Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184247 Nov 14, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can prove your god, your creationist bullsh*t will no longer be worthless propaganda any more.
Have you ever had a x-ray?

Could you see the x-ray, the actual penetrating energy?

Proving God is not like pulling jaws out of the ocean and then taking a picture with him.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184248 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Remember, your ego is not your self.
It is form any uses of the language in many contexts.
Buck Crick wrote:
The ego is a product of thoughts. Your self is not.
I will make a note that that is what you mean when you use the word.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184249 Nov 14, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It had teflon. There were two brands out at the time. Didn't last a long time before the Feds made them pull it off because of that fingerprint issue.
I loved it for my saltwater fishing tackle. Nothing better before or since.
I don't know about the alive. Unsplintered and unbroken was my joy. I was too young to even consider death.
Now that you mention it I remember those Teflon aided sprays.
i didn't know why it was removed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184250 Nov 14, 2013
"It is form any uses of the language in many contexts."

should read

"It is FOR MANY USERS of the language in many contexts. "

Sorry. Perhaps it is the wine. If so, please read ahead with caution.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#184251 Nov 14, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever had a x-ray?
Could you see the x-ray, the actual penetrating energy?
Proving God is not like pulling jaws out of the ocean and then taking a picture with him.
X rays produce results that are observable and measurable. Your god does not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184252 Nov 14, 2013
spudgun wrote:
"Religion is not provided to us by revelation, it doesn't come from the heavens, it doesn't come from the beyond, it doesn't come from the divine. It's man-made. And it shows. It shows very well - that religion is created, invented, imposed by a species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee." Christopher Hitchens
That's a good one - half a chromosome away. It's actually an exaggeration.

Hitchens, like Sagan and Carlin, are missed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184253 Nov 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
A skeptic could depend entirely on secret knowledge or revealed truth, and still be a skeptic.
Perhaps.

Please read my usage of the word "skeptic" to mean "rational skeptic" in every case. A rational skeptic would not rely on secret knowledge or revealed truth.

Language doesn't need to be a stumbling block if we can be clear about what our words mean when we use them, and then use them clearly and consistently, even if others use the same words differently.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#184254 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"It is form any uses of the language in many contexts."
should read
"It is FOR MANY USERS of the language in many contexts. "
Sorry. Perhaps it is the wine. If so, please read ahead with caution.
What wine are you having?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#184255 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a good one - half a chromosome away. It's actually an exaggeration.
Hitchens, like Sagan and Carlin, are missed.
I still miss Bertrand Russell.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#184256 Nov 14, 2013
Bongo wrote:
Most atheists ive ever met unequivocally assert there is no God, not, I think theres no God maybe there is.
I doubt that, but I can stipulate to it nevertheless. People that say such a thing, whatever fraction of the total they comprise, are taking a teeny, tiny leap of faith. The evidence suggests that there is no need and indeed may be no place for one, but cannot hop across the synapse necessary to rule it out at this time. A philosophical or mathematical disproof of the possibility of existence may be in the offing as gods, far more complex than cells or even universes, are the things least likely to exist uncreated and undesigned.
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#184257 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the nod.
<quoted text>
I don't play much any more. My wife and I played coffee houses, restaurants and bars for a decade - the was on bass - but gave it up around 2004. It's amazing how much it meant to me for so many years, and then suddenly, the fire went out.
Nearly a decade later, the pilot light is on again, and we talk about returning to public performance. I hope we do, but not unless the fire wells up more.
Are you performing? What is/are your instrument(s) and your musical orientation?
I understand, if the "fire" is not there not much sense in playing. I hope for your sake it does return.

I'm a trumpet player, and play some piano. I'm a composer and arranger, and a professor of composition at a college here in Boston. I'm still very active as a composer/arranger, but have slacked off on playing, only the gigs I enjoy now. Jazz/pop/latin/contemporary/an d some classical. Get back out there, we always need creative people.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184258 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You might be misinterpreting her mood and intent, Bob. You might even like it if you took her up on her offer.

How did you two get to squabbling? Your differences are relatively minor compared to your commonalities. Did one of those differences become an issue?
Her first post to me was highly insulting, followed by several posts to the religious thugs in this thread where I saw suck-up behavior: at the expense of all the atheists/skeptics on this thread.

She may have thought it was funny-- but I didn't.

Since I do not know her? I used that to presume she's just another godbot.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184259 Nov 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The estimation is in the many billions. As yet astronomy has only scratched the surface of the local area of the milky way. See the Keplar mission
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-kepler-resul...
and
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
There is however another limitation (to life as we know it), not only solar goldilocks zones but also theorised galactic goldilocks zones
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/habitablezones/ghz....
Which does reduce the possible candidate planets to -… still many billions.
But then there is the possibility of life as we don’t know it.
With that many chances?

Even if the odds were a million to one against?

We'd still see hundreds of millions of life-inhabited planets-- live as we know it here (i.e. carbon/DNA-like protein-based life)

Of course-- there are a number of details in DNA that could just as easily have been slightly different (left hand rotation, versus right hand rotation to name one of the more interesting).

That would mean, if by some amazing tech, the two life systems would not be compatible with each other.

And, as you point out? Life as we do **not** know it?

Means that there are billions of life-filled planets out there.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184260 Nov 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There are what, around 8 million species of life on this planet alone and 90% of all known species are now extinct. That’s over over 700 million species on this one ball of rock.
Water and carbon are the main prerequisites for life
There are several other galactically local planets known to have water (hence oxygen) and carbon with more being discovered every week.
Given these facts then to say that life cannot exist beyond earth is terribly narrow minded.
To make such a claim (earth is the only island of life), is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of statistics.

Of course?

