Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258479 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.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202233 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Recycled fairy tale.
Only to the quitters

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#202234 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Court did it. How did the Court do that?
158 years after its passage the COURT found that.
Was it hiding between the couch cushions?
It was based on the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868.
And it took the Court 79 years to figure out it requires application of the Establishment clause to the states??? What about all the times it ruled otherwise after the 14th was ratified?
Let me ask you something. If the COURT says the establishment clause applies to local governments, that is saying to local governments...
"Congress shall make no law..."
In the real world, outside the Supreme Court, the local government's answer is...
"Well, I'm happy for Congress. Knock yourself out, Congress".
The problem with the court "holding", besides it being total fiction, is that the First Amendment SPECIFIES CONGRESS INTERNALLY IN THE AMENDMENT ITSELF.
YOU CANNOT MAKE IT APPLY TO SOMEONE ELSE UNLESS YOU CHANGE THE ACTUAL WORDING OF IT.
What is required to change the wording?
CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.
Have the people ever consented?
HELL NO.
What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment?
Samuel Adams: "...to see a line drawn as clearly as may be between the federal powers vested in Congress and distinct sovereignty of the several States upon which the private and personal rights of the citizens depend. Without such distinction there will be danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated government over all the States...The population of the U.S. live in different climates, of different education and manners, and possessed of different habits and feelings and under one consolidated government cannot long remain free".
By the way, the 14th Amendment DID NOT institute any such application of the First Amendment to states.
How do we know? Because AFTER its ratification, twice measures were brought before the same Congress to do just that, and they voted them down. If the 14th were written to incorporate as the court later held, it would not have been passed by Congress, and it would not have been ratified by states.
The Court's holding in Everson violated the Constitution.
It caused the Establishment Clause TO DO EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS RATIFIED TO PREVENT !!!!
The reasoning of the court's holding is entirely fictional.
It didn't make the law, it interpreted what the law was.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#202235 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>1952??
A paltry 27 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial?
Are you feckin' serious?
Sadly, Buck is always serious.

Completely deranged, but totally serious.

Buck makes up his own definitions for words, has his own version of human history, and his own interpretation of laws and rules…and that fact that he's utterly wrong has no bearing on his belief that he's right.

Reality has no bearing on his views either...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#202236 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Congress shall make no law..."

That applies to any law granting special status to a particular cult or its symbology - including the Ten Commandments of Old Testament folklore.

It also applies, by extension, to any US legislative body.

And no, it's not "fiction". It's the law.

Really hacks you off when other people will insist on having the same rights you do, dunnit?

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202237 Jan 13, 2014
The "scientific method" started when some brains made the connection between that red stuff leaking out of animals, relatives, and enemies reached a certain critical point resulting in a cessation of animation and expressions of will. This may also have led to higher math, that being the subtraction of a certain fixed quantity was the causation of such phenomenon, and that the addition of such to their own selves could enhance their own personal expression of will and functionality.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#202238 Jan 13, 2014
dramos wrote:
you nailed it , atheism might actually require much faith than the conventional religions. think its better to be an agnostic
Do you have a deep and abiding faith that leprechauns don't exist?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#202239 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>Only to the quitters
I don't think that refusing to believe a convoluted collection of obvious lies is quitting. Not something I expect a brain washed drongo like yourself to comprehend.

Unless "quitters" means people who can read and comprehend what they read. The history of your religion is available to all.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202240 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that refusing to believe a convoluted collection of obvious lies is quitting. Not something I expect a brain washed drongo like yourself to comprehend.
Unless "quitters" means people who can read and comprehend what they read. The history of your religion is available to all.
Its not about the mind, its about the heart

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202241 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>

No, Buck, they didn't. They may have thought of the idea that species change over time, but the idea of natural selection was brand new to Darwin and Wallace.
Is that so? Tell me, how do you manage to be wrong every time?

Erasmus Darwin, "Zoonomia", published in 1794.

"This work was no obscure volume, but sold well, and was even translated into German,
French, and Italian. Erasmus Darwin originated almost every important idea that has since appeared in evolutionary theory, including natural selection."

