Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254988 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197242 Dec 30, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
I live in a country where Atheists are the majority.
No issues there.
"In the 2011 Census, 61.14% of the Australian population were recorded as adhering to Christianity."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Au...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#197243 Dec 30, 2013
150 horror movies

&li st=PLC2C9BFC77856C976

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#197244 Dec 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>"In the 2011 Census, 61.14% of the Australian population were recorded as adhering to Christianity."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Au...
Wrong year.

Wrong number.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#197245 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay and fight what how?.
So what reason is there for me to remain in America?.
How would I know, youre a lot smarter than me.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#197246 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the experimental anti-psychotic drugs they used up at Danville before authorities closed it down.
I had night vision and lockjaw for 3 months.
maybe the lockjaw was a medically induced chastity belt.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197247 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A and B are atheists. Both have a belief - that gods do not exist.
A is an atheist who is a liar. This category includes most Topix atheists.
A, B, C, and D are persons who have a belief.
" None of the above" represents lack of belief. Yet this is what most Topix atheists claim.
He tries to be both "A" and "none of the above".
The Topix Atheist! is deathly afraid of admitting to having any beliefs. They think it will lower their intellectual status if others believe they have a belief.

Strange.

They don't understand that "I lack a belief in deities" and "I don't believe deities exist" are essentially the same thing.

Or maybe they do understand but refuse to admit it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197248 Dec 30, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
Wrong year.
Wrong number.
Just admit you're full of shit.

Atheists and non-believers represent roughly 25% of the Australian population.

That is not the majority.

You're either ignorant or lying.

Which is it?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197249 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You missed the pun. Again. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that we cobbled together a series of shoe puns. Shall I explain mine to you? It was the last of the upper quoted comments.
Ah...

Tongue in cheek.......bootstraps.....hee l....insolent....

Lol

Thowy

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197250 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I get a fair amount of news from both Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and most of the rest from my wife, who gets it from the Internet and either tells me about it or posts it to Facebook, which results in an email notification. Where else? The litany of murders, child abductions, temperature forecasts, and sports results that pass for news in shows called the news?
HA HA!!

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are sources of news like Saturday Night Live is.

Also, your wife's personal choice of news, posted to the Bookface, isn't a good source, either.

No offense.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197251 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You probably know what an oxymoron is - a pair of contradictory terms yoked together in a phrase such as "pretty ugly" and "awfully nice". Are you familiar with pleonasms? They're the opposite - a pair of redundant terms, like "new beginning" and "end result."
"Ear piercings while you wait"
The one that always bothered me is "same difference". It's like WTF? Is it the same or is it different?!

Another peeve of mine is the use of non-words, like "supposably" or "irregardless".

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#197252 Dec 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The one that always bothered me is "same difference". It's like WTF? Is it the same or is it different?!
Another peeve of mine is the use of non-words, like "supposably" or "irregardless".
Damn.

Now I'll have to start pointing out your non-words.

Off to the gym.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#197253 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Would you care to elaborate?
And didn't you say that Nelson understood physics better than Polymath? Your words were, "Dave has a better understanding of physics than anyone on this thread. That includes me and Polymath. Polymath's type have more rote knowledge. But they don't understand what they know"
Is the recapitulation thing what you meant? It must be, It was your first and only example of Nelson physics, which isn't really physics at all, and demonstrates zero knowledge of the subject.
The physics of the cosmos is completely different from the physics of an atom, and has been since the universe exceeded the size of an atom..I can hardly begin to list the differences, but a few would be that subatomic particles are characterized by wave-particle duality, uncertainty/indeterminacy, are described probabilistically, and experience almost no gravitational effects. The cosmos considered as a whole is expanding, deterministic, and dominated by gravity. It's starry and galactic denizens are described by deterministic mathematics.
Please do elaborate. Where is the recapitulaltion that Dreamin' Dave told you about in his science poetry?
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with this discussion? Weren't you defending the quality of Nelson's physics?
You show a remarkable lack of understanding of physics, but a very good memory in reciting words that sound profound.

The dynamics of the universe created the subatomic world. The BBT is based upon energy applied to the subatomic world. There is a sort of circular logic involved.

Atoms didn't exist until the universe created them. They are effects. Bottled up energy. I "worship" the energy that created them, not them.

