Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255901 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: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202433 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Yeah, several times you have asserted that satan's influence has been increasing in america in modern times. I believe you claim that the catalyst for this satanic influence was the cessation of prayer in schools.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202434 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
But it isn't actually true that Christianity is more violent than Islam.
Who said it was, some straw person?

I wouldn't even use that adjective to describe an ideology. Ideologies can influence people to be violent. Christianity and Islam have both done that.

Christianity has been more damaging to humanity than Islam has, so far.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Your bias against Christianity makes you think otherwise.
Why wouldn't I acknowledge that Islam has been more damaging, if it actually was?

I don't like Islam or Christianity, for many of the same reasons.

You're the one with a horse in this race, not me.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's ok.
Most Christians would have moved on to the argument that Christianity has improved, and is no longer as damaging as it used to be. The various attempts at explaining this change are usually pretty amusing.

Are you going there, or nowhere?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202435 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean to write that Jesus is Lord and savoir faire?
He certainly had lots of that too. Hes an a- lister almost everywhere to this day.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202436 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are so weak and insufficient that you are forced to enforce them with threats of death.
Wrong on both counts. My belief and relationship in the Lord you spend much of your life mocking is untouchable. I have no power over anyone to do anything. I have been close to people recently as they passed. We all die. Try again?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#202437 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is why Catholics and Protestants were joyfully killing each other in Northern Ireland...right? Because there is only one flavor of Christianity and they are all one big happy family.(This is just one example out of a vast number of cases of sectarian violence within Christianity.)
Despite what you may believe, there are 40,000 sects of Christianity, and most of them insist they are the only True Christians (tm).
I recall growing up in the Southern Baptist Church, every year we would have one Sunday School lesson that taught us the only Southern Baptists had the right interpretation of of the Bible. We were told all the other sects had it wrong, which was why we should be good little Southern Baptists.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
-- Emo Phillips
Do you know what a CINO is? Christians don't kill. Catholics are not Christ centered, they have mary and saints. Adherents to Jesus words don't have much fault to be found in them.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#202438 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone dies, what you have said does not shock or scare me in the slightest, so deal with it you deluded religious liar with no morals. You get slow claps for that remark.
Of course we are all going to die.

But some go very fast and others go very slowly.

Some die knowing months in advance others never see it coming.

Why face your own mortality while you feel invincible?

This is the reason you have no fear because you are going to wait until it comes time to cross that bridge.

And what will they say about you after you’re gone?

Your legacy?

I surmise there won’t be anyone around to say anything about you Jim. You have lived your life in isolation. There’s people around you but are there people around you that really love you? Anyone?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202439 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Speak English , dammit!
Vestigal refers to ancestral parts of an organism that no longer have their original function. They might be useless, harmful, or they might serve a new purpose.

To understand why the location of the vestigal centromere and telomeres in chromosome 2, you only need to know that centromeres are usually found in the middle of chromosomes, hence the name, and telomeres are found on the end of chromosomes. But in chromosome 2, you find 2 vestigal telomeres in the middle where the centromere should be, and an extra centromere in between one of the actual telomeres and one of the vestigal telomeres. So, in a normal chromosome, you would have a telomere on either end and a centromere in the middle, but in chromosome 2, you have a telomere, then a centromere, then two vestigal telomeres, then a vestigal centromere, and finally a telomere at the other end. If you imagine 2 normal chromosome coming together end to end, the result is chromosome 2.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202440 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have participated in several murder prosecutions in which the defendant explained that he killed because God told him to, and psychological assessments confirmed the defendants' belief they were acting on God's istructions.
Were these defendants murdering in the name of God?
Or were they insane?
What do you think?
This afternoon a retired Tampa cop was seeing a movie. Some folks in front of him were texting and bothering him. Things escalated and he fired his gun. The wife protecting her husband stood, got shot and the bullet then went into her husband. He just died. Who cares what bs reason is given in the future for this mans actions. Its doubtful you really care, you just like to use whatever you can for your own agenda. Your question, like you is loaded and insincere. Btw the movie did happen to be Lone Survivor. No doubt stories are at the ready to push a few agendas with this one.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202441 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheism has done more damage than all of them combined.
--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.
--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.
--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.
RR, if you want to see a case of extreme bias, look at Buck here.

