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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186408 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The mindset was, and has continued to be, that "god" had to be of the pattern of a monarch. I am not of that mindset.
Buck Crick wrote:
I was watching "Imus in the Morning" this morning. He had on Dr. Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist, talking about the Hadron Collider. Dr. Kaku said that they were looking for the cause of the Big Bang. In his words, "Where is the match that started the explosion?". You may have not followed it, but I argued for 2 weeks on here with Polymath for the proposition that the Big Bang requires a cause. He persisted with "No, a cause has to precede an event, and it is not possible, because time had not yet begun, so no cause could precede it". I proved his thesis abzurd over and over.
Kaku is also a pop scientist like the late Richard Feynmann and Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. They speak to lay audiences, and takes poetic license. Scientists don't consider the expansion of the universe to be an explosion which occurs into a larger space, but the expansion of space itself. I'm sure that Kaku knows that.

That being said, I think that we can discuss the cause of the universe, but we have to do it from an extra-universal perspective, as from that of a multiverse, which is highly speculative. Polymath has a right to object to us doing that. Still, I will:

Our time may have begun some thirteen trillion years ago, but this multiversal metatime (any transcendent or higher level time) from which our space-time may have budded may extend back infinitely (please don't bother arguing about the impossibility of that, especially if you are willing to conceive of a god that way).

From the perspective of within the universe, referring to something existing before the start of time is meaningless, just as being on the surface of the earth but north of the north pole is meaningless.

We're dong pretty good staying civil, Buck.

[QUOTE who="Buck Crick"Gratifying to see that a real physicist, Dr. Kaku, says Buck is right and Polymath is full of shit.[/QUOTE]

What do you need Kaku for? You do that yourself. This was the purpose of all of this, wasn't it - to get to that sentence.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186409 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't give up so easily.
<quoted text>
Very good info, thanks.
I haven't taken any drugs, but I'll start drinking more water.
Would juice work as well as water or should I just stick to water?
Also, would you suspect that excess beer would help cause sialolithiasis analogous?
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly.
In hot inmates, I recommend to everyone to have a gable vent fan installed, to help draw out the hot air from the attic thus cooking the house for the cost if a fan. For the green wise, most companies sell solar powered gable vent fans, making heir daily use free.
CORRECTION

not "hot inmates"......."hot climates"

Lmao

Shut up, Buck.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#186410 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shit you're right.
I never considered that about the orient express.
And I always figured the occidental college was supposed to be the accidental college.
How bit this? I know Caucasian doesn't mean "white". Why do people think it does? How did it change? Do you know?
And RR goes into reruns.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186411 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201 3/11/20/209165/doctors-are-con cerned-about-pay.html#storylin k=promo
Insurance companies are god. Ask a doctor. I think it was 1996 at an AMA convention that an insurance industry lawyer lectured the doctors that if it wasn't for the insurance companies they would be pumping gas, and they best fall into line for the new reality. Doctors and the medical industry had been milking the insurance industry, meaning those who paid the premiums, for years. That is what drove up the price of medical care. Milk cow economics. Doctors are stuck. There aren't any gas pumping jobs anymore.
What a beautiful spirit you are, constantly mired in negativity for others. What better angel inspired you to post this?

By the way, you're a little confused about what the insurance industry is. They're not the ones paying the premiums. They're the ones pocketing 30% or so of them for zero value added. Nobody mils them, because they produce no milk.

You post like a bitter, ineffectual, little man who takes pot shots at those he resents and envies from his position of self-diappointment.

Did you do the best you could in life? If so, relax.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186412 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't give up so easily.
<quoted text>
Very good info, thanks.
I haven't taken any drugs, but I'll start drinking more water.
Would juice work as well as water or should I just stick to water?
Also, would you suspect that excess beer would help cause sialolithiasis analogous?
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly.
In hot inmates, I recommend to everyone to have a gable vent fan installed, to help draw out the hot air from the attic thus cooking the house for the cost if a fan. For the green wise, most companies sell solar powered gable vent fans, making heir daily use free.
Most certainly. Makes a tremendous difference, especially cooling down at night. The house back in NM would stay hot until after midnight, with two gable vents. I put a gable fan in one side and it cooled down quick. Much more liveable. Heat rises, if you don't have a roof turbine it builds up and heats everything. It got over 130 degrees in that attic before I put that fan in.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186413 Nov 21, 2013
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/teen-cr...

