Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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

#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 Iíve 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 thereís 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.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201282 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The resulting chihuahua was intelligently designed by directed breeding.
"Chihuahuas aren't dogs, they are chihuahuas." - RR

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#201283 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Until it comes to your deity/god concept, then "infinite", is infinitely possible.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#201284 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure you can, you imagine there's a god too.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201285 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Maybe he means in relative terms?

For some people on Topix, an uncountable number may be any number greater than the sum of their fingers.

:)

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#201286 Jan 9, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe he means in relative terms?
For some people on Topix, an uncountable number may be any number greater than the sum of their fingers.
:)
Uncountable is any number greater than the sum of all fingers , starting with Australopithecus.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#201287 Jan 9, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe he means in relative terms?
For some people on Topix, an uncountable number may be any number greater than the sum of their fingers.
:)
I can count to 15 if I use my toes.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201288 Jan 9, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I can count to 15 if I use my toes.
Cheater!

And it took me a second to realize why 15

My two favorite things about you in one post. Your sense of humor and your approach to life

Sorry to get kinda mushy in a funny post but I wanted to say that.

But you are still a cheater

:)
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#201289 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
My half a brain tells me that "evolution" and "physics" aren't supposed to be capitalized like you just did.
The other half just thinks about sex and beer.
I did make a mistake math should have been capitalized.

But thank you for making my point about the stupidity of godbots, beer and sex is your speed however please be careful and make certain you don't reproduce.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201290 Jan 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Uncountable is any number greater than the sum of all fingers , starting with Australopithecus.
What the hell Aura, its a little late in the day for me to have to look something up! And I still don't get it. Jow does an extinct hominid and the sum of all fingers equate to an uncountable number! Like Buck said, take whatever number that would be and add 1

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201291 Jan 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Although I think that you are still a theist, you have rejected the claims of the Christian church for its god as well, correct? If so, was your reason similar?
Rider on the Storm wrote:
Thanks for adding you still think I'm a theist (is it now). Is that a better title then a christian?
Only if it's more accurate. Isn't it?
Rider on the Storm wrote:
Well just so you know, I still think your no better then any other atheist, or human being for that matter with baggages and prejudices just like the rest of mankind.
OK. I agree.
Rider on the Storm wrote:
That was the verse that proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that the bible was not the word of God and it was all just a lie. The walls finally came a tumblin down, and I've never felt so free in all my life..........Believe it or not.........
Of course I believe it.

Incidentally, comments like that one are why I say you sound like you stopped being a Christian but remain a theist.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#201292 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>You joining in?

No shit talking tomorrow.

Civility, civility, civility.

It's hard when opinions vary so much. Especially when people have been hurt before.

You can do it, girl. We got your back.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
........('
.........\
..........
..........
..........

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 .com | What hope is there without God? 2 min Cujo 5
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 18,897
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Thinking 2,104
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr ChristineM 6,713
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 16 hr spellmeout 14,657
News Confessions of a black atheist 20 hr thetruth 478
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Tue Pete-o 7,409
More from around the web