Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187348 Nov 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t talk wet all your life, take a day off
You seem to be confusing agnosticism with atheism but that’s not really surprising, anything not buck is anathema to you. Look at the definition of atheism, you may be surprised
You are lucky that was incoherent.

Your incoherence saved you from pure stupidity.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187349 Nov 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My dearest Butt Crack, whassup? Getting to ya? Getting to ya? Getting to ya?
It proves that your god as described in revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

http://news.discovery.com/human/mysterious-so...

The frequencies are there, you just need the right transducer to "hear" them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187350 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you recall me asking Dave Nelson about how we can know when people are reporting something with a material referent and when they are experiencing an illusion? I used a hypothetical military experience Afghanistan as the starting point. Unfortunately, Dave isn't as interested in the ideas of others or the exchange of information with them as much as he likes reciting his poems using scientific term, and wouldn't cooperate. Not surprisingly, the wheels came off of the exercise after several posts had been exchanged with no progress being made, so I postponed the discussion until somebody interested in the subject came along. Perhaps that is you.
Dave Nelson wrote:
LOL! You will have to come up with something better than that lame ass example. Which I answered for you in a practical manner. However, you created a scenario and assumptions that only you think are relevant. I addressed that issue.
You were unable to do your part in that discussion, Dave, which I why I abandoned the matter with you.
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW, they left you alone with dead men in the first place. In addition, they will stay in a group together and analyze what had been seen. Their current leader will decide where to go. And whether to leave you there or not, again. They are the functioning ones.
Sorry, Dave, but this stuff isn't for you. Your thinking has been disentrained from that of the rest for so long now that you can't effectively communicate with others about any scientific or philosophical matter, which makes your posting on such matters of little value or interest to anybody but you.

Here you are telling me what you think the other soldiers would do, when you were asked how you would decide which were seeing a real oasis, and which were seeing a mirage, and you have never once tried to do that. Discussion requires cooperation - two minds trying to come together and exchange information. You don't do that.

You've just seen my solutions, and although you clearly did not know what the point of the exercise was when you wrote the above, by now might. If you can, look at how far from understanding that point you were, and how little use your answer was to the discussion.

You do seem to be able to discuss areas related to your work, however, as when we discussed the electrical problem I was having in my Mexican home - the brown outs. You were useful there, and I thanked you than and again now for that.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187351 Nov 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My dearest Butt Crack, whassup? Getting to ya? Getting to ya? Getting to ya?
It proves that your god as described in revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.
Of course it does, Saltines.

It also proves Al Capone stole the Lindberg baby.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#187352 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Or I could choose you instead of the goat herder.
Right now, the goat herder is looking pretty good.
Whatever turns you on

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187353 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that if something exists outside of our heads and has a discernible effect on us, then we can find evidence for it if we know how and where to look for it. If we were talking about a god such as that that the deists describe - one that created the universe and then left it running on automatic pilot, we wouldn't necessarily expect to discover that god directly, or to be able to rule its existence in or out scientifically.
But a god like the Christian god that allegedly wants to be known and loved and has allegedly made visits to earth and left his Word, and who does miracles and answers prayer should be easily discerned not just with organized science, but by the (near) universal consensus of ordinary people as we have with the existence of emotion and sunlight. That's science in the loosest sense - reproducible data that can be experienced by any healthy observer the meaning of which is generally agreed upon.
If our universe was run by such a god, we would expect abundant, irrefutable or highly suggestive evidence of such a god which might include such things as bona fide miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer - perhaps glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or atheists and only atheists regularly struck by lightning, or only patients when prayed for being healed when studied scientifically, meaning in a reproducible, placebo-controlled, prospective, double blinded studies. Science is capable of ruling such a god in or out.
Regarding revelation, if we if we had divine prophecy, we would expect it to be specific, detailed and unambiguous, optimally with the time and place are specified, of unexpected, unlikely or unique things that were not self-fulfilling, could not have been contrived, came before the event predicted, fulfilled completely and unaccompanied by failed prophecies.
If we were given scientific knowledge, it would have to be facts unavailable at the time, in detail, and about something counterintuitive like relativity or quantum mechanics, and not merely alluding to them in the broadest strokes of atoms, heliocentrism or evolution, but knowledge like,“My disciples, I say unto thee that energy is mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself.”
The message would need to be flawless and consistent, one that no man or number of men could have produced, one which contains the perfection of philosophy, which accords with every fact in nature and with be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject, one with purest morality, with just, wise, and perfect laws and regulations for the control of conduct, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
The message should reject cruelty and revengeful, be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty, opposed to strife, war, to slavery, ignorance, and superstition, develop and satisfy the brain and civilize the heart of the best and wisest, and lead to a single religion without internal disputes of factions, one which yields followers that abhor atrocities.
But what do we see instead? The absence of so much expected evidence, and the existence of evidence to the contrary combine to rule out the Christian god if one adheres to the principles of reason and evidence.
Faith, of course, can dismiss all of that.
Why would you expect evidence?

