Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176289 Sep 3, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
In science a theory is something that has been tested and proven.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.
Definition of theory (n)

Bing Dictionary

the·o·ry

[ th&#63484; &#601;ree ]

1.rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2.speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3.idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

Speculation. There are those that when they speculate it gets a lot of respect. A proven theory is a fact. If the right person has a theory the wheels of research begins. It is to be respected but it is not prove. In regards to String. There are many different theories, as I mentioned as a whole it is either amongst the most respect or the most respected.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176290 Sep 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I am atheist.
There's your proof.
I agree it is your truth. You do know yourself.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176291 Sep 3, 2013
http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-successful...

Typical double talk, but essentially they chilled atoms, removing as much ambient heat as possible,leaving the bare energy for the atom to function, meaning an EM field. It doesn't say what the quenching process was, or really why it was needed. But basically, the atoms bounced into each other creating heat and thus elevating the energy levels, read EM, and the atoms repelled each other. Look at the top illustration.

Lots of noise and hype. However, there was an existing space already to expand into. Notice the external influences to effect this action. "Space" is supposed to have been created with the BB. The heat was super high. There were no atoms. They got created later.

We are designed.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176292 Sep 3, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have doubts that Atheists or theists, either one, will ever get a final answer for this. Some people are more sure... I try not to dwell on it too much, cause I'm almost certain that if the "answer" ever does come out for sure, I will probably be well dead and gone.
Perhaps the creator or nature has planned it this way. Knowing oneself is one of the oldest philosophies. My case by case theory as I have admitted here, and it didn't take a heat lamp or power tools to get it out of me. With out doubt will never be able to be proven. I stand by it until someone else could prove what they have. That will not happen in this life time I am now enjoying.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176294 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you do-- that's your ego talking once again.
Yes, and I am entitled to my perception as well as you are, yours. There is no question that my perception is far more positive than your is. If we meet on the other side, and I told you "See I told you so.". That should make you very happy. The shoe cold not be on the other foot, and that should now make you sad. You are correct the announcement you don't have a soul is trolling. Without doubt you are a troll by your very own standard.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176295 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://scitechdaily.com/physic ists-successfully-simulate-evo lution-early-universe/
Typical double talk, but essentially they chilled atoms, removing as much ambient heat as possible,leaving the bare energy for the atom to function, meaning an EM field. It doesn't say what the quenching process was, or really why it was needed. But basically, the atoms bounced into each other creating heat and thus elevating the energy levels, read EM, and the atoms repelled each other. Look at the top illustration.
Lots of noise and hype. However, there was an existing space already to expand into. Notice the external influences to effect this action. "Space" is supposed to have been created with the BB. The heat was super high. There were no atoms. They got created later.
We are designed.
They've been double talking since I have log on the internet. It gets worse every year.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176296 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate speech duly noted.
That pretty much sums up your entire "argument": you do your best to belittle and name-call.
Because you have no arguments?
Pretty much.
There goes your failed reading comprehension again. I never claimed to have an argument. No one could prove, period. We are all people of faith. Your suggestion there is an argument or debate is funny.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176297 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ego is showing.
Along with your deeply rooted hate for all non-theists.
Disgusting.
Your claim, that my claim, Atheism sucks =s hate.

