Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255484 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186569 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

Nope, religion does not change,...
Ever heard of Vatican II?

I like it when you make it easy to prove you don't know shit.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186570 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point and I can't tell if you're intentionally doing it or not.
Intentional is a safe bet.

Play the averages.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186571 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You got all of that from my making a distinction between a fetus and a baby, and my support of abortion rights? Then you have the mind of a Christian. It's not a good one, but it's been trained by example to harshly and demeaningly judge others according to Christian memes, and continues to do so long after leaving the faith.
That is why I say that you are functionally a Christian. You bear the scars of your Christian training. Notwithstanding your continual carping about others not thinking outside of the box, you continue to promote the Christian church's meme for it.
You understand that they consider you a hell-bound heretic even though you are willing to angrily point the finger for them, do you not?
I don't care what "they" think, nor what you think. What I do know is you and "they" see just a very limited part of reality and jump to conclusions, but you are being more of an as*hole about spreading them than "they" are.

You are a reactive thinker which prevents you from integrating all that is visible and "known" into a cohesive picture.

Snowing outside, I have two cigarettes left, and I haven't woke up yet.

EM and the forces of nature.

Look around you, what do you see as far as you can see? Silicon. Carbon. Water. Salts. Iron. What you don't see is the EM and plasma.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186572 Nov 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The religitard solution would be to hide the existence of the extra dwarf planets. You lot have to chase your tails just to keep your plates spinning on their untruthful foundations.
<quoted text>
Plates don't spin on foundations.

They are spun on a stick or pole.

On a foundation, they would hardly spin at all.

...and your second sentence is gibberish.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186573 Nov 22, 2013
The act of religitards making up contradictory and unsupported sh!t all the time is certainly a constant.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you mocked and then mocked the mocker, very hypocritical of you
Nope, religion does not change, they repeat the same old BS over and over, however yes there are different variations of personal egotism but all basically saying the same disproven and discredited thing.
Certainly not your way for sure…

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186575 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know, I have no tolerance for the deliberate ignorance of funnymentalism
Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
For me there is no “disbelief” involved, I know.
E=MC^2 proves that the god as described in the kjv version of the babble (and others) revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.
As yet and despite your attempts to muddy the facts with old and disproved information, that formula still holds.
You 'know'?

That's strange. I know God is real.

Lol, I've asked you this before. Why don't you take your definitive evidence that E=MC2 disproves an omnipotent God to the media and change the world?

Oh, wait you can't.

It's not peer reviewed.

Cuz they'd laugh you out of the scientific community

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186576 Nov 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
The modern day "findings" are always in error.
This is faith speaking.
Dave Nelson wrote:
If the Higgs's boson has actually been discovered then an entire rewrite of the atomic particles will then have to be done to account for the energy transfers "observed".
That's obviously incorrect. The Higgs boson is predicted by the standard model of particle physics, which is why it was found exactly where it was predicted it would be found. The discovery of the Higgs boson was the kind of empirical finding that tells us that the standard model is correct in the main.

That is not to say that this model will not be added to, or that the most recent and speculative ideas will not be refuted or tweaked, but that the scientists are on the right track, and that their foundational concepts are sound.

The discovery of the Higgs boson is confirmed scientific prophecy.

“Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?”- Carl Sagan

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186577 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an underlying philosophy which operates in most if not all science.
Which is?

Maybe "science is right because science says so"...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186578 Nov 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Do not forget the protons and neutrons were the base of the nuclei, and assigned values to fit the model.
"Base of the nuclei" is a meaningless term. Do you mean that the nuclei of ordinary matter comprises neutrons and protons? That is correct. Did you mean that these were basic or fundamental particles? They are not. They are composite particle - triplets built of two of the six flavors of quarks each.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand those particles and forces of physics are purely mathematical visualizations based upon much, much greater transfers of energy. They are not real "things". They are rationalizations.
You have no idea what I understand.

Furthermore, your comment is incorrect. There is more than "purely mathematics" supporting the standards model. The mathematical sciences like particle physics are supported by an interplay between mathematics and observation/experiment. I'm sure that you've heard of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It is a physical object that produces physical data.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186579 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Intentional is a safe bet.
Play the averages.
Lol

Indeed...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186580 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:

Yet you mocked and then mocked the mocker, very hypocritical of you
Genius, huh?
Nope, religion does not change...
I'm just gonna leave it at that.

You show your ignorance every chance you get.

