Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
186,041 - 186,060 of 226,550 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193871 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see the distinction you do, but it shouldn't be a stumbling block either way. I'm good with you saying that the institution will have changed. I welcome that change.
<quoted text>
I agree with the first clause. Regarding the second, I agree that people don't need to be feeling hatred when they facilitate Christian homophobia. I don't think that either you or Riverside Redneck is feeling hatred when you do that, although I do think that the original source of those ideas was hate filled.
But what I do criticize you and him for is fighting against other people's happiness for what appears to me to be to no good reason.
<quoted text>
It helps to call hate what it is. If the claim has no merit, it will fail to resonate with people, as when Christians say that we hate their god.
But if the claim does have merit, it will spread through the culture and become the dominant meme on the matter, which I believe is what is happening. I think that the Christian church's counterargument - that its message is not hateful, and that it a loving institution - is being increasingly rejected.
I reject the notion that there are no good reasons to prefer the preservation of marriage as currently defined, and that those reasons have anything at all to do with hate.

Regardless of whether the (hate) claim has merit, it can and is useful for intimidation.

It is used much in the same way that the fear of being called a racist has been used for certain social and legal causes.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193872 Dec 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
When one persons (or persons) employs math designed and developed for a tasks and that math is testable to and beyond falsifyability that math can be used to demonstrate theories

When one persons (or persons) uses math that is peppered with inconsistencies of wording, properties and systems, when reworking Dembskiís mathematics using standard mathematical concepts, each time the original premise turns out to be false. His math ignores relevant data and assumes that there must be a designer in order for his math to work. Add the correct data and/or take away the falsify the non mathematical magic of a required designer than his math fails.

His math fails the key requirements for scientific evaluation, they are not consistent over a range of inputs. As for being falsifiable, change any major parameter and they are more than falsifiable they are completely failable.

This my dear is not science, this if ID delusion by slight of hand.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193873 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope I havenít, My story is exactly the same as when you chose to pose ID BS against science fact. Because you donít like the results is not my problem
No, I like the result fine.

The result is, after you making the claim that all IDers can disagree with science about is on the origin of the Big Bang, I pointed out that you are wrong, and you changed that claim.

You are closer to being right now, though still pretty far off.

I'm fine with that result.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#193874 Dec 19, 2013
I love Robin Ince's take down of those id morons.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
When one persons (or persons) employs math designed and developed for a tasks and that math is testable to and beyond falsifyability that math can be used to demonstrate theories
When one persons (or persons) uses math that is peppered with inconsistencies of wording, properties and systems, when reworking Dembskiís mathematics using standard mathematical concepts, each time the original premise turns out to be false. His math ignores relevant data and assumes that there must be a designer in order for his math to work. Add the correct data and/or take away the falsify the non mathematical magic of a required designer than his math fails.
His math fails the key requirements for scientific evaluation, they are not consistent over a range of inputs. As for being falsifiable, change any major parameter and they are more than falsifiable they are completely failable.
This my dear is not science, this if ID delusion by slight of hand.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193875 Dec 19, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't hurt me personally per say, I just don't think that as a largely already failed society we should continue to propagate the lies that have contributed to our failure.
The babble describes the weather at the alleged birth of the central fictional character anyway, it was not winter and babble 'scholars' have pinned it down to roughly between June and September but of course they cannot agree on it, much like the rest of the biggest babble bubble known to exist.
There has to be a better way than the acceptance of mass delusions for our species.
So being uncertain about the birth date of a religious figure is contributing to the failure of society?

You'll have to do a better sales job to get me on board that one, LooseFur.

I'm suspicious of possible ulterior motives here.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193876 Dec 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I was asked a question regarding E-MC^2 so why the fook should you think it unnecessary in the reply?

Regarding you infinity statement, therefore omnipotence (unlimited (infinite) power) cannot exist in this universe, at last, thank you buck

May I suggest you look up the meaning of omnipotence then consider the meaning of power then consider that everything Ė absolutely everything in this universe is derived from energy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193877 Dec 19, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>

Best post this this month!
Thanks, Benassfucked.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193878 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked a question regarding E-MC^2 so why the fook should you think it unnecessary in the reply?
Regarding you infinity statement, therefore omnipotence (unlimited (infinite) power) cannot exist in this universe, at last, thank you buck
May I suggest you look up the meaning of omnipotence then consider the meaning of power then consider that everything Ė absolutely everything in this universe is derived from energy.
Christinemc^2, whatever caused the universe is not required to have originated with or within the universe, and is under no limitation of being derived from the energy in the universe.

Omnipotence does not mean unlimited universe energy.

I feel soiled in lowering my intellectual standards so low as to actually explain this to an adult, assuming you are an adult, Christinemc^2.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193879 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You said I stole saturnalia...
That simply isn't true.
<quoted text>
No.
Your assertion requires proof from you, not me.
Ahh yes, I said you meaning the christianity as a whole.

Are you christian? If not I will apologise for involving you in theft

You are the one making the statement that your god is outside this universe, it is not up to me to prove or disprove your guesswork, you make the declaration, it is up to you to prove it.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193880 Dec 19, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
I don't agree with that mad assessment at all.
When I said 'Happy New Year' I meant I wanted people to have a happy year.
I know, Luci. I know.

