Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243371 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201262 Jan 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever its provenance - Constitution or activist judges and politicians - you seem to disapprove of the concept of church-state separation. In my opinion, it's one of the best features of American government.
What would you like to see instead? Certainly not theocracy.
I would like to see the Constitution upheld. It think it is important.

Separation of church and state is not in it.

If judges can put it in the Constitution, without the consent of the people, they can put anything in it.

You might not like what a conservative court would put in it.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201263 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do.
You don't see where Jefferson wanted to evangelize Indians?
When the Congress he was in voted at least 6 times to do that? And he negotiated and signed a treaty as president providing federal funds for doing that? Or this:
"President Thomas Jefferson also signed the 1802, 1803, and 1804 land acts
renewals for “The Society of United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the
Heathen.”88
"Evangelizing".... "Propagating the Gospel among"....
Do you see it yet?
I already posted the link to this, which is Barton's 40-page footnoted rebuttal to Throckmorton, the historically footnoted references comprising 11 pages.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/newslet...
Barton is dead solid correct, and Throckmorton has no case. That's as clear as I can make it.
I see your point, Buck.

I don't think I could trust a guy by the name of Throckmorton.

Morton would be ok--it's a tie with Barton.

But Throckmorton, no way Jose.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201264 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

Who worships science, RR?
I don't, and I don't know anyone who does.
I do. The religion is materialism. Science is its maidservant.

Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, one of the world's leading speakers on evolution:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism....Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201265 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to see the Constitution upheld. It think it is important.
Separation of church and state is not in it.
If judges can put it in the Constitution, without the consent of the people, they can put anything in it.
You might not like what a conservative court would put in it.
I don't like what a conservative court puts in the Constitution. I don't like the reality that, for what is clearly a political purpose, the have held that a corporation is a person.

I don't care to argue the issue corporation-is-a-person issue with you, any more than I care to rehash the separation of church and state issue.

But unlike you, I respect our system of government, and am willing to accept rulings I disagree with. I react with disappointment with the justices; you react with disparagement of the justices.

The foregoing has been a serious post.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201266 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I've "moved my goalposts"??? Explain.
You are the one that said you could name some people that support Barton. Sorry, Buck, but "virtually no one" does allow for a few dissenters That you can name a few (though you actually didn't name any) is not surprising. After all, any crackpot idea on the internet has someone supporting it.
As I said, this is a case of kooks supporting a kook. Barton is the kook, and you are one of the kooks supporting him.
Bluster, no substance.

Submit a specific rebuttal of Barton's work. Then stand back.

I suspect you will prefer to call names. You are a moron.

Got any more infinite counting numbers for me?

What number is the last one before it goes infinite?

Bwahahahahahhahahaha....

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#201267 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Topix Atheist! Answer is simple: "It took billions of years and a lot can happen in billions of years."
Based on the fact that all the evidence we have, the evidence we've been searching for for 150 years, tells us that life cannot come from non-life tells me that something had to create it.
All life is complex, even the tiny DNA is complex. So complex that I can't see any way for it to provide itself. And science cannot answer that question.
I agree with you, I'm no Creationist either. I believe God started life, say back and waited for the opportune time to introduce Himself to His greatest creation - mankind.
The 4 billion year thing may be correct. But on God's clock, that means nothing.
Thoughts?
I don't understand the pooping part.

Why would a god create a body that can't process what it ingests?

Thoughts?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#201268 Jan 9, 2014
It occurred to me that I meant "anthropomorphize" instead of "personify" in two of my posts.

I tried going to sleep but it was nagging at me. And then there's the gas.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201269 Jan 9, 2014
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post skom.
The problem with wearing the mask is it stunts growth. How can we solve the problems when we feel we cant be honest?
My hats off to Riverside. he's honest and he gets beat on by others who cant be nearly as honest as him. Do you think others can be honest in an environment like that? It would be very hard. Stay behind the comforts and protection of the mask.
People like IANS and Catcher are as much of the problem as anyone. Hell in all honesty I believe more so. JMO..........
I am a big fan of honesty. Especially when we know it is going to receive a negative judgement and we say it anyway. I don't mean like a negative reaction because someone was as a-hole but more so about expressing an unpopular belief or even a bias that someone knows they will take chit for but it is who they are and they don't hide that. Now that by itself can be a bad thing. But not when a person has shown a desire to improve. I find RR to be very honest about who he is regardless of who is around. I see him as someone who wants to be better in areas he can improve on. And I see him as someone who believes in showing basic decency to people and keeps a pretty light attitude most of the time

That's rare to find. And I particularly like it because I'm the opposite but would like to be less so. I respond disproportionately a lot. It has always been something I have struggled with. But I do think I can honestly say I am pretty open about who I am

And as to the last part I will just make a general comment. And that is things are not necessarily less vicious because they are done with a smile or in a more composed manner. I know people in real life that take pride in perfecting that approach. And while society sometimes may see a distinction, I do not. The method matters much less than the goal. IMO anyway

