Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244893 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193664 Dec 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh. You said that you don't lie "like RR, Buck and most godbots".....
ChristineM wrote:
Who cares, to 2/3 of the world christmas is irrelevant but that does not stop godbots insulting everyone they meet with merry christmas does it?
You lied.
It does insult you.
Ahh so you consider that everyone you meet is me, Is that diety worship?

Honey I could not care less who you try and insult or about what you celebrate just so long as you tell the truth about what you are celebrating. I realise that is a wee bit beyond the average Christian put for Saturn’s sake please try.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193665 Dec 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My conclusion allowed for the 314 MILLION citizens of the US (some small few of whom consider the birth of your nation party is irrelevant)
My conclusion bases relevance on population simply because as opposed to chickpeas or elastic bands for example it is population that is relevant.
Note that the 4th of July is not a day of celebration in the UK, the only reason anyone even considers it as any different from the 3rd or the 5th is it’s either their birthday (or similar) or there is a small filler piece in the news. 4th of July just is just as irrelevant to the French as christmas day is to a Muslim.
The odd US citizen living outside US borders is < 1% of the world population and so makes very little difference to the outcome.
Trade continues in the rest of the world no matter if you have a holiday or not. I can assure you that the world does not tuck itself into bed when wall street shuts for the night.
Ahh those you helped in world wars, thanks for reminding us. Nope France celebrates 14th July, been to a couple, great party, the whole country has fun, bugger to get a table in a restaurant though.
So I say again
So if you want you can call those estimates anecdotal (hearsay and unsubstantiated) but I specifically stated estimated
So the 4th of July is irrelevant to about 95% of the worlds population
I can honestly say that 95% can be termed as most
You have yet to post any evidence for this conclusion.

Your assumption is that the 4th of July is only relevant to U.S. citizens.

Where is your evidence that non U.S. citizens see no relevance to the 4th of July?

All you have offered is the lack of a celebrated holiday in other countries, which does not indicate "no relevance", just not sufficient relevance for a national holiday. You also offered your opinion that free trade would still occur. That's an opinion, and even if correct, does not establish irrelevance.

So where is it?

Is your proof entirely anecdotal? Why would you rely on that, since you have already disparaged anecdotal evidence being relied on by others?

Give us something to back your statements.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193666 Dec 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Let's see. Here is one set of your statements, which you say are "scientifically analysed and proven":
1. Christine: "The only thing that IDers claim that science cannot physically prove is the actual initial bang itself."
False. IDers maintain that random mutation and natural selection alone is not a sufficient explanation of all biological innovation.
IDers also claim that science has not identified the source of genetic code, although scientists claim that they have. Example:
"Although Yarus et al. claim that the DRT model undermines an intelligent design explanation for the origin of the genetic code, the model’s many shortcomings in fact illustrate the insufficiency of undirected chemistry to construct the semantic system represented by the code we see today." -Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson
2. Christine: " However unlike IDers, science can and does use mathematics to test its theories."
False. IDers also use mathematics to test their theories. William Dembski, "The Design Inference":
" I(B|A), like I(A&B), I(A), and I(B), can be represented as the negative logarithm to the base two of a probability, only this time the probability under the logarithm is a conditional as opposed to an unconditional probability. By definition I(B|A)=def -log2P(B|A), where P(B|A) is the conditional probability of B given A. But since P(B|A)=def P(A&B)/P(A), and since the logarithm of a quotient is the difference of the logarithms, log2P(B|A)= log2P(A&B)- log2P(A), and so -log2P(B|A)=-log2P(A&B)+ log2P(A), which is just I(B|A)= I(A&B)- I(A)."
3. Christine: " In the words of one leading cosmologist 'We cannot be sure exactly what caused the big bang but one thing is certain, no god did it'"
False. First of all, this contradicts Christine's claim that every statement has been scientifically tested and proven, for obvious reasons.
Second, her anonymous "cosmologist" is a liar. He is not "certain no god did it, because such certainty is impossible.
As Leonard Mladinow, a real scientist and quantum physicist, and atheist said,
"Science cannot tell you whether the existence of god is true or not true".
__________
I don't need to proceed similarly, Christine, through the rest of your claims, as this small portion proves you a liar.
I have no answer to 1, you just show that IDers can have some very crazy claims and lies

The mathematics of Dembski certainly show one thing, that IDers can fudge anything with maths.

I did not make the statement in 3, I re-quoted it, as I have several times and on previous occasions cited the speaker. And Neil Turoc can be far more sure of the multitude of mathematical data and substantive evidence available than a god book of guesswork can supply

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#193667 Dec 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, and white people enslaved black people. You gonna blame me for that, too? Dumb ass.

Please supply evidence for Saturn the god.

