Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
193,721 - 193,740 of 226,296 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#201980 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of WWII...
There was an Ausie Catholic on the evolution threads a few years ago that tried to tell me that in 1944-45, the Germans were actually winning on the Eastern Front. All those reports of Russians winning battles were all Soviet propaganda.
Riiiiiight... Which is why the Russians took Berlin. It was all part of the German master plan.
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.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#201981 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You just hate the truth, toofy
Thanks, Ronny Random...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#201982 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, for now hes rejected Jesus however the truth he expounds still repudiates atheist supposition. All the more evidence of God.
So far - for the entire history of mankind - there is zero evidence that any gods existed.

If you have evidence, do share...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#201983 Jan 12, 2014
And dammit I bollixed that up even.

dy/dx (x)= 2x.

Friggin' quadratics...

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201984 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Is Catcher able to receive correction? Hedid say there isn't much he cant do.
Correction, yes.

Even confession, at the Holy Church of Catcher.

On this one, I chose to ignore Buck's illogical post. Gods, fairies, astrology, witchcraft, are supernatural by definition. Buck himself postulates that a god is not limited by the laws of nature.

S/he's super.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201985 Jan 12, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Riding trains turned into hell when Amtrak dropped smoking cars. The only time you could smoke was when they stopped long enough to change crews. A cig in each nostril and two in the lips being puffed on is not what people should have to do.
Long trips in the smoking car was such a pleasure. Smoking and socializing. Then it turned to hell.
Still with us, hey Dave?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#201986 Jan 12, 2014
http://www.bcdemocratonline.com/article/20140...

That's in this area.

This county is 5000 square miles with under 6000 people, and half of those living in one square mile of it. That area is less dense. And they stuff 1200 plants in a house. And still get caught.

They have some rivers running through this area that would make great nurseries. Moisture in the soil, hot sun, and some protection from the wind. Plus you can keep an eye on the area from a long ways away. Not like those forested areas and government wilderness areas so popular with the dealers.

But those eyes in the sky.

There was an article a couple of days ago about fears the cartels will move in on the legal industry, extorting protection money and wholesaling their product. Plus the big profits they will be losing because of legalization.

Interesting, a new war between the cartels and the government looking for those profits is starting. A new dimension in the war on drugs. Just a matter of a little time until it is legal everywhere and the illegals get squashed. The DEA will get real aggressive against those cutting into tax revenue.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201987 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Dave said that the centers of pennies are infinite.
Buck agreed with him.
So Buck thinks there is nothing infinite in the universe...except the centers of pennies.
LOL
No, he did not say that.

You are lying.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#201988 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still with us, hey Dave?
Among, not with, Catcher. There is a difference.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201989 Jan 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction, yes.
Even confession, at the Holy Church of Catcher.
On this one, I chose to ignore Buck's illogical post. Gods, fairies, astrology, witchcraft, are supernatural by definition. Buck himself postulates that a god is not limited by the laws of nature.
S/he's super.
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.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#201990 Jan 12, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
So far - for the entire history of mankind - there is zero evidence that any gods existed.
If you have evidence, do share...
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.?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201991 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that Barton claimed that, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted wed build them a church in which they could worship" and there is not only no supporting evidence that Jefferson had any interest in evangelizing, there is evidence to the contrary that his purpose was otherwise. Throckmorton brought this to our attention as part of his argument that Barton was mischaracterizing Jefferson's intent, which is Barton's greater issue: the intent of the Founders.
You haven't rebutted that. You never provided evidence that Jefferson was interested in promoting religion.
==========
You have been referring to the treatment of Barton as a smear campaign. What do you have to say about all of this from the Wiki on Barton at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28... ? Is it all nothing more than people smearing Barton, or could there be a real issue here:
"Barton collects early American documents, and his official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues". Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods". According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. The book's publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."
Your assertions are simply factually false.

"You never provided evidence that Jefferson was interested in promoting religion."

Aside from negotiating treaties that used taxpayer funds to build a mission and hire a priest, and voting numerous times in Congress in 1802, 1803, and 1804 for land acts
renewals for The Society of United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the
Heathen., approving measures for, stated specifically, "civilizing the Indians and
promoting Christianity",...

Jefferson also designated space in the rotunda of the University of Virginia for church services, praised the use of the Charlottsville courthouse for religious services, and penned a book with the title:
"The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. Extracted from the Account of His Life and
Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Being an Abridgement of the
New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrassed with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions."

If you view this clear and definitive proof that Jefferson WAS "interested in promoting religion" as insufficient, you are entirely unsusceptable to evidence, and I can't imagine how any of the more tenuous arguments on other subjects could have any sway whatsoever on your thinking.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201992 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Something that exists, if it does exist, is not supernatural. That would include god, spirits, etc. Existence entails being part of "natural" existence. The term "supernatural" is a stipulative term, as it applies to things that APPEAR to be beyond nature. If an entity in question exists, it is part of nature, not supernatural.
Agreed.