"Some scholars even assert that Erasmus Darwin’s view was more well developed than Charles Darwin’s. Desmond King-Hele made an excellent case for the view that Charles Darwin’s theory, even ‘in its mature form in the later editions of the Origin of Species, is, in some important respects, less correct than that of Erasmus’. Both writers stressed that evolution occurred by the accumulation of small, fortuitous changes that were selected by
natural selection."
__________

Another naturalist who discussed major aspects of evolution, specifically natural selection, long before Darwin was Patrick Matthew, whose priority was later acknowledged both by Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth.
Matthew actually ‘… anticipated Darwin’s main conclusions by twenty-eight years, yet he thought them so little important that he published them as an appendix to his book … and did not feel the need to give substance to them by continuous work."
__________

Stephen Jay Gould:

‘Matthew, still alive and vigorously kicking when Darwin published the Origin, wrote
to express his frustration at Darwin’s non-citation’. In response to Matthew’s evidently valid concern Darwin only ‘offered some diplomatic palliation in the historical introduction added to later editions of the Origin’. Darwin also responded to Matthew’s ire in the Gardener’s Chronicle for April 21 1860 as follows:‘I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection".

Quoted in Gould, Ref. 33, p.138.

Darwin was not only NOT first to propose natural selection, he plagairized it, and much of his other work.

Nice work, Darwin's ShitHeel.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#202242 Jan 13, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that refusing to believe a convoluted collection of obvious lies is quitting. Not something I expect a brain washed drongo like yourself to comprehend.
Unless "quitters" means people who can read and comprehend what they read. The history of your religion is available to all.
The dependence on that reading for knowledge and understanding instead of developing the skills you were given to develop those concepts and ideas on a personal level is what makes the "quitters".

Your blind acceptance of the perceptions of others because you think they are smarter and have letters behind their names stunts your growth.

You read a book, you think you know something. You fulfilled an obligation you think you had. Wasn't so hard. So you run down to the bar and have a drink and a good time ridiculing those idiots that read another book and think they know something.

Welcome to Topix atheism 101, where you can enjoy the illusion of being "informed" and intelligent. Makes for a fun life.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202244 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse the faux pas on first chief justice.
Story founded Harvard Law School and served 34 years on the Supreme Court, authoring 286 opinions, 269 of which were the majority.
So his credibility stands.
Not yours, so much. The examples you gave - ending slavery, Women's suffrage - resulted from AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. And Jim Crow laws were state laws, struck down by later state laws.
The First Amendment has not been amended, and reads the same as it did in Story's day, and in the day of Zorach v. Clauson in 1952.
Yes, it is 2014. And the establishment clause still reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."
Those 10 words are the boundaries on the constitutional quoting. What is available to quote further is court opinions. Remember stare decisis?
Leading up to 1962, for 170 years the Supreme Court upheld such things as voluntary prayer, citing numerous precedents.
In 1962, in Engle v. Vitale, the court began striking them down.
How many citations of precedent did the court cite in the Engle?
Wanna' guess?
O (zero)
Stare decisis. Sure.
Yes, I am very familiar with Story. I acquired learning in Story Hall.

Stare decisis is adherence to court precedent, not to Constitutional language.

And stare decisis is not binding--the supreme Court may reassess, just as some today want the Supreme Court to do on Roe v. Wade. Do you?

In other words, if the court determines a prior decision got it wrong, it so decides. Do you think the court got it right on abortion? If not, what can be done--under our system?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202245 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about the history of two different things.
If you want to know the intent of the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at the reasoning and the early court interpretations of the framers' intent.
If you want to look at the history of how courts have revised the Constitution fraudulently, committing a usurpation of the powers of the people, you have to look at about 1960 and forward. You have to look at liberals.
Aha!!

Here I was discussing the Constitution, and you want to talk about ideology and politics.

It's those nasty liberals.

They are probably closet atheists, too.