I'm not suggesting Topix atheists go banging their heads against a wall, but....

it might help their issues. Hey, if life springs up all by itself, that might add some intelligence to theirs.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186414 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No rebar. Had some screen and was sectioned with metal flashing. Was a lightweight concrete of some sort. If they hit it just right they could scoop a couple of feet sheets with a roof rake. Which wasn't all that often. Was 1-1/4 thick. Those guys worked.
This was laid on 7/16 sheath. Took a permanent sag. Just laid another layer of sheath on top instead of removing. Was in very good shape except for that sag and a lot cheaper than tearing off. Was 20 years old.
OSB (oriented strand board) makes for a great, and cost effective, roof deck, but plywood is substantially stronger.

I'm surprised they didn't tear off your old roof completely. Was that part of the contract or did they just not wanna do it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186415 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
The BBT is a math model for a seed starting the "life process", in biological terms.
Your science is hopeless, Dave. Why don't you think about purging the words "biological" and "life" from your cosmogeny prattling.
Dave Nelson wrote:
The firing up of a fancy circuit board in technological terms. Biologically speaking, that is how we got so many rutabaga minded Topix atheists. Cross pollination. Technologically they would be called failed product that didn't pass the smoke test.
Rambling disconnectedly from the Big Bang Theory to "fancy circuit boards" to rutabaga-like skeptics is your private, undisciplined, moonbeamery, which in this case segues right into your gratuitous demeaning of unbelievers in the service of your curmudgeonly, sour grapes attitude.

Congratulations, Dave. You have managed to merge your two most prominent qualities together for this substance-free post.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186416 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but no.
I have looked at all the evidence I can get my hands on, and my conclusion is...
It is more likely God exists than not.
Skip the first 14 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4KBx4vvlbZ8XX
William Lane Craig? No thanks.

You're not going to like the following, but Craig disqualifies himself from rational debate because of this comment:

"If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." . William Lane Craig

Do you understand what the man just said there? He said his mind is closed. He calls his opinions the "witness of the Holy Spirit," and that makes them true. He said that even if he encountered evidence that those opinions were wrong, he would ignore the evidence and assume that he was right anyway - that if he dug into it a little more, that this would be proven to him.

He refers to the relationship between faith as reason, which is to subordinate reason to faith. That may fly in church where faith is respected, but in a reasoned argument like a debate, it's a concession. No sound conclusion can follow from a faulty premise, however valid the form of the argument may be.

"Faith-peddlers like to put themselves beyond question by claiming that their faith transcends reason, the very thing that calls it to account. How convenient. Yes, faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law." - Pat Condell

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186417 Nov 21, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think you're stupid.
That hurts, Aunt Betty.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186418 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Kaku is also a pop scientist like the late Richard Feynmann and Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. They speak to lay audiences, and takes poetic license. Scientists don't consider the expansion of the universe to be an explosion which occurs into a larger space, but the expansion of space itself. I'm sure that Kaku knows that.
That being said, I think that we can discuss the cause of the universe, but we have to do it from an extra-universal perspective, as from that of a multiverse, which is highly speculative. Polymath has a right to object to us doing that. Still, I will:
Our time may have begun some thirteen trillion years ago, but this multiversal metatime (any transcendent or higher level time) from which our space-time may have budded may extend back infinitely (please don't bother arguing about the impossibility of that, especially if you are willing to conceive of a god that way).
From the perspective of within the universe, referring to something existing before the start of time is meaningless, just as being on the surface of the earth but north of the north pole is meaningless.
We're dong pretty good staying civil, Buck.
<quoted text>
What do you need Kaku for? You do that yourself. This was the purpose of all of this, wasn't it - to get to that sentence.
Please, allow me to gloat a bit.

It's not often I get to go toe-to-toe with a physicist like Polymath, knowing I'm right and he's wrong, and then have my rightness confirmed by an independent expert.

On my other disagreements with him, I know I'm right and Polymath is wrong, and I just have to prove it over and over myself.

So this is icing on the cake.

