Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258040 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202026 Jan 12, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
When it comes to God your so called open mind slams shut.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Which god is "God" to you? Jesus? It would help if you would identify your god. I don't agree that Jesus is a god. Nor Yahweh, nor YHWH, nor Jehovah. Did you mean one of those? If so,what can you offer an evidence based thinker in support of any of those?
Buck Crick wrote:
Lightbeamrider will not catch the trick you just pulled.bFor rhetorical purposes, you shifted the argument from god as a conceptual term to one of historical storytelling by asking for a name - Jesus, Yahweh, etc. Once you achieve that shift, you can then go about attacking the inerrancy of scriptural descriptions and mythologies. It's the old "which god" trick. You execute the ruse much more skillfully than most Topix atheists. Your evidence-based pose is thus preserved, nonetheless, by trickery.
No trick there, Buck. I was accused of having a closed mind about "God," and I just wanted to clarify that he meant the Christian god, and for a good reason - how to respond.

My mind is open to gods in the generic sense, but not to the Christian bible god. That is, I will look at and consider as impartially as I can any evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but if I ever find any, I will not look to Christianity or its bible for answers about the nature of that god. That god can be ruled out, and has.

I have no tricks and need none. There is nothing that I believe or want to say that I cannot be forthcoming about. Nothing. I have zero use for deceit. And I'm far from alone here. I see the exact same values and habits in many of my fellow posters. They're the values of academia.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202027 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No trick there, Buck. I was accused of having a closed mind about "God," and I just wanted to clarify that he meant the Christian god, and for a good reason - how to respond.
My mind is open to gods in the generic sense, but not to the Christian bible god. That is, I will look at and consider as impartially as I can any evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but if I ever find any, I will not look to Christianity or its bible for answers about the nature of that god. That god can be ruled out, and has.
I have no tricks and need none. There is nothing that I believe or want to say that I cannot be forthcoming about. Nothing. I have zero use for deceit. And I'm far from alone here. I see the exact same values and habits in many of my fellow posters. They're the values of academia.
Academia used to believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Zeus, Jupiter, and a host of others. Why not no god? That was even done in the past, too.

Interesting thing about the Bible god story is how incredibly complex and conflicting it is. There is no other like it. There was no single writer. No conspiracy built into those original accounts. A collection of stories and testimonies for the purpose of review and editing by others afterwards.

But something initiated those stories.

Your neo-atheism has been transmitted to you via mass media, IANS. You trust a few with axes to grind over age old stories.

Create controversy and recruit the disaffected you encouraged.

Rope a dope.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202028 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Three words, Buck. "GOTT MIT UNS". In English, "God With Us".

If you want to go further, consider the oath Wehrmacht officers had to give to Hitler..."I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath." Notice the "I swear by God..." part?

And, no, the Nazis did not decree "that their soldiers could not read the Bible or attend Christian services". The German Army was heavily (very heavily) Christian, split pretty much evenly between Catholics and Lutherans. Can you imagine the mutiny that would have happened?

BTW...I tried Googling this. I got precisely ZERO hits.

As for Barton, did you even notice that I said "maybe"?

Of course you didn't. Because that way you could continue your rant. And you don't do qualifiers, do you? It's all black and white with you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202029 Jan 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. 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 ..
Buck isn't very good at thinking things through.

And I don't blame you for being confused. What Buck has written on infinity is very muddled.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202030 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incredibly stupid.
"definitive conclusion"?? There still is no definitive conclusion.
But Barton claims the Founding Fathers had come to one. And you just confirmed what I had said, that they could not have.

BTW...previous to the publishing of On the Origin of Species, there was no real debate on evolution. Only a very few people, almost all of them natural philosophers (the term scientist had yet to be invented) even had the subject on their radar. It was a non-issue. Creationism was the default setting and virtually no one though otherwise.

Until 1859.

So that really makes Barton's statements about the Founding Fathers and evolution rather inane, doesn't it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202031 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Does an instant in time at a location in space exist? If so, how many can you squeeze in between here now, and there then?
Buck Crick wrote:
Infinity is an imaginary idea.


So is zero. So are negative and complex numbers. So is pi. Are they representative of aspects of reality? They are all used to describe and predict reality.

If they are, why would calling infinity an imaginary idea disqualify it from representing an aspect of reality as well?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202032 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Dave did. And you agreed with him.

As for Plato and Paine...no they did not debate evolution in the modern sense. And if you bother to listen to what Barton is saying, he implies that the Founding Fathers DID debate it in the modern sense. He was telling his rubes, "Creationism True, Evolution False,'Cause the Founding Fathers Said So."

Gawd, Buck, but you are a perfect example of a sheeple. Barton barks and you follow.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202033 Jan 12, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Watched a lecture by a noted Rabbi. He said that in (current) Judaic tradition, God is constrained by the laws of the Universe He created. In essence, YHWY is not super-natural but supra-natural.
I guess that's ultra-reform Judaism.

Silly god to set it up that way though.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202034 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why thank you, Buck. I am glad you have finally come to your senses and admit I have been right all along. You have heaped mountains of hate on me from the beginning, which must mean my effectiveness in annihilating your argument has been top notch.

Again, thank you.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202035 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> At the very least, how do you anti-process the millions of churchs and faithfull members giving their money and doing good works? How about all the people who have been empowered to give up smoking, drinking, thieving hating , drugging, prostituting , worrying, etc . etc.?
That's very nice.

