Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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: May 10

Location hidden

#234081 Aug 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If it didn't exist, what you type into here would be totally useless... well maybe it's that.. anyway, goofus.
It will exist when it occurs.

Something does not exist before it occurs.

I'm on solid ground here.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#234082 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't my assertion that Hawking thinks black holes do not exist.
It is his.
My first clue was when Hawking said, "Black holes do not exist".
Your contradiction remains....you accept the existence of a never-observed phenomenon by deducing it from effects.
On the other alleged phenomenon, "god", you ask for it to be shown to you. You did not ask for evidence - you asked to see it.
You want two different standards.
On the subject of black holes, you are in disagreement not only with Hawking, but other physicists, some of which not only say black holes DO NOT exist, but that they CANNOT EXIST.
And at the least, your deductions you accepted from the evidence are wrong, as Hawking and others maintain a DIFFERENT deduction.
You lose again. Welcome to Buck School. Have a seat in the back next to the Christian Stalin, who put "Atheism" in the name of his cabinet agencies.
Bwahahahahahahahaahahahahahhaa a...
Your double standard shows on that one too - you reject deduction from evidence when you don't like the deduction, but accept it when you like the deduction.
Enjoy your dishonesty-as-science. We know you will lie as needed.
It was you who misrepresented and cherry picked what Hawking wrote – I have provided the entire passage (in context) as well as a link to the document as first hand evidence (as opposed to second hand hearsay as you provided). You are welcome to embarrass yourself further by lying in public but it will make no difference to FACT

I cannot see light yet I know light exists – so yet another buckism is irrelevant

I cannot see gravity yet I know gravity exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant

I cannot see my appendix yet I know my apendix exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant

I cannot see your stupidity yeat I know you are stupid - so yet another buckism is irrelevant

How can I be in disagreement with science when I quote science and provide links to their words for your edification? It is you who cherry picks and misrepresents.

It really does not matter how you delude yourself by taking the word of second hand obfuscations that suite your sensibilities, the facts (F A C T S) prove you wrong.

Enjoy you deceptions and lies, you know it’s all you have

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234083 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
It was you who misrepresented and cherry picked what Hawking wrote – I have provided the entire passage (in context) as well as a link to the document as first hand evidence (as opposed to second hand hearsay as you provided). You are welcome to embarrass yourself further by lying in public but it will make no difference to FACT
I cannot see light yet I know light exists – so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see gravity yet I know gravity exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see my appendix yet I know my apendix exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see your stupidity yeat I know you are stupid - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
How can I be in disagreement with science when I quote science and provide links to their words for your edification? It is you who cherry picks and misrepresents.
It really does not matter how you delude yourself by taking the word of second hand obfuscations that suite your sensibilities, the facts (F A C T S) prove you wrong.
Enjoy you deceptions and lies, you know it’s all you have
You do not know black holes exist.

But you believe they do. You believe it because an authority told you to believe it.

The authority who told you also does not know black holes exist.

They deduced it. It is inferred from certain observations.

On the one hand, you accept an inference of something you do not know exists, and nobody knows exists.

In the other case, you demand direct observation.

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

By the way, black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe.

You may need to re-examine your faith.

Pray and rub some beads.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#234084 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not know black holes exist.
But you believe they do. You believe it because an authority told you to believe it.
The authority who told you also does not know black holes exist.
They deduced it. It is inferred from certain observations.
On the one hand, you accept an inference of something you do not know exists, and nobody knows exists.
In the other case, you demand direct observation.
Double standard. Hypocrisy.
By the way, black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe.
You may need to re-examine your faith.
Pray and rub some beads.
I believe they exist because there is evidence that they exist. It really does not matter how you try to use weasel words to obfuscate that evidence

On the one hand I know they exist because their existence is a requirement for universal and galactic structure, because suns close to them are dramatically affected in their movement and that light is bent by their proximity, that gas clouds alter speed while passing such a mass or are swallowed by them and that x ray emissions are millions of times stronger animating from a black hole.

I do not demand direct observation of god or gods, I demand evidence – any validated/falsifiable evidence will do, and what are you completely short of?- Evidence. Why do you have difficulty understanding the concept when it applies to gods but are obtuse to the point of lies when it comes to black holes?

By the way – WFT have you invented now? Your statement fascinated me so I searched google and google scholar fir the term ‘black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe’ and found nothing... NOTHING to confirm your statement.

