Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258480 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.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#170067 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>satan is your daddy
Clown-o!!

Roll tide, roll :)

Have you seen Goober Hull around?

“My name is Trunks...”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#170068 Jun 25, 2013
I think a lot of old posters have disappeared. I don't see some of the ones I used to talk to around. I believe they are gone, moved away, or even did something else with their lives. Some probably even died, like old Skipper. He recently died, according to the latest Offbeat forum I visited.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#170069 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>satan is your daddy
No she's not a god believer

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#170070 Jun 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do away with objective evidence, falsifiability, and testability, how do you determine which perspectives are true and which false?
In a world of something called perceptions or thought, something beyond the hard action/reaction of pure physics, those terms become relevant to one's views.

We all know a hammer falling on a toe can hurt, or that applied physics is pretty real because it satisfies those things you mentioned on the physical level. The difference comes from interpreting what happens on the macro and micro scales, and just what it is we are. For instance, your physics is what you accept written in a book, which is particle physics, the reducing of "reality" to solid objects. This comes from dissecting up to a point and then pure theoretical assumptions from there to describe partciles that can't be seen. Just the effects. From my view I see an energy caused by something we can't detect physically, but was knit into apparent particles. Some of both are incorporated in the stuff Polymath preaches. Both what I perceive and Poly perceives points to another dimension. Which negates the strictly physical view of particle believers. They aren't looking past the mirrors caused by particles. This atheistic view portrayed on here is based upon those particles always pre-existing. A very limited view.

You can't believe in other dimensions if you don't reserve judgment on the existence of the supernatural and metaphysical, and thus possibility of a higher level that constructed this limited universe we occupy for now.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#170071 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
There too? Same here. The facial hair, big sunglasses, even bellbottoms... Wtf?
So when did you get back? And where is our favourite lesbian lady?
HL is mostly in the Why Should Jesus Love Me thread. Get over there! Hiding shows up sporadically, IANS is active there, and we have a great newbie, Clementia (Clementine to me), from India but studying in Birmingham (England, not Alabama).

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#170072 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Prove your god or f*ck off its that simple you ignorant creationist troll with no morals.
Nope

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#170073 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Full of sh*t creationist troll with no proof of god who doesn't know when to f*ck off back to the discovery institute / creationist museum where all his liars friends hang out.
Show me your proof of these 3 Myths.

1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.

3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#170074 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Its hard to take a clown seriously.
Yes we know, but we read your crap anyways.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#170075 Jun 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me your proof of these 3 Myths.
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
Snap, still stupid you are.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#170076 Jun 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Also, in English, it's either "Tsar" or "Czar".

Ask a cruciverbalist.
It can be spelled:

Tzar
Tsar
Csar
Czar

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#170077 Jun 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the blasphemer.
said the gay dude

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#170078 Jun 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
In a world of something called perceptions or thought, something beyond the hard action/reaction of pure physics, those terms become relevant to one's views.
We all know a hammer falling on a toe can hurt, or that applied physics is pretty real because it satisfies those things you mentioned on the physical level. The difference comes from interpreting what happens on the macro and micro scales, and just what it is we are. For instance, your physics is what you accept written in a book, which is particle physics, the reducing of "reality" to solid objects. This comes from dissecting up to a point and then pure theoretical assumptions from there to describe partciles that can't be seen. Just the effects. From my view I see an energy caused by something we can't detect physically, but was knit into apparent particles. Some of both are incorporated in the stuff Polymath preaches. Both what I perceive and Poly perceives points to another dimension. Which negates the strictly physical view of particle believers. They aren't looking past the mirrors caused by particles. This atheistic view portrayed on here is based upon those particles always pre-existing. A very limited view.
You can't believe in other dimensions if you don't reserve judgment on the existence of the supernatural and metaphysical, and thus possibility of a higher level that constructed this limited universe we occupy for now.
OK, you've explained how you like to think the universe works, but you haven't explained how, without objective evidence etc, you can determine which perspectives are true and which aren't.

Does the scientific method necessarily narrow the universe down to empirical evidence? Yes, it does. Science doesn't know everything, and it's often wrong (but self-correcting), but at least it's foundation is strong. The problem with the "supernatural" is that all such speculation is just that. Might some of it be true? Maybe. But when the supernatural is demonstrated to be true, it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.

I don't begrudge you or anyone their fun or the enjoyment of speculation. We all so that. But speculation is just that: speculation. No amount of ontological arguments will ever make it more than that. Nor should you scorn others when they point out that ontological arguments are all you have. That's the truth. Some or all of what you believe might turn out to be true, but it will be proved true via the scientific method. Or if it's not a falsifiable claim, then you will never know if it is true or not, beyond your own opinion.