Suppose we don't know how to find that evidence.

You said it yourself, "we can find evidence for it if we know how and where to look for it", which is a very good statement. I think the "if we know how" part is very telling.

Go back to your God blindness. You don't have personal evidence of experience of God, that doesn't mean everyone does.

I myself have had personal experiences with God, so there's no doubt in my mind that He's very real and He's out there watching over me, watching over everyone.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#187354 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lucky that was incoherent.
Your incoherence saved you from pure stupidity.
Nope, not incoherent, it’s completely coherent but your lack of education letting you down

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187355 Nov 26, 2013
[QUOTE who="It aint necessarily so"
We can do much better than that. We can gather evidence.[/QUOTE]

I suppose if one of the two groups brought back water, that'd be evidence enough.

But your hypothetical did not include that, I was going off of your story and not including any other variables.

In that story, you have no evidence - just the words of the other men.
Good for you! I was beginning to fear that you wouldn't get to that.
I don't ask myself the question any longer because I think I have solved it. Now I share it with others, as I will do with you now. The answers will appear in the next two post because of space limitations.
Oh, goodie!

I wait with baited breath....

>:)

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#187356 Nov 26, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...
http://news.discovery.com/human/mysterious-so...
The frequencies are there, you just need the right transducer to "hear" them.
Yes and? Are you saying that the radiation of space is the sound of your god talking? go figure the depths to which a godbot will stoop

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187357 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
You'll have to take this up with some of the Topix atheists, like blacklaggon. He thinks science proves everything.
You remember Sean Bean in GoldenEye? 006, I think... Good guy turned bad guy and all.
I guess I was wrong about Game of Thrones being Bean's introduction to America. I recognize that face and character as well.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#187358 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does, Saltines.
It also proves Al Capone stole the Lindberg baby.
No it doesn’t, however your post proves you are ignorantly stupid.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187359 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Problem [2] restated:
How can I tell if my god blindness is like color blindness – blindness to something that is really there - or if the claims of seeing a god were like the paranoid's claims seeing danger that isn’t there?" That is, how do the colorblind know that others see the colors they claim to see? And why do these people believe the rest of us, but we don't believe paranoids that report their experience of danger in the world that we don't share with them?
My solution to problem [2]
The color blind know that normally sighted people are actually seeing something that they are not because of the ability of those people to identify colors consistently, and to agree among themselves about what they see, such as when one claims that the colorblind person's socks don't match, and he is able to poll any number of people that give him the same answer without collaborating. The colorblind are convinced by the strong correlation of the answers they get.
The paranoids, however, are different. They seldom agree, even with themselves, coming up with ad hoc argument after argument for why the danger is real, each contradicting the last one, with no two paranoids having the same version of their delusion, and most frustrated with and angry at those who "pretend not to see the obvious."
Unlike the color sighted, the paranoid have to make emotional and passionate pleas to be believed.
Which group do you suppose the faithful most resemble to those of us that don't experience what they claim to experience? Many angrily chide the rest of us for disagreeing, often using the same emotionally charged pleading as the paranoids, often resorting to threats of hellfire.
Furthermore, each describes a different god, contradicting not just one another, but themselves from telling to retelling. That's how I know that the god visions are in their heads.
huh... Interesting.

Then what's your take on people experiencing love differently?

Does that mean love isn't real or doesn't even exist?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187360 Nov 26, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been to every planet in the universe to verify this ?
ROFLMAO
You are seriously demented.
The biosphere was referenced.

