Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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

#156501 Feb 25, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
RR you mentioned Albert?
Yes, of course. The other poster asked what truths Christians know absolutely.

E=MC2 is one of them.

His religious views or non-views are irrelevant to said question.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#156502 Feb 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
The obvious problem with your analogy is that love, sex, and beer all exist.
Belief in a deity is just projection, pure and simple. Every deity reflects the values of the believer, every single time. Pretty obvious.
Because God has never seemed to answer your prayers, or you can't find His Facebook page, does not mean that your assumption that He doesn't exist is correct.

You say the deity reflects the values of the believer, but you didn't acknowledge that love also reflects the values of the one in love. You know that what one perso find to be love, another might find to be disgust...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156503 Feb 25, 2013
Reason
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"See humanity created all gods. They did this as a comfort measure for when they were alone, or dying, or awestruck."
So, what are you going to use when your time comes for those?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156504 Feb 25, 2013
Truth is observable. Sorry again you must demonstrate there is a god before you can even begin to assign characteristics and properties to him.

As I said before when something actually exists you can demonstrate it, you don't need to play these silly word games and mental gymnastics.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is self attesting, that is obvious.
Do you disagree with that?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156505 Feb 25, 2013
Again reject there is no proof for god. How many times does this need to be explained to you. I know you hate the burden of proof but your argument is there is a god so either you can demonstrate proof for your argument or you surrender.

In fact you should rejoice at showing proof for your beloved god yes? Instead you throw temper tantrums like a petulant child when asked to demonstrate he exists.

Actually you need to turn on the news because is secular people have fought and removed/reduced religious practices and your fictional god from being blasted in the public square :)

So I say you have no proof or your god and you have confirmed I am indeed correct.

See that wasn't so difficult was it reject?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the assertion that there is no god. That burden of proof is on you.
<quoted text>
NO. We will continue to pray in court, swear to God under oath, swear to God in our military oath, keep the 10 Commandments posted in public places, encourage our kids to pray in school, put up religious billboards, place nativity scenes everywhere at Christmas, etc.
And there's NOTHING you can do about it except whine.
<quoted text>
That burden of proof is on you, too.
Get ta googlin'

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156506 Feb 25, 2013
If he had second thoughts he must not be perfect and absolute after all.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth...
...then man.
....then you.
...Then He had second thoughts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156507 Feb 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That only means there is evidence of red shifts, cosmic background radiation & light in the universe, not the assumption called the Big Bang ( formerly steady state) lol
The Big Bang and the Steady State models are not the same. In fact, the SS was the primary alternative to the BB until the background radiation was detected. And yes, since the BB theory predicts ALL of those phenomena and no alternative has been found that also does so, they *are* evidence of the BB.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156508 Feb 25, 2013
And again you show you are unable to answer questions. Again you cannot assign properties to your god until you donate ate there is a god.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I could of course take the time to deal with these internet cut and paste anti-theist arguments.
Or I could just ask you to account for Absolute Truth...
Your inability to do so, will reveal the truth of Gods existance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156509 Feb 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course. The other poster asked what truths Christians know absolutely.
E=MC2 is one of them.
His religious views or non-views are irrelevant to said question.
Except, of course, E=mc^2 is NOT absolutely true. It is only true for massive particles at rest. The general version is E^2=m^2c^4 +p^2 c^2. where p is the momentum. This version even applies to light (photons), which your version does not.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#156510 Feb 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course. The other poster asked what truths Christians know absolutely.
E=MC2 is one of them.
His religious views or non-views are irrelevant to said question.
“It is a heretic that makes the fire, not she which burns in it.”~Shakespeare

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156511 Feb 25, 2013
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/smallbusiness...

Who profits from sin?

The government.

They have no use for getting rid of religion. Give it up, Topix atheists.

“What?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#156512 Feb 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the Birkeland currents imagery.
Remember, the only drive in theater for a long ways around was the night sky until recently. That was what people watched. You can't hardly see it anymore.
Refer to my post about headlights and egos.
Your statement sounded like something a fanatic fundie would say.
Funny that, eh?
What's a drive in theater?