If there was a hot dog, that I thought did not taste good and it made me sick. I would say that brand of hot dogs sucks. I would not hate the brand of hot dogs. I would avid the brand and advise others that it sucks. Such is Atheism.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176298 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
They've been double talking since I have log on the internet. It gets worse every year.
It's a brain infection passed by memes. A disease called screaming memes. It affects those with insufficient development of their neural network. They can only be "educated" by rote.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176299 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are under the false impression that it's UP to ME.
Nope-- the burden of PROOF is all on YOU, hatetheist.
You are the one making the idiotic claim "god".
It is up to YOU to prove this idiotic idea "god" is worth while.
Google Pigeon Chess.
You are playing the part of the pigeon.
I knew you hated The Church Lady. Superior Dance Time. T-Town clown to join in.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176300 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I already said: I have no faith left.
I lost it, mostly from reading the **whole** bible, but also from other examples of god **never** acting ...
... godly.
The fact that there is god-preventable EVIL in the world?
Is sufficient proof all by itself-- that no god who **CARES** exists at all.
If you had no faith you would never post in regards to religion period. You put way too much into this to make such a claim. It is why you may be the funniest blogger I have ever read. Douglas Adams eat your heart out should be your log on.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#176301 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://scitechdaily.com/physic ists-successfully-simulate-evo lution-early-universe/
Typical double talk, but essentially they chilled atoms, removing as much ambient heat as possible,leaving the bare energy for the atom to function, meaning an EM field. It doesn't say what the quenching process was, or really why it was needed. But basically, the atoms bounced into each other creating heat and thus elevating the energy levels, read EM, and the atoms repelled each other. Look at the top illustration.
Lots of noise and hype. However, there was an existing space already to expand into. Notice the external influences to effect this action. "Space" is supposed to have been created with the BB. The heat was super high. There were no atoms. They got created later.
We are designed.
Funny Dave, seriously.

We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.

But when you get to the punchline, "We are designed." you lost a cohesive narrative. I mean it's like giving the directions for cooking rice. And the saying.......

Bring 3 cups water to boil, add 1 cup rice, add butter and salt,
let come to boil, stir rice once, reduce heat and cover.
The sky may turn purple.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176302 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs of which you have NOTHING to support them.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.
Sad, really.
Pigeon chess, though.
Ye, of poor reading comprehension, not only have I admitted I could give you no argument. I have pointed out to you the argument can not begin and why. I tell you we can't have the argument because we lack the knowledge for it, and you start bobbing. Little Red Bobbing Hood fits you so good.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176304 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a brain infection passed by memes. A disease called screaming memes. It affects those with insufficient development of their neural network. They can only be "educated" by rote.
I'll come back and respond to others later. I think part of the problem is they knocked The Gnostic Atheist off line. They not only gave a much better game, they did it with much better manners.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#176305 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I just told you why. But feel free to com eup with new sub-theories to patch your theory.
Here is something for you and Polymath to consider.
Take a cylinder of oxygen or any other gas. Evacuate it to a partial vacuum. In this gravity well the remaining gas should collect at the bottom. You should have a pressure differential on the insides of the container between the top and bottom. Gravity on the nuclei. Pure and simple. I haven't researched this, but I suspect the gas will diffuse to an even pressure outwards in all directions. There may be a very tiny differential due to that gravity which will be affected by the Casimir effect, which would reduce that gravitational pull on the individual gas atoms, an internal to the cylinder condition and effect. However, this will not effect the total weight or mass of the cylinder barring any influence of that vacuum being transferred through the cylinder material. I believe what you will find is it is the EM repulsion that scatters the gas atoms. There is really nothing else to do such. Those atoms are spinning. That comes under the heading of motion. Balance of charge created by displacement of space. If you can polarize the spin from without you may see differences of internal pressure on the internal walls. And do not forget these relative pressure, or force may be a better word, differences are also affecting the internal structure of the cylinders themselves. Space goes everywhere.
That all goes under the heading of the conservation of mass and energy. No virtual particles needed.
<The Dave Nelson> " THAT was an example of my virtual intelligence..."

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#176306 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
But Dave has bought himself an imaginary ticket to get into the posh and cushy side of death after life.
LMAO! Yes, you'd think heaven, harps and streets of gold would be enough for some people. <The Dave> is continuing his oneup-manship even into the afterlife. Who'da thunk it???

