Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255284 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#233228 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Four of nine justices voted against free-speech in Citizens United.
They are consistent, as they voted against religious freedom in Hobby Lobby.
Those four apparently want to repeal the entirety of the First Amendment. Actually, they have proven they don't recognize the U.S. Constitution at all.
Interestingly, they overturned recent precedent - 2003 McConnell v. FEC, and 1990 Austin v. Chamber of Commerce, proving once again that precedent is important except when it isn't.
Fortunately, 5 justices still recognize the Constitution. They say, rightly, protecting the New York Times Company spending millions of dollars to distribute an election editorial and not protecting Koch Industries doing the same thing is not upholding free speech.
Imagine when. 5-4 becomes 4-5.

We'll be on that one particular creek and will have to hope that the government will be good enough to give us a paddle.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233229 Jul 21, 2014
Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with people expressing views, but when they are false, or baseless claims, I am going to let them know exactly that.
Kind of like FOX news claiming that the supporters of marriage equality are intollerant to ones religious beliefs, which is completely false. It is the religious being intollerant of others rights, because of their religious beliefs. Those opposed to marriage equality get to still have their religious views, right or wrong, they just cannot legislate based on those beliefs.
p.s. if God was real, he didn't have combanny for the 1st 13.7 billion years, since the universe began, why in the last 6000 years did he decide he needed company?
We already had marriage equality. Heterosexuals could not marry the same sex, and neither could homosexuals.

Same for everyone. Equality.
__________

What makes you think God needed company? He could have had the universe under his fingernail and flung it out. He could have already been in the company of a billion universes.

You are really stupid, aren't you Peugot?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233230 Jul 21, 2014
Cujo wrote:
Correction "company" - JHC my typing is awful.
It's even worse when you spell it right.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#233231 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We already had marriage equality. Heterosexuals could not marry the same sex, and neither could homosexuals.
Same for everyone. Equality.
That's why I believe you'd like to go back to the Dred Scott days of segregation.

You can make the same argument that, under anti-miscegenation laws, we had marriage equality. A white person could marry a white person, and a black person could marry a black person. But no race mixing.

Same for everyone. Equality.

Marriage equality a la Crick.
Cujo

Regina, Canada

#233232 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We already had marriage equality. Heterosexuals could not marry the same sex, and neither could homosexuals.
Same for everyone. Equality.
__________
What makes you think God needed company? He could have had the universe under his fingernail and flung it out. He could have already been in the company of a billion universes.
You are really stupid, aren't you Peugot?
You are the one who claimed God created humans for intelligent conversation, another baseless claim. Prove your god even exists before making such ridiculous assurtions.

Your view on equality is just plain wrong, and ignorant. Before mixed race marriages were legal, did you use the argument that whites could not marry blacks and blacks could not marry whites, therefore it was equal?

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#233233 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Good one, Dave.
Did you catch the genesis of this discussion?
Christine uses e=mc^2 to prove non-existence of God, since God is "all-powerful".
Taking a conceptual, metaphysical term and applying it to a physical quantity.
It's dumb - and not unlike the insistence on the universe having "infinite distance".
I admit I have not pinned down the reason atheists do exercise this fallacy in such consistent fashion.
Is it a need to prove they know "all there is"?
Don't know. Maybe you have some ideas.
You are confused here, while E=MC2 has a meaning in Mass–energy equivalence. the argument she presents is not one of science.
Where the space/time continuum and GR is concerned. it is very relevant and a sound determination by the mathematical certainty of infinite space/time in a event horizon.
Where the expansion of space/time is accelerated beyond the speed of light.

There is no equivocation between these concepts. nor any connection, and one is not related to the other , nor does one falsify the other. In short the truth is any alterations to the space/time continuum from extreme gravity or extreme acceleration causes paradoxes and due to Lorentz transformations can cause infinite sums to be realized.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#233234 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comparison was between energy and a biblical concept.
You chose the context - not me. Then you lift the term from the context, try to insert it into a context of scientific quantity, which is one of the dumbest assertions I have ever seen from a person more than 3 years old.
The sign, the law, I referred to exert power AFTER printed and hung, while no energy is being expended.
You are a laughingstock.
The basis of Christine's argument here is philosophical.
A all powerful being that cannot alter the rock solid effects of the limitations of space/time is less than omnipotent, rendering it subject to "iron chariots" and less than omnipotent and all powerful. So you see the systemic problem with the idea an "all power being" actually exists that is limited by the forces of nature effectively rendering it, less than omnipotent.

