Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#221007 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>This is an odd place to do that--sexual identity is hardly the focus of the forum or this thread. Does he think we are all gay?
Only gay in the old fashioned sense, meaning bright and happy. That's from laughing @ it so much.
:-)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#221008 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>This is an odd place to do that--sexual identity is hardly the focus of the forum or this thread. Does he think we are all gay?
Aren't we all?

I don't speak for him. I just sit back and smile when he continually gets his ass handed to him.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221009 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts tell us all we need to know about your education...
Correct. I posted proof of my credentials here several times.

http://s1298.photobucket.com/user/GoodOleDarw...

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#221011 Mar 24, 2014
Kimare_is_a_wife_thief wrote:
<quoted text>
One of them is named Greg Kirschmann (aka Kimare)
That one reminds me of this song.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221012 Mar 24, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
And whence comes this animosity, this need to denigrate those with whom you disagree? This need to cast aspersions, to pass judgement with no effort to understand? What need drives that?
We all have histories. Some of us hide them some are more open, even at the risk that some will attempt to make a weapon of that honesty. But those who do so reveal the weaknesses of their positions. When the only possible response is personal attack (ad hominem), one's position is probably beyond salvage.
No animosity, just simple honesty. Something also missing from your posts.

You judged my posting an article about the Big Bang as a desperate attempt to support the Bible. When I called you on it, you changed the subject to a self-righteous pontification. It is clear the ad hominem attack and weak position are yours...

While you claim to be a skeptic, I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221013 Mar 24, 2014
And back to the subject at hand:

How does this article address these questions?

What was on the other side of the Big Bang?

How does a proton sized explosion create the vastness of the universe containing all matter?

Where is the edge of the universe?

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_2540382...

"This most extraordinary of ideas was conceived in the most ordinary of circumstances. Linde was lying in bed, sick, at his home in Moscow, during a miserable winter. And his international intellectual life was in limbo, because publication of a paper had been suspended a year during the turbulence at the end of Soviet rule.

"I was living in this state of depression. I was in my bed and unable to do anything," he said. Then came a sudden invitation to visit Italy -- but he had to submit a paper overnight.

"I held my head ... What can I do? What can I do?" he recalled thinking, with less than an hour to write. "And suddenly, I had the theory of eternally expanding inflationary universes, unceasingly producing new universes," of which ours is but one of many.

"It was just pure, from nowhere," he said."

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221014 Mar 24, 2014
http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-univers...

If the density of the universe exceeds a specific critical value, then the universe is "closed" and "positive curved" like the surface of a sphere. This means light beams that are initially parallel will converge slowly, eventually cross and return back to their starting point, if the universe lasts long enough. If so, the universe is not infinite but has no end, just as the area on the surface of a sphere is not infinite but has no beginning nor end to speak of. The universe will eventually stop expanding and start collapsing in on itself, the so-called "Big Crunch."

Isa. 34:4,5 NLT The heavens above will melt away and disappear like a rolled-up scroll.
The stars will fall from the sky like withered leaves from a grapevine, or shriveled figs from a fig tree.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...

"Why does the Universe look flat? This was one of the perplexing questions in cosmology for a long time. Today, most astronomers believe in the theory of inflation (and there are pieces of evidence supporting this). According to this theory, the Universe underwent exponential expansion about 10-30 seconds after the Big Bang. The result was that something of the size of an atom expanded to the size of the solar system by the end of the inflationary epoch."

Smile.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221016 Mar 24, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't we all?
I don't speak for him. I just sit back and smile when he continually gets his ass handed to him.
Huh? Wilderice says we are all atheists. Now we are all gay?

