Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255511 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.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217804 Mar 9, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I actually got red-flagged for posting "COC" as an abbreviation for "Church of Christ".
And I very rarely cuss.
LOL

I use Ocker expressions sometimes, which the censors don't pick up on so much.
:-)

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#217805 Mar 9, 2014

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217806 Mar 9, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Kimare has become like a child that wants to be spoon fed instead of being responsible for feeding himself.
Here comes the choo-choo train!

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217807 Mar 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Brother.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Abe Lincoln was dead right there.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217808 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Fundraising letters for non profit organizations do not normally contain master plans for the turning of the government into a theocracy.
But they may contain the institutions agenda - in this case, a religious agenda to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to
replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

The words speak for themselves, and they define the purpose of the institute as the development and dissemination of pseudoscience. When you have any other purpose motivating your choices - choices such as what hypotheses you pursue, what research you fund to do it, what preferred outcome you have in mind while you interpret data - you're not doing science.

Authentic science has no agenda apart from discovering how our universe works, and no legitimate scientific research facility has a mission statement like that.
lightbeamrider wrote:
fund raising letters are not normally considered top secret documents! So the word ''leaked" as depicted in the Wiki article for a fund raising document is ludicrous. They are practically public by nature since they are trying to raise money.
Where is the evidence that the Wedge Document was first released to the world in a fund raising letter rather than being a secret document for internal use leaked onto the Internet by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes in 1999?

As I've indicated to you before, after a steady diet of equivocation and misinformation, one simply stops trusting or believing these religious sources of information. Experience matters. Reputation matters.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217809 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.discovery.org/a/2735
The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend.
Overview: In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight. For a more detailed response please read "The Wedge Document: So What?".
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files ...

It Ain't Necessarily So wrote:

How is any of that a defense to the claims made about the Discovery Institute's agenda? Are they claiming that they lied in their fund raising effort?
__________

It's a straightforward defense of the charge that the document can "be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy".

Reading on in the same defense, we see specific defenses against the secular humanist fanatic, Barbara Forest:

"Our initial strategy for influencing science and culture has been repeatedly discussed at numerous conferences, in books and articles, on our website, and in our brochure. Indeed, much of the offending text from the document had already appeared on our website and in our center brochure.(So much for a secret conspiracy.) Further, Professor Phillip E. Johnson, of the University of California at Berkely published an entire book articulating his version of the wedge strategy in the year 2000. Yet Barbara Forest and others have invented and then hyped a supposed secrecy surrounding the wedge strategy, characterizing the 'wedge of intelligent design' as a 'Trojan horse'. At one point, Forest claimed that 'Wedge Document's authenticity...has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute'. Yet if Professor Forest had wanted to know if the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask. But she didn't. These facts alone suggest that our critics have badly misrepresented us".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217810 Mar 9, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
"Charitable giving" is derived from that reported on income tax forms. They don't mention the fact that money given to their church qualifies as "charitable giving". Neither do they mention how much of that "charitable giving" goes to church administration, and how much actually goes to a charitable cause. We get that from church budgets themselves, and these are harder to come by, closley hedl by those within church administration. But they are there. One vector is a study done by the Evangelical Christian Credit Union
https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/...
which finds that 82% of "charitable giving" at church goes to administration and upkeep. 5% goes to internal education programs (which itself should be a shame internally to churches), But most shockingly, this particular study >by Christian orgs themselves< found only 1% making it out to "local and national benevolence". This is worse than the 3% I cited from memory from the administrative training I received at EQUIP seminars when I was a church trustee.
But then you trot in and offer vague non-comparative commentary, while we were using real stats. That's ok, statistical analysis ain't for everybody. There's no shame in that......
.....except when they chime in like they have something substantial to offer.
Great post

The Christians just can't win. They have so little to claim as benefits of their church, and even these go up in smoke when examined closely. Maybe they should focus more on their claim of benefiting society by teaching it morals.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217811 Mar 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Or conspiracy to commit.
Yes, and they sometimes receive longer sentences than the actual killer.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217812 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Aura the monster is not under your bed. The monster is in your head.
Someone's been listening to too much Eminem.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217813 Mar 9, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What do "militant" atheists do? They have **debates** with godbots
What do "militant" **christians** do? They bomb abortion clinics, murder women's doctors, bully-to-death homosexual school children, invade classrooms and shoot all the children children.
Militant christians also blow up markets, burn down rival religion's buildings and so forth.
You christians are just afraid that when we atheists get control?
YOU ARE AFRAID WE WILL TREAT YOU EXACTLY LIKE YOU TREATED US IN THE PAST.
Lucky for you-- "militant" atheists just ask questions, and debate and promote quality,**scientific** education.
Now that post I will pay. There should be more militant unbelievers, to replace the late great Hitchens.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#217814 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post
The Christians just can't win. They have so little to claim as benefits of their church, and even these go up in smoke when examined closely. Maybe they should focus more on their claim of benefiting society by teaching it morals.
LOLOLOL! Thanks for the laugh, Ians.

