Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 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.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#179261 Oct 6, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll check into those books when I get a chance about souls. Thanks for the reference. Last, what is your belief system?
I am a Pagan/regressive. Karma does come. It is possible God's Karma is he or she must exist as a creature he created. I think God just lays down the single celled creatures in the Goldie Locks Zones, and permits all to play out. If that is correct. We were created by an advanced race.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179262 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You may mean it as a joke, but it is likely scientist would like to experiment. I think they might be favoring single cell life and let the chips fall where they may, but I doubt they are that patient.
How very .. sad for you.

You have zero understanding of science and scientists, this much is quite evident.

It's also clear you are highly jealous of scientists-- or else you would not do your damnedest to belittle them so.

Again? Sad.

But a little **ironic** too, considering without science?

Your computer you covet so much, would not even exist at all!

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179263 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
OK now I know you are joking, but do understand the grey design is the perfect set up for a scouting android/robot.
Oh, grow up.

The "grey design" is what you get from a human face, if you strip away color, detail, and other cues-- and leave the bare markings that define a face.

In short? If a human brain is not functioning at full capacity--say from oxygen deprivation, the parts of our brain that recognize faces would "see" these minimum features as a "face".

The fact that anyone can look at the front of an inanimate car, and see a "face" in the grille's design is an excellent example of this underlying brain-mechanism at work.

Studies have demonstrated this is an instinctive mechanism too-- infants will still respond positively to the bare-minimum of a face, such as your "grey design" face.

It means nothing, other than our sub-brain is trying to "recognize" a face out of random visual noise.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#179264 Oct 6, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not fooling me Bob, I know you believe in God.
I do think the same. If I do not believe in something, I couldn't spend hours of my life chatting about it. Two things that are consistent with the contemporary online Atheist.

1) They constantly make blogs that suggest it is just them and christards. The idea of someone believing in God but straying from the standard Christian God, is just a story posers make up.

2) As a result of one and other various statements they consistently post. They actually support The Fundamentalist Christian. An anti-casual observer sort of thing.

There is a question, the anti-atheist ask.

Can you be an atheist and not be a fundamentalist?

My answer is. Incomplete. If believing the online atheist were the only atheist I would say "No". I would say "Yes" but how do I know that the atheist I talk to in person, don't go online and sound like Bob and the rest of the gang here.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#179265 Oct 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
How very .. sad for you.
You have zero understanding of science and scientists, this much is quite evident.
It's also clear you are highly jealous of scientists-- or else you would not do your damnedest to belittle them so.
Again? Sad.
But a little **ironic** too, considering without science?
Your computer you covet so much, would not even exist at all!
LOL!
I admit I envy them, I really don't see how I belittled them. The truth is there may be no perfect answer. And that is the first thing they will confess. I am curious, what was belittling about that post?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#179266 Oct 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, grow up.
The "grey design" is what you get from a human face, if you strip away color, detail, and other cues-- and leave the bare markings that define a face.
In short? If a human brain is not functioning at full capacity--say from oxygen deprivation, the parts of our brain that recognize faces would "see" these minimum features as a "face".
The fact that anyone can look at the front of an inanimate car, and see a "face" in the grille's design is an excellent example of this underlying brain-mechanism at work.
Studies have demonstrated this is an instinctive mechanism too-- infants will still respond positively to the bare-minimum of a face, such as your "grey design" face.
It means nothing, other than our sub-brain is trying to "recognize" a face out of random visual noise.
I saw tits not a face? Wheres the face?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#179267 Oct 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, grow up.
The "grey design" is what you get from a human face, if you strip away color, detail, and other cues-- and leave the bare markings that define a face.
In short? If a human brain is not functioning at full capacity--say from oxygen deprivation, the parts of our brain that recognize faces would "see" these minimum features as a "face".
The fact that anyone can look at the front of an inanimate car, and see a "face" in the grille's design is an excellent example of this underlying brain-mechanism at work.
Studies have demonstrated this is an instinctive mechanism too-- infants will still respond positively to the bare-minimum of a face, such as your "grey design" face.
It means nothing, other than our sub-brain is trying to "recognize" a face out of random visual noise.
I think more about the body than the facial design. Skinny lengthy arm, which have ben reported as being strong. Those long slim arms and fingers are perfect for reaching into spaces. If I am right the arms may be able to go on for miles, and capable of gripping smaller objects. Which is good for seeking out unpredictable terrain.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#179268 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You may mean it as a joke, but it is likely scientist would like to experiment. I think they might be favoring single cell life and let the chips fall where they may, but I doubt they are that patient.
A joke? Nothing could be more serious than godzilla on mars.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#179269 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
OK now I know you are joking, but do understand the grey design is the perfect set up for a scouting android/robot.
I wasn't joking. You don't agree with me? I think it's pretty clear that the greys are our own advanced robots from the future.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#179270 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I think more about the body than the facial design. Skinny lengthy arm, which have ben reported as being strong. Those long slim arms and fingers are perfect for reaching into spaces. If I am right the arms may be able to go on for miles, and capable of gripping smaller objects. Which is good for seeking out unpredictable terrain.
Spaces, you say. What kinds of spaces?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#179271 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You need the education. There are people now planning on attempting to place life on Mars. Without humans animals would evolve differently. The whole game would change. Wolves and deer everywhere.
Try, really try, and comprehend the entire idea behind exploration of Mars Putting people in bio-domes is a hell of lot different from turning the entire planet into a habitable environment.