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156513 Feb 25, 2013
http://scitechdaily.com/scientists-develop-a-...

I don't see whay Topix atheists couldn't be used for the next stage.

I posted this to point out something. How they refer to proteins and calcium interacting. Most people then think of chemicals just making something happen. They are thingies that do things. What I have been trying to point out is they are actually very complex EM transfers. The chemicals don't do a thing, it is the charge potentials within that do the things. It's like this ALL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. This is very complex stuff.

The odds against abiogenesis are pretty high.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#156514 Feb 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Nobody can prove scientifically that emotions exist or why they exist or why we feel them.
Neuroscientists are hard at work trying to figure it out, Topix atheists aren't.
Explain. We have emotions, therefore they exist.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156515 Feb 25, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a drive in theater?
It was a big screen outdoors where you parked in a lot to view the movie, get bit by mosquitoes, have a hassle with the speaker box, make out with a girlfriend, or watch others doing that, get bit by mosquitoes, pay outrageous amounts for refreshments, listen to squalling kids, get bit by mosquitoes, then go through the big merging to the exit after the movie, and the mosquitoes have drained you of blood.

They were actually a lot of fun.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156516 Feb 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a big screen outdoors where you parked in a lot to view the movie, get bit by mosquitoes, have a hassle with the speaker box, make out with a girlfriend, or watch others doing that, get bit by mosquitoes, pay outrageous amounts for refreshments, listen to squalling kids, get bit by mosquitoes, then go through the big merging to the exit after the movie, and the mosquitoes have drained you of blood.
They were actually a lot of fun.
http://driveintheater.com/

The mosquitoes were free.

Can't remember the name of it, but there was a slot machine I played I loved that was based on the old drive-in concessions stands when you hit winning combos or bonus points. Really camped up woman of the times at the register. Ah, I think it was The Creature From the Black Lagoon.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156517 Feb 25, 2013

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#156518 Feb 25, 2013
http://driveintheater.com/history/1950.htm

Some drive ins had spots for 3000 cars. I didn't know they got that big.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156519 Feb 25, 2013
Gramps must have seen a drive in picture online and is rambling nonstop about them.

Them young uns have those iPhones these days and can instantly watch a movie instead of sitting in the rain and getting bitten by insects! What's the world coming to?!!

Brain damaged elderly people can be funny.:)
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a big screen outdoors where you parked in a lot to view the movie, get bit by mosquitoes, have a hassle with the speaker box, make out with a girlfriend, or watch others doing that, get bit by mosquitoes, pay outrageous amounts for refreshments, listen to squalling kids, get bit by mosquitoes, then go through the big merging to the exit after the movie, and the mosquitoes have drained you of blood.
They were actually a lot of fun.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#156520 Feb 25, 2013
Dave that is for Alzheimer's! No wonder you are keeping tabs on that as you are descending into Ronald Reagan 1990 Alzheimer's territory. You should volunteer your brain damage needs all the help it can get.
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://scitechdaily.com/scient ists-develop-a-tool-for-readin g-the-minds-of-mice-in-real-ti me/
I don't see whay Topix atheists couldn't be used for the next stage.
I posted this to point out something. How they refer to proteins and calcium interacting. Most people then think of chemicals just making something happen. They are thingies that do things. What I have been trying to point out is they are actually very complex EM transfers. The chemicals don't do a thing, it is the charge potentials within that do the things. It's like this ALL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. This is very complex stuff.
The odds against abiogenesis are pretty high.

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) 3 min Agent Orange 119,208
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Vlad 2,630
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 hr Trump Worshiper 679,123
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 hr earthly science f... 445,839
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 7 hr Holy Jehowa Witness 46,214
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 7 hr Trumps worshiper 33,216
Melania Trump's hair shines in Saudi sun 7 hr Trumps worshiper 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) Thu UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 982,141
More from around the web