Atheism does not provide any direction.

A person can believe they are killing for atheism, or because of it, just like a person can believe anything, but since atheism provides no direction, their motivations necessarily come from some other source.

Incidentally, when Buck posts stuff like this, it crosses the line from funny to sad.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#202442 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And the sad thing is it shouldn't be that hard to conceptualize.
1) Here we have two pieces of string.
2) Here we have one string with a knot in its middle.
Haha. Indeed.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202443 Jan 13, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You are not making a profound observation when you say that we have made mistakes, and that we are probably wrong about some things today. Why do you think this matters? Also, why are you incapable of understanding that the scientific method is why we falsified spontaneous generation?
The problem with this type of thinking is that you are prone to absolutist, black and white views on everything. You are trying to compare "belief" in spontaneous generation with "belief" in modern scientific theories, which is beyond nonsensical. Spontaneous generation was simply an idea based on "common sense;" it was not a theory. We were completely and utterly wrong. There are different degrees of wrongness. The belief that the earth was flat was more wrong than the belief that the earth was a sphere. Both are wrong, but one is closer to the truth. It may turn out that one of our modern theories is wrong, but it will be closer to the truth than spontaneous generation. Dismissing modern science and the scientific method because philosophers, not scientists, were wrong about spontaneous generation makes about as much sense as believing the earth might be a square because we used to think it was flat.
Aristotle was just as much of a scientist in his time as Einstein was in his time. What Aristotle taught 2,000 years ago was considered fact just as much fact as what we learn from Einstein today.

I do have one question for you.

How was spontaneous generation "falsified"?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#202444 Jan 13, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Buck for proving my point.
Yes, Erasmus Darwin did have some ideas on evolution, and believed that species changed over time. However, Erasmus Darwin did not have a mechanism to explain this change. It was his grandson Charles, along with Alfred Wallace, Who developed the idea of natural selection.
Can you read. Charles Darwin admitted it - Matthews described natural selection before him.

Darwin responded to Matthew’s in the Gardener’s Chronicle for April 21 1860 as follows:

‘I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection".

Darwin was forced to preface his 3rd edition of "Origin" to give credit to Matthews and others.

I was right - you never get anything right.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202445 Jan 13, 2014
timn17 wrote:
Yeah, several times you have asserted that satan's influence has been increasing in america in modern times. I believe you claim that the catalyst for this satanic influence was the cessation of prayer in schools.
That is my belief, yes.

The downturn of the American familial structure, beginning in the 60s when school prayer was ceased, is my reasoning for that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202446 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said it was, some straw person?
I wouldn't even use that adjective to describe an ideology. Ideologies can influence people to be violent. Christianity and Islam have both done that.
Christianity has been more damaging to humanity than Islam has, so far.
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't I acknowledge that Islam has been more damaging, if it actually was?
I don't like Islam or Christianity, for many of the same reasons.
You're the one with a horse in this race, not me.
<quoted text>
Most Christians would have moved on to the argument that Christianity has improved, and is no longer as damaging as it used to be. The various attempts at explaining this change are usually pretty amusing.
Are you going there, or nowhere?
HA HA!! "straw person"....

You're so PC.

It's called a straw man, not a straw person. Call it what it is.

It's going nowhere. Your faith that tells you Christianity is evil is too strong for me to contend with.

I won't bother arguing your beliefs.

You see, I'm not an atheist.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#202447 Jan 13, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone dies, what you have said does not shock or scare me in the slightest, so deal with it you deluded religious liar with no morals. You get slow claps for that remark.
I see. Yes, we all die. Please post where I've said otherwise. Please post any lie. I can wait. One thing I've noted in posting on topix is often with nothing but general disagreement in viewpoints is we see deluded, needs help, a person that the government should watch 24/7 (that was a good one). Have any clue do you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202448 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Speak English , dammit!
timn17 wrote:
Vestigal refers to ancestral parts of an organism that no longer have their original function. They might be useless, harmful, or they might serve a new purpose.
To understand why the location of the vestigal centromere and telomeres in chromosome 2, you only need to know that centromeres are usually found in the middle of chromosomes, hence the name, and telomeres are found on the end of chromosomes. But in chromosome 2, you find 2 vestigal telomeres in the middle where the centromere should be, and an extra centromere in between one of the actual telomeres and one of the vestigal telomeres. So, in a normal chromosome, you would have a telomere on either end and a centromere in the middle, but in chromosome 2, you have a telomere, then a centromere, then two vestigal telomeres, then a vestigal centromere, and finally a telomere at the other end. If you imagine 2 normal chromosome coming together end to end, the result is chromosome 2.
*squints*

I know this is English but I can't tell what you're saying.