Traitors.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202246 Jan 13, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Because apes are suited to their environment quite well.
Your assertion is that we are categorically different from apes? I remind you that we share upwards of 97% of our DNA with chimps, we both have arms, legs, hands and feet with five digits, similar faces, etc, etc, etc. The mystery is how humanity comes from that tiny difference, but rest assured, it is a very, very tiny difference.
I never made that assertion, but now that you mention it...

I don't care how much DNA we share with apes, we're very different than they are. We share DNA with bananas and rats, too.

I'm not gonna touch your "human and apes have similar faces" comment. I don't wanna talk about Whoopi...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202247 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
You were unable to change my mind about either the quality of Barton's work or Jefferson's intent. What you presented hardly constituted proof that Barton was correct about Jefferson. You simply insisted that Jefferson's intent with the treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe was what Barton said it was without ever addressing the counter-evidence - Jefferson's letters to Dearborn and Harrison.

Then you presented a few more claims that you failed to support either actually occurred or were done for the reasons you said.

And your entire rebuttal to a large paragraph about assorted challenges to Barton's credibility, including "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." was "Your assertions are simply factually false."

That's not proof, Buck. Actually, it tends to strengthen my feeling that there is no defense for the criticisms of Barton's book, nor to Throckmorton's rebuttal that Jefferson's actual purpose - supported twice with Jefferson's own words - was to acquire their land peacefully, which contradicts Barton's claim that Jefferson's intent was to convert the Kaskaskia Indians.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202248 Jan 13, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>

"Congress shall make no law..."
That applies to any law granting special status to a particular cult or its symbology - including the Ten Commandments of Old Testament folklore.
It also applies, by extension, to any US legislative body.
And no, it's not "fiction". It's the law.
Really hacks you off when other people will insist on having the same rights you do, dunnit?
Wrong again, Mac Nuggets.

The clause prohibits Congress making a law for an established religion, which means a national church.

How does "Congress" apply to any legislative body?

When a local school district in a state allows a voluntary prayer,...

What "law" did they make, and how did Congress do it?

You want some sauce with those fiction nuggets you just swallowed?

Chris Clearwater

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#202249 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aha!!
Here I was discussing the Constitution, and you want to talk about ideology and politics.
It's those nasty liberals.
They are probably closet atheists, too.
Traitors.
Nahh. It's caveman Cruz (your words of love and tolerance)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202250 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aha!!
Here I was discussing the Constitution, and you want to talk about ideology and politics.
It's those nasty liberals.
They are probably closet atheists, too.
Traitors.
You can't talk about SCOTUS re-writing the Constitution without talking about ideology.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#202251 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My only research was to correct my error on Story being the first chief justice.
The rest was easy.
Your post was a mess, jurisprudence-wise.
Can you cite the court's precedent for knocking down school prayer in Engle v. Vitale?
I'll save you some research.
THEY DIDN'T OFFER ANY!!
The current court has held that corporations are "persons".

For the first time.

The "liberals" on the court dissented.

They urged that the meaning of the word is clear.

What do you say?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#202252 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I understand, you [Bongo] understand, and Dave understands that infinity is an imaginary concept.
You haven't made the case that imaginary in this context means divorced from reality as it does in other contexts, like an imaginary friend. Many other concepts that you would call imaginary - concepts like negative numbers, zero, pi, complex numbers, dx, and e are essential to predict and at times control matter.
Buck Crick wrote:
It's as imaginary as "points" on a line or in space. It is referential only. It does not really exist.
That describes everything in mathematics. Seven doesn't exist except in the mind, just like red. It's only physical correlate is photons with a certain wavelength and frequency - both mathematical quantities.

Merely calling infinity an imaginary thing does not mean that reality doesn't contain infinites.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#202253 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>Its not about the mind, its about the heart
I don't think your siblings in christ know that anymore than you do, go tell them.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,252
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr Science 854
Religion sux ? 4 hr Eagle 12 - 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Science 77,044
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 11 hr Dogen 4,321
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) 23 hr Frindly 291
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Sun Eagle 12 - 12
More from around the web