the way back to a place where no knows, yet.
Well, you jump there because that is where you can still claim that your god was involved. You are playing the gaps. You have to play the gaps, because that is the only place that your god can live.
No evidence? yeah I am sure.
Perhaps you can drown me with your vast evidence thats testable and repeatable.

If life didn't start from the primordial goo on its own, which science shows couldn't happen,then the whole starting point of the evolutionary theory is in peril.
CunningLinguist

Kissimmee, FL

#154958 Feb 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
While still in a philosophicating mode and preparatory to go to go get some nicotine to fuel my existence, upon which I will likely lose my train of thought.
Starting a train moving is no big deal. It is the stopping that is the trick. Same with airplanes. Or rockets you hope to return on. Or even driving down the road.
Once you get something started, it just kinda goes. Taking the curves and stopping will determine the ultimate success of your trip.
A Topix atheist launches their mind out into the wild blue yonder, up past the clouds, past the stars, a bag of goodies and a whiskey bottle on the seat next to them.
Will they make it back home? Would they remember where they been?
It is lamentable that your 'train of thought' has no caboose.

Another thought crossed your mind? Really?
That had to be a very lengthy, lonesome journey.

Did you have your Bible whilst thinking David?

Lot's two virginal daughters get him drunk and each sleeps with him to "preserve seed" of their father. No disapproval of the drunkenness and incest is even hinted at.

Likewise, Jesus tells a parable about 10 virgins marrying the same groom on the same night. He utters not one word of condemnation about such an obscene situation, but rambles on and on about the lamps and the oil.

Damn - There goes the Xtian neighborhood again.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154959 Feb 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read my post about the gallon of gas?
Why would you not make it to the station?
Because you didn't do enough math. In particular, you didn't figure out the variation in your mileage nor did you consider the various conditions that could affect that mileage. So, for example, the average mileage might be 28.5 miles per gallon, but if the variation goes from 23 mpg to 34 mpg, you may run into trouble going 27 miles on a gallon of gas, but you could be fairly confident about a 20 mile voyage. Also, if your observations were only for the mileage along a level path, the computed mpg would not apply when going uphill.
That is the difference between your empirical math formulas and reality. You are applying values to the overall universe you have no way of knowing the value of, and doing your calculations based upon those erroneous values. Then you work other formulas in to account for the mistakes, then more to correct those, and on and on. The next thing is you are in an infinite loop of incorrect logic.
On the contrary, there *are* ways to tell if our measurements apply in other areas of the universe. For example, we can measure the speed of light in other galaxies by looking at the 'echoes' from supernova on nearby gas clouds. This has been done and the results agree with the local results. We can also, for example, look at the spectral lines of distant galaxies and see if they agree with the doppler shifted lines that we see here on Earth. Since there can be hundreds of lines to consider, the fact that they all line up is significant evidence that quantum effects there work the same as quantum effects here.

The point is that if the local physics does not agree with the global physics, this would be *very* evident from the evidence that we can collected (via light) from other places. Perhaps you simply don't understand just how much information light carries and that limits your ability to understand just how much we can know about the rest of the universe. The consistency across many different lines of inquiry shows that the basic physical processes here are the same as elsewhere.
Hyper Squid

San Francisco, CA

#154960 Feb 18, 2013
Your all crackpots that dont understand religon.

Its obvious that God made the earth. The bible says so FFS! The bible is infallible, because God wrote the bible!

And why is they're no video of the big bang? Did all the fotographers just stand their watching the youniverse get created? Well their's no photo or video of the big bang, so it didnt happen. Checkmate, atheists!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154961 Feb 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to confess I get a little peeved about your elitist "understanding math" routine.
I understand math very well. I do billions of calculations every second. As does 7 billion other people. Why we can drive to the gas station. It is built into us.
What is not built into us is the formalized training and indoctrination in a particular form dictated by someone long ago that you suffer from.
Oh, you mean that we use language precisely and unambiguously? Guilty.
Have you noticed my tendency to couch physics in terms relating to motion and polarity?
Yes.
That is because they are the underpinnings of our physical existence.
That is your claim, but it is both ambiguous and wrong in detail. You are spinning around in your own delusions without any real understanding *because* you refuse to learn enough math to understand exactly how things really work.
Not numbers. Numbers can be used to quantify some of their aspects, but they don't guide them, and even less so created them.
No, they help *describe* them in detail. Numbers and math also help us be precise about our predictions and our claims. Nobody said that the numbers 'create' reality, only that they help us understand it. And the fact is that the numbers agree with what we actually see in reality (at least when we get the right assumptions) and they provide *testable* predictions.
SMACK!!!!
Good God, man!! Snap out of it, you have been hypnotized!!
And you are a crackpot.

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) 4 min dollarsbill 12,377
Proof of God for the Atheist 51 min Uncle Sam 89
Atheism and Evidence of the Exodus 4 hr Amused 25
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 4 hr Amused 15
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr thetruth 2,352
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 7 hr thetruth 47,744
News Muslim World and Secularism Tue P_Smith 1
More from around the web