Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258515 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.

Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#188193 Nov 29, 2013
Believers place limits on their gods all the time - they have such limited imaginations.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So bucks god is not omnipotent

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#188194 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and find nothing?
naw.
I don't share your beliefs.
We know that, however my beliefs are based on facts yours are based on bronze age myth and godddidt by magic out of nothing.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188195 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So bucks god is not omnipotent
And your god lies about creating "synthetic life".

His scriptures are in error, Cryptocrystalline.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#188196 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and find nothing?
naw.
I don't share your beliefs.
Yes, you go forward and find nothing. How could we expect you to go back and find anything? lol

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188197 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you are correct, he certainly knows nothing, particularly about atheism, which may explain why he was talking through his butt. Atheism does not demand anything, atheism simply is the logical result of evidence in one direction and complete lack of evidence in the other.
No, you are wrong, as per usual, Colchecine.

Evidence cannot take you to atheism. Only to agnosticism.

That is, unless you are omniscient, which I doubt.

Your atheism, which is a belief, relies on a view surpassing evidence.

You are repeating the false claim of rational skepticism.

You cannot be a rational skeptic and an atheist.

The terms are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the illustration.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#188198 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And your god lies about creating "synthetic life".
His scriptures are in error, Cryptocrystalline.
Well Buck you claim nothing does exist.
You assert ID exists , but that nothing is an ID'er, therefore you get something from nothing , and nobody ever seen one either.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#188199 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
As you atheists have the preconceived notion that God doesn't exist and created nothing.
Not all of us. I'm completely open-minded on the subject - prove a deity, and I'll believe in it.

Should be easy, yes?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188200 Nov 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you go forward and find nothing. How could we expect you to go back and find anything? lol
Yesterday is history.

Tomorrow is a mystery.

Today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188201 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That my dear is why is the term SYNTHETIC is used
Try again drippy dick
There's nothing synthetic about a natural cell.

Whether or not you capitalize it.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#188202 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And your god lies about creating "synthetic life".
His scriptures are in error, Cryptocrystalline.
Nope, you misunderstanding of the term synthetic is what is in error here butfookcrack

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188203 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that, however my beliefs are based on facts yours are based on bronze age myth and godddidt by magic out of nothing.
Your belief tells you that scientists took an existing cell, modified it and called it "creating life".

Dude.

Really?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188204 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
As you atheists have the preconceived notion that God doesn't exist and created nothing.
macumazahn wrote:
Not all of us. I'm completely open-minded on the subject - prove a deity, and I'll believe in it.
Should be easy, yes?
Then you, sir, are not an atheist.

You're agnostic.

Congratulations.

Shaka indeed...

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#188205 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are wrong, as per usual, Colchecine.
Evidence cannot take you to atheism. Only to agnosticism.
That is, unless you are omniscient, which I doubt.
Your atheism, which is a belief, relies on a view surpassing evidence.
You are repeating the false claim of rational skepticism.
You cannot be a rational skeptic and an atheist.
The terms are mutually exclusive.
Thanks for the illustration.
Really buttfookcrack, your misrepresentation of the word atheism is also in error, I have in the past provide several examples of the actual meaning of the word, you choose to ignore them all except your narrow and restricting meaning. That’s your problem, and it really is not surprising that most people cannot understand you

Atheism relies on evidence, not surpassing evidence, however you are welcome to you delusions and wet dreams

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188206 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/atheism/TUGI0DVLLAKD7M2H N/post188052
<quoted text>
What part did you consider speculation? What I provided was the facts form Forrest:
Dembski claimed that "[E]volutionists escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination ... by boycotting the hearings.”
That actually happened.
He also proposed a “vise strategy” for “interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them,” childishly illustrated with a photograph of a Darwin doll with its head compressed in a bench vise.
That also happened. I provided a link to a photo of the doll in a vise.
Then, Dembski “escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination” when he withdrew from the case on June 10.
That also happened.
Then I asked you what you supposed Dembski was afraid of, given that here was no criminal or civil liability involved for him - just his professional reputation.
Your answer was, "Entertaining speculation from you and Dr. Forest.
Thanks."
This approach of yours - bare claims and innuendo - doesn't offer you much chance of success in promoting your position if somebody comes along and points out explicitly what you are doing, and illustrates it with sourced examples.
Here's I've as easily undone your claims about Forrest as I did your claims about Hitchens and Randi, and Dave's claims about magnetic fields (FACT. PERIOD.).
Now will you back any of these claims up - Randi the charlatan, the childish and ignorant Hitchens and the speculating Forrest - perhaps with actual relevant quotations, links to them so that others may confirm your claims and investigate the context in which the words were written or spoken, and your argument why you think your evidence makes your point?
Both you and Forest speculated on Dembski's motivation for not participating.