It is located on and around planet earth.

You may have heard of it.

It's been in all the papers.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187361 Nov 26, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. like religion, do you find scientific reductionist (fundamentalism) an intellectual dodge ??..
.. can any book, scientist or cleric answer the cosmic mysteries relating to consciousness, life after death or a creator? I think not ..
.. for some reason, I like to believe there is an interconnectedness with everything in creation. That's why you're wrong on Climate Change ..
I'm fine with the interconnectedness.

But that doesn't mean we have to make up a crisis in order to feel connected.

We could be connected to the planet and be making it cooler, not warmer.

Or neither, which is what the evidence suggests.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187362 Nov 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t take lessons from childish p|ssheads brandishing guns, give nano a try if you are so keen on educating someone.
So that's a no?
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#187363 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the only time Amazing Randi has been sued.
Amazing has falsified data from multiple experiments.
Amazing was ruled a liar in court.
You seem rather defensive when it comes to criticizing the paranormal.
Do you possess "special powers" Bucky?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187364 Nov 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t think, I know, all you need to do is the sums. I realise sums are probably beyond you but that’s not my problem
You really have no idea of the scope of that equation do you?
What makes you think God is restrained to what we call laws of physics?

How have you confirmed that He is?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#187365 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The biosphere was referenced.
It is located on and around planet earth.
You may have heard of it.
It's been in all the papers.
You mean the globe of water that Genesis has surrounding the Earth with the stars painted on it ?

ROFLMAO

You have the greatest mind of the 5th century!

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#187366 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>No such dimension's have ever been verified by science. The James Randy foundation has set aside one million dollars the anyone that can prove this supernatural world of ghosts and sprits. No one has claimed this prize since it was offered some 10-15 years ago, I wonder why!!
Can you name and describe the "scientific" devices used in this research? Can you "site" any reputable scientific journal that supports these findings?
There is NO evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm, it doesn't exist. Personal testimony, anecdotal accounts, and someones delusional experience doesn't count as evidence.
The statement I wrote is accurate, if anything is observable (the scientific definition not a personal account) and testable then it is a fact.
EMF detector / video and digital recording devices / thermal imaging devices.

Let's just start with this question bl.....How much evidence is required to make something factual?

And you use James Randy for a reference?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187367 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You were unable to do your part in that discussion, Dave, which I why I abandoned the matter with you.
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dave, but this stuff isn't for you. Your thinking has been disentrained from that of the rest for so long now that you can't effectively communicate with others about any scientific or philosophical matter, which makes your posting on such matters of little value or interest to anybody but you.
Here you are telling me what you think the other soldiers would do, when you were asked how you would decide which were seeing a real oasis, and which were seeing a mirage, and you have never once tried to do that. Discussion requires cooperation - two minds trying to come together and exchange information. You don't do that.
You've just seen my solutions, and although you clearly did not know what the point of the exercise was when you wrote the above, by now might. If you can, look at how far from understanding that point you were, and how little use your answer was to the discussion.
You do seem to be able to discuss areas related to your work, however, as when we discussed the electrical problem I was having in my Mexican home - the brown outs. You were useful there, and I thanked you than and again now for that.
Amusing.

I said ask which saw green and vegetation as a determining factor. That is a no brainer. But you had to turn it into something unrealistic to suit your intellect.

IANS, I understand electricity, and other things. Listen to me.

You have nothing to do.

No anchor. No work to focus on during the day which allows things to cook on the back burner.

You are desperate for finding something to do, so you take these trips into intellectual la la land. You have got tangled in the rope you should have left tied to the ground. That means you are all knotted up and floating out in space, focusing on that know you got yourself in.

This physical world and a certain amount of having to deal with it is a glue for growth. Like plants in soil.

You don't have to hunt and gather for food, you don;t have to till the ground, and you don't have to go to the office and be responsible for something. Your brain has turned into a wispy miasma. Don't take medication, do something really physical.

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 2 min NotSoDivineMsM 31,859
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Ringo 987,467
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 27 min hojo 687,466
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Here For Now 619,795
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 7 hr ChromiuMan 6,496
Trump: "Get that Son of a B- - - - off the fiel... 7 hr Love Trump 9
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 7 hr SmokinJoe 4,319
More from around the web