Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258479 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.

Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#175372 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
BINGO!!
I have posted about waking up in my death experience. This was after my physical consciousness, what we call our day to day thinking, had checked out and no viable way to continue had been presented. There was then an awakening in another dimension and consciousness, and a very strong desire to go back to sleep and dream again to escape it. Another existence was waiting for me as another type of being. I was looking at where I was to enter it. It didn't appeal to me. A very true and deep despair was experienced. I was enabled to return to this one. With some rewriting of events that had occurred.
Funny, Topix atheists base their non-belief on books they read, not on living experience.
reminder,
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me"
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#175374 Aug 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So you claim... "MAGIC" here?
Okay-- but "magic" isn't real nor is it scientifically sound.
Fail.
<quoted text>
Bullshyt.
<quoted text>
Bullshyt.
<quoted text>
Yes-- but obviously **YOU** do not. You invoke...
.... MAGIC as your "explanation".
This is hardly surprising... you BELIEVE in magic (gods)!
Silly.
...ugly dude, you sound like a cat shitting razor blades

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175376 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
We have had discussions about this before.
Poly says magic, I say readjustment of energy transfers on the universal scale.
Everything is tied together per science. Move one tiny bit and it crosses the universe.
You have two ways for that decay to occur. A tug from somewhere else on that particle, or a barrier to it is lessened allowing for its imbalance to seek balance.
Atoms are part of the universe. You do understand that, don't you?
Yes, of course they are part of the universe. And the universe is, at base, acausal. It isn't magic: the probabilities can be precisely calculated. But each individual event is probabilistic and not caused by previous events. There is no 'supernatural', but the properties of the 'natural' are not what Aristotle or even Newton thought.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#175377 Aug 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course they are part of the universe. And the universe is, at base, acausal. It isn't magic: the probabilities can be precisely calculated. But each individual event is probabilistic and not caused by previous events. There is no 'supernatural', but the properties of the 'natural' are not what Aristotle or even Newton thought.
That sure is a leap of faith it is acausal. Particularly when you haven't seen the whole thing yet. And if you do see the whole thing the something caused it because it just occupies a portion of something larger.

You are really disconnected from reality with your theorizing and sophistry.

Poly, your theoretical math based certainty is based upon a fuzzy starting point.

Listen too me.

YOU DON'T BURST ON THE SCENE OUT OF NOTHING.

If so, please supply the "physical" evidence it can. Duplicate it.

Your numbers are measurements of effects, you are trying to turn them into effects on their own.

Damn, you can't get a 1/436554th until you get a damned 1 to begin with.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#175378 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>

Listen too me.
YOU DON'T BURST ON THE SCENE OUT OF NOTHING.
Boo!

See?

Catcher did it too you.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#175379 Aug 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo!
See?
Catcher did it too you.
Why didn't you comment on that link I posted about forcing professionals to provide services regardless of religious beliefs by the New Mexico supreme court?

That can apply to you.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175381 Aug 24, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>By constantly calling Atheism an belief, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge as to what constitutes Atheism. Education is a wonderful thing. Here, let me help you out.
1.) I believe in God.....Theist.
2.) Due to lack of evidence, I don't believe a God exits....Atheism.
Number one is a POSITIVE ASSERTION, "god exists."
Number two is a REJECTION of that assertion due to lack of evidence.
Religion, all religions are dangerous. They are dangerous to the individual, and dangerous to society. It teaches people to be satisfied with NOT understanding the world around them. It promotes divisiveness between peoples, to the point of physical violence resulting in death and misery. It has for centuries put up a wall against any scientific and medical advancements. Its foundation is based on ignorance, intolerance, and fear. It allows people to make life altering decisions based on delusions and things only imagined. Most Theists simply do not care that their beliefs are true, only that they feel good. Since our beliefs inform our actions, having beliefs that are not based in reality, is a danger to all. That is why many Atheist battle this plague on mankind. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil Degrass Tyson, Victor Stegner, Daniel Dennet, and so many other scientists, bring this plight to the attention of those who treasure logic, reason, and skepticism.
I'm sorry those wonderful traits are so foreign to you. Do try and replace credulity, gullibility, and wish-thinking with logic reason and skepticism. The world will in fact open up to you!!!!!! Good luck with your new outlook on life!!!!
No question it is a belief, otherwise you'd be able to prove it. You can' period.
Anon

