Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157941 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar.
The rudimentary concept is proven. What exists in scientific literature has at least 9 definitions, from the rudimentary to the more tenuous claims.
By saying ToE is proven, you are attempting to sweep in the tenous and unproven claims with something as simple as antibiotic resistance - which, by the way, is not even evolution.
Why are atheists such liars?
Yeah! Why?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157942 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Albatross.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the preeminent reference tool for philosophy:
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."
Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157943 Mar 3, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you're not understanding this - abiogenesis is the necessary prediction of our sciences, including but not limited to evolutionary theory.
(I wrote the word "necessary" on purpose, so that you could nitpick it)
However, abiogenesis doesn't form the basis for any of our sciences, for multiple reasons:
1. It's not been demonstrated
2. The processes, if any, are not fully understood.
That's simply not enough to form a foundation for contemporary theories of science. Hence, our theories predict abiogenesis and not the other way around.
<quoted text>
We'd have to rethink our sciences to include how abiogenesis is not true. If it turns out there's some kind of divinity/non-material agent involved, every framework theory would need to be fully remade.
<quoted text>
You mean "unpredictable variation," but "random" will suffice for shorthand.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily - it would depend on how the external agent designed life. Perhaps it chose "random" variation and evolution to do its creating.
<quoted text>
I don't think you could give up any assumption w/out knowing what the designer wanted, how the designer designed. Unless you have some insight into "it," we really wouldn't be able to make any claim - any claim. We would have great difficulties narrowing down causes for any phenomena.
<quoted text>
Sorry, you haven't convinced me. How does evolution require abiogenesis?
It's quite clear how it predicts it - no creators involved in any of our sciences.
You admitted it is "necessary".

I agree - abiogenesis is necessary for current Darwinist theory. I worded it as "inextricably linked".

What does "necessary" mean to you? I know what it means to most people.

The nitpicking I'm engaging in, whether abiogenesis started it all or not, is why people doing science cannot be honest. Their need to feign purity compels them to pretend they don't have "necessary" assumptions intertwined in their theories.

As such, we can safely say that current evolutionary theory MIGHT NOT BE TRUE, or it might be true. Given this, we can therefore say with iron-solid confidence - it is not proven.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157944 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Albatross.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the preeminent reference tool for philosophy:
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."
You tell 'em! They have so much faith, it is dripping out their ears!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157945 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a "physical" event, but not a physical thing. Same with all the other "particles". They can't see them, either.
It is way more massive than a proton or neutron. Should have been a lot easier to find if it existed.
Particles are swirls of "energy" flow. Observing apparatus uses swirling "energy" flows to observe. To detect there has to be something to "bounce" off of, or means to measure the effect of the observing apparatus' applied energy has on something else as it gets channeled through the maze. Such as if the swirl falls into line with a swirl in the observed. That increase has to affect something else that can then be read. They do something like that with their deductions determining the other particles, and the Higgs's itself. The splattering technique.
They are missing the swirl patterns. Actually they are observing the effects, but because they can't see the patterns, they call it a particle. That is where you get the quarks and all these other things. It is really just flows bumping around each other and in loops.
There ain't a damned solid particle to be had. That is why they have these charge fields and sophistric bullshit.
I explained the basic process last night.
Flows create polarities because of direction of motion and direction of spin. Motion of space is the only real "force". Particles are just markers of where they collide and combine.
They worship idols.
Correct and well-said.

There are no particles, and there is no matter, as such.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

-Max Planck, Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157946 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"
Wrong.

Your own cited definition contradicts you, and agrees with me.

Thanks.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157947 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Your own cited definition contradicts you, and agrees with me.
Thanks.
Why doesn't everyone agree with you?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157948 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You are a liar, and you are also wrong.

Eben Alexander, at times, ATTENDED an Episcopal church. That does not mean he was a believing christian. The indication is that he was not. From his words:

"I adored the simplicity—the absolute honesty and cleanness of science. I respected that it left no room for fantasy or for sloppy thinking. If a fact could be established as tangible and trustworthy, it was accepted. If not, then it was rejected."

Also, if as you say, he saw EXACTLY what a man of christian faith would see, WHY DID HE NEVER SEE JESUS? Don't you think that's pretty central to Christianity? Why was he guided by a figure of a person he did not recognize and had never met? Wouldn't your theory suggest a loved one who had died and gone to heaven?

HERE, Alexander professes HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD:

"I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself."

What's amazing is idiots like you that know nothing, are not very intelligent, yet claim to know more about brain function than a practicing neurosurgeon trained in neuroendocrinology, and to know more about someone's personal beliefs than they themselves.