Once again your misunderstanding, misrepresentation and specious interpretation of science proves you are a total lunatic.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234085 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It will exist when it occurs.
Something does not exist before it occurs.
I'm on solid ground here.
You have no concept of general relativity, where space/time and acceleration
change the clock rates for the traveler.
Time is an illusion , time does nit exist for light, and when space is expanding faster than light
, and space inextricably linked to time, future time has already occurred. Our being cocooned to speeds below c, we just haven't observed it yet.
Time has no meaning at all for the universe., only to us humans does time exist, in your precious world of causality.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234086 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
It was you who misrepresented and cherry picked what Hawking wrote – I have provided the entire passage (in context) as well as a link to the document as first hand evidence (as opposed to second hand hearsay as you provided). You are welcome to embarrass yourself further by lying in public but it will make no difference to FACT
I cannot see light yet I know light exists – so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see gravity yet I know gravity exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see my appendix yet I know my apendix exists - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
I cannot see your stupidity yeat I know you are stupid - so yet another buckism is irrelevant
How can I be in disagreement with science when I quote science and provide links to their words for your edification? It is you who cherry picks and misrepresents.
It really does not matter how you delude yourself by taking the word of second hand obfuscations that suite your sensibilities, the facts (F A C T S) prove you wrong.
Enjoy you deceptions and lies, you know it’s all you have
He doesn't think anything Hawking says correct, he has called him a buffoon, an idiot and dumfuss. He is only parroting him now because he agrees with him.
Hawking if a pancake flipper though, he has flip flopped on many things ...especially.. black holes, andf especially since he lost the 10 war on black holes with Susskind over the BH information paradox. That is exactly when he came back and stated they don't exist.

The implications Hawking had opened led to the Susskind-Hawking battle, where Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft publicly 'declared war' on Hawking's solution,.

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

But as usual, Buck doesn't know anything that doesn't flick Buck's Bic. Total christard creationist BSing Buckism...every damn day.
He comes the Boy Wonder now to back up Buckman ... Watch....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234087 Aug 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

Time has no meaning at all for the universe., only to us humans does time exist, in your precious world of causality.
Stupid ass, you are the one who has argued for 2 days that not only does time have meaning in the universe, but that FUTURE time also does.

It had so much meaning, you stupidly asked me to quantify it.

Go play with something, you stupid fuckstick.

You are lost and incapable of learning.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234088 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not know black holes exist.
But you believe they do. You believe it because an authority told you to believe it.
The authority who told you also does not know black holes exist.
They deduced it. It is inferred from certain observations.
On the one hand, you accept an inference of something you do not know exists, and nobody knows exists.
In the other case, you demand direct observation.
Double standard. Hypocrisy.
By the way, black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe.
You may need to re-examine your faith.
Pray and rub some beads.
Gee goofus, everything we know ...we know because of DrumRoll.......... It is inferred from certain observations. GASP!

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234089 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid ass, you are the one who has argued for 2 days that not only does time have meaning in the universe, but that FUTURE time also does.
It had so much meaning, you stupidly asked me to quantify it.
Go play with something, you stupid fuckstick.
You are lost and incapable of learning.
Time has meaning to us goofy, now take your finger out your nose Buck.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234090 Aug 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He doesn't think anything Hawking says correct, he has called him a buffoon, an idiot and dumfuss. He is only parroting him now because he agrees with him.
Hawking if a pancake flipper though, he has flip flopped on many things ...especially.. black holes, andf especially since he lost the 10 war on black holes with Susskind over the BH information paradox. That is exactly when he came back and stated they don't exist.
The implications Hawking had opened led to the Susskind-Hawking battle, where Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft publicly 'declared war' on Hawking's solution,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_infor...
But as usual, Buck doesn't know anything that doesn't flick Buck's Bic. Total christard creationist BSing Buckism...every damn day.
He comes the Boy Wonder now to back up Buckman ... Watch....
You are saying what I said - Hawking said black holes do not exist.

Christine is saying that's wrong.

So,....

I agree with you on Hawking...

Christine disagrees with you on Hawking...

And you agree with her.

...you two are idiots.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234091 Aug 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Gee goofus, everything we know ...we know because of DrumRoll.......... It is inferred from certain observations. GASP!
That is wrong.

I could explain why, but that would suggest I think you are intelligent enough to understand.

I do not.

So I don't want to give the false impression.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234092 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe they exist because there is evidence that they exist. It really does not matter how you try to use weasel words to obfuscate that evidence
On the one hand I know they exist because their existence is a requirement for universal and galactic structure, because suns close to them are dramatically affected in their movement and that light is bent by their proximity, that gas clouds alter speed while passing such a mass or are swallowed by them and that x ray emissions are millions of times stronger animating from a black hole.
I do not demand direct observation of god or gods, I demand evidence – any validated/falsifiable evidence will do, and what are you completely short of?- Evidence. Why do you have difficulty understanding the concept when it applies to gods but are obtuse to the point of lies when it comes to black holes?
By the way – WFT have you invented now? Your statement fascinated me so I searched google and google scholar fir the term ‘black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe’ and found nothing... NOTHING to confirm your statement.
Once again your misunderstanding, misrepresentation and specious interpretation of science proves you are a total lunatic.
Now you KNOW they exist!

Wow!

You are lying.

You are also lying about your response to allegations of a god. You did not demand evidence, you demanded to have one shown to you.

Your words were: "show me a god"

By the way, black holes are not a requirement for galactic and universal structure.