... and the infinite multiverse is impossible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186419 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I had the same thought. IAnus wants words to be precise, except when he wants them to be imprecise. As in "atheist agnostic". It's like flavor-of-the-month at Baskin Robbins. I love that chocolate raspberry truffle.
Well, at least you tried to substantiate your claim a bit this time.

FOUR COMBINATIONS of KNOWING and BELIEVING

If you believe there is a god, you are a theist. If you claim to know so, you are called GNOSTIC. You can be either, but not both.

Those who don’t believe are atheist, and those claim not to know are agnostics. At the same time, you can also be either of these, but once again, not both.

[1] Agnostic atheist – Does not accept the claim that gods exists, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.

[2] Gnostic atheist - Believes that no god exists and claims to know so for a fact.

[3] Agnostic theist - Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know so for a fact.

[4] Gnostic theist - Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

Most theists claim to be gnostic [4], that is, to know that gods exist, as do a few atheists [2]. Most atheists, like me, claim to be agnostic [1], as do a few theists [3].

This more modern nomenclature is supplanting the old schema popularized by Webster wherein there are only three categories - atheist, agnostic and theist - arranged in a linear scale analogous to small, medium and large.

By way of contrast, the geometry of the above is better represented by a 2 x 2 square grid like Punnet square, crossing knowing (G and -G for gnostic and agnostic) with believing (T and -T for theistic and atheistic).

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186420 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Most certainly. Makes a tremendous difference, especially cooling down at night. The house back in NM would stay hot until after midnight, with two gable vents. I put a gable fan in one side and it cooled down quick. Much more liveable. Heat rises, if you don't have a roof turbine it builds up and heats everything. It got over 130 degrees in that attic before I put that fan in.
Testify, my brutha!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186421 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
That hurts, Aunt Betty.
Sorry, I thought I was being gentle.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186423 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your science is hopeless, Dave. Why don't you think about purging the words "biological" and "life" from your cosmogeny prattling.
<quoted text>
Rambling disconnectedly from the Big Bang Theory to "fancy circuit boards" to rutabaga-like skeptics is your private, undisciplined, moonbeamery, which in this case segues right into your gratuitous demeaning of unbelievers in the service of your curmudgeonly, sour grapes attitude.
Congratulations, Dave. You have managed to merge your two most prominent qualities together for this substance-free post.
IANS, you spend looking too much time at your belly button and not enough around you.

One more time.

You learn things and try to juggle them instead of figuring how they came to be. Book learning and no thinking.

Some like to make fun of my EM, but they do so with the ignorance of a heeyukker. Their limited mentalities are stuck on magnets, the thingies on the refrigerator. They haven't understood a thing I have said about it being the very basis of their very being.

A magnet is not the magnetic force. It just channels it.

Grab one of your refrigerator magnets. You can't see a thing around it, can you? Totally invisible, isn't it? But it attracts some metals. It even repels other magnetic particles.

This is the same stuff on the outside of every atom that combines with other atoms that combine to make you and everything you can see. It is the skin of all you know. Physics classifies it as one of the forces, but it is THE force that allows you to operate. The way they classify it makes it just look as a force that arises from the polarity of the atom. But you have to understand that polarity was made. And that force transverses the universe through empty space. It travels through that space with the least impediment to its propagation. Any other matter in the way impedes it because it has to deal with those same fields within that matter. This stuff is everywhere, as a light particle or a magnetic wave. You can consider it as a divine wind driving the universe as well as likely being that which formed matter. This is the sole force that counteracts gravity and moves things via attraction and repulsion.

If you knew how this stuff is manipulated by us, then you could perhaps grasp what I mean in those metaphors. But you are stuck playing with alphabet blocks. Oh, it's just a force they list in the book.

Your perspectives are extremely limited. You are limited to replacing parts, not engineering them.

You are a dumb ass,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186426 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Your use of the term "creatures" is intentionally vague.
It's not vague at all. Did you mean too general? Would you prefer human organisms to creatures. I could have also said organisms or life forms.
Buck Crick wrote:
That's a "tell". You suspended your preference here for word-meanings being personal matters, and switched on your requirement for precision.
Perhaps that's because I don't consider fetuses persons/people.
Buck Crick wrote:
But within the same post, in one sentence you demand accuracy
The word "creature" is accurate. Did you mean precise? Shall I explain the difference?