Holy shit, were do you get such ridiculous ideas from? Certainly not from any real science. There were animals millions of years before humans came on to the scene. You REALLY need to educate yourself. Our species has only been on this planet for about 200,000 years. Reptiles rules the Earth for millions of years before man, and millions of years before the reptiles, there were animals that predated them.

The evolution of animals has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the evolution of humans

Once again, where the hell do you get such totally insane ideas from?
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#179272 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a lot of evidence. I am not even going to waste my time posting it. Your statement shows you are closed minded.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, this is beyond pathetic. You have lots of evidence but won't waste your time posting it...HAHAHA. Look dumbass, if you had even the slightest bit of evidence you would post it just to rub it in my face that I was wrong and you were right. When people make a claim and they are told it is a ridiculous claim and not true, there is NOTHING more satisfying than to produce the evidence asked for and then flaunt it. You're a lying assclown with not one bit of evidence for your ridiculous claim. I challenged you to produce and you whimped out big time. You FAILED miserably. Too funny, what a dope!!!
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#179273 Oct 6, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The only accident is you spilling your mental illness and projecting your faith based stupidity in this forum.
Why, thank you, I shall hold those words near to my heart. So you are angry at God over your physical condition. The same God you claim doesn't exist. Well I guess you have to be angry at something that excludes yourself.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179274 Oct 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw tits not a face? Wheres the face?
LOL!

Lucky you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179275 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I think more about the body than the facial design. Skinny lengthy arm, which have ben reported as being strong. Those long slim arms and fingers are perfect for reaching into spaces. If I am right the arms may be able to go on for miles, and capable of gripping smaller objects. Which is good for seeking out unpredictable terrain.
Seriously?

100% of the "alien abduction" is bullshyt.