And when you say Happy Holidays, you want people to have a Happy Christmas.

Why beat around the bush?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193881 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Exactly which is why I limit my statement to E=MC^2 shows that the god described in Revelation 19:6 (KJV) cannot exits in THIS universe.
You cannot assert that without knowing God's limits and without knowing the universe.

You know neither, so you can't make that blind assertion.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193882 Dec 19, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
But it's ok to kill children in a war for 'god and country'?
You have an evil mind to come up with nonsense like that.

Praise Sheesh.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193883 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Ahh yes, I said you meaning the christianity as a whole.
Are you christian? If not I will apologise for involving you in theft
I'm white, too. And American. And a land owner. Are you gonna bitch at me for buying slaves next?

I did not steal Saturnalia, and neither did Christianity.

It was slowly adopted and changed by the society that used to celebrate Saturnalia and used to consider Saturn a god - the Roman Empire.

Both the Roman Empire and the belief in Saturn the god are gone.

Christianity remains.
You are the one making the statement that your god is outside this universe {{{SNIP}}}
I have not made that claim.

You should keep and RR file like IANS does, so you can go back and verify what you're saying before you say it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193884 Dec 19, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I hardly know how to respond to this. You seem to be saying that if I describe something that doesn't exist as I have described it, it actually might exist if I change the description. By that reasoning, my great-great-grandson exists if I mention that I accidentally described him as a fifth generation male descendant when I should have written "electric toaster" instead.
I'm going to have to concede to you that a creator god exists, Buck, although there is a wee error in the description. Change creator to "traffic" and god to "light," and you can see for yourself that it exists right on the corner, alternately shining green, amber and red.
X is described by Y in self-contradictory terms.

The description by Y does not allow the conclusion that X does not exist.

It allows 3 possible conclusions:

A. The description is accurate, and X does not exist, or

B. The description is inaccurate, but X still does not exist.

C. X exists, and the description by Y is erroneous.

In the case of biblical descriptions, we both already agree that they are inaccurate.

Seems then we have to agree they do not preclude the existence of X.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193885 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
Your 'statement' applies to the universe AND God.
So where's your evidence that God is limited to our laws of physics?
I donít really care what you have for dinner.

My statement applies to E=MC^2 and this universe, your god is incidental. I donít believe I have made any specific statement that your god is limited to the laws of physics I have however said that everything in this universe must adhere to those laws.

You made the assumption that your god is either/or/and beyond those laws, in which case you must show evidence to prove the universe and E=MC^2 wrong.

Either/or/and that your god is outside this universe, In which case E=MC^2 may or may not apply however as with your previous assumption you have no evidence for the statement, only you personal gut feeling.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#193886 Dec 19, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
X is described by Y in self-contradictory terms.
The description by Y does not allow the conclusion that X does not exist.
It allows 3 possible conclusions:
A. The description is accurate, and X does not exist, or
B. The description is inaccurate, but X still does not exist.
C. X exists, and the description by Y is erroneous.
In the case of biblical descriptions, we both already agree that they are inaccurate.
Seems then we have to agree they do not preclude the existence of X.
X is in the alphabet.

It exists.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193887 Dec 19, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians hijacked Christmas???
[laughing]
To be more precise they hijacked mid winter festivals and called it christmas, It really is quite well documented so feel free to laugh all you want.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193888 Dec 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>

You know neither, so you can't make that blind assertion.
I beg to differ.

Christinemc^2 can make blind assertions. She does it all the time.

But she's not blind.

She has one eye - it's in the center.

Saves her money on glasses - only needs one lens.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#193889 Dec 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>"Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - Albert Einstein
The Law of Thermodynamics states that when one form of energy is converted to another that there is no net gain or loss. Whether reacting with a static or infinite universe, a higher energy state being could exist without being seen if it so chose. Christine's claim fails in that God could exist in and "thoughout" the universe and never cause a ripple. We may only exist as/in his dreams. Dreams given life through his own divine energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lMBt_yfGKpUXX
How would YOU choose to interact with a *relatively* holographic "conscious" being, especially if it was one that you created yourself? How real is real when we're all merely vibrations of differing energy levels. Everyone's DNA has a different wave signature; beautiful, ain't it?
How "long" is YOUR wave?
xD
My claim relies on measured reality and evidential fact, backed up by state of the art mathematics that have never Ė ever been proven wrong, which incidentally allows you to post on the internet and keep warm in winter.

Your claim relies (as stated) on dreams

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#193890 Dec 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

You are the one making the statement that your god is outside this universe, it is not up to me to prove or disprove your guesswork, you make the declaration, it is up to you to prove it.
Yes, it is up to you, Christinemc^2.

Ordinarily it would not be, but when you make a stupid proof that precludes god's existence based on energy limitations in the universe, you have to prove that god cannot be outside the universe, or you alleged proof is meaningless.

We all know you cannot do that. So your proof is meaningless.

...We all knew that, too.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 min Thinking 21,529
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Thinking 5,921
The Ultimate Evidence of God 5 hr James 68
The myth of the angry atheist 17 hr _Bad Company 3
Our world came from nothing? 21 hr Patrick 436
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 21 hr Patrick 13
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom Sat religionislies 58
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••