Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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

#202005 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Pigs??? As in more than one? Was it at the same time? Did Buck engage in a pig orgy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
(And if you get that last reference, you are almost as old as I am.)
Yeah, that's professorial.

Bwaha.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202006 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Buck's confused again, surely he meant that Hitler tried to destroy Judaism. By using what he called "Positive Christianity", he managed to kill quite a few Jewish people and Russians and French, English, Australians, Canadians, Americans etc with his "Positive Christianity".
You are a moron.

Hitler was not a christian, hated christianity, and planned to eradicate it. He had already begun to do so.

It's settled history.

Now let us hear you talk through your ass some more.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202007 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

Bongo...do you even know what an analogy is?'Cause it sure doesn't seem like it.
I suspect he does.

But he is not stupid enough to do what you did, which was,...

To offer an analogy of evolution, and to refute irreducible complexity, in which builders form and build a stone arch.

That's dumb as hell.

Did you learn that in one of your "college courses"?

Like you ever took one. Bwhahahahaha....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202008 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Buck meant Christianity. He dug up some scrap of pseudo-history (maybe it was from Barton) that claims Hitler was plotting to destroy all Christians.
Boy...that would have made sense...NOT. The vast majority of Hitler's troops were Christian. In fact, most non-Christians were kept out of the German army. And Hitler had too few men as it was. Killing off all the Christians would have left him a literal handful of troops to stop the Soviet hordes.
But then, that is applying logic to the claim...something Buck never does.
Some scrap of pseudo history?

His troops were Christian?

Did you realize, you simpering fool, that the Nazis decreed that their soldiers could not read the Bible or attend Christian services?
__________

Does David Barton write for The New York Times?

Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: January 13, 2002

"... includes a 108-page outline prepared by O.S.S. investigators to aid Nuremberg prosecutors. The outline,''The Persecution of the Christian Churches,'' summarizes the Nazi plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity, which it calls ''an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest.''
__________

You dumbFuck, simple-minded moron, I have proved my point on this at least a half dozen times, documented and airtight.

If you have no better lies to offer in your quest for discrediting me, you should give up. Because you are making a complete ass of yourself.

Which you richly deserve.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#202009 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a moron.
Hitler was not a christian, hated christianity, and planned to eradicate it. He had already begun to do so.
It's settled history.
Now let us hear you talk through your ass some more.

You're the ass dude and the Buck stops here!
I know definitions don't mean anything to you, but they do to the rest of the world.
Should try to quit being a liar clown and accept the damn truth.
Positive Christianity was the tool Hitler used to inflame Germany to do what it did from 1920-45.

LQQk it up! It's even a historical academic subject!

http://lmgtfy.com/... +


The Holy Reich
Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945

Author: Richard Steigmann-Gall

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202010 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/atheism/TUGI0DVLLAKD7M2H N/post201821
<quoted text>

It's curious how you come to the defense of people like Dave and Barton. In this thread, you are the lone champion of each.
Right. And your side needs to send for reinforcements.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#202011 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he is arguing for the existence of physical infinitys.
It's impossible.
Addition to any finite gives a finite, no matter how many times you do it.
He has read a little bit of theoretical math, which uses infinity in comparative concepts such as sets and cardinalities, and thinks it involves the real world.
Infinity is an imaginary idea. It's like an idea of "invaluable". It provides a way to think, but it does not represent a real quantity of anything.
.. your logic is confusing me ..

.. if the theory of infinity is imaginary, God cannot be infinite. How do you separate an infinite God from the concept of infinity ??..

.. your argument against infinity seems to reject the very idea of an infinite God. I'm lost ..

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#202012 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the ass dude and the Buck stops here!
I know definitions don't mean anything to you, but they do to the rest of the world.
Should try to quit being a liar clown and accept the damn truth.
Positive Christianity was the tool Hitler used to inflame Germany to do what it did from 1920-45.
LQQk it up! It's even a historical academic subject!
http://lmgtfy.com/... +
The Holy Reich
Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945
Author: Richard Steigmann-Gall
No, no, no…you've got it all wrong. Buck LOVES definitions.

However, the only definitions that matter are the ones that Buck creates…that's why everyone else is a "liar" or a "fraud" or a "coward"…blah blah blah. Buck's world is very black and white - he's always right and everyone else is wrong.

Its laughable that people give him the time of day.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202013 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
If your purpose is divorce the ID movement from the Discovery Institute and its stated social and political agenda to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God," you've got an uphill battle ahead. It's going to be as difficult as convincing people that the intelligent designer isn't the "God" mentioned.
I don't think it's an uphill battle.

Discussing a "movement" is vague.

Biologists, chemists, and mathematicians who work on intelligent design pursue scientific and academic discovery.

The Discovery Institute pursues a distinguishable agenda from that, including culture, economics and business, international affairs, local government, and religion.

I have no need to divorce them. I have no need to do anything with them, since they are two different endeavors with some overlapping interests.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202014 Jan 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>-B ±[square root] AC
__________
2A
Have to give you a C- on that one. It is not "[square root] AC", but [square root](B^2 - 4AC).

At least, I assume you were aiming for the quadratic formula.

BTW Buck, can you prove the result? I can.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202015 Jan 12, 2014
Greens - Tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that Buck should now define what "straight" means.
Is it possible?
Let's see.:)
I didn't say "straight".

