Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255320 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: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202449 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>you were a poor disciplined one, many are. It takes diligence and a soft heart.. Regardless of the human condition, the faithful are saved. All their transgression pardoned, much to the chagrin of the non believer.
All a soft heart brings when around christians, is pain and betrayal. Your heart is no softer than any other religious hypocrite's I've ever come across. You have less credibility than a Buddhist stray cat.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202450 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. Infinite and "immeasurable" are not the same, regardless of what some dictionary definitions say.
Something infinite means it is known to exceed any potential measurement.
No such thing exists, or can exist.
Our Topix physicist and Topix "mathematician" will argue otherwise.
They are wrong as hell.
Really, Buck? That's what you think?

Because I would say no such thing. In fact, if you had a clue to what I have been talking about, you would know that I already have said essentially the same thing.

Yes, Buck, the VISIBLE universe is finite, and thus anything physical within it is limited to being finite also. We can only observe as far as the Cosmic Background, the boundary in spacetime at which space became transparent.

What lies beyond that boundary? We don't know. I don't know. You certainly don't know. There are a myriad of possibilities, and among those are cases in which our visible universe is embedded in something that is infinite.

And besides, I have never insisted (despite how you try to twist my words to say otherwise) that the infinity I talk about is anything other than a mathematical abstraction. But even though it is a mathematical abstraction, that does not mean it is a useless idea. Nor does it mean it is unimportant.

But it IS a difficult concept to grasp, and you certainly don't grasp it.

I would normally say that being unable to grasp it is just fine...except you insist that your misconceptions are right...and you use them to mislead others.

But then, you just have to lie about such things in order to make yourself feel big, don't you. You don't have an education and you are desperately envious of those that do. And the only way you can make yourself feel more secure is to put others down.

You really are a pitiful case.

I notice, Mr. Calculus Genius, that you never did post how to calculate a derivative...which is taught in like week 2 of Calc I.

Of course, the reason you never even tried is you KNEW you would just make a fool of yourself.

Again. Pitiful.

As for "infinity" and "immeasurable", it depends on the definition you are using for "immeasurable". One of its definitions is "limitless", and in that case...well..."limitless " = "infinite". At least, in mathematical terms.

A different meaning of "immeasurable" is "indeterminate". In that case, no, "infinite" and "immeasurable" are not the same thing. For example, the length of the coast of England is indeterminate. Due to its fractal nature, the value you measure depends on the length of your yardstick. The smaller the yardstick you use, the greater the length you measure. Ergo, the length of the coastline is indeterminate...that is, immeasurable.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202451 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
RR, if you want to see a case of extreme bias, look at Buck here.
Atheism does not provide any direction.
A person can believe they are killing for atheism, or because of it, just like a person can believe anything, but since atheism provides no direction, their motivations necessarily come from some other source.
Incidentally, when Buck posts stuff like this, it crosses the line from funny to sad.
Yes, I know.

I know the Topix Atheist! line of reasoning tells them the following:

-Christians kill for Christianity.

-Satanists don't kill for Satanism.

-Atheists don't kill for atheism.

I'm trying to follow along but the logic just doesn't add up.

Redneck1 out

Off to the Jim.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202452 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Dave, I would respond to your post, if I knew WTF you're talking about.

Translation anyone?
Blah blah blah blah?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202453 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does not.
No legislature is prevented from showing preference to the Judeo-Christian religions.
"Preference" is not an establishment of an official state religion, which is all that is addressed by the establishment clause. Nothing else is addressed but "establishment".
That's why they call it the "Establishment Clause".
There is no "preference clause". Or if you have found one, you can point it out for me.
By the way, which day of the week is the federal post office in your town closed?
Around here, it's the Christian sabbath day.
This means Jewish people can only utilize the facility 4 days other than their sabbath.
Christians can utilize it 5 days other than their sabbath.
How is this not a "preference"?
How is this not a preference:
"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation".
United States Supreme Court, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
(103 years after ratification of the Establishment Clause)
SCOTUS says otherwise. End of story.