Bite down on that infinite doh nut.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233235 Jul 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I believe you'd like to go back to the Dred Scott days of segregation.
You can make the same argument that, under anti-miscegenation laws, we had marriage equality. A white person could marry a white person, and a black person could marry a black person. But no race mixing.
Same for everyone. Equality.
Marriage equality a la Crick.
Wrong, Counselor.

Anti-miscegenation was not equal for everyone. If you were white, you could marry a white. If you were black you could not. If you were black, you could marry a black. If you were white, you could not.

That's not equality.

With prohibition of same sex marriage, it's the same standard for all persons.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233236 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The basis of Christine's argument here is philosophical.
A all powerful being that cannot alter the rock solid effects of the limitations of space/time is less than omnipotent, rendering it subject to "iron chariots" and less than omnipotent and all powerful. So you see the systemic problem with the idea an "all power being" actually exists that is limited by the forces of nature effectively rendering it, less than omnipotent.
Bite down on that infinite doh nut.
That was not remotely her argument.

But it is equally stupid.

Congratulations.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233237 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused here, while E=MC2 has a meaning in Mass–energy equivalence. the argument she presents is not one of science.
Where the space/time continuum and GR is concerned. it is very relevant and a sound determination by the mathematical certainty of infinite space/time in a event horizon.
Where the expansion of space/time is accelerated beyond the speed of light.
There is no equivocation between these concepts. nor any connection, and one is not related to the other , nor does one falsify the other. In short the truth is any alterations to the space/time continuum from extreme gravity or extreme acceleration causes paradoxes and due to Lorentz transformations can cause infinite sums to be realized.
"Infinite sums"?

And married bachelors.

Infinite means there is no sum.

Any time you encounter an "infinite sum", you can be certain you are not dealing with a physical reality.

Infinite sum. That encapsulates your error. That "sums" up your stupidity.

You are hilarious.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233239 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Counselor.
Anti-miscegenation was not equal for everyone. If you were white, you could marry a white. If you were black you could not. If you were black, you could marry a black. If you were white, you could not.
That's not equality.
With prohibition of same sex marriage, it's the same standard for all persons.
Buck, I tried to swallow your nonsense without choking, but couldn't.

You'd best go back to infinity and leave the Constitution to the big boys.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233240 Jul 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused here, while E=MC2 has a meaning in Mass–energy equivalence. the argument she presents is not one of science.
Where the space/time continuum and GR is concerned. it is very relevant and a sound determination by the mathematical certainty of infinite space/time in a event horizon.
Where the expansion of space/time is accelerated beyond the speed of light.
There is no equivocation between these concepts. nor any connection, and one is not related to the other , nor does one falsify the other. In short the truth is any alterations to the space/time continuum from extreme gravity or extreme acceleration causes paradoxes and due to Lorentz transformations can cause infinite sums to be realized.
Infinite sums.

I love that.

Bwhaahahahahahahahahhaahahahha ha...

When 500 billion is no closer to an infinite sum than "1", how many things did you add to get the infinite sum?

A billion billion? No, that's also no closer to an infinite sum than "1".

How 'bout a trillion trillion? No, that's also no closer to an infinite sum than "1".

I'm so intrigued by your infinite sums. If you had a trillion calculators all automatically adding sums, starting with the Big Bang, continuing until the present, how much closer to an "infinite sum" would you be now than when you started at "1"??

Answer: No closer

If a particle took off at a billion times the speed of light, and it's speed doubled every second since the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, how much closer would the particle be to traveling an infinite sum of distance than at the instant of the Big Bang?

Answer: No closer

Infinite sums. That's hilarious!