Neither of you know.

Barbara Forest is a smear merchant, and nothing else.

She has written about Dembski's and others' decision not to testify in conspiratorial fashion, and offered 3 contradictory theories, and writes as if all 3 are true:

1. They were scared off by her great arguments.

2. They were fired by Thomas More Legal Center.

3. Because Kitzmiller was a poor test case.

There are other less-conspiratorial reasons possible.

One is fear of professional reprisal.

When Scott Minnich, a peer-reviewed researcher in microbiology, testified as an expert witness at Kitzmiller, he was attacked at his home university--the University of Idaho. An evolution-only speech-code was imposed by the university president, threatening his academic freedom, and Eugenie Scott was brought in by the science faculty to single out Minnich for criticism.

There is also the matter of Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and John Campbell resisting because Thomas Moore would not allow them to have their own counsel present.

Those are facts. They happened.

This has nothing to do with the Hitchens-Dembski debate, but I entertained your attempt at diversion just to show that you have nothing to offer on this, and also to show how you lose every time you challenge me on Kitzmiller or Intelligent Design.

Thanks again.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#188207 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing synthetic about a natural cell.
Whether or not you capitalize it.
Did I say synthetic cell or did I say synthetic life?

Are you choosing to go down the pedantic route of error by assertion and lies that buck is teaching? Really I though more of you than that.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188208 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you misunderstanding of the term synthetic is what is in error here butfookcrack
Synthetic:

made by chemical synthesis; esp to imitate a natural product.

What part of the natural cell they used is synthetic?

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#188209 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your belief tells you that scientists took an existing cell, modified it and called it "creating life".
Dude.
Really?
Nope not my belief but the results of the work carried out, however you want to play at being buck with the meanings of words makes no difference for the fact that science believes synthetic life was created even if creatures don’t

Perhaps you should try it and show the work to be flawed? Oh wait a moment you are not qualified and you have a particular bias anyway.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188210 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say synthetic cell or did I say synthetic life?
Are you choosing to go down the pedantic route of error by assertion and lies that buck is teaching? Really I though more of you than that.
It doesn't matter what you say.

Your links said it all.

There was no synthetic life created.

They used a natural cell.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#188211 Nov 29, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You lack understanding. Your indignation and disapproval of God is noted. You kill chickens and all sort of life regularly and you aren't even very advanced from those creatures. God gives life and can take it. The sufferings of today cant compare with the future glory. Youre a heretic, apostate and biased for various reasons. Boots you are a puff of smoke, dust, here today gone tomorrow, as are all. There is no counsel against God. I think he is great and greatly to be praised. Any one who trusts Jesus and the operation of God is wise. Death is not the end, only the beginning. Those babies all you whining atheist kepp yarfing about are likely in heaven enjoying eternal life as they were before the age of accountability.
We kill chickens, your god murders innocent little babies, see the difference? No I don't suppose you do, since you think its OK for your God to take life. It's the Bill Cosby approach, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out." LOL.

Your God is a psychopathic murderer, he has murdered over a million people including little babies. How does it feel to drop to your knee's as worship a murderer. I guess you know how those who worshiped Charles Manson felt.

There is NO evidence for Jesus, Heaven, Hell, or Your demon God.

Did you know the God you worship enjoys watching people suffer? It's one of his greatest pleasures, for some reason his favorite subjects are little children, he really gets off on watching them starve to death.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188212 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Really buttfookcrack, your misrepresentation of the word atheism is also in error, I have in the past provide several examples of the actual meaning of the word, you choose to ignore them all except your narrow and restricting meaning. That’s your problem, and it really is not surprising that most people cannot understand you
Atheism relies on evidence, not surpassing evidence, however you are welcome to you delusions and wet dreams
Atheism relies on belief or philosophy.

And it's not my definition, ColdPorcine.

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not." -(Academic American Encyclopedia).

"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist." (The World Book Encyclopedia)

Atheism (Greek and Roman): "Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" -(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

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 Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 12 min blacklagoon 3 82
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 14 min superwilly 6,056
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 43 min Into The Night 93,405
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) Apr 2 blacklagoon 3 35