And "Preference is not an establishment"??? <rolleyes> Can't you go even one post without saying something stupid?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202454 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying it isn't one?
BTW...FYI...the Hindu symbol is the mirror image of the Nazi symbol.
<quoted text>
No. I would no more want to see that religious symbol in courtrooms than I would like to see any religious symbol in a courtroom. In our society, the courts are secular and should not have any religious symbology.
<quoted text>
Oh, so again it is you that gets to decide?
<quoted text>
That's your religious indoctrination talking.
<quoted text>
No, but then abusing others violates those others' rights. We don't allow any religion to violate rights, as much as some people wish we would.
BTW, give me one confirmed instance of a satanist abusing a child in the name of satanism. The is the same sort of straw man you use against atheists all the time.
<quoted text>
Be careful what you wish for. If you start banning certain religions, it is just possible that one day they will ban yours as well.
The proposed satanic monument would hurt no one. Nor does it incite anyone to harm another.
Speaking of monuments on government property...

Dogpile, I don't see Satan among them.

What gives? I though SCOTUS banned these????

http://www.christianindex.org/1087.article

Oh shit ! What's this on government property?

https://www.google.com/search...

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202455 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I care about what is actually true.
That's my bias.
It's okay if you have other priorities. I understand.
So did the flight crew of Air Florida flight 90. Its too bad they thought and did trust the reading they had on instrumentation at takeoff. See this crew was from Florida and while trained to fly in many conditions its doubtful they were ready for the blizzard this Jan day in Washington D.C. An error was made not turning on the anti ice system and that led to an "untrue" reading they thought was true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flig...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202456 Jan 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider all things that science cannot replicate and that haven't been observed in the history of human record keeping unlikely? How about whale evolution from land mammals?
What evidence suggests that abiogenesis is highly or extremely unlikely?
I just summarized the evidence that it is extremely unlikely.

The search for it has been exhaustive, with little to no results.

Whale evolution from land mammals may have occurred, but it did not occur in the pathway that Darwinists presently want us to accept.

In fact, that series is impossible by natural selection alone.

But it's good enough for the Darwinists anyway. It's a "just so" story. It just has to be so.

(both the whale series and abiogenesis)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202457 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Maybe there's a Satanist out there who'd like to ritually abuse a child. They don't get to do that, do they?
<quoted text>
I'll do better than just one.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satani...
It's a huge list.
Take your time.
If Dogpile says it, expect the opposite to be true.

By the way, he won't read the list. He will just repeat his original misstatement.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202458 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
A new video from the NonStamp Colector.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thanks. Maybe some other time.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#202459 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and an idiot.
That's your interpretation.

I think I'm honest, intelligent, and an overall cool guy.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#202460 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have participated in several murder prosecutions in which the defendant explained that he killed because God told him to, and psychological assessments confirmed the defendants' belief they were acting on God's istructions.
Were these defendants murdering in the name of God?
Or were they insane?
What do you think?
1. Were you defendants guilty of excessive drug use that resulted in drug induced psychoses?

2. Or were they not taking prescribe treatment for an already diagnosed mental illness?

3. Then there’s the few that go undiagnosed with psychoses until harm is done.

Hearing voices in their head that are telling them to do something destructive and reprehensible is not the norm.

Regardless for the reason, dangerous individuals need to be incarcerated in a guarded mental institution or a correctional facility.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202461 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and an idiot.
How much "interpreting" is needed for the noun "Congress"?
How much interpreting is needed for the noun "law"?
How much interpreting is needed for the phrase "establishment of religion"?
We aren't talking about "interpreting".
The Supreme Court had "interpreted" this clause for over 150 years prior to the radical reversal of precedent beginning in 1947.
Don't play games with me. I'm smarter than you, and more honest than you.
I know what "interpreting" means.
"Congress" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was pretty nearly all of the Federal government.

Since then things have changed.

And, as I have pointed out, limiting the bans mentioned in the 1st Amendment to JUST Congress means that none of those guaranteed freedoms would actually exist. If you interpret the free press provision..."Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." as applying to ONLY Congress, then freedom of the press does not actually exist, since by your interpretation any state legislature could shut down any media outlet it wanted to...and it would be perfectly constitutional. At least under your interpretation.

Which is why (I strongly suspect) the vastly brighter individuals who were on the court expanded the meaning to be all governmental bodies. The whole 1st Amendment would become moot if you were in charge.