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233241 Jul 21, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
LET'S DO THIS THANG!!!
i have more than an "understadning of Jesus"; I HAVE JESUS, AND HE AND I ARE ONE!
top THAT, beotch!;-)
oh , I thought it was the Holy Spirit , who resided in your soul/body .

but , If you are a ' trinitarian '

You get the point ...

"numberfour"... " 0 "
"waaassuuup"... " 1 "

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233242 Jul 21, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are under belief this is a social club for atheists only, and not a discussion board bandying varying thoughts on the matter about?
I quite agree about the manmade description of heaven being illogical. As I pointed out a few times, God made sheep before man. He would have stopped there if that is what he wanted.
God wanted intelligent company to spend eternity with. It can get very boring.
God made Angels , Quasars and Dinosaurs " first " ...

God is not looking for excitement ..

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#233243 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give an example of a physical infinite.
..how a boot ' 3.14 '... Pi..?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233244 Jul 21, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, I tried to swallow your nonsense without choking, but couldn't.
You'd best go back to infinity and leave the Constitution to the big boys.
Well, then, let's go to the "big boys".

The U.S. Supreme Court, declaring anti-miscegenation unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia said Virginia's law was:

"designed to maintain White supremacy".

That doesn't sound like equality.

Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were state laws and did not apply to all races equally. Some states defined the crime as marriage between persons of African descent and persons of non-African descent. Some states banned marriage between persons of African descent and Native Americans, other states did not include Native Americans. Maryland banned marriage between blacks and Filipinos and Malaysians. Other states banned actions based on cohabitation, others based on sexual relations.

Doesn't seem like that treats all persons equally. Prohibition of same-sex marriage defines marriage the same for all persons.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233245 Jul 21, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..how a boot ' 3.14 '... Pi..?
Pi is not a physical phenomenon. It is a mathematical concept expressing a mathematical relation between two mathematical values. Infinity is useful in mathematics.

Show an example of a physical infinite.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#233246 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then, let's go to the "big boys".
The U.S. Supreme Court, declaring anti-miscegenation unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia said Virginia's law was:
"designed to maintain White supremacy".
That doesn't sound like equality.
Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were state laws and did not apply to all races equally. Some states defined the crime as marriage between persons of African descent and persons of non-African descent. Some states banned marriage between persons of African descent and Native Americans, other states did not include Native Americans. Maryland banned marriage between blacks and Filipinos and Malaysians. Other states banned actions based on cohabitation, others based on sexual relations.
Doesn't seem like that treats all persons equally. Prohibition of same-sex marriage defines marriage the same for all persons.
It's designed to maintain heterosexual supremacy.

And to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

But have it your way if you must.

There's even a Flat Earth Society for the likes of you, who refuse to learn and grow.

No offense--we can still be friends.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#233247 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinite sums.
I love that.
Bwhaahahahahahahahahhaahahahha ha...
When 500 billion is no closer to an infinite sum than "1", how many things did you add to get the infinite sum?
A billion billion? No, that's also no closer to an infinite sum than "1".
How 'bout a trillion trillion? No, that's also no closer to an infinite sum than "1".
I'm so intrigued by your infinite sums. If you had a trillion calculators all automatically adding sums, starting with the Big Bang, continuing until the present, how much closer to an "infinite sum" would you be now than when you started at "1"??
Answer: No closer
If a particle took off at a billion times the speed of light, and it's speed doubled every second since the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, how much closer would the particle be to traveling an infinite sum of distance than at the instant of the Big Bang?
Answer: No closer
Infinite sums. That's hilarious!
Are a buffoon or a baboon?
An infinite sum is a series of values that never reaches capacity or conclusion.

indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infini...

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#233248 Jul 21, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not remotely her argument.
But it is equally stupid.
Congratulations.
That is exactly her argument, you're not even capable of thinking on her level apparently.
Stick to the constitution, you have no idea wtf you're talking about here.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min scientia potentia... 37,786
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 8 min Cousin of Pipek 44,296
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 21 min Cousin of Pipek 618,341
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 25 min Paul is dead 4,055
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 27 min Phooey 641,191
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 55 min ffj 969,903
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Anna 104,608
More from around the web