Personally, I think it's OK to honestly say "we don't know yet". I see no sin in that. And we can speculate all day about what the answer might be. But speculation is not fact.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#170079 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Clown-o!!
Roll tide, roll :)
Have you seen Goober Hull around?
Hey there my ol pal!!!!
ol GOOBER gets on now and then.. AND I HEAR THAT ROLL TIDE ROLL BUDDY

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#170080 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>said the gay dude
What's wrong with being gay? It's alot better than being a clown.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#170081 Jun 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, you've explained how you like to think the universe works, but you haven't explained how, without objective evidence etc, you can determine which perspectives are true and which aren't.
Does the scientific method necessarily narrow the universe down to empirical evidence? Yes, it does. Science doesn't know everything, and it's often wrong (but self-correcting), but at least it's foundation is strong. The problem with the "supernatural" is that all such speculation is just that. Might some of it be true? Maybe. But when the supernatural is demonstrated to be true, it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.
I don't begrudge you or anyone their fun or the enjoyment of speculation. We all so that. But speculation is just that: speculation. No amount of ontological arguments will ever make it more than that. Nor should you scorn others when they point out that ontological arguments are all you have. That's the truth. Some or all of what you believe might turn out to be true, but it will be proved true via the scientific method. Or if it's not a falsifiable claim, then you will never know if it is true or not, beyond your own opinion.
Personally, I think it's OK to honestly say "we don't know yet". I see no sin in that. And we can speculate all day about what the answer might be. But speculation is not fact.
The scientific method is employed in theistic societies. I get the feeling you think it is strictly restricted to atheists. Is that correct?

Supernatural is beyond natural and not a part of it, nor can become a part of it.

You can pump juice through a circuit board and a set of "natural" laws relative to that boards functions are established. It can't see the hand that throws the switch or can swing a hammer to alter its "natural" state of being. That hand is supernatural, it is outside the boards realm, but it be real. Now, if it continues to not function as designed, it can be introduced to the supernatural and feel input from it, or nothing at all if the hand opens the switch or swings that hammer.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#170082 Jun 25, 2013
DK Clunt doesn't use science to post on the internet.
DK Clunt uses two chalices of blood from his dead ex.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, your imagination to be a pratt is enough insult to yourself, in itself. You need no help thereĀ…
What you are is delusional, and it makes you lie, you lie for you god which is quite pathetic considering that your god teaches satan to be the father of lies.
Does this mean you worship satan?
My father does not have a computer (so you lie) and you could not afford the computer system I use even after a lifetime of the kind of work you are capable of.
But feel free to lie for your god if it makes you feel better.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#170083 Jun 25, 2013
I got a JW visit recently. Showed them the Mandelbrot set on my laptop. Who needs a made up god to demonstrate complexity?
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And then thumb their noses at them.
I spent about 20 minutes entertaining some Jehovah's this morning.
T'were a hoot.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#170085 Jun 25, 2013
Projection.

Isaiah 11:12 the earth is square or rectangle.

Also found in revelation 7:1

And job 38:13

And Jeremiah 16:19

The earth rests in top of pillars Job 9:6
The earth is built on top Of a foundation? Job 38:4

Plus your Isaiah passage says a circle not a 3d sphere :)

Shall I humiliate you more?
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>The bible says the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22) and "hangs the earth upon nothing". Job 26:7.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#170086 Jun 25, 2013
How is Sweden doing?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>So this humanistic society founded on atheism that you lift up as a paragon of virtue, what went wrong with it in the Soviet Union?

Haven't we tried that experiment before?

Didn't work.

Morality will never change because the human heart is so wicked and selfish.

The only thing that will resolve the human heart and sin issue is total destruction.

Even if God was not going to step in and resolve that, man would do it to himself.

If you think God is the problem, you are mightily deceived, man needs no help to be evil.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#170087 Jun 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I got a JW visit recently. Showed them the Mandelbrot set on my laptop. Who needs a made up god to demonstrate complexity?
I invited them in, but I guess they're not allowed to enter homes anymore.

So I just kept cleaning my bird's cage and my breezeway while I talked to them.

They were polite, but they wouldn't respond to questions and kept asking me to let them finish when they had some bible quote to explain.

They wouldn't let go of "gay is a choice". And wouldn't give me a clear answer on what god thought about sexually active gays.

They would go as far as saying that there's no permanent hell. Just enough to make you straight if you were gay.

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 (Mar '17) 3 min Riverside Rednek 51,537
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Michael 693,132
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 25 min eternalrock 991,840
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 32 min __The Clown Master__ 2,468
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr 2018 Exclusive 619,863
__TRUMP Creating Worst Harm to ISRAEL__ 5 hr 2018 News 1
Missing Teen - Brittany Crenshaw (Aug '12) 9 hr Denise moody 24
More from around the web