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#176307 Sep 3, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> All of history assumes an ancient flood. The Bible is just one source. You have multiple independent sources for that event. The kings of Europe considered Noah a historical figure. Why should anyone believe the moderns over the kings of Europe? You do know this is a matter of human history and they were far closer to the event in question and kept records of their ancestry? Philo and Josephus had sources which predated their writings. Egyptian sources which validated the Exodus. If it is all myth then why the regulation? Slave regulation? Why slave regulation (for example) in a myth? Like i said the moderns are hostile to the Bible because it contradicts their assumptions and anything that contradicts is marginalized. Be it anyone today or the ancients. The moderns also ignore independent accounts of the flood. There is just too much there to dismiss. You have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent? Perhaps someday someone will treat you the same way you treat the Bible. Guilty until proven innocent in a matter that will really cost you. You really won't have anything to complain about. You will only be getting a taste of your own medicine.
There have been a lot of floods my friend. Many ancient myths tell these stories, not just Christianity. They occurred at different times all over the world (floods do occur in plenty of places.) The ancient Greeks had a flood myth, so did the Mayans in South America.

I'll agree that the ancients were striving for truth and understanding in the best ways they knew how....at the time. Most Kings simply wanted to shore up the belief in "divine right" to rule. An excellent example of that is the KJV version of the bible, King James wanted to preserve his power and the secret passageway connecting his bedroom to his male lover's bedchambers is still intact. But I digress.

I've read the bible, cover to cover....no it is neither true or especially good literature. It's a mish-mash of contradictory authors cobbled together to try to make a point. It fails.

Don't warn me about your gawd's imaginary judgement from a poorly written book. If that's the best salvo you can fire.....you fail.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#176308 Sep 3, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like your theory, Dave.
The trick is to find your way to the top of the heap.
<The Dave> is obsessed with being numero uno in all things. Knowledge, physical prowess, unique experiences and prodigious physical attributes...ad nauseum.

Shhhhh.....don't ask him or he'll tell you.*wink* He's a regular Energizer Bunny in the hot air department.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176309 Sep 3, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
<The Dave> is obsessed with being numero uno in all things. Knowledge, physical prowess, unique experiences and prodigious physical attributes...ad nauseum.
Shhhhh.....don't ask him or he'll tell you.*wink* He's a regular Energizer Bunny in the hot air department.
That is not true. I would never ever even consider trying to outdo you for bitchery.

It just isn't in my makeup.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176310 Sep 3, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
xianity is EVIL wrote:
and to sum up
Atheism is simply,,LACK of belief in god(s).
There is no belief required for atheism.
And since faith is “belief in something for which there is no proof” such as gods,how can an atheist, who has no positive belief need faith?
Answer is we do not... Atheism requires no faith.
Many theists will say; atheists must have faith that god does not exist”. That statement is false for a few reasons.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists,
and they do not completely rule out the existence of some kind of UNdefined god(s),
but rather, they find god(s) to be improbable, see no evidence that would indicate god-belief is rational, or both.
Faith does not play a role here, facts are whats important.
And just because we dont know how the universe or life originated does NOT prove gods existence,claiming that god created all,is an argument from Ignorance Fallacy.,,a belief without evidence!
Until theists prove god exist,its only rational to remain atheist
So Faith is not necesary to be atheist
<quoted text>
Off Topic Chunkyboy!
not that theres anything to discuss anyway,youve lost..
LLL
You may be right about not needing faith to be an atheist. In your case you do. I keeps you chatting about it. An atheist that would never partake in conversations like this one, most likely invest no thought on the topic, therefore no faith. This person would never compare. You and Little Red Bobbing Hood, cross the line from faithful to fanatics. You can't prove your belief, and with each post you prove you have faith. I don't think having faith is a bad thing.

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Michael 682,127
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min Squirrel Pot Pie 124,227
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 24 min For The Record 8,185
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 35 min onemale 286,505
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 50 min lil whispers 619,479
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Liberals are Depl... 982,434
Women and Men: DO NOT marry/date an Engineer!!! (Oct '08) 5 hr Jessica 123
More from around the web