Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 238971 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.

Richardfs

Ryde, Australia

#233328 Jul 22, 2014
By seeing the judgecons I see the godbots are reading the posts and have neither the guts nor the brains to respond.
Richardfs

Ryde, Australia

#233329 Jul 22, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that you are not discussing a subject with someone who cares about the subject. He only cares to keep you on the hook. It seems to me that it would be a whole lot funner to argue with someone that really cared able the subject.
But if you are having fun; don't let me be a wet blanket.
I am fairly certain that Dave and Butt Head have an ipod with the words 'breath in breath out' on a continuous loop.
Patrick

United States

#233330 Jul 22, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
What the fcuk this has to do with, "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" I have no idea!
Spam anyone?
"A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip landed near Israel's main airport on Tuesday, wounding one Israeli ..."

Life and death is a major issue in theology!

Plus you have been arguing regarding the existence of God without a conclusion on which the group can agree?
Word

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233331 Jul 22, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that you are not discussing a subject with someone who cares about the subject. He only cares to keep you on the hook. It seems to me that it would be a whole lot funner to argue with someone that really cared able the subject.
But if you are having fun; don't let me be a wet blanket.
it doesn't matter, I could argue with Buck about how fast he will fall , when he faces me. It's the perpetual check he gets and in the end. It's checkmate, he loses every time.He thinks himself the rational theist , so either he lies to himself, or he expects us to believe his lies. But the news of the day is...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#233332 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>He thinks himself the rational theist , so either he lies to himself, or he expects us to believe his lies.
That's where you lose me. He and his puppet friends don't think they are anything. They know that when you say the sky is blue, they will say that it is green. They know it is blue, but they get a trill out of getting you to argue with them.

For me, there just is no fun in having a discussion with someone like that. You cannot prove them wrong because they know they are.

Enjoy!

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#233333 Jul 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You maybe the stupidest person I ever even heard of.
Buck is far from stupid, but he is extremely stubborn and inflexible. This combined with an ego that prevents him from seriously considering the possibility that others have anything to teach him both limits and masks his intelligence.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233334 Jul 22, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Buck is far from stupid, but he is extremely stubborn and inflexible. This combined with an ego that prevents him from seriously considering the possibility that others have anything to teach him both limits and masks his intelligence.
Agreed, but don't spread it around to much..lol

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233335 Jul 22, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where you lose me. He and his puppet friends don't think they are anything. They know that when you say the sky is blue, they will say that it is green. They know it is blue, but they get a trill out of getting you to argue with them.
For me, there just is no fun in having a discussion with someone like that. You cannot prove them wrong because they know they are.
Enjoy!

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233336 Jul 22, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
Let us recount the bidding.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You see I have nothing to explain. You have already been told what:-
e=mc^2
means.
You made the statement:-
"Heat is derived from resistance to motion."
which does not explain:-
1. e=mc^2
2. PV=NRT
3. Nor any exothermic reaction.
We all know you can't because your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn any science whatsoever has been demonstrated repeatedly by your own posts.
Your basic problem is that you believe totally in the bibull hence anything that contradicts it is wrong.
What you may or may not believe is entirely your concern.
However if you wish the post your BS here then don't be surprised when those of us with considerably more education and understanding of the sciences, laugh at you and hammer you into the deck like a tent peg.
Amusing.

Make an attempt to explain it, even if you you are afraid to try. Give us something to calibrate you by. So far you haven't risen above the BS level.
Richardfs

Ryde, Australia

#233337 Jul 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing.
Make an attempt to explain it, even if you you are afraid to try. Give us something to calibrate you by. So far you haven't risen above the BS level.
Why? You are the one who comes here and makes statements which are totally ridiculous and when challenged expect us to educate you. When people do try you just ignore the information and carry on in the same old ignorance.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of even the simplest high school science.

But we don't expect anything more from you. You are a godbot and as such have the standard godbot mentality. That is to say you make some outlandish statement about science or the bibull and expect us to prove you wrong.