The success of any given lottery-- and by success I mean the people who have become filthy rich **running** these things?

Proves that most folk **are** ignorant of statistics.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184261 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
To be skeptical simply means that you're not easily convinced and that you have doubts or reservations about something.
Wrong.

But, given you are a god-robot? It's understandable you are clueless as to the meaning of a word you **never** use to describe yourself.

At least-- you never use it **accurately**.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So you are skeptical of Santa Claus, that means you think he *may* be real, but you have your doubts....
Yep. The level of doubt approaches 1:1. Which means I behave as if S.C. is myth.

But since I cannot know the entire universe? Well...

...only religious idiots and the batshit insane claim otherwise.

Moreover, S.C. is based on several real-world, historical persons most likely-- so in a way, there once was a "santa claus" like figure.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're a loon.
LMAO!

Says the fool who believes that a sky-daddy was lonely, created a mud-man and a rib-woman, failed to watch over them, allowed them to be deceived by a known deceiver, grows upset when **his** own creation doesn't work (for lack of attention), and then drowns the whole lot for mistakes he, himself made, he then proceeds to rape an underage teen so he can be born and then kills himself to pay himself back for the mistakes he, himself did in the first place.

And you say **I** am crazy?

<laughing so loud here, my cat is wondering what's going on>
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#184262 Nov 14, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
X rays produce results that are observable and measurable. Your god does not.
One can be exposed to x-rays and not even know it. Unless you have a dosimeter badge at the time of the exposure. There’s no way to know you had a exposure unless it was radical and severe.

How do you prove someone was inadvertently exposed to x-rays without the dosimeter badge? There’s just no way that I’m aware of. The energy has passed through the body and is gone.

That’s the danger of x-rays and radiation. The exposure can occur and the individual has no idea they’ve been exposed. Some chemicals are the same way.

My point being this, some things can’t be proven and are hidden from the human eye. When Rontgen accidentally discovered x-rays in 1895. Prior to that no one knew anything about it. Mine workers were exposed to radiation prior to Rontgen’s discovery.

Atheist want proof of a spirit. But the spirit of God is unseen. Demonic spirits sometimes can be detected by the stupid stuff they do like turning on and off lights, slamming doors and breaking stuff.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#184263 Nov 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You just described yourself as agnostic.
I don't dictate words to you, their definition does.
Why do you fear that title? What's so special about "atheist" to you that you feel the need to cling on to it falsely?
I'm an agnostic atheist.

You do not **get** to dictate the meaning of words.

Society does.

And under the larger, world-wide use of both words?

And also, the way that people OF WHOM THE WORDS APPLY TO use the words?

I'm an agnostic-atheist.

Only batshit insane idiots try to re-define words to fit their pre-concieved agenda.

You **have** to have atheists being People Of Faith.

That is a blatant attempt to try to **JUSTIFY** your own batshit-insanity (faith).

But it just ain't so-- atheists do not have faith in gods.

That is what atheist means: no faith, the "a" and the "theist" root-words.

Agnosticism? That pertains to **knowledge** or **knowing**.

You really need to start paying attention to reality.

Wait... you can't.

I almost forgot-- you are a god-robot-- reality isn't part of your worldview.

Is it?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#184264 Nov 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
With that many chances?
Even if the odds were a million to one against?
We'd still see hundreds of millions of life-inhabited planets-- live as we know it here (i.e. carbon/DNA-like protein-based life)
Of course-- there are a number of details in DNA that could just as easily have been slightly different (left hand rotation, versus right hand rotation to name one of the more interesting).
That would mean, if by some amazing tech, the two life systems would not be compatible with each other.
And, as you point out? Life as we do **not** know it?
Means that there are billions of life-filled planets out there.
I don't know which one is scarier.
If there is, and indeed many technology driven societies with their own biospheres and predators.
Or there isn't and we are indeed alone.
At least the first way isn't boring as hell?

But then there is the fact that if there isn't....we will be the ones to deposit life elsewhere to evolve, into...
who knows what sort of things?
If we can survive anyway.

Then we can say..
A long long time ago
In a galaxy far far away... heheheh

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#184265 Nov 14, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
One can be exposed to x-rays and not even know it. Unless you have a dosimeter badge at the time of the exposure. There’s no way to know you had a exposure unless it was radical and severe.
Yeh, it can be detected and measured. Your god can't. Thanks for proving my point.
Eagle 12 wrote:
But the spirit of God is unseen. Demonic spirits sometimes can be detected by the stupid stuff they do like turning on and off lights, slamming doors and breaking stuff.
And just how do you determine it was evil spirits and not a power surge? What tests would you run?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184266 Nov 14, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Fraudulent science would be an example of something else.
<quoted text>
Such a thing must have happened at sometime, whether it was there or elsewhere.
Is your comment part of a point, or a rebuttal of some sort? Will there be an explicit claim or question coming up?
<quoted text>
I don't know. Nor do I or have much interest in the matter.
I care about the part of science that is legitimate, and leave the policing to others.
<quoted text>
I doubt it.
Does your comment mean that you believe that all of science is unreliable and find none of it of use?
If not, what is your claim? Do you have one, or is this a smear by the innuendo of association effort on your part? Can you show us where it isn't or even might possibly not be such a thing?
And if you can't, why do you do this? Why do you work to undermine science? As I said earlier, you may not think that you aid and abet the Christian church, but "arguments" like yours do just that nevertheless.
Do you know the cost to the nation of undermining confidence in science?
It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives.

The point is clear.

I am a rational skeptic of science.

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) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,169
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 5 hr Eagle 12 - 12
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 hr Eagle 12 - 760
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Science 76,945
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 10 hr Dogen 4,309
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Jul 17 Eagle 12 - 6,123
More from around the web