Let's hang out. We can get drunk and go shooting.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186581 Nov 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
"Remember kids, all the above is just a work of fiction."
-Revelation 22:22
The religitards rarely print this last verse.
<quoted text>
We don't lie like you athitards do.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186582 Nov 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The religitard solution would be to hide the existence of the extra dwarf planets. You lot have to chase your tails just to keep your plates spinning on their untruthful foundations.
Speculation....

Unfounded,

Ignorant,

Biased,

Speculation.

Make me a sammich, bitch.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#186583 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is O (zero) evidence for abiogenesis.
Despite centuries of searching for it, and trying to replicate it, science has been 100% unsuccessful.
No instance of it has been observed in all of history, not one, not once.
But you are free to take it on faith.
Abiogenesis is possible in the same sense as my shitting a grandfather clock.
With a Roman dial.
The evidence for abiogenesis is the same as there is for creation.
"Living things", so you defeated your argument from the start.

Evidence for god is zero... Despite centuries of searching for one, and trying to find it, has been 100% unsuccessful.

No provable instance of it has been observed in all of history, not one god, not even once.

But you are free to take it on faith.

God was made possible by shitting a book.
With Greco-Roman text.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186584 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know, I have no tolerance for the deliberate ignorance of funnymentalism
Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
For me there is no “disbelief” involved, I know.
E=MC^2 proves that the god as described in the kjv version of the babble (and others) revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.
As yet and despite your attempts to muddy the facts with old and disproved information, that formula still holds.
E=MC^2 disproves god.

That is devastating.

Tell me, you poor ignorant bat.

How come the best theoretical physicists say that you are dead wrong?

They study things like energy and mass.

You can barely copy the equation.

Yet you "know".

Lesson to your readers:

Believe nothing you say, since you are dogshit stupid.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186585 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
<quoted text>

... He's here to prevail, and will post whatever he thinks will facilitate that goal. Lying is only part of it. Ridicule, sophistry, fallacious argumentation, self-congratulations, telling his audience what to think, evading arguments, and impugning the intelligence, motives, and character of his opponent are also standard fare.
But other than that, I'm an OK guy. Right?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186586 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I've heard to have a beer, then a water, then a beer, etc. Is that sound advice?
Yes, if you can. Also, water before bed. You'll likely be up peeing at night, but that is more due to the diuretic effect of the beer than the water. Remember, the water is there to prevent relative dehydration facilitated by the diuretic effect of the alcohol.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186587 Nov 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> This is arguable however I do wonder why Buck has not donned leather wear and frequented the blue oyster bar. off to the ent ugh
Bongo, I'll whoop your big ass.

You hear me?

You know better than to give any nod of credibility to that description of me.

I take them on here with superior intellect and word skill.

And I win.

You are a marked man, my friend.

You have 1 ass-whoopin on deck. It has a batting donut on.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186588 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What do you mean by "the offending ions"?
Salivary stones are made up of calcuim, phosphate, and carbonate ions among other substances. When their concentration rises above a critical threshold, they precipitate out. Water is intended to dilute them. Water with calcium, phosphate or carbonate will not do this as well. By analogy, if you were trying to dilute saltwater, you would use freshwater, not more saltwater.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186589 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
"Base of the nuclei" is a meaningless term. Do you mean that the nuclei of ordinary matter comprises neutrons and protons? That is correct. Did you mean that these were basic or fundamental particles? They are not. They are composite particle - triplets built of two of the six flavors of quarks each.
<quoted text>
You have no idea what I understand.
Furthermore, your comment is incorrect. There is more than "purely mathematics" supporting the standards model. The mathematical sciences like particle physics are supported by an interplay between mathematics and observation/experiment. I'm sure that you've heard of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It is a physical object that produces physical data.
Via EM interactions and interpretations of their forces. It is all machinery.

The Higg's will change things because the values of force that used to be applied to the other components will have to be recalibrated. On the universal scale.

Yes, the nuclear article have been broken down into smaller components. Fancy that. I have posted about that quite a bit in the past. It is easy enough to figure out why and how when you quit worshipping the particle idols and start understanding how things move.

Ugh. One cigarette and 4 inches of snow. Wish I had another pack hidden somewhere and jumps out of hiding.

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
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 min WasteWater 105,579
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min here 47,931
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min kent 646,345
Gay Teens/Adults in Austin, Texas for meetups (Jun '15) 19 min Joseph 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 50 min Journey 971,570
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 44,707
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 2 hr Brian_G 12
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Neville Thompson 281,222
More from around the web