But what he said is that there's no evidence of a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202036 Jan 12, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Ians. I was reading a book about 2 Victorian cross-dressers named Boulton & Park, who were arrested and dragged into court. Scandalous only in those days.
It talked about the "suspicious characters" the police keep tabs on back then, like trade unions. There was also "Charles Bradlaugh was a declared atheist and was thus seen as a threat to the status quo." [Neil McKenna: Fanny & Stella]
I looked him up. He was someone y'all should know about.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/br...
http://www.tbcs.org.uk/charles_bradlaugh.htm
http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Bra...
http://www.nndb.com/people/127/000102818/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bradlaug...
He was a controversial publisher, who later went into politics. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1880. So began a long struggle, because politicians in those days were expected to swear an oath on the Bible. He was not allowed to make an affirmation instead...at first. An Affirmation Bill was passed in 1888, all thanks to Bradlaugh (1833-1891).
Thank you for that, Rosa. He seems heroic.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202037 Jan 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>+
Yes. Bollixed it up again.
I used to could get the deriviative from algebraic principles...
Actually, what you (almost) typed was the quadratic formula, which is used to find the roots of a quadratic equation:

Ax^2 + Bx + C = 0.

The derivative is found by using the formula for the average rate of change of a function f(x) between points x and x+h, given by

f(x+h)- f(x)
----------
h

To get the derivative of f, you now take the limit of this as h -> 0.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202038 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Isn't it interesting that the principle resistance to the idea of abiogenesis comes from faith based thinkers, that evidence based thinkers are overwhelmingly convinced that abiogenesis probably occurred, and that faith based thinkers are continually asking for evidence for abiogenesis that they have no use or respect for.
Buck Crick wrote:
So the evidence-based thinkers believe it occurred, and the faith-based thinkers focus on the evidence. Looks like some re-labeling might be in order.
Does your use of the word "so" mean that you think that your conclusion can be derived from my words? If so, I disagree.I explicitly said "abiogenesis probably occurred." If you prefer, I will stipulate to "possibly occurred," but not "could not have occurred."

Evidence based thinkers typically do not rule out the possibility of abiogenesis the way faith based thinkers often do. There is no evidence supporting the conclusion that abiogenesis is impossible or even unlikely.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202039 Jan 12, 2014
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Buck Crick wrote:
Genetic fallacy, among others.
Which statement? I've been wanting to explore that area a little - when is considering the source a valid adjunct to making decisions, and when is it not. You seem like the right guy to do it with.

Buck - you and I are doing great. We are disagreeing about almost everything, yet remaining gentlemen and mutually resepectful. We can both be proud of that. This is a superior way of interacting.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202040 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Does an instant in time at a location in space exist? If so, how many can you squeeze in between here now, and there then?
<quoted text>
So is zero. So are negative and complex numbers. So is pi. Are they representative of aspects of reality? They are all used to describe and predict reality.
If they are, why would calling infinity an imaginary idea disqualify it from representing an aspect of reality as well?
These are all very good points. But Buck won't get them.

Math is abstract...every aspect of it. Even so-called applied math. This is because the concept of a number is abstract to begin with. Show me a 2. Not the symbol but what the symbol represents.

Yet, despite being abstract, math has proven itself extremely useful in modeling the real world. And using the concept of infinity has been part of that modeling. Even in applied math, there are concepts which require infinity in their formulation.

One example of this is the use of power series to model function on a computer. A power series has an infinity of terms. It is necessary to understand this in order to understand how far out one needs to carry the operations to get an answer with the desired accuracy.

Another story from Calc II. One of my students once asked, "What use are complex numbers? They are imaginary." I replied, "I seem to recall you are an electrical engineering major. Believe me, you WILL find a use for them."

Cf - Fourier Series, which use complex valued functions. They convert periodic (repeating) functions from a time domain (a function of time) to a frequency domain. They are used extensively in electrical engineering.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202041 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, what you (almost) typed was the quadratic formula, which is used to find the roots of a quadratic equation:
Ax^2 + Bx + C = 0.
The derivative is found by using the formula for the average rate of change of a function f(x) between points x and x+h, given by
f(x+h)- f(x)
----------
h
To get the derivative of f, you now take the limit of this as h -> 0.
Nice toy you have there.

Now let's see if you can apply it to something useful. Something more real world. In your own words, using your own creative abilities, give us an example how you would use that to feed a planet. Not something generalized, but say how much acreage would be needed for let's say corn, minus losses foreseen and unforeseen, production, transportation, and distribution costs, and returns to fund such. Account for all of the variables possible.

Let's see how your designed world using math is better than ad hoc and as needed basis we have employed for eons.

Show us you know your stuff. Create a formula for us.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202042 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We've heard enough.
It's the violence I object to the most.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but....

I don't give a shit what you object to.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202043 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Props to you if you have been able to stay on the wagon through the very challenging winter (we here in Socal were about the only ones exempted).
If I'm holing myself in when the outside conditions are horrific, I would think a drink would be great solace.
But then again, I'm not a smoker.
You can drink and smoke inside, you know...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202044 Jan 12, 2014
Jim wrote:
Using acutal logic:
1.If infinity doesn't exist, then god's power is finite.
2. If its finite, then its measurable
3. Wait you silly, there's no evidence of god!
ah yeah...damn.
The amount of sand on the beach is finite.

It is immeasurable, although finite.

Go.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202045 Jan 12, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Correct!
Buck can only do ChristMath.
What Jim's excuse?

"Jim wrote:
The clue in the maths problem is *any* number n.

That's right buck *any*- including infinity."

Jim think infinity is a number.

Is he doing "ChristMath", too?

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
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 21 min JustASkeptic 17
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min One way or another 48,551
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Into The Night 23,503
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 hr Rosa_Winkel 21,866
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Dec 2 Scaritual 14
Jesus Christ and Wisdom, Knowledge, Understandi... Nov 29 Richardfs 5
More from around the web