Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244792 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

#157903 Mar 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clementine my dear.
Have you met my old friend Buck Crick?
He used to be my friend anyway.
O my prince charming Catcher!

I'm sure I have! I'm sure u were the one who told me to 'attack' him!

U talking about that one, right?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157904 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Organisms evolve & change is a FACT.
2. The theory of evolution (maybe how it works) is still being worked on. So stop preaching it like its fact.
1. Mass produces gravity is a FACT.
2. The theory of gravity (maybe how it works) is still being worked on. So stop preaching it like its fact.

Thus according to you there is no such thing as gravity, when do you publish?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157905 Mar 2, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Kudos
Dare to think for yourself!
Question everything that you feel needs more evidence.
You can understand why theists believe this, after being told this over and over by their preachers.
This belief is reinforced by the fact that believers must be bound by much more than a simple belief in God.
For example, Catholics must also have the same stances on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality in order to be called a "good Catholic." It only goes to follow that atheism must be similar.
However, atheism is not a religion, rather the absence of religion. As such, we are bound only by our atheism. We are republicans and democrats, men and women, gays and straights, blacks and whites.
We accept every person as they are as equals, and delight in our diversity (not many religions can say that).
We disagree with each other on many issues, and discussion is encouraged and common. Above all, atheists demand the right to disagree, even if it means with each other.
Thank you!:-)

That's what i'm saying. We should all have pleasant, intellectual, fun discussions! We need to try to understand each other, if we really know what's good for us!

We can't say all atheists r good and all religious people r bad or vice versa. We gotta understand good and bad people can be from any race, culture, country, belief etc...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157906 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them? All?!
You butted in our of context.
You're saying that all fossils explain why a squirrel used to not have a skin flap on its leg but now does.
Where do you want to start to prove that?
You first.
Just because you do not understand something does not make it false.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157907 Mar 2, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Mass produces gravity is a FACT.
2. The theory of gravity (maybe how it works) is still being worked on. So stop preaching it like its fact.
Thus according to you there is no such thing as gravity, when do you publish?
1. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity, there are very different.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you drop, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

That law only tells us what happens, but not why it happens, THAT'S the Theory of Gravity.

Laws don't change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157908 Mar 2, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you do not understand something does not make it false.
There it is!

The good ole atheist comeback: "You just don't understand!"

O_o

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157909 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There it is!
The good ole atheist comeback: "You just don't understand!"
O_o
Because it is true, you haven't a clue and to compound the problem you refuse to learn. In short you choose to be ignorant and wish to drag everybody down to your level.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157910 Mar 2, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Just because you do not understand something does not make it false.
If it did then you would be gone.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#157911 Mar 2, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it is true, you haven't a clue and to compound the problem you refuse to learn. In short you choose to be ignorant and wish to drag everybody down to your level.
Lol.

I just don't accept unproven theories as fact like you do.

I'm not a closed-minded follower like you. I have the ability to think for myself, think outside the box and I'm a true critical thinker.

You're a sheep.

Aero will love you.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157912 Mar 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
If it did then you would be gone.
You are gone.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157913 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.
I just don't accept unproven theories as fact like you do.
I'm not a closed-minded follower like you. I have the ability to think for myself, think outside the box and I'm a true critical thinker.
You're a sheep.
Aero will love you.
ToE is not unproven.
oldman75

Huntingtown, MD

#157914 Mar 2, 2013
Atheism requires as much faith as organized religion. I am neither smart enough,or opininated enough to discern the existance or non existance of a supreme diety. IMHO if there is one I doubt his anthropormhic attributes -perhaps universal thought might be piossible .I am,and will always be an agnostic because I do not know and neither does any other human being .

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#157915 Mar 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"First...so what is the Higgs"
"Peter Ware Higgs CH FRS FRSE (born 29 May 1929) is a British theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh.[2]
He is best known for his 1960s proposal of broken symmetry in electroweak theory, explaining the origin of mass of elementary particles in general and of the W and Z bosons in particular. This so-called Higgs mechanism, which was proposed by several physicists besides Higgs at about the same time, predicts the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson (which was often described as "the most sought-after particle in modern physics"[3][4]). CERN announced on 4 July 2012 that they had experimentally established the existence of a Higgs-like boson,[5] but further work is needed to analyse its properties and see if it has the properties expected from the Standard Model Higgs boson.[6] The Higgs mechanism is generally accepted as an important ingredient in the Standard Model of particle physics, without which certain particles would have no mass.[7]
Higgs has been honoured with a number of awards in recognition of his work, including the 1981 Hughes Medal from the Royal Society, the 1984 Rutherford Medal from the Institute of Physics, the 1997 Dirac Medal and Prize for outstanding contributions to theoretical physics from the Institute of Physics, the 1997 High Energy and Particle Physics Prize by the European Physical Society, the 2004 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 2009 Oskar Klein Memorial Lecture medal from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the 2010 American Physical Society J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics and a unique Higgs Medal from the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2012.[8] The recent potential discovery of the Higgs boson prompted fellow physicist Stephen Hawking to note that he thought that Higgs should receive the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work.[9][10]"
Ok...so what is the Higgs-boson particle? That, uh, was my original question.
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#157916 Mar 2, 2013
oldman75 wrote:
Atheism requires as much faith as organized religion. I am neither smart enough,or opininated enough to discern the existance or non existance of a supreme diety. IMHO if there is one I doubt his anthropormhic attributes -perhaps universal thought might be piossible .I am,and will always be an agnostic because I do not know and neither does any other human being .
once you define this diety youll realize its logicaly Impossible to exist

www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Anyways what difference does it make if one is atheist or agnostic?