You are an idiot.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234093 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are saying what I said - Hawking said black holes do not exist.
Christine is saying that's wrong.
So,....
I agree with you on Hawking...
Christine disagrees with you on Hawking...
And you agree with her.
...you two are idiots.
Hawking is almost a big an idiot as you, the only difference is he is 400 times smarter , but no less fruity.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#234094 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

So I don't want to give the false impression.
What that you posses a brain?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234095 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe they exist because there is evidence that they exist. It really does not matter how you try to use weasel words to obfuscate that evidence
On the one hand I know they exist because their existence is a requirement for universal and galactic structure, because suns close to them are dramatically affected in their movement and that light is bent by their proximity, that gas clouds alter speed while passing such a mass or are swallowed by them and that x ray emissions are millions of times stronger animating from a black hole.
I do not demand direct observation of god or gods, I demand evidence – any validated/falsifiable evidence will do, and what are you completely short of?- Evidence. Why do you have difficulty understanding the concept when it applies to gods but are obtuse to the point of lies when it comes to black holes?
By the way – WFT have you invented now? Your statement fascinated me so I searched google and google scholar fir the term ‘black holes cannot exist in a Big Bang universe’ and found nothing... NOTHING to confirm your statement.
Once again your misunderstanding, misrepresentation and specious interpretation of science proves you are a total lunatic.
"On the one hand I know they exist because their existence is a requirement for universal and galactic structure,"

So, they have to exist. It just has to be so.

This is the same reasoning atheists use to assert abiogenesis...

Life is here, so it had to happen.

The name for this formal fallacy is "Argument from Final Consequences"

Combining two formal fallacies, you have also "Argument from Authority".

Doubling down on fallacy - that's you Chrissy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234096 Aug 1, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Hawking is almost a big an idiot as you, the only difference is he is 400 times smarter , but no less fruity.
I'm way smarter than Hawking.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#234097 Aug 1, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the politicians and the government is the QUALITY of the voters.
Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen.
CONSERATIVE/REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
1. The inerrant bible trumps the constitution
2. Evolution and Global warming are a hoax
3. College students and those seeking education are snobs
4. Gay Americans are an abomination
5. Poor people deserve to be poor
6. Union workers are socialists
7. The unemployed are lazy parasites unwilling to work
8. 50% of Latinos are illegal until proven otherwise
9. Women using birth control are sluts
10. Corporations are people
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He
has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would
suffice."
~ Albert Einstein
i couldn't agree with Al more on this!

so why do you fascist anticristers subject yourselves to the tyranny of political correctness just cuz it's the popular thing to do?

get a spine and break ranks immediately, you coward!

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#234098 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You just proved you are crap in bed and you don't even realise it. The terms ‘all mouth and no trousers’– as well as one closer to your heart (and dubyas)‘all hat and no cattle’
I do know why I do, I dislike you because you are an obnoxious, chauvinist godbot
hhhiiiiiiii Christiiiinnne! i can't be mad at you anymore, cuz we might be get'n it on!;-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#234099 Aug 1, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't my assertion that Hawking thinks black holes do not exist.
It is his.
My first clue was when Hawking said, "Black holes do not exist".
Your contradiction remains....you accept the existence of a never-observed phenomenon by deducing it from effects.
On the other alleged phenomenon, "god", you ask for it to be shown to you. You did not ask for evidence - you asked to see it.
You want two different standards.
On the subject of black holes, you are in disagreement not only with Hawking, but other physicists, some of which not only say black holes DO NOT exist, but that they CANNOT EXIST.
And at the least, your deductions you accepted from the evidence are wrong, as Hawking and others maintain a DIFFERENT deduction.
You lose again. Welcome to Buck School. Have a seat in the back next to the Christian Stalin, who put "Atheism" in the name of his cabinet agencies.
Bwahahahahahahahaahahahahahhaa a...
Your double standard shows on that one too - you reject deduction from evidence when you don't like the deduction, but accept it when you like the deduction.
Enjoy your dishonesty-as-science. We know you will lie as needed.
hawking got a black hole where his brain used to be when he started making assumptions about God, a subject he can't know anymore about through his lil physical brain than an infant can

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#234100 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You just proved you are crap in bed and you don't even realise it. The terms ‘all mouth and no trousers’– as well as one closer to your heart (and dubyas)‘all hat and no cattle’
I do know why I do, I dislike you because you are an obnoxious, chauvinist godbot
BTW - may i call you Chris, Chrissy or My new favorite cyber squeeze?:-)

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 5 min bad bob 17,664
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 983,286
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr kent 683,952
Derrick Rose coming to Cavaliers REAL Class Act... 2 hr Doctor REALITY 3
MESSAGE 4 Kyrie Irving of the Cleveland Cavaliers 2 hr George Justapose 4
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr Jake999 619,713
Testing. 7 hr ECHO ECHo ECho Ec... 2
More from around the web