DS supplied that.

Which are you; stupid, or trying to appear stupid?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202016 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Your point?
Barton said that the Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine in particular, HAD debated creationism v. evolution...decades before Darwin's theory was published. Without the knowledge and data that was later gathered, one can hardly come to a definitive conclusion on evolution. But Barton says they had.
That is, Barton lied...or else was so ignorant on the subject he hadn't a clue what he was talking about. In either case, he failed to demonstrate the expertise in history that you claim he has.
Oops.
That is incredibly stupid.

"definitive conclusion"?? There still is no definitive conclusion.

I just showed you people who came to conclusions on evolution hundreds of years before Darwin.

But Thomas Paine and others could not debate it and decide what their view was????

And so that makes Barton a liar?

Give up. You have nothing.

This may be your dumbest contention yet. And it's a high bar.

Professor,...Bwhahahahahahaha. ..

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202017 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Germans did win at first, in Russia and Africa, but several things happened to turn around the Russian front, the PPSh-41 the T-34 -85s were mass produced.
These had a 76 mm gun that could destroy a panzer.
Montgomery suffered high casualties but brought Rommel down . If numbers are a testament ,allies produced up to 10x the panzer numbers and swarmed them sometimes losing 10-1 but the easy to produce and ship mass production swarm the panzer strategy worked.
Er...um...the T-34/85 had an 85 mm gun, hence the "85".

The T-34/76, the early models of the T-34 were a big shock to the Germans. They were faster and better armored than the German Pz III's, the main German battle tank in 1941. And they T-34 had a 76 mm gun as opposed to a 50 mm on the German tanks.

The only thing that allowed the Germans to win against this superior tank was that the level of training for the Russians at the start of the war was really bad. The later model, the T-34/85 didn't match the German Panther, but was produced in vastly greater quantities. Only about 5,000 Panthers were produced, and those had to be split between the eastern and western fronts. The Russians built over 25,000 T-34/85s.

BTW...I recently read a book title "Armored Thunderbolt" about the M4 Sherman. Quite interesting. The Sherman was an ass-kicking tank when it first appeared in 1942. At least the equal of the T-34...and given the Sherman's reliability one could consider it the better tank. But by 1944, very little had been done to improve the Sherman. In the meantime, the Germans had greatly improved their tanks. The Sherman is bad-mouthed by a lot of historians, but I think they are looking only at the last year of the war.

In the Pacific, the Sherman was king. The Japanese never had a tank that came anywhere near its capabilities.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202018 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, do you still believe in the infinite centers of pennies?
Nobody said that.

You are lying.

Do you still believe Thomas Paine could not debate evolution before Darwin?

Even though Plato debated it?

Bwahahahahahahhahahahha....

And if someone says Paine did, he's a liar. Right?

Bwwahahhahahahhaha...

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#202019 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Darwin's SumpPump thinks if you identify a relational concept like "center", "left", "right", or a "point", then that is an existing physical entity.
That's why he thinks infinite slices of pizza can be put in one 12' box.
.. the pizza box is a closed system ..

.. ultimately, are we debating whether the universe is an open or closed system? I'm totally lost, too many abstracts to grasp ..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202020 Jan 12, 2014
Alice wrote:
<quoted text>
it does not matter that Hitler was a christian.
What matters is that he lead a christian Nation, and the immoral pigs followed him committing horrific crimes much like christians did during the inquisition.
So he imprisoned and killed them for following him?

Sure. Got it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202021 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, you really have to wonder just what is going on in the minds of godbots like lightbeamrider and bongo, buying into all the nonsense Buck writes.
Maybe THAT is why Buck posts here. It is the only place he can find people stupid enough to believe his BS.
I conclude from being on this thread the the quantity of hate people will pour onto a person is directly proportional to his effectiveness at annihilating their arguments.

Let it roll, boys.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202022 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he did not say that.
You are lying.
What he said, Buck, was...
Dave Nelson wrote:
...you have an infinite center...
So, yes he did say that. So who is lying?

And you responded...
Buck Crick wrote:
Congratulations, Dave.
What's the matter, Buck. That OCD compel you to open your mouth and insert your foot? Again?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202023 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Have to give you a C- on that one. It is not "[square root] AC", but [square root](B^2 - 4AC).
At least, I assume you were aiming for the quadratic formula.
BTW Buck, can you prove the result? I can.
+
Yes. Bollixed it up again.

I used to could get the deriviative from algebraic principles...

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202024 Jan 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the pizza box is a closed system ..
.. ultimately, are we debating whether the universe is an open or closed system? I'm totally lost, too many abstracts to grasp ..
The BBT, and thus universe, is a closed system. This was derived from observation based upon the laws of thermodynamics as directly observed and measured on this planet. Some of those assumptions are applied to the pinpoints of light being lensed through our atmosphere.

There is no place for us to stand and observe the whole thingy. Just observations and interpretations based upon what is at hand. Religion and science share some weaknesses.

Not that it stops people going off on tangents in their beliefs.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 19 min Hedonist Heretic 1,871
How To Get To Heaven When You Die 44 min xfrodobagginsx 76
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 27,264
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Subduction Zone 58,057
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,936
News Uyboco: An atheist who believes In God (Aug '16) 1 hr Eagle 12 12
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 3 hr Hedonist Heretic 139
More from around the web