Suppose someone weights 170 lbs. Saying that he is 16o-200 lbs is accurate. Saying he is between 160-180 lbs is also accurate, but it more precise. Saying he is 180-200 lbs is more precise than 160-200 lbs, but inaccurate. OK?

Accurate means correct. Precise means within a relatively narrow range. As with atheism and agnosticism, a description can be called accurate, precise, both or neither. For a 170 lbs man

Accurate and precise 169-171 lbs
Accurate and imprecise 100-200 lbs
Inaccurate and precise 196-198 lbs
Inaccurate and imprecise 200-300 lbs
Buck Crick wrote:
An unborn human must not be called a "baby", but someone who has no position on the existence of god can be called an "atheist".
Only if you want to be accurate. In each case, we can be more precise (fetus and agnostic atheist).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186427 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
He said babies, not fetuses. Babies are those terrestrial, air breathing, and food eating creatures that you see in strollers and cribs. You're confusing them with creatures that live in an aqueous milieu in a uterus and take oxygen and nutrition through an umbilical cord. Those aren't babies.
Buck Crick wrote:
I want to get this straight. If medical terminology were revised to call fetuses "babies", then you would be opposed to abortion?
No.
Buck Crick wrote:
You have only two possible answers: Yes or No. If you answer "Yes", you are absurd. If you answer "No", then your above contention is absurd. Do you want your next statement to be absurd, or your previous statement to be absurd? There is a way to be both absurd and cowardly - choose neither option. I predict this will be your choice.
Thank you for your opinion. And your guess. I will treasure them as always.

Earlier, you spared me the use of the word "stupid" out of Buck respect, which varies from regular respect in an essential way, one which I'll leave to the reader to discern for himself.

In the spirit of Buck respect, please allow me to return the favor by noting that your comment isn't stupid, merely that you have had a little bad luck thinking.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#186428 Nov 21, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold on there Vegas Cowboy. Now you're ditching evolution?
If you believe in evolution then give evolution it's credit.
Evolution is a FACT, how could I "ditch" it?

Very good, you're coming around, you finally realize that evolution is responsible and not you demon God. Took long enough!!!

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186429 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not vague at all. Did you mean too general? Would you prefer human organisms to creatures. I could have also said organisms or life forms.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that's because I don't consider fetuses persons/people.
<quoted text>
The word "creature" is accurate. Did you mean precise? Shall I explain the difference?
Suppose someone weights 170 lbs. Saying that he is 16o-200 lbs is accurate. Saying he is between 160-180 lbs is also accurate, but it more precise. Saying he is 180-200 lbs is more precise than 160-200 lbs, but inaccurate. OK?
Accurate means correct. Precise means within a relatively narrow range. As with atheism and agnosticism, a description can be called accurate, precise, both or neither. For a 170 lbs man
Accurate and precise 169-171 lbs
Accurate and imprecise 100-200 lbs
Inaccurate and precise 196-198 lbs
Inaccurate and imprecise 200-300 lbs
<quoted text>
Only if you want to be accurate. In each case, we can be more precise (fetus and agnostic atheist).
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/21/youn...

You can cut the cord on a preemie and it becomes a baby. In a prior post you made the distinction between a baby and a fetus as being that cord. If the cord existed you felt justified in killing it. It was just a growth within the mother. You made absolutely no distinction regarding the age of your "fetus".

Someone is on life support? No problem for you to shut it off, is there? Once they go on it they lose their human identity.

Secular humanist, huh? You have the mind of a murderer.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186430 Nov 21, 2013
We got stuck on that oddly asymmetric gyratory on the abc road a couple of times and felt the benefit of the A/C then. But yes, mainly pointless.

Most UK people refer to Grantley Adams International as Bridgetown Airport. BA fly there from London Gatwick, which is also nowhere near London. ;)

http://barbados.airport-authority.com/
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, but no a/c, what for since they're totally open?
And you didn't land in Bridgetown!

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 min John 144
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Subduction Zone 74,920
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Subduction Zone 6,092
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Subduction Zone 32,045
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Dogen 4,059
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat John 4,952
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web