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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193134 Dec 16, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>

The Portuguese brought slaves to America?

No. It was not Portuguese. It was only one Portugoose.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#193135 Dec 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
Not what he said, you dishonest dipstick.
I'd like to think he was just joking.

I made use of it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#193136 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage rights are blind to gender in all states.
In states not allowing same-sex marriage, everyone can only marry a person of the opposite gender, whether they are male or female, gay or straight.
In states with same-sex marriage, anyone can marry a person of the same-sex, and anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex.
Equal marriage rights existed without same-sex marriage.
What is pursued is not equal rights.
Oh, bollocks.

To translate your post: Marriage rights are gender-blind in all states. Only they're not.

The idea is, you twit, that "equal rights" means anyone can marry whomever they wish. Assuming only that both parties are willing and legally capable of entering a contract.

If heterosexual couples can marry in some states, but same-sex couples cannot, that is NOT gender blindness.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193137 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, no.
If I was going to choose someone to speak for me, it wouldn't be a simpleton like you.
Sorry. I'm busy that day.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#193138 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No, "you" does exist. That's absurd.
If he defines "you" as non-existent, "you" would also still exist.
To not exist, "you" would have to not exist.
If he defines me personally as a married bachelor, which isn't true, he fails to meet the condition of the conditional proof.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#193140 Dec 16, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
My buddies say Moses existed. It must be your Klan that said he didn’t exist.
Excuse me! I thought you were one of IANS' altar boys.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#193141 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Marriage rights are blind to gender in all states.
In states not allowing same-sex marriage, everyone can only marry a person of the opposite gender, whether they are male or female, gay or straight.
In states with same-sex marriage, anyone can marry a person of the same-sex, and anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex.
Equal marriage rights existed without same-sex marriage.
What is pursued is not equal rights.
Are you helping me demonstrate how you can change the framing to support opposing arguments?

Thanks.

Some states have granted access to same-sex marriages and unions under the law. Some have yet to do so. Do you have an opinion on that? Do you support these extensions?

Your sharing thus far would seem to imply that you stand in opposition of this "movement".

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193142 Dec 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, bollocks.
To translate your post: Marriage rights are gender-blind in all states. Only they're not.
The idea is, you twit, that "equal rights" means anyone can marry whomever they wish. Assuming only that both parties are willing and legally capable of entering a contract.
If heterosexual couples can marry in some states, but same-sex couples cannot, that is NOT gender blindness.
Rights do not accrue to couples. They accrue to individuals.

"Person" is how it is worded.

Equal rights means they apply the same to every person. Every person being able to marry the opposite sex, not the same sex, is equal rights.

What you are advocating is a special right, based on a self-acclaimed status.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#193143 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Mac Muffin.
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, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God.(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
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).
Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
Hinduism alone has over a million gods. I take it you have a belief that none of those exist?
You're as much an atheist as I am, statistically speaking. One deity more or less is inconsequential.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193144 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If he defines me personally as a married bachelor, which isn't true, he fails to meet the condition of the conditional proof.
There was no conditional proof.

Just mumbo-jumbo pretending to mean something.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193145 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If he defines me personally as a married bachelor, which isn't true, he fails to meet the condition of the conditional proof.
Yes he does meet it.

Your conditional proof did not require the description to be true.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#193146 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to think he was just joking.
I made use of it.
He's a rather silly person.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#193147 Dec 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You are misinterpreting. I suspect deliberately.
"Help them get away" does not in ANY way recommend jumping in.
And reporting the incident is recommended.
Bullshyt, you mushmouth!

I've jumped between victims and their abusers a number of times expecting to get my butt kicked in the process. "Helping" a victim during a bullying session always comes with the risk of being attacked yourself. There is no way to accurately predict if a bully will stop or walk away when interrupted. A simple show of balls is not always enough; sometimes blood must be drawn.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#193148 Dec 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article /fda-says-germ-killing-soap-co uld-pose-health-risks
Ain't it amazing how often modern science gets things wrong and can present more problems than there were?
Ever wonder what else they may have jumped the gun on?
Modern science has created hundreds of thousands of things - real, tangible, useful products. What has your "alternative science" produced? Cheap parlor tricks don't count...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193149 Dec 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>

Hinduism alone has over a million gods. I take it you have a belief that none of those exist?
You're as much an atheist as I am, statistically speaking. One deity more or less is inconsequential.
That's stupid, Mac Muffin, for 2 reasons:

1. I have no opinion on whether Hindu gods exist.

2. One deity, or god, is VERY CONSEQUENTIAL.

That stupid proposition was popularized by another stupid person - Richard Dawkins.

And atheist morons across the world lapped up the stupidity.

Bwahaahahahahahahaaha....

Just a TINY DIFFERENCE OF ONE GOD!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaa.....

Lap, lap lap, yum yum, suck, suck,....goes the atheist!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah.. ...pppffffffftttt.....ahahahah ahahaah....

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193150 Dec 16, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you helping me demonstrate how you can change the framing to support opposing arguments?
Thanks.
Some states have granted access to same-sex marriages and unions under the law. Some have yet to do so. Do you have an opinion on that? Do you support these extensions?
Your sharing thus far would seem to imply that you stand in opposition of this "movement".
I am making the point that the "movement" is not for equal rights.

Gays already had equal rights before the movement. All persons could marry the oppostie sex; not the same sex, until lately in some states.

The "movement" should stop lying about what they want. It is not a matter of equality.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193151 Dec 16, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern science has created hundreds of thousands of things - real, tangible, useful products. What has your "alternative science" produced? Cheap parlor tricks don't count...
Science has never created anything.

It has no brain, no central nervous system, and no appendages for grasping.

If something was created, something other than science did it.

You seem to imagine science as a living entity - like a god or something.

Are you a religitard? A godbot? Or just a moron?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#193152 Dec 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Spontaneous generation is science.

And it's untrue.

Checkmate.

Perhaps you should plays checkers.

Or GoFish.

Got a three?
It might be science where YOU live, but it sure ain't science where I live.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#193153 Dec 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's stupid, Mac Muffin, for 2 reasons:
1. I have no opinion on whether Hindu gods exist.
2. One deity, or god, is VERY CONSEQUENTIAL.
That stupid proposition was popularized by another stupid person - Richard Dawkins.
And atheist morons across the world lapped up the stupidity.
Bwahaahahahahahahaaha....
Just a TINY DIFFERENCE OF ONE GOD!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaa.....
Lap, lap lap, yum yum, suck, suck,....goes the atheist!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah.. ...pppffffffftttt.....ahahahah ahahaah....
There's no difference between one deity and many.

They're all inconsequential.

And I'd never heard of Dawkins when I came up with that example.

The rest of your post is typical Christian blather.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193154 Dec 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>There's no difference between one deity and many.
They're all inconsequential.
And I'd never heard of Dawkins when I came up with that example.
The rest of your post is typical Christian blather.
That's not what you said.

Your claim was about the difference in one deity and no deities.

And it's a huge, consequential difference.

It's why atheists get on threads like this and say stupid things.

It's why Dawkins went round the world saying that stupid thing.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahah... .

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min 15th Dalai Lama 87,645
Why does Congress have a Chaplain ? 22 hr Wilmington 1
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 22 hr blacklagoon 3 258
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Sat Wisdom of Ages 5,843
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 21 ChristineM 4,035
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
More from around the web