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#201270 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Topix Atheist! trolls worship science. That's why they capitalize it, say it can learn, say it invents things and say it'll lead us into the future.
Seriously, they talk about "Science" like it's their god.
They think it infallible and perfect and when someone like me out some hugs errors (like spontaneous generation), they get all pissy with me and start the trolling rampage.
Science is a tool, not a freaking god. It's a humans tool , you know a fallible and flawed human who is prone to mistakes. But we can learn from our mistakes and we can use our science tools to discover the truth. It ain't much...but it's all we got..and without the tools to help us.
Were lost in the dark. But whether you like it ..or not.
It will lead us into the future, and the ones on top will be on top. Technology gives you a edge and advantage.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201271 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
<headdesk>
Well, Buck provides evidence that he is a total math illiterate.
Buck, I didn't say any individual counting number is infinite. What I said was "the counting numbers are infinite", that is the SET of counting numbers. Which everyone but you would understand from the context.
And, yes, Buck, the set of counting numbers is infinite. It is, as I pointed out, the smallest infinite cardinality. The cardinality of the real numbers is larger, demonstratively so. Cf Cantor's Diagonal Proof. And there happen to be an infinity of infinite cardinalities.
And even you agree that the set of counting numbers are unbounded. You just said so, above, in so many words. HINT: in set theory, unbounded = infinite. And, since you were talking of counting numbers, you were in fact talking of set theory. So it seems that even you agree that infinite sets exist...even though you try to say they don't.
LOL
But then, no one expects you to understand anything. You have proven yourself to be incapable of understanding.
Wrong.

A "set" of counting numbers is theoretical. It does not exist.

Numbers exist, inasmuch as they exist representatively for quantity. Otherwise, they also are only theoretical.

No infinite counting numbers exist.

What you are employing is a circular argument. It goes like this. I say no infinite counting numbers exist. You offer a theorized infinite - an idea - and say, See, I have imagined something infinite, so something infinite exists.

It does not. Nothing infinite exists.

No infinite counting numbers exist. An idea of an infinite set is an idea. You imagine it. And then you use it for theoretical operations.

And you thought you knew something about math.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#201272 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. You're a rational skeptic.
I have my doubts about ToE, though. And you might be surprised they aren't Biblically based.
Wings are a strange one. Why would evolution go from no wings to wings? It'd take millions of years for animals to evolve sings and in the process the "winglets" would be useless. Conclusion: a useless adaptation for millions of years?
The missing links, which you criticize. Scientists line up five or ten ape skulls then have a human skull at the end. The gaps are too big in between the skulls to say 1, 2, 3.... It's more like 1, 167, 2356....
The Cambrian Explosion. We've found deep within the earth layers of fossilized bacteria. Right near that layer we find a variety of species, including vertebrates. Where’s the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?(The missing links you don't like...)
Humans. I mean, c'mon. Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet. Our closest 'relatives' can't even speak let alone create what humans have created. I think is apes and man have a common ancestor, why did only the human evolve into the intelligent creature that we are.


http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201273 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
<headdesk>
Well, Buck provides evidence that he is a total math illiterate.
Buck, I didn't say any individual counting number is infinite. What I said was "the counting numbers are infinite", that is the SET of counting numbers. Which everyone but you would understand from the context.
And, yes, Buck, the set of counting numbers is infinite. It is, as I pointed out, the smallest infinite cardinality. The cardinality of the real numbers is larger, demonstratively so. Cf Cantor's Diagonal Proof. And there happen to be an infinity of infinite cardinalities.
And even you agree that the set of counting numbers are unbounded. You just said so, above, in so many words. HINT: in set theory, unbounded = infinite. And, since you were talking of counting numbers, you were in fact talking of set theory. So it seems that even you agree that infinite sets exist...even though you try to say they don't.
LOL
But then, no one expects you to understand anything. You have proven yourself to be incapable of understanding.
A long time back, I got you to admit nothing existing in reality is infinite.

Wish I had saved that one.

Because you will deny it now.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201274 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bluster, no substance.
Submit a specific rebuttal of Barton's work. Then stand back.
I suspect you will prefer to call names. You are a moron.
Got any more infinite counting numbers for me?
What number is the last one before it goes infinite?
Bwahahahahahhahahaha....
In Spanish, it would be 49.

50 in Spanish is "cincuenta."

"Sin cuenta," proounced the same (except in Spain, where the "c" is pronounced like a "z"), means uncountable, which could be taken as an infinite amount.

One less than cincuenta (50) is 49 (cuarenta y nueve in Spanish). So the last number before it goes into infinite is 49.

In Spanish anyway.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201275 Jan 9, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand the pooping part.
Why would a god create a body that can't process what it ingests?
Thoughts?
My issue, and I understand why you don't share it, has to do with the testicles.

It's clearly a design defect to place the scrotum component on the outside, for reasons I won't go into.