You are a liar and a moron.
I had a dream the other night with people I knew, but didn't recognize. It was weird. I could recall vivid details of the dream and they were people I knew, but I could not recognize their faces.

For a tough guy, you sure are a chickenshit when it comes to the hereafter.

Pussy.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157952 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Ignores its use colloquially and the definitions in most dictionaries these days...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
"disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods"
Don't even humor this argument.

This moron has been trying his word games in an effort to portray atheists as the same as believers because that's the only way he can claim superiority.

If he had any real arguments, he would use them.

All he can do is play word games, quite his ID heroes, play word games and make threats.

He's a 300 (or whatever) pound, thumb sucking baby.

And he's dangerous.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#157953 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even humor this argument.
This moron has been trying his word games in an effort to portray atheists as the same as believers because that's the only way he can claim superiority.
If he had any real arguments, he would use them.
All he can do is play word games, quite his ID heroes, play word games and make threats.
He's a 300 (or whatever) pound, thumb sucking baby.
And he's dangerous.
You're quite right, but I don't know about dangerous. I don't usually bother with him but I was wondering if he was really that slow or just a troll. Just shows what religion can do the human mind, perhaps?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157954 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Correct and well-said.

There are no particles, and there is no matter, as such.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

-Max Planck, Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist
You got that from Dave's word salad?!

It's no wonder you can get whatever it is you want to get from a book like the bible.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157955 Mar 3, 2013
atheists dont have a clue wrote:
<quoted text>Why doesn't everyone agree with you?
He hasn't gotten to beat everybody up.

Yet.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#157956 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You're quite right, but I don't know about dangerous. I don't usually bother with him but I was wondering if he was really that slow or just a troll. Just shows what religion can do the human mind, perhaps?
If a tiny fraction of the things he has claimed to have done are true, he's plenty dangerous.

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157957 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He hasn't gotten to beat everybody up.
Yet.
Might makes right?
dethrushmonks

Howell, MI

#157958 Mar 3, 2013
if god is real it doesn't matter because i donate to charity and am still going to heaven.. from not having received my consolation..

and uh.. he can't be real because.. see.. people had different religions...

native americans for instance still don't even believe in that religion even though they were colinized.. and blacks used to only accept their voodoo religion..

people from india stil have hinduism..

see there are too many religions to take your own even seriously..

why is my religion right and all the ohter ones wrong.. what is the conclusion..

we are ALL wrong..!! PERIOd there is NO GOd !! AT ALL..

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157959 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If a tiny fraction of the things he has claimed to have done are true, he's plenty dangerous.
It is easy enough to research! Look for a college footballer who was arrested for the things that he claims, then match that with those who tried out for professional teams and has been locked up for mental issues.

With the internet, no one can hide!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#157960 Mar 3, 2013
Physical bodies are loaner vehicles for spirits to drive. But instead of that spirit doing all of the driving, a totally separate consciousness, it is merged with the vehicle.

Just like any vehicle, it has limits and capabilities you have to learn.

That is why you can have a piece of shit driving a Ferrari, and a diamond driving a rambling wreck.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157961 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even humor this argument.
This moron has been trying his word games in an effort to portray atheists as the same as believers because that's the only way he can claim superiority.
If he had any real arguments, he would use them.
All he can do is play word games, quite his ID heroes, play word games and make threats.
He's a 300 (or whatever) pound, thumb sucking baby.
And he's dangerous.
Atheists are believers.

I didn't invent the terms - Greeks did it hundreds of years before I was even born.

Take your stupid gripes to them.

If you don't want to embrace atheism, if it embarrasses you, if it makes you feel inferior, then don't call yourself an atheist.

It's your choice, not mine.

And fuck you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157962 Mar 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You got that from Dave's word salad?!
It's no wonder you can get whatever it is you want to get from a book like the bible.
Max Planck is not a biblical character. He was a Nobel physicist.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157963 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>You're quite right, but I don't know about dangerous. I don't usually bother with him but I was wondering if he was really that slow or just a troll. Just shows what religion can do the human mind, perhaps?
Slow?

A Topix slogger calling me "slow".

Great stuff.

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 Clearwater 100,548
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 58 min RiversideRedneck 980,169
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Liamm 670,352
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 6 hr Sky Writer 31 184,288
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 9 hr Jehowa Witness 46,179
Treating others with respect 10 hr UnderstandPeople 14
Do any attractive cougars or milfs want to trad... (Dec '11) 12 hr Seejay 4
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) Wed Pegasus 286,455
More from around the web