What's this thread coming to?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221017 Mar 24, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem with that question is that it assumes that all atheists think alike. Individual atheists may or may not have an answer for you, but each one will reflect the thinking of only that one person. Those who care about explaining the universe (not all do) will tend to turn to science, but only those who have chosen astrophysics for a career will be able to answer with any real confidence. Odds are you won't be able to understand any of those answer (don't fret--neither would I).
The short answer is that few of us have ideas about the origin, history, or current state of the universe that we can successfully defend. We're too busy earning our livings, fixing our cars, cleaning our houses, and pursuing our other interests to put the time into understanding the science beyond a fairly basic level.
And ultimately, as you intuited, atheists have no duty to explain themselves to you or anyone else, no more duty to defend their lack of belief than you have to defend your beliefs. It is, quite frankly, none of your business.
Atheism is not "lack of belief". It is belief, same as theism.

And it is our business, as when anyone tries to impose their belief by intimidation and government edict.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221018 Mar 24, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>I've given examples where He has.

You have no excuse.
I must have missed them.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221019 Mar 24, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>you like talking to a nut job?
You?

No.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221020 Mar 24, 2014
KiMare wrote:
....
What was on the other side of the Big Bang?.....
Science: "We don't know but we have a few logical thoughts on the matter based on what we know and have observed."

Religion: "We know it is God because our magic book says so!"

Note the difference please.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#221021 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is not "lack of belief". It is belief, same as theism.

And it is our business, as when anyone tries to impose their belief by intimidation and government edict.
Bless your heart...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221022 Mar 24, 2014
"The internal combustion engine isn't mentioned in the Bible thus automobiles can not exist." - CHristards

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#221023 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not "lack of belief". It is belief, same as theism.
And it is our business, as when anyone tries to impose their belief by intimidation and government edict.
Agreed. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

Now, where do you see atheists imposing this belief with intimidation or laws ?

All I see in the USA are laws saying EVERYONE has the right to believe what ever they desire about deities as long as it does not infringe on others' beliefs about deities.

Sadly, most of time the law has been applied only to Christians and rarely to anyone besides Christians.

In recent times that attitude is changing and the Christians are pissed off about it.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221024 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I will be honest. I don't know.
You, on the other hand, are not honest and make sh*t up.
Like the "shit" you made up about Michael Behe? David Barton? Casey Luskin? Lonnig?

//////////

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________

Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:

Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it is.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. What is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it does.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221025 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I mean your God-of-the-Gaps.
Afraid of competition with your Darwin-of-the-Gaps?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221026 Mar 24, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the definition of a funny-mentalist.
:-)
Your posts portray a completely empty-headed idiot.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221027 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing at Barton doesn't help your case one whit.
The last time you ended up convincing most of the posters that he was a lying hack.
Behe is another horse you have hitched your wagon to that fails you. Yes, Behe said under testimony that ID is science, and then was forced to clarify under cross-examination that you had to redefine what is science to make that statement. You dishonestly ignore that last part.
Which puts you in the same category as Barton...a liar.
The discussion was of what constitutes a "scientific theory", not what is science.

You lied about that, too, and repeated the lie just now.

Here is another of your lies, when you doctored Behe's quotation:

Dagwood's version:

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Behe: Yes, that's correct. END QUOTE

Trial Transcript:

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Behe: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Do these instances of me catching you lying embarrass you?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221028 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing at Barton doesn't help your case one whit.
My case needs no help. Yours obviously does, as you repeat your habit again here, which is to call someone names in substitution for having an argument against them.

I have now caught you lying about Behe (twice), lying about Barton, lying about Casey Luskin, lying about Lonnig.

It's quite a record you're piling up. Are you aware that nobody now can take anything you say as credible?

Even more so than when you argued for the infinite donut.

In taking me on, and being such an insulting asshole, your mouth has overloaded your ass.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 23 min Hypocrite watch 79,782
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr candlesmell 701,499
Gay snap eh 2 hr Lopez_nator21 13
News Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah' (Oct '09) 4 hr Joe Fortuna 719
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr Devil number 666 448,392
Are women from USA scared of marriage? 6 hr thadv14 1
Best cosplay costumes online shop 6 hr Cosplay007 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 hr Dang Jersey Piney 995,752