But don't you think that men should be the ones to ride sidesaddle?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201276 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a complex subject. It take a lot of difficult study to get even the basics. Perhaps this is why you don't bother? Or is your question merely rhetorical?
The universe doesn't give a damn about your (or my) ability to understand something. That you do not understand evolution is not a point against it. I doubt you understand the Taniyama Conjecture but that didn't keep Wiles from proving it about 15 years ago. Whether or not you personally get it, the theory of evolution has been thoroughly evidenced. Better than any other theory in science save possibly for quantum mechanics. It has mountains of real data supporting it, and no one...especially creationists...have come up with a different model that explains all the data nearly so well.
BTW...if you doubt the ability of things to change over time, consider that by means of a combination of natural selection and artificial selection, some wolves turned into chihuahuas in a mere 10,000 years or so. Now try to imagine what might happen in 4 billion years...a time span 400,000 times as long.
The resulting chihuahua was intelligently designed by directed breeding.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#201277 Jan 9, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in Whale evolution because someone told you whales evolved from land animals.
But when you discard the artist conception and the speculation what is really left?
Facts.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whales like dolphins have a sophisticated sonar system that supersedes anything the United States Navy has ever designed. So hoofed animals, bears, wolfs or some kind of land animals evolved into whales with this advanced sonar capability?
Let me introduce you to the ... bat.
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
This whale evolutionary tale is the most incredible child like imagination I’ve ever heard.
I seriously doubt that.

Would you like to talk about Jesus?
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I challenge you to prove your point about whale evolution minus the speculation, guessing, and artist conceptions. Evolutionist claim they have lots of fossil evidence for whale evolution. But when you look at it close there’s not even enough to fill a five gallon bucket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Zio1ttlDjlMXX
Dude ... you challenge somebody to prove something?

< River sets Irony Metre to stun >

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201278 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that you are almost certainly wrong about "life cannot come from non-life"...and you are absolutely wrong about a lack of evidence. Over the last couple of decades there has been a wealth of evidence from the labs. But I suspect you think labs should be able to instantly reproduce (or at least in a few years) what happened over 100's of millions of years with the whole Earth as a lab.
As for "life from non-life", I suspect you are trying to point to Pasteur's work. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what Pasteur showed. He did not show that life can not come from non-life. What he showed was that "complex life can not come from non-life in our modern environment". But then, I have noticed that most theists ignore the caveats of scientific statements. They want it simple, the simpler the better, and caveats do not make for simple statements.
He's wrong about life not coming from non-life?

Could you give an example, please?

You will be the first.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201279 Jan 9, 2014
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Skom, I dont disagree with what you say to much.
But where I am a little unique to your theory is I always believed in God. I prayed for understanding of his word and was very honest with where I was in that relationship with him. I worked VERY hard at it. All I can tell you is I'm at where I'm at today, only asking for Gods sincere guidance.
I don't doubt you at all

I wish I had more of an answer to give

I addressed some guesses in a post to Ians. But then again I pretty much all but abandoned my faith in God for a while myself for quite some time. Had some things not happened how they did, I might have easily been someone who left never to return. And these were not things God had a hand in to get me to return. These were terrible things I played a large role in bringing upon myself. So certainly not a path to God I'd ever recommend.

I guess it just brings it full circle to I have no idea. I wish I did. As a believer, there isn't a much worse feeling than having to tell someone "I don't know". Especially if that person is suffering or just went through the brutal stuff. The cost of faith can seem too high at times. If I was God I'd be smithing people left and right that preyed on others!

I guess for me though that is partly where my answers were. I believe whole-heartedly in evil. And I believe in a force that counters that because I have felt it and seen it work through others. But that also was my biggest hurdle. Why would God allow it to exist? But to me, that's the cost of free will and existence is meaningless without it. Anyway I'm all over the place now. Sorry about that. But yeah, I believe you

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201280 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like what a conservative court puts in the Constitution. I don't like the reality that, for what is clearly a political purpose, the have held that a corporation is a person.
I don't care to argue the issue corporation-is-a-person issue with you, any more than I care to rehash the separation of church and state issue.
But unlike you, I respect our system of government, and am willing to accept rulings I disagree with. I react with disappointment with the justices; you react with disparagement of the justices.
The foregoing has been a serious post.
You respect our system of government?

Whom does our system of government entrust with legislating?

Hint: It's not the courts.

How is our system of government supposed to change the Constitution?

The amendment process.

If you support emanations from penumbras (Griswold v. Connecticut), and new constitutional rights invented without consent of the people (Roe v. Wade), you don't respect our system of government.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201281 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In Spanish, it would be 49.
50 in Spanish is "cincuenta."
"Sin cuenta," proounced the same (except in Spain, where the "c" is pronounced like a "z"), means uncountable, which could be taken as an infinite amount.
One less than cincuenta (50) is 49 (cuarenta y nueve in Spanish). So the last number before it goes into infinite is 49.
In Spanish anyway.
There cannot be an uncountable number. Any number plus 1 is countable. And so on.

Dagwood tries to get around it by imagining a "set" of numbers which is infinite.

I can also imagine infinite. I can imagine lots of things.

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 9,369
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr ChristineM 19,788
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... 7 hr Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 15 hr thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) 16 hr knight of Jesus 521
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) Fri millertr1 5
More from around the web