Anyone believing in that crap, is nuts.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#179276 Oct 6, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Page. 1
<quoted text>
Let me stop you right here. I know for a fact you have not viewed the videos I posted nor have you researched ufology because UFO’s have been validated on CNN news, scientist, air traffic control, pilots, specific branches in the military etc... This is why I can’t argue with people like you because you are not honest with yourself nor in the research you call yourself engaged in and integrity and honesty is a must for an argument to progress.
I have learned that posters like you are on here only to insult people are talk negative to posters like myself and this is why I am not going to get into a scientific argument with you. I am flawless at what I do and what I speak of is validated and can be proven scientifically. I am not going to get into this with you because you are intellectually dishonest with yourself, biased, close minded and negative thinking on the universal scale and this is demonstrated by the insults and how you address me in response to my posts.
I will say this to you, evolution is wrong and I can disprove it by applying the universal law of non—contradiction to biological reproductive species, because nature is not contradictory and neither should the information used to explain how nature works.
This is what science lacks and the universal law of non-contradiction is a flawless scientific method that can be used to check the information when used to talk about nature and/or implementing laws through the civil governments when it comes to governing human behavior. Your scientific method lacks this!
You and a lot of other posters in this forum need to mature and learn how to argue correctly (non-insults are negative projections) because your argument is invalid to me when you hurl insults are try and talk down on someone. I feel your negative (not a universal positive thinker) energy and I don’t affiliate with people who thrive on negative energy.
Yes you're right, UFO's have been validated by pilots, air traffic controllers, the military, all kinds of people have seen UFO's. Now what does the U in UFO stand for....wait for it.......UNIDENTIFIED. You seem to have gone for Unidentified straight to an intelligent life force that created man. Holy shit skippy, a huge leap. You nor anyone else has any proof that UFO's are somehow connected to an Alien super race. These are UNIDENTIFIED, they could be anything. If there were any proof for these then guess what they would be called...yep IFO's IDENTIFIED FYING OBJECTS.

Science *lacks* nothing. Science is the single best explanation for anything found in the naturalistic realm at this present time. When new discoveries are found then this explanation will be modified or changed to reflect this new discovery. It is a very effective method and has worked for a very long time, and has advanced civilization to hight's never dreamed possible. Science has nothing at all to say about civic governments

Evolution is simply a fact, it is not even open for debate. It is excepted by 99.99% of all scientists world-wide. It is what mainstream science accepts as factual In 2008 there were 135,000 articles published in support of evolution. Can you guess how many were published refuting these facts?.......Thats right ZERO. Not one articles published in any reputable scientific journal disputing the facts of evolution, why do suppose that is?

Now, if YOU have evidence that proves evolution to be wrong, and you say you do, then you are on your way to a Nobel Prize along with the millions of dollars that accompany such an honor. Not to mention the book tours, public appearances, television, radio, numerous magazines. Front page headlines. Man proves evolution to be false, has PROOF of alternate theory" You would be one of the most famous people of the century. So skippy what the hell are you waiting for. You had better hurrry before someone else jumps in and steals your thunder. ROTFLMAO

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179277 Oct 6, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you're right, UFO's have been validated by pilots, air traffic controllers, the military, all kinds of people have seen UFO's. Now what does the U in UFO stand for....wait for it.......UNIDENTIFIED. You seem to have gone for Unidentified straight to an intelligent life force that created man. Holy shit skippy, a huge leap. You nor anyone else has any proof that UFO's are somehow connected to an Alien super race. These are UNIDENTIFIED, they could be anything. If there were any proof for these then guess what they would be called...yep IFO's IDENTIFIED FYING OBJECTS.
Science *lacks* nothing. Science is the single best explanation for anything found in the naturalistic realm at this present time. When new discoveries are found then this explanation will be modified or changed to reflect this new discovery. It is a very effective method and has worked for a very long time, and has advanced civilization to hight's never dreamed possible. Science has nothing at all to say about civic governments
Evolution is simply a fact, it is not even open for debate. It is excepted by 99.99% of all scientists world-wide. It is what mainstream science accepts as factual In 2008 there were 135,000 articles published in support of evolution. Can you guess how many were published refuting these facts?.......Thats right ZERO. Not one articles published in any reputable scientific journal disputing the facts of evolution, why do suppose that is?
Now, if YOU have evidence that proves evolution to be wrong, and you say you do, then you are on your way to a Nobel Prize along with the millions of dollars that accompany such an honor. Not to mention the book tours, public appearances, television, radio, numerous magazines. Front page headlines. Man proves evolution to be false, has PROOF of alternate theory" You would be one of the most famous people of the century. So skippy what the hell are you waiting for. You had better hurrry before someone else jumps in and steals your thunder. ROTFLMAO
In his case? The "U" stands for "uninformed".
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#179278 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I think more about the body than the facial design. Skinny lengthy arm, which have ben reported as being strong. Those long slim arms and fingers are perfect for reaching into spaces. If I am right the arms may be able to go on for miles, and capable of gripping smaller objects. Which is good for seeking out unpredictable terrain.
I KNEW IT, I JUST KNEW IT......And everyone said I was crazy. Skinny arms..........being strong........capable of reaching into space..able to go for miles.......its......PLASTICMA N. I've always said we were created by a race of PLASTICMEN but no one would believe me. I always knew I was right, you know how?.........Because it's in a BOOK!!!!! Cool. Thanks for helping me validate my Theory that Plasticman is our creator. I feel completely at ease now that the real answer has surface, and with your help, thanks again!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#179279 Oct 6, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I think more about the body than the facial design. Skinny lengthy arm, which have ben reported as being strong. Those long slim arms and fingers are perfect for reaching into spaces. If I am right the arms may be able to go on for miles, and capable of gripping smaller objects. Which is good for seeking out unpredictable terrain.
By the way, I'm very upset with myself, upset over the fact that it has taken me this long to discover that you are completely and utterly insane!!!