Vestigal? You sure?

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202449 Jan 13, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text>you were a poor disciplined one, many are. It takes diligence and a soft heart.. Regardless of the human condition, the faithful are saved. All their transgression pardoned, much to the chagrin of the non believer.
All a soft heart brings when around christians, is pain and betrayal. Your heart is no softer than any other religious hypocrite's I've ever come across. You have less credibility than a Buddhist stray cat.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#202450 Jan 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. Infinite and "immeasurable" are not the same, regardless of what some dictionary definitions say.
Something infinite means it is known to exceed any potential measurement.
No such thing exists, or can exist.
Our Topix physicist and Topix "mathematician" will argue otherwise.
They are wrong as hell.
Really, Buck? That's what you think?

Because I would say no such thing. In fact, if you had a clue to what I have been talking about, you would know that I already have said essentially the same thing.

Yes, Buck, the VISIBLE universe is finite, and thus anything physical within it is limited to being finite also. We can only observe as far as the Cosmic Background, the boundary in spacetime at which space became transparent.

What lies beyond that boundary? We don't know. I don't know. You certainly don't know. There are a myriad of possibilities, and among those are cases in which our visible universe is embedded in something that is infinite.

And besides, I have never insisted (despite how you try to twist my words to say otherwise) that the infinity I talk about is anything other than a mathematical abstraction. But even though it is a mathematical abstraction, that does not mean it is a useless idea. Nor does it mean it is unimportant.

But it IS a difficult concept to grasp, and you certainly don't grasp it.

I would normally say that being unable to grasp it is just fine...except you insist that your misconceptions are right...and you use them to mislead others.

But then, you just have to lie about such things in order to make yourself feel big, don't you. You don't have an education and you are desperately envious of those that do. And the only way you can make yourself feel more secure is to put others down.

You really are a pitiful case.

I notice, Mr. Calculus Genius, that you never did post how to calculate a derivative...which is taught in like week 2 of Calc I.

Of course, the reason you never even tried is you KNEW you would just make a fool of yourself.

Again. Pitiful.

As for "infinity" and "immeasurable", it depends on the definition you are using for "immeasurable". One of its definitions is "limitless", and in that case...well..."limitless " = "infinite". At least, in mathematical terms.

A different meaning of "immeasurable" is "indeterminate". In that case, no, "infinite" and "immeasurable" are not the same thing. For example, the length of the coast of England is indeterminate. Due to its fractal nature, the value you measure depends on the length of your yardstick. The smaller the yardstick you use, the greater the length you measure. Ergo, the length of the coastline is indeterminate...that is, immeasurable.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#202451 Jan 13, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
RR, if you want to see a case of extreme bias, look at Buck here.
Atheism does not provide any direction.
A person can believe they are killing for atheism, or because of it, just like a person can believe anything, but since atheism provides no direction, their motivations necessarily come from some other source.
Incidentally, when Buck posts stuff like this, it crosses the line from funny to sad.
Yes, I know.

I know the Topix Atheist! line of reasoning tells them the following:

-Christians kill for Christianity.

-Satanists don't kill for Satanism.

-Atheists don't kill for atheism.

I'm trying to follow along but the logic just doesn't add up.

Redneck1 out

Off to the Jim.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#202452 Jan 13, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Dave, I would respond to your post, if I knew WTF you're talking about.

Translation anyone?
Blah blah blah blah?

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min It aint necessari... 55,915
Massage for ladies in Muscat 1 hr Ziyad 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr River Tam 972,382
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Steve III 649,768
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 2 hr Steve III 427
Will Atheism defeat religion by year 2038? (Feb '15) 2 hr Steve III 70
Does anybody know Doctor REALITY'S race or nati... 3 hr Johnny 39
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Fri Noname 69
More from around the web