In reality the person who makes the claim has to demonstrate evidence of their claim.

For example:-
If I were to say the Sun moves around the Earth then it is up to me to supply the data to back up my statement.

You made the statement:-
"Heat is derived from resistance to motion. It can only be transferred via packets of matter."

So I asked:-
"How do you explain:-
e=mc^2 "

Now having found yourself back into a corner you expect me to give you a free lesson in simple Physics.

However I know full well that if I do you will only ignore my post and then carry on with the same old drivel.

It is not for me to educate you only you can that, but from your past performance on this thread I would suggest you are incapable of learning.
Richardfs

Ryde, Australia

#233338 Jul 22, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing.
Make an attempt to explain it, even if you you are afraid to try. Give us something to calibrate you by. So far you haven't risen above the BS level.
BTW It is pretty obvious you are the one using the judgecons and giving yourself a pat on the back.

Have you got any idea how pathetic it makes you look.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233339 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We can only measure in small to the Planck , but it was smaller than this. We in this reality, cannot measure smaller than this, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a period before measurable. We just can't measure it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch
Immeasurable does not mean infinite.

You are taking one qualtiy of "infinite" and making that the entire concept.

Your entire understanding of the concept is wrong.

I have proven this multiple times.

Your errors of logic are even worse. You claim "infinite distance" for the expansion of the universe. Then when shown how reaching infinity by addition is impossible, you resort to "infinite from the beginning". But your "infinite" in this case is "infinitely small", which does not help your dilemma of the impossible "infinitely large". It compounds the contradiction.

You plod along stupidly and assert it as intellectual superiority.

I can't help you. But I'm happy to ridicule you.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233340 Jul 23, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? You are the one who comes here and makes statements which are totally ridiculous and when challenged expect us to educate you. When people do try you just ignore the information and carry on in the same old ignorance.
You have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of even the simplest high school science.
But we don't expect anything more from you. You are a godbot and as such have the standard godbot mentality. That is to say you make some outlandish statement about science or the bibull and expect us to prove you wrong.
In reality the person who makes the claim has to demonstrate evidence of their claim.
For example:-
If I were to say the Sun moves around the Earth then it is up to me to supply the data to back up my statement.
You made the statement:-
"Heat is derived from resistance to motion. It can only be transferred via packets of matter."
So I asked:-
"How do you explain:-
e=mc^2 "
Now having found yourself back into a corner you expect me to give you a free lesson in simple Physics.
However I know full well that if I do you will only ignore my post and then carry on with the same old drivel.
It is not for me to educate you only you can that, but from your past performance on this thread I would suggest you are incapable of learning.
There are updates for your model of clone. You need them.

I'm using a smartphone. I can't even see the icons.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233341 Jul 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Buck is far from stupid, but he is extremely stubborn and inflexible. This combined with an ego that prevents him from seriously considering the possibility that others have anything to teach him both limits and masks his intelligence.
Yes, I am stubborn in my resistance to popular nonsense.

When someone latches on to an abstraction like "infinity", the utility of which is nothing but a mathematical tool for expression of theoretical limits, and tries to make it a physical phenomenon, they have nothing to teach me.

Every intelligent person on this thread knows I am correct and Aura is wrong. I suspect even he knows it, and is too stubborn (there's that word) to admit it.

My quest is not one of ego. My quest is to find someone smarter than me on the planet so as to conquer my ego.

So far, no luck around here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233342 Jul 23, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

That's where you lose me. He and his puppet friends...

!
You are all my puppets.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233343 Jul 23, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We can only measure in small to the Planck , but it was smaller than this. We in this reality, cannot measure smaller than this, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a period before measurable. We just can't measure it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch
You are admitting the universe began finite in extent.(smaller than the Planck)

But your solution to the impossibility of achieving infinite expansion was that it began infinite in extent.

Again, please provide the average rate of expansion "A" that would satisfy your assertion of expanding from "less than the Planck" to infinite distance in an elapsed time of 13.8 billion years.