I'm NOT being rude, its just a fact!!!!!
Imhotep

Waxhaw, NC

#179280 Oct 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Lucky you.
Hi Bob
I am back for 2 weeks in Tennessee.
And... What do I find?
Idiot government! Lol
What the hell... is the USA going raving mad in my absence?

I hope you and family are well.

Puff piece # 666 - GHS

Christianity cannot erase man's need for pleasure, nor can it eradicate the various sources of pleasure. What it can do, however, and what it has been extremely effective in accomplishing, is to inculcate guilt in connection
with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one's dependence on God.

Christianity, with some exceptions, has never explicitly advocated human misery; it prefers instead to speak of sacrifices in this life so that benefits may be garnered in the life to come. One invests in this life, so to speak, and collects interest in the next. Fortunately for Christianity, the dead cannot return for a refund.

Through inculcating the notion that sacrifice is a virtue, Christianity has succeeded in convincing many people that misery incurred through sacrifice is a mark of virtue. Pain becomes the insignia of morality - and conversely, pleasure becomes the insignia of immorality. Christianity, therefore, does not say, "Go forth and be miserable". Rather, it says, "Go forth and practice the virtue of self-sacrifice".

In practical terms, these commands are identical.

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from.

Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe.

If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

I am Imhotep® and I approve this post.

All the humorous side... ;)

BOEHNER: OBAMA STUBBORNLY REFUSING TO END CRISIS I CREATED

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that he was disappointed after meeting with President Obama at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters,“The President is stubbornly refusing to end the crisis I created.”

“Government is about teamwork,” Mr. Boehner continued.“I’ve done my part by putting together an entirely optional crisis that has shut down the government and will throw thousands out of work. Now it’s up to the President to do his part by ending it.”

Mr. Boehner said that he was “flabbergasted” that the President was looking to him to bring the current government shutdown to an end:“So after doing all of the hard work to push the country to the brink, I’m supposed to pull it back, too? How about you pitching in a little, Mr. President?”

The House Speaker said that he hoped he did not have to manufacture another entirely avoidable crisis over the debt ceiling in order to stir the President to action.“Quite frankly, orchestrating these unnecessary stalemates takes a lot of energy and I could really use a rest,” he said.

But Mr. Boehner seemed pessimistic that the President “got the message.”

“Because of my actions, thousands of federal workers have already been furloughed,” he said.“How many more people do I have to throw out on the street before the President wakes up?”

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min ChristineM 24,871
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Into The Night 52,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 25 min Dogen 475
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 53 min ChristineM 11,440
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Richardfs 22,158
A Proof That God Exists (Mar '13) 2 hr hpcaban 1,936
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Eagle 12 215
More from around the web