Of course, there is another definition of natural that means not artificial. This is the meaning of "natural" in the phrase "natural selection." Animal breeding, which is artificial selection, is not natural by this second definition. By your definition above, both types of selection are natural incontrast to supernatural.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#201993 Jan 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he did not say that.
You are lying.
Darwin's dancing monkey can't understand the difference between building a universe based upon theoretical measurements and the measuring of one using such. It is really rather basic and can expose some weaknesses of math in designing such a thingy. Simple geometry.

So he latches onto something minor to deflect and dance around with as the organ gets ground.

Give him a banana for his performance.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#201994 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.?
By that logic, you're saying that ALL gods ever worshipped actually exist.

If that's what you're saying, its certainly a refreshing change of pace.

I mean, its in no way proof, but it is refreshing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201995 Jan 12, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> You just hate the truth, toofy
Yes. The minds of the atheist posters here are entirely impenetrable.

They possess no faculty for revising their thinking, or else their deep-seated desire to think as they do prevents any potential for the advance of reason.

The Jefferson-being-uninterested-i n-promoting-religion is a prime example, when the proof is undeniable.

Another is Dagwood's insistence that our conflict is about math.

I have conceded to him a dozen times that theoretical math utilizes infinity in operations.

Yet, he thinks, or lets on he thinks, that I have a disagreement with that.

And then uses that faux conflict as evidence that I don't understand the concept of infinity.

It's rank dishonesty.

I understand, you understand, and Dave understands that infinity is an imaginary concept.

Honest mathematicians affirm it. It's as imaginary as "points" on a line or in space. It is referential only. It does not really exist.

This discussion is really an amazing study in psychological delusion.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201996 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.?
None of which is evidence for this deity you insist is real.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#201997 Jan 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Of course, there is another definition of natural that means not artificial. This is the meaning of "natural" in the phrase "natural selection." Animal breeding, which is artificial selection, is not natural by this second definition. By your definition above, both types of selection are natural incontrast to supernatural.
That concept of artificial is based upon man not being natural, meaning not following the laws of nature and physics of it. You are elevating mankind to "godhood" thinking that way.

Plants and man both arose from the dirt of this planet, IANS. Extensions of the mass and energy that it is to accomplish balances of matter and energy. As the plant will produce chemicals to bend leaves to the light, man will do things to enhance its existence within the constraints imposed by the planet itself.

Per your evolutionary thinking, man is not a guest on this planet, he is just part of the mechanism of it. Man can do no wrong. All of the conflict and opposing forces are part of a larger process beyond your comprehension.

Disagree with me, IANS.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201998 Jan 12, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you have spent your whole life having people tell you what to think and never asking questions...but there is an alternative.
You maybe, just maybe, use Google and try to find out things for yourself.
For example, you might enter "counting numbers infinite" and come up with this nice little article...
All About Infinity: http://nrich.maths.org/2756
It says things like:
"Infinity is not a number"
I pointed this out, and Buck thought that was ludicrous. Or...
"There are infinitely many natural numbers..."
Which is something else I said that Buck said was stupid. And continuing that sentence...
"...(if there were only a finite number of them, there would have to be a largest natural number - what would happen if we added 1 to that number?) so the set containing all the natural numbers must be infinitely large."
I even pointed out the "no largest number" thing, and Buck wouldn't buy it as showing that the set of counting numbers was infinite.(BTW...natural numbers = counting numbers...same thing, different wording).
The article goes on to talk about "countable sets" and "uncountable sets", giving the same definitions for these terms as I did...except slightly different wording. Same meaning though.
So you can go on listening to Buck if you want to, but you really need to realize that Buck spouting off and sounding confident does not make him right. That he says things you like hearing does not make him right. On the subject of mathematics, nearly everything Buck has said has been wrong.
And the fact that you may not LIKE the things I have to say does not make me wrong.
And I can just hear Buck's response now..."DS is lying. The author of the article is lying. They are all lying."
But if you bother to check, every mathematics sight will tell you the same thing as I am telling. So who is lying?
"There are infinitely many natural numbers..."

You don't understand this statement.

I will explain it for you, Mr. Math Professor.

What it is saying is that the SET of natural numbers is infinite. That is a thought - an idea. It is imagining what theoretically exists. It is "en theoria", meaning contemplation, or a view.

An infinite set is "contemplated", but does not physically exist. "Sets", per se, do not exist until you assign speciic value to its members. Until then, they exist as contemplation.

Placed into reality, there ARE NOT infinitely many natural numbers, or any other numbers.

As real things, each number, every number, is a finite entity. Each addition is finite.

I realize this is too much depth for you to "contemplate" intellectually.

But I wanted it on the record.


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201999 Jan 12, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
So far - for the entire history of mankind - there is zero evidence that any gods existed.
If you have evidence, do share...
You are a liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 min Mikko 45
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 22 min Patrick 27
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 31 min Patrick 172
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 35 min Patrick 21,501
Our world came from nothing? 39 min Patrick 418
100% Faith Free 4 hr Thinking 11
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineM 902
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••