I dont worship any god so that makes me atheist...can some god exist?

www.godchecker.com . whatcha think

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#157917 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I had it correct.
Current evolutionary theory relies inextricably on abiogenesis.
You admitted so yourself - you just didn't know it, when you said, "only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences"
You could have just as correctly worded your statement "ONLY ABIOGENESIS makes sense with our contemporary evolution theory".
I'm not sure why you're not understanding this - abiogenesis is the necessary prediction of our sciences, including but not limited to evolutionary theory.

(I wrote the word "necessary" on purpose, so that you could nitpick it)

However, abiogenesis doesn't form the basis for any of our sciences, for multiple reasons:

1. It's not been demonstrated
2. The processes, if any, are not fully understood.

That's simply not enough to form a foundation for contemporary theories of science. Hence, our theories predict abiogenesis and not the other way around.
So then, what if abiogenesis does not make sense, i.e., is not true? What happens to the paradigm without it?
We'd have to rethink our sciences to include how abiogenesis is not true. If it turns out there's some kind of divinity/non-material agent involved, every framework theory would need to be fully remade.
The Darwinian paradigm collapses and must be reconstructed because ANY ALTERNATIVE TO ABIOGENESIS REQUIRES EXTERNAL AGENCY.
Thus and then, it can no longer be assumed that random variation and natural selection is the sole mechanism of biologic diversity.
You mean "unpredictable variation," but "random" will suffice for shorthand.
Also, out goes the assumption of universal common descent.
Not necessarily - it would depend on how the external agent designed life. Perhaps it chose "random" variation and evolution to do its creating.
Out goes the assumption, even, that life evolved through orderly sequence, instead of multiple life forms arising at different times. Out goes the assumption that multicellular organisms arose from unicellular organisms. Out goes the assumption that life arose in its most simple form and progressed ALWAYS to more complex.
I don't think you could give up any assumption w/out knowing what the designer wanted, how the designer designed. Unless you have some insight into "it," we really wouldn't be able to make any claim - any claim. We would have great difficulties narrowing down causes for any phenomena.
Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory.
It was so in Darwin's day; it is so now. Darwin was greatly distressed by this, and so began the tricky campaign in science for bifurcating the two concepts.
It works very well, at least among the non-skeptical.
Sorry, you haven't convinced me. How does evolution require abiogenesis?

It's quite clear how it predicts it - no creators involved in any of our sciences.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#157918 Mar 2, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
once you define this diety youll realize its logicaly Impossible to exist
www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Anyways what difference does it make if one is atheist or agnostic?
I dont worship any god so that makes me atheist...can some god exist?
www.godchecker.com . whatcha think
I always thought n atheist says there is no god. That is just as presumptuious as jesus,allah,buddh,the flying spaghetti monster is god . Ain't no proof for any >

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#157919 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity, there are very different.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you drop, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
That law only tells us what happens, but not why it happens, THAT'S the Theory of Gravity.
Laws don't change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered.
http://thehappyscientist.com/s cience-experiment/gravity-theo ry-or-law

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#157920 Mar 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok...so what is the Higgs-boson particle? That, uh, was my original question.
It's another mathematical construct, a virtual reality, to explain the math model based upon misinterpretation of the forces arising from use of EM devices to measure, which introduces a polarity and charge issue they are totally ignoring, and which gives them a cheesy model they just keep patching and going in circles on. Some Christian guy named Faraday stated the ball rolling on those EM devices. Actually they would do better just from scratch math. The approach of how something can work and then testing, versus observing and assuming, and then testing designed to confirm the assuming, and add patches when it don't work.

A school girl with a large caliber revolver between her legs? I am glad to see it is pointed away from her.

Since matter is actually created from th eoutside in and not inside out as commonly thought, how would that change the theory of evolution?

Kinda missed you.

Smooch.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#157921 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's another mathematical construct, a virtual reality, to explain the math model based upon misinterpretation of the forces arising from use of EM devices to measure, which introduces a polarity and charge issue they are totally ignoring, and which gives them a cheesy model they just keep patching and going in circles on. Some Christian guy named Faraday stated the ball rolling on those EM devices. Actually they would do better just from scratch math. The approach of how something can work and then testing, versus observing and assuming, and then testing designed to confirm the assuming, and add patches when it don't work.
A school girl with a large caliber revolver between her legs? I am glad to see it is pointed away from her.
Since matter is actually created from th eoutside in and not inside out as commonly thought, how would that change the theory of evolution?
Kinda missed you.
Smooch.
You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?

http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#157922 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?
http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911
It's a "physical" event, but not a physical thing. Same with all the other "particles". They can't see them, either.

It is way more massive than a proton or neutron. Should have been a lot easier to find if it existed.

Particles are swirls of "energy" flow. Observing apparatus uses swirling "energy" flows to observe. To detect there has to be something to "bounce" off of, or means to measure the effect of the observing apparatus' applied energy has on something else as it gets channeled through the maze. Such as if the swirl falls into line with a swirl in the observed. That increase has to affect something else that can then be read. They do something like that with their deductions determining the other particles, and the Higgs's itself. The splattering technique.

They are missing the swirl patterns. Actually they are observing the effects, but because they can't see the patterns, they call it a particle. That is where you get the quarks and all these other things. It is really just flows bumping around each other and in loops.

There ain't a damned solid particle to be had. That is why they have these charge fields and sophistric bullshit.

I explained the basic process last night.

Flows create polarities because of direction of motion and direction of spin. Motion of space is the only real "force". Particles are just markers of where they collide and combine.

They worship idols.

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
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 1 hr thetruth 12
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 3 hr par five 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr ChristineM 10,709
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 20,532
Santa vs. God: logic? 13 hr Shizle 2
Is the Christian god good? 17 hr Shizle 4
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! Tue Richardfs 18
More from around the web