Anytime.
Saturn is a god? Is that the god you're always going on about? I thought it was a planet. Weird.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#193668 Dec 18, 2013
I see Harold Camping has left us. Dead at 92. Wonder if god holds a grudge over the 2011thing?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193669 Dec 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh. You said that you don't lie "like RR, Buck and most godbots".....
ChristineM wrote:
Who cares, to 2/3 of the world christmas is irrelevant but that does not stop godbots insulting everyone they meet with merry christmas does it?
You lied.
It does insult you.
In this post, Christine said Merry Christmas insults her.

In post #193648, Christine said "Merry Christmas" DOES NOT insult her.

....And both are scientifically tested and proven!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaahah...

And science proved both statements with mathematics.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahah...

And E=mc^2

Bwahahahahahahahhah...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#193670 Dec 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So again you have nothing, thanks
I have supplied evidence in the form of E=MC^2 that omnipotence (infinite power/energy) cannot be in this universe and matter exist at the same time. The very fact that you exist means that energy cannot be infinate.
My statement applies to this universe, I have made that abundantly clear on several occasions, it is you making the claim that your god is beyond this universe, so prove it.
Tsk..

One more time.

This universe is a bubble per current mainstream cosmology. Your whole E=MC^2 is built upon that. You wouldn't have your laws of thermodynamics without such.

Get your children's bubble blower. Blow a big bubble. Step inside of it with your full self.

Lovey dovey, you are going to break the shell.

Now, here is a hard physical fact. You would be connected to the inside of that bubble via space in this universe. Even the granularity of air will find some way into that bubble. This is why balloons and such deflate over time.

Being subtle about such things is less destructive.

BTW, with this talk of expanding space and such. That requires stretching the space created with the BB. Which will effect the matter and energy that created it in the first place. After all, it was that burst of energy in the beginning that created it in the first place. Per mainstream cosmology. So your values of E=MC^2 will have to change. You have the distance of light to travel and a few other serious effects on the transfers of energy, etc.

But that doesn't matter to you. You just want to argue. Some sort of energy boost for you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#193671 Dec 18, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. there it is folks ..
GAY = Demonic
This is occasionally true. You obviously haven't seen me pissed off.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193672 Dec 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no answer to 1, you just show that IDers can have some very crazy claims and lies
The mathematics of Dembski certainly show one thing, that IDers can fudge anything with maths.
I did not make the statement in 3, I re-quoted it, as I have several times and on previous occasions cited the speaker. And Neil Turoc can be far more sure of the multitude of mathematical data and substantive evidence available than a god book of guesswork can supply
You changed your story.

If I can get you to continue changing it, you might eventually get something right.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#193673 Dec 18, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, Hiding.
I see you are still full of shit.
It doesn't matter if the legal conception of marriage or sexuality is Christian or Celtic.
It is the agreed-upon status presently consented to by the people of this nation, for most states, and it makes no claim to universality, and none is necessary. Our Constitution imposes no obstacles for the people of Bumfuck Egypt.
AS to your crystal ball prognostications about future events, we will cautiously take them under advisement.
Bwhahahahahhaahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahyahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaahhahahahh gufawww hhahahahahahahahaha hehehehehehehehehehe ah chooooo heheheheheheh Hey Buck, youre doing a good job repudiating that yammering bowlegged prevaricator, Christine., too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#193674 Dec 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You said Christians first brought slaves over here. You're wrong, it was the Portuguese.


You're both wrong. It was slave traders in ships.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193675 Dec 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no answer to 1, you just show that IDers can have some very crazy claims and lies
The mathematics of Dembski certainly show one thing, that IDers can fudge anything with maths.
So when one group of scientists employ math, they are proving theories.

When another group uses math to rebut the theories, they are fudging.

And you know this when it's obvious you don't understand either math.

Bwahahahahahahahahahhahaahhaha hahaha....
Bongo

Coram, NY

#193676 Dec 18, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
This is occasionally true. You obviously haven't seen me pissed off.
ok ok, ill include you in one of the worlds thinnest books, The dangers of causing an angry one legged Asian atheist lesbian to manifest.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#193677 Dec 18, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so you're more in favor of the traditional marriage, one man, one women. Apparently this is NOT what your bible endorses, so when you say it is a tradition that has been in place since the beginning of mankind, you're wrong.
Nowhere in the bible does it endorse marriage between one man and one women for the purpose of procreation, NOWHERE. Laws attributed to Moses assume that Israelites will marry as many wives as they can support. Even Jesus was against married family life as a distraction and waste of time. Paul continued this teachings encouraging celibacy as the best choice for Jesus followers.
Maybe you mean a more traditional marriage like Jacobs, who had 4 wives and many lady lovers.
Yes, there were some in the Bible that had more than one wife. Problems were also noted such as what occurred with Abraham’s two wives. Keep in mind that was before there was Alimony. So let’s not kid ourselves there were issues with multiple wives.