A x 13.8 billion = Infinity

Plug in the number for us.

That's all you have to do, but what you must do, to make your case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233344 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

When someone latches on to an abstraction like "infinity", the utility of which is nothing but a mathematical tool for expression of theoretical limits, and tries to make it a physical phenomenon, they have nothing to teach me.
To be more precise, even within the domain of mathematics, infinities can only exist because they are symbolically represented.

It is never actually represented. No one has ever actually represented an infinite set. It is only "referred", never fully represented. If sets were required to be fully represented then mathematics could not operate with actual infinities; it could only operate on potentially infinite sets which always have finite representations (e.g.{1,2,3}) but which are unlimited in their length. Such sets are arbitrarily large but always have a definite finite size.

Physical phenomena disallows actual infinity. Physical characteristics like quantity or distance coexist with what actually exists and represents it. If it exists, it can be represented. If it exceeds, in degree, our ability to observe or measure, it may be arbitrarily large or arbitrarily small, but it cannot be non-representational, but expressed as representational. It cannot be infinite.

It is contradictory to simulate a representation of the universe with features that cannot be represented. It is to offer a computational foundation which is not computational.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233345 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am stubborn in my resistance to popular nonsense.
When someone latches on to an abstraction like "infinity", the utility of which is nothing but a mathematical tool for expression of theoretical limits, and tries to make it a physical phenomenon, they have nothing to teach me.
Every intelligent person on this thread knows I am correct and Aura is wrong. I suspect even he knows it, and is too stubborn (there's that word) to admit it.
My quest is not one of ego. My quest is to find someone smarter than me on the planet so as to conquer my ego.
So far, no luck around here.
Even a Topix atheist idiot thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Endemic to the species and survival.

But you know that.

You should also know there are a lot of women out there who can aid you in conquering your ego. Whether you wanted them to or not.

As far as smart goes, clubs and size can work at close range to exercise will. Real smartness knows how to pull levers at a distance. But you know that, too.

WTF are you doing up so early in the morning?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233346 Jul 23, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a Topix atheist idiot thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Endemic to the species and survival.
But you know that.
You should also know there are a lot of women out there who can aid you in conquering your ego. Whether you wanted them to or not.
As far as smart goes, clubs and size can work at close range to exercise will. Real smartness knows how to pull levers at a distance. But you know that, too.
WTF are you doing up so early in the morning?
I don't sleep. Seems a waste of time.

I get that about women conquering our ego.

Growing up with a dad whose a professional fighter can do it too.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#233347 Jul 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Immeasurable does not mean infinite.
You are taking one qualtiy of "infinite" and making that the entire concept.
Your entire understanding of the concept is wrong.
I have proven this multiple times.
Your errors of logic are even worse. You claim "infinite distance" for the expansion of the universe. Then when shown how reaching infinity by addition is impossible, you resort to "infinite from the beginning". But your "infinite" in this case is "infinitely small", which does not help your dilemma of the impossible "infinitely large". It compounds the contradiction.
You plod along stupidly and assert it as intellectual superiority.
I can't help you. But I'm happy to ridicule you.
Actually you think everything is quantifiable, this is your "belief" , but it isn't so.
My claim of infinite distance is dependent on traveling the distance, which is impossible because it becomes infinite, this is a mathematical certainty.
The universe itself maybe infinite, you are using your "belief" that everything is quantifiable
to support this "belief". When we talk about infinitesimals you are clearly misunderstanding the meaning.

Define it Buck, we have definitions for a reason, I don't make the sht up. Nor do I assume
everything is quantifiable.

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

After you understand what an infinitesimal is, what us the opposite of one?

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Insults Are Easier 837,057
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min monkeyofstick 176,764
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 9 min truthandcommonsense 4,086
how do shoutouts on snapchat work? 18 min stargate6 1
The unusual sex life of the vampire squid 23 min monkeyofstick 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 37 min hojo 589,393
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 38 min RiccardoFire 70,196
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Freebird USA 271,265
More from around the web