You missed much of my earliest posting about dynamics of the universe and how it works, and discussions I had with allegedly learned individuals concerning gravity and what is called the EM force. They were very gravity based, too. Gravity was the god of the universe. I argued EM was and had a very strong effect in orbital mechanics at least of this planet because of the magnetic fields of here and the sun. Their mainstream view is it was ALL the result of gravity and momentum, any EM were ignorable perturbations. I brought up the solar wind pressure and magnetic field pressure having to have an effect. But they based their gravity view on empirical evidence. The earth has stayed it course because of gravity. Their calculations said so.

Then it was discovered the magnetic linkage between the sun and earth is different than they thought, but even more interesting is the magnetic pressure is 100 times more than what they thought.

So much for those old calculations and their accuracy.

You can carry such miscalculation out to the universal scale.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vid...

Read how far that field reaches.

You now have a cyclical change in the EM dynamics affecting the planet. Kind of a reverse polarity phase of magnetic pressure and directions of EM induction. Nothing new, but a time for changes.

Get your nose out of the books, get some magnets, string, and rocks, and start understanding how things work.

BTW, those magnetic forces emanate on the atomic scale and add up. A magnetic field is not monolithic, it is streams turned into rivers, so to speak. Those atomic level changes to cause them are induced by those stronger rivers. An applied force with feedback shaping what you know. This is where your QM comes from.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#197254 Dec 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Just admit you're full of shit.
R.
Atheists and non-believers represent roughly 25% of the Australian population.

That is not the majority.

You're either ignorant or lying.

Which is it?
Wrong year.

Wrong number.

Ben?
LCNin

United States

#197255 Dec 30, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as you choose to Ignore the scientific fact of Evolution...
...

We will choose to ignore opinions about Atheists
from active Creationist Cult Members like you LCNin.
<jim>
If you are ignoring me
why did you post this?

Relax and have a good day

Peace

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197256 Dec 30, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Damn.
Now I'll have to start pointing out your non-words.
Off to the gym.
I've been wondering all morning, "Is Catcher going to the gym???"

Now my heart is settled. Thank you.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#197257 Dec 30, 2013
king

Maracaibo, Venezuela

#197258 Dec 30, 2013
rredrednexonmeth
rednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmeth
rednexonmeth
rednexonmethnexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethednrednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethexonrednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethmeth
rednexonmetrednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rerednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethdnexonmethh

rednexonmeth
redrednerednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethxonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmethnexonmeth
rednexonmeth
rednexonmeth

rednexonmeth

rednexonmeth
rednexonmeth

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#197260 Dec 30, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
Wrong year.
Wrong number.
Ben?
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs @.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+featur es902012-2013

Ignorant or lying?

Which are you?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#197261 Dec 30, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> poor scar scar, has a belief and does not know it. This statement of yours is untrue , you see , spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Faith came by hearing the word but then something happens, its not about what you read or hear anymore. Great thing is, everyman has an opportunity if he can humble self, even the likes of the hardened enemies of God on this thread.
.. your supposition is that spirituality must have a supernatural quality, that it cannot exist naturally and depends on belief and faith in the supernatural, specifically, your god ..

.. authentic spirituality is not about 'knowing.' Rather, it's about 'becoming' and requires faith in self, not the supernatural ..

.. you heard the word, you believed and your journey is over. Have a good life ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197262 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
We disposed of the leprechaun and teapot analogies. They are fallacious.
I don't think so.
Buck Crick wrote:
One reason I wage this battle is to put atheists on the spot. They have the choice of declaring what they really believe, or being dishonest about it. Most choose the dishonest route. They will not admit their belief, while making it obvious - which is that gods do not exist.
Even if that were true, why would that important or valuable to you?
Buck Crick wrote:
They will maintain that they have no belief. Yet call themselves atheists - which is a belief.
That is not accurate. We all have many beliefs, but none as athesists.
Buck Crick wrote:
Perhaps you could explain this widespread willingness among atheists to be dishonest?
I have no idea what you are talking about or why you say that. We have no incentive to be dishonest. How would we benefit if we were lying?
Buck Crick wrote:
I won't give in to the ruse. The ruse I am speaking of is a huge one. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand to establish atheism as the intellectual, rational default position.
How can atheism - the absence of theism - NOT be the default position for somebody rejecting theism? It is you with the ruse and verbal sleight of hand trying to preserve the schema with a middle ground between theism and atheism that simply doesn't exist so that you can call the default position agnosticism.

I still don't get why you care which word people who reject god claims use to describe themselves.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min Richardfs 11,776
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Brian_G 29,596
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Patrick 3,515
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 hr Time again 19,818
News Speaking for God 9 hr Lawrence Wolf 566
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 11 hr Eagle 12 50,979
Religion Down Suicide Up 15 hr Amused 98
More from around the web