Even today there’s issues with multiple wives and girlfriends in relationships. Just watch Jerry Springer.

It’s also true Paul promoted celibacy. But he also said it’s better to marry than burn with passion.

Then we find ourselves right back in the Garden of Eden. God made Eve for Adam. One woman and one man.

Since we are talking about women. I think women are beautiful and all men are ugly. I just wanted you to know how I see you my good music Doctor.[laughing]
[tipping hat]
Bongo

Coram, NY

#193678 Dec 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent.
Then you must understand that what I believe was an experience with God is my "ideas and actions to be supported by experience and other evidence".
<quoted text>
FYI - I had to look up dysphoria and visceral.
:)
Heck, if it was not for my deep personal convictions and strong constitution I would have succumbed to dysthymia after perusing these threads.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#193679 Dec 18, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
This is occasionally true. You obviously haven't seen me pissed off.
.. do you still hold my losing the handcuff key against me ??..

.. it wasn't my fault ..

.. AIN wanted to take photos for medical purposes ..

.. scientific advancement, ya know ??..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193680 Dec 18, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the argument not only is applicable to the bible god, it rules that specific god out, and demotes the book ascribed to it to the status of ancient mythology. If there is a god, it's not the one described in that book, which is described as perfect and imperfect at the same time - the married bachelor of gods.
If that precise god doesn't exist, it means that there is no reason to be a Christian, no reason to respect the words in the Christian bible, no reason to go to Christian churches or listen to Christian clergy, no reason to pray to or worship the Christian god, and no reason to accept the Christian doctrines of sin, salvation, damnation, heaven, or hell. None at all.
Wouldn't that count as an application?
No.

Applying the married bachelor analogy to Bible descriptions of God only negates the self-contradictory descriptions, not the object of the descriptions.

The other possible alternative is that the god referred to exists, but does not possess said self-contradictory qualities.

As in, describing Tide as a married bachelor does not prove Tide nonexistent.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#193681 Dec 18, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that people would love to be rid of the burden of a god belief? I disagree. I think that people that believe do so because it meets a need.
Some people are afraid of extinction at death.
Some want a protector in life,
Some feel alone, unloved, or unimportant and benefit from believing they have a friend that loves them and considers them the jewel of creation.
Some feel crushing remorse and want absolution, which the Christin god offers on demand.
Some want to hold on to childhood and to magical thinking, and the comfort of being told what to do over decision making.
Some need to believe that a dead child is in a better place, or that they ill be reunited with a deceased mother or spouse.
Or, on a baser level, some people just want to feel morally superior or want to see their enemies punished, and their beliefs support those wishes.
The typical Western god belief meets all of these needs.
And once you are ensconced in the religious mindset and culture, there is a high price to pay extracting yourself from it. There is a long, painful internal battle waged for years. I and many others that have gone through it can assure you of that.
And there is the shunning that follows, which can tear families apart and devastate one's social status, especially in smaller communities.
Ongoing belief avoids both of these sources of turmoil.
So, no I don't see keeping the faith as the burden here. Freeing oneself of it is.
Incidentally, I appreciate your good nature in these discussions. I don't say these things to insult faith based believers, but because I believe that faith is a mistake, and I want to give my reasons. Some believers can read that and not froth. Others feel the need to retaliate.
You have a extraordianry grasp and can articulate well the human condition. I would agree that of all bad man , religious bad men are the worst. I cant help but think of the proverb where a man is tested, like pure Gold is refined, 7 times , by fire.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193683 Dec 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So again you have nothing, thanks
I have supplied evidence in the form of E=MC^2 that omnipotence (infinite power/energy) cannot be in this universe and matter exist at the same time. The very fact that you exist means that energy cannot be infinate.
My statement applies to this universe, I have made that abundantly clear on several occasions, it is you making the claim that your god is beyond this universe, so prove it.
Your E=mc^2 is unnecessary for this point.

We already know nothing in the universe can be infinite, by definition.

But if it makes you feel smart to use equations with letters, go ahead.

But there is still a problem with your theory...

Omnipotence does not mean infinite energy.

You are left with,....exactly,...

NOTHING
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#193684 Dec 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You fell at the first hurdle.
<quoted text>
I always loved jumping hurdles in my youth and I never missed the first one. Today, I’m like you in that I just walk around them.

I can see you running in slow motion with the “Chariots of Fire” theme song playing so beautifully in the background..

You pass the Union Jack as the crowds roar in anticipation.

Then you clumsily trip over your own feet and fall flat on your *ss. The crowd falls silent and the music stops.

Handclapping can be heard from one single observer. At least you tried my friend.[tipping hat].

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr thetruth 10,786
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 2 hr thetruth 42
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr thetruth 20,593
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineW 14,659
John 3:16 5 hr Shizle 70
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 7 hr Shizle 20
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 17 hr Shizle 17
More from around the web