Cleveland, OH

#175382 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That sure is a leap of faith it is acausal. Particularly when you haven't seen the whole thing yet. And if you do see the whole thing the something caused it because it just occupies a portion of something larger.
You are really disconnected from reality with your theorizing and sophistry.
Poly, your theoretical math based certainty is based upon a fuzzy starting point.
Listen too me.
YOU DON'T BURST ON THE SCENE OUT OF NOTHING.
If so, please supply the "physical" evidence it can. Duplicate it.
Your numbers are measurements of effects, you are trying to turn them into effects on their own.
Damn, you can't get a 1/436554th until you get a damned 1 to begin with.
Got some time to kill before I leave, so I'm gonna give you something to kick around. As you may recall, I'm a skeptic and I believe everything has a plausible explanation, and it's worked out that way in my life for everything but this:
The year is 1964. I'm fourteen and hanging around a local park, sitting on the swings and talking to a friend of mine. He stops talking and points skyward. I see what appears to be a large chrome ball suspended maybe five hundred or so feet above us. Could be higher or lower; the point is it was clearly visible as It was roughly 6:00 pm, early September. We watched for a few minutes, when suddenly a long pole began to descend from the bottom of the globe, also chrome in color. Roughly two minutes passed and the pole stopped descending.It then split apart at right angles at the bottom of the pole, turned a bright red, and both pole and globe simply vanished. I had enough presence of mind to ask my friend to describe exactly what he saw, and he confirmed my own take on the matter exactly. Keep in mind this was 1964, technology was minimal. We were both 14, so no drugs involved. I tried to research it, but nothing was remotely close to what we saw.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#175383 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you comment on that link I posted about forcing professionals to provide services regardless of religious beliefs by the New Mexico supreme court?
That can apply to you.
I didn't see it.

I'm in California, but I'm surprised that the New Mexico supreme court has religious beliefs.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175384 Aug 24, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>your admission of defeat is duly noted...
Bro. Clownie GRINNS and wins
You can't argue with this point. Excellent post.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175385 Aug 24, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is something that causes a lot of damage to a lot of lives sometimes...personally I feel like if someone is going to follow a religion then they need to follow it on a personal level...I don't come here to try to make people become an atheist, but when I see people who are religious reacting in a negative way to people who don't believe then I feel the need to point out that, although your book says that you should spread your word, it does not say that you should call names and continuously argue over the subject. I was always taught that after spreading the word that my hands were clean and it was up to that person to make their decision...I was also taught that I was not supposed to keep the same company as non-believers. Both of those things came from the bible, yet almost every "christian" that comes to this site does not follow the those teachings. That is one of the reasons I don't follow christianity anymore.
Everyone wants to be respected...we don't have to respect each others beliefs, but we should respect each others right to make our own decisions on our faith or the lack there of.
I do respect your belief. I belief each person know their own faith and lives it out and fall under it's conclusion. With that said I still see no reason to spread Atheism, if you agree you are a true atheist, not a Atheist. No question just like anyone else you do know yourself. Those that have problems admitting they can't prove their faith which is part of your beliefs. Is a fundamentalist, because it can not be proven. If you want to say it is a greater likelihood, that's being true.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175386 Aug 24, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I exist, I worship myself. I am my own Deity, and I have my own mythology. I am doing well with it. Since worshipping myself I lost 70 pounds. I can bench press my own weight plus. I look younger. If I was single I could pick up woman 15 to 20 years younger than I am, but I don't believe that is my good looks or success as much as a generation that men are not that marketable. They spend too much time online, or play station styled games. They sleep in their mom's basement, past the age of 35. I don't want your mythology nor do I think it serves well.
I am very happy for you, that sounds ideal. Well done!

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#175387 Aug 24, 2013
Atheism requires as many legs as religion!

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#175388 Aug 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see it.
I'm in California, but I'm surprised that the New Mexico supreme court has religious beliefs.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photograp...

This was an administrative thing I believe that then became law in a left handed way. It was based upon the New Mexico Human Rights Act of 1969 which was really addressing work and public accommodations. But things have been getting twisted in knots to achieve desired ends over the last many years.

If I walk into your office and tell you I am Christian, or that I am on Social Security, and then demand you do some legal work for me you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and you refuse, I would not be able to communicate with you again until the firm of Bendem, Over, Anfukem gets finished with you. Mr. Bendem and Mr Over are married, and elders in their church. They would also have in their possession any and all of your posts where you disparaged Christians, old geezers like me on Social Security, and homosexual slurs you have made to various posters. They would also handle any necessary Bar complaints or other matters of that nature. Oh, and they have some of the highest fees in the state. And slowest clerks. Yes, It would be on contingency. But they have confidence in prevailing.