And you, smarter than me? Since when? A box of rocks is smarter than you. At least a box of rocks knows to keep its mouth shut when things are being discussed it knows nothing about.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202462 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Aristotle was just as much of a scientist in his time as Einstein was in his time. What Aristotle taught 2,000 years ago was considered fact just as much fact as what we learn from Einstein today.
I do have one question for you.
How was spontaneous generation "falsified"?
Old meat (I think it was) was placed in two containers. One was sealed, and the other was open to the air. Maggots appeared only on the one exposed to the environment, and not on the sealed meat, thus evidencing the notion that maggots can't just appear from meat.

Again, you're ignoring or missing the point. Like I just said, questioning modern theories because ancient philosophers, not scientists, were wrong about some things is as asinine as thinking the world might be a square because we used to think it was flat. If you have a problem with a theory, criticize the theory, not the work of ancient philosophers. Obviously people have believed some things that aren't true, and obviously we don't know everything today. The nice thing about the scientific method is that it allows us to correct those errors. Do you know of another methodology that is better at producing results? If so, share it.

Since: Jan 11

United States

#202463 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
HA HA!! "straw person"....
You're so PC.
It's called a straw man, not a straw person. Call it what it is.
I think it was a straw toddler, now that I think about it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's going nowhere. Your faith that tells you Christianity is evil is too strong for me to contend with.
I don't employ faith, RR.

Think about what you gain by accusing me of relying on faith. Where's my high five? The most important aspect of your life depends on the validity of faith, does it not?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I won't bother arguing your beliefs.
You see, I'm not an atheist.
I don't blame you.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202465 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my belief, yes.
The downturn of the American familial structure, beginning in the 60s when school prayer was ceased, is my reasoning for that.
Lol. I think it's only a coincidence that the "downturn of the familial structure" coincides with the civil rights movement, feminism, and more recently the gay rights movement.

No, your beef is with prayer in schools, as if that has *anything* to do with family structure. I mean, I do believe that you're upset about that, for some reason, but it makes absolutely no sense. What, does your faith need to be reinforced at school or else your family implodes from all the pent up religious energy? Lol.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#202466 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they were Insane.
I think they were insane enough to want to murder another human being.
But they were smart enough to try the crazy card and get out of jail free.
What do you think? You think God really instructed them to murder?
Of course I don't think God instructed them to murder.

I don't even believe in gods.

But if the evaluating psychiatrists agree that a defendant is not malingering, and truly believes he is was acting on God's instruction to kill, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, either because he couldn't distinguish between right and wrong, or because he lacked the capacity to control his actions and refrain from killing.

And re-read your post. You're saying he's insane, but he's not insane.

That's insane.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202467 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Speak English , dammit!
<quoted text>
*squints*
I know this is English but I can't tell what you're saying.
Vestigal? You sure?
Ah, then I must refer you to "stepchild's" more simplified version:

"And the sad thing is it shouldn't be that hard to conceptualize.

1) Here we have two pieces of string.

2) Here we have one string with a knot in its middle."

Since: Jan 11

United States

#202468 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, I know.
I know the Topix Atheist! line of reasoning tells them the following:
-Christians kill for Christianity.
-Satanists don't kill for Satanism.
-Atheists don't kill for atheism.
I'm trying to follow along but the logic just doesn't add up.
Redneck1 out
Off to the Jim.
Some (lots and lots) Christians have killed for Christianity.

I assume some theistic Satanists killed for Satanism.

Neither atheists or theists kill for (because of) atheism or theism, respectively.

I think if you tried to be less dichotomous, some of this would come easier to you.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202469 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>You lie. I don't claim that. Tell me, which THEORY of evolution has been proven? Which of the various guesses is the one? w hy isn't it the law of where life came from? Nobody disputes life evolves, only tell me precisely how man came to be.
Why do you look to topix for a rudimentary education? Go, study, learn, be free lil drongo.

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) 5 min progressive 13,408
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 17 min Patrick 51,160
News Why I quit atheism 19 min Eagle 12 5
News Millionaire Entrepreneur Wants to 'Make Atheism... 19 min woodtick57 81
Majority of Scots now have no religion 26 min Eagle 12 16
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 21
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr ChristineM 31,433
More from around the web