There is no difference between you and a professional photographer.

Govern yourself accordingly.

Butch and her bitch hired another photographer. I can't understand why they aren't sued for malicious prosecution. They suffered no losses or injury for being turned down.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175389 Aug 24, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't argue with this point. Excellent post.
Thanks Robert!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175390 Aug 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Atheism requires as many legs as religion!
it also requires you be very dumb! you got it made

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#175391 Aug 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see it.
I'm in California, but I'm surprised that the New Mexico supreme court has religious beliefs.
http://governor.state.nm.us/Human_Rights.aspx

This is where that all started.

They are appointees of the Governor. They are not state employees, a court, or even lawyers. The appointees back at that time would have been done by Bill Richardson, a liberal favorite, and very gay friendly.

You could consider them activists appointed to positions where they could levy fines and take on a quasi-governmental status in the executive branch.

Understand the left handed way of making that a law?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#175392 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photograp...
This was an administrative thing I believe that then became law in a left handed way. It was based upon the New Mexico Human Rights Act of 1969 which was really addressing work and public accommodations. But things have been getting twisted in knots to achieve desired ends over the last many years.
If I walk into your office and tell you I am Christian, or that I am on Social Security, and then demand you do some legal work for me you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and you refuse, I would not be able to communicate with you again until the firm of Bendem, Over, Anfukem gets finished with you. Mr. Bendem and Mr Over are married, and elders in their church. They would also have in their possession any and all of your posts where you disparaged Christians, old geezers like me on Social Security, and homosexual slurs you have made to various posters. They would also handle any necessary Bar complaints or other matters of that nature. Oh, and they have some of the highest fees in the state. And slowest clerks. Yes, It would be on contingency. But they have confidence in prevailing.
There is no difference between you and a professional photographer.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Butch and her bitch hired another photographer. I can't understand why they aren't sued for malicious prosecution. They suffered no losses or injury for being turned down.
Oh, Dave. DAAVEEE!!!

First: Nobody can "demand" that I do legal work for him. I select what cases I will take.

Second: I do not discriminate based on religion, gender, age, or sexual orientation. I decide whether to take a matter based on a number of factors, but I don't deny services to any protected class.

Third: I have never had a prospective client come into my office and tell me he is a Christian, or a Jew, or anything like that. A person may tell me she is on social security, but only with regard to ability to pay the legal fees. And I have sliding scale for fees, based on ability to pay. For all you know, I'd take YOUR case pro bono, as I often do.

Fourth: What homosexual slurs are you talking about?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#175393 Aug 24, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are also stuck on a loop with that screeching.
It only sounds like "screeching" to YOU, because you cannot REFUTE it!

LOL!
Dave Nelson wrote:
I refuted it very quickly with the waves can't exist without a container.
Nope. Your bullshit was just that-- bullshit. Polymath soundly thrashed you, so I didn't bother.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You missed it or don't understand what you know. The latter sounds more likely.
No-- I read how you were made to look like an idiot, when Polymath destroyed your "argument".

Here's mine again, in 3 part harmony:

Quantum mechanics proves beyond any doubts, that an omniscient god cannot exist within the present universe.

Period.

That proves to 100% that your god isn't real.

But it's worse: the theory of relativity--well tested-- also proves beyond any doubts that an omniscient god is impossible in the present universe.

That's two.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle? That's 3 proofs you cannot have an all-knowing god in the universe.

That's three-- there's more.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#175394 Aug 24, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not be surprised if you post as him and you, and another 2 or 3. As mentioned Atheist do invest a lot of time online. It is clear not only you are religious, you are fundamentalist.
The above is not an argument in any way.

But it is indicative of the sort of deceitful person you are-- since you seem to think up ways TO be deceitful.

Here is my argument again, since you cannot refute it-- you did not even try:

Quantum mechanics proves beyond any doubts, that an omniscient god cannot exist within the present universe.

Period.

That proves to 100% that your god isn't real.

But it's worse: the theory of relativity--well tested-- also proves beyond any doubts that an omniscient god is impossible in the present universe.

That's two.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle? That's 3 proofs you cannot have an all-knowing god in the universe.

That's three-- there's more.

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) 7 min Trumpler 983,265
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 11 min Star Wars 17,490
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 30 min hojo 683,935
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 43 min lil whispers 619,711
Girl snapchat names (Feb '15) 58 min eli_mitchell137 2
Looking for girls to snapchat 2 hr aldenmorgan737 3
Blindfolded, hands tied and forced to their kne... 3 hr Leave None Alive 1
More from around the web