Down with the Moral Majority
Coz I want to be the minority

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217815 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But they may contain the institutions agenda - in this case, a religious agenda to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to
replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
The words speak for themselves, and they define the purpose of the institute as the development and dissemination of pseudoscience. When you have any other purpose motivating your choices - choices such as what hypotheses you pursue, what research you fund to do it, what preferred outcome you have in mind while you interpret data - you're not doing science.
Authentic science has no agenda apart from discovering how our universe works, and no legitimate scientific research facility has a mission statement like that.
<quoted text>
Where is the evidence that the Wedge Document was first released to the world in a fund raising letter rather than being a secret document for internal use leaked onto the Internet by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes in 1999?
As I've indicated to you before, after a steady diet of equivocation and misinformation, one simply stops trusting or believing these religious sources of information. Experience matters. Reputation matters.
The only misinformation involved is from the DI critics. Secular humanists like Barbara Forest have an agenda apart from pure science, as is illustrated in her propaganda campaign about this document. Scientific materialism, the creed of modern Darwinist activists, does not limit itself to scientific pursuits. It follows a philosophical materialism, which is not scientific, and which is no less a worldview than the theistic view of the Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute has as much of a legitimate claim to pursuit of scientific discoveries which contain philosophical implications as do the Darwinists and Humanists. You cannot have your philosophical monopoly. Sorry.

As DI attorney James West explains, continuing in the defense of DI:

"...we have supported research that challenges specific theories (such as neo-Darwinism, chemical evolutionary theory and various 'many worlds' cosmologies) that provide support for the materialistic vision of a self-existent and self-organizing universe. We also have supported research that challenges theories (such as behaviorism, strong artificial intelligence, and other physicalist conceptions of mind) that have portrayed humans as completely determined animals or machines".

The humanist problem is not the alleged lack of scientific integrity with these people. The problem is humanists do not want a competing worldview to gain scientific support. If research supported by DI produces results easily dismissed, make the case. But spare us the moralizing about motives and agendas. Let your science say something. Maybe it will drown out the roar in my ear of your philosophy for a minute.

It's the repeating argument, as in the re-tooling of the definition of atheism - you want to pretend and have it believed that atheism and Darwinism are innocent of philosophical and theistic assumptions and agendas.

The jig is up.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217816 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that quote contradict the claim?
Information theory is not about comparing how two things "look".

If I have to explain this further, I suspect it is falling on disinterested ears.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217817 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
The accusation is the equivalent of conviction and never consult the accused, or give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
The claim is that the Discovery Institute is a propaganda machine created to discredit the scientific method, and to generate and disseminate a religious agenda in its place. The evidence is the Wedge Document. What defense is there to that?

The claim was made that this document was a leaked to the Internet from an internal document. Your defense was that the information was released in a fund raising letter, not leaked. Wiki contradicts that:

"Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes, having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."

The Discovery Institute itself uses the phrase "fundraising proposal," not letter, suggesting that it never released the information:

"In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. "

And even were any of that true, none of it is a defense against the claim that the Discovery Institute's mission includes the propaganda function mentioned.

We have seen enough examples of this kind of thing - misinformation and irrelevant deflection - to have a good idea of what values to expect from Christian apologists,andto have learned simply not to trust or believe them any more.

Nor would I trust the opinions of anybody who relies on them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217818 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It was "leaked" by making multiple copies, placing it in stamped envelopes, and mailing it out to various addresses with the intent that they read it.
I'm still searching for evidence that such a letter ever went out, or that it went out before Duss and Rhodes released the same information in February 1999. Have you ever seen this letter and the date on it? Can you link us to a copy of it?

None of this passes the sniff test, Buck. In the opening paragraph of an explanatory document called, "The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend" < http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files... >, we read the following:

"Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them."

Do you know why the Discovery Institute referred to those believing that a secret document was leaked to the Internet as paranoid conspiracists? Do you know why they referred to people that found this document meaningful and disconcerting as "true-believers on the Darwinist fringe" or said that their claims were to install a Christian theocracy?

Whatever your answers, these tactics are all too familiar, and are typical for propagandists. What legitimate scientific institution releases material like this? Does the NIH? How about the National Science Foundation or the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Do they call their critics religionists or conspiracists? Of course not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217819 Mar 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's cute but that's not what Dilbert wrote.
"Darwins Stepchild wrote:
A lot of these clergy became atheists in seminary...because of what they were learning in seminary...yet continued on to become clergy anyway."
Did ya miss it?
"clergy became atheists"
...then...
"continued on to become clergy"
Lemme reword his nonsensical paragraph to your profession.
"A lot of these doctors became mechanics in medical college...because of what they were learning in medical college...yet continued on to become doctors anyway."
They were already doctors but continued on to become doctors.
o.O
And you support his idiocy? Why? Because he's a fellow Christian hater?
You've had ample opportunity to understand. You can't. Move on.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217820 Mar 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
ONE small church in our community was noted today for donating nearly 300,000lbs of food packed in bags and delivered to a street mission.
LOL. Spare me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217821 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
"Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text."
-The Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture
This is also from the Discovery Institute:

THE WEDGE CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
http://libcom.org/library/wedge-document-inte...

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY - Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

GOALS - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Which should we believe they meant, and which was disinformation?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217822 Mar 9, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 100's of verses which **command** you to do so.
I'm not going to educate you on your own ugly book, dumbass.
Wow, what a vicious, bigoted rant.

What sparks such rage at a fictional being???

Do you understand your behavior says more about you, and undermines any point you think you are making?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217823 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post
The Christians just can't win. They have so little to claim as benefits of their church, and even these go up in smoke when examined closely. Maybe they should focus more on their claim of benefiting society by teaching it morals.
Who do you think you are fooling.

You not only run and hide when I point out examples of benefits in your own community, you can't even provide a poster boy country example of your own 'rational humanist'!

Honey, the Christians ALREADY won. That's why they compromise the majority. Your hate and bigotry just won't allow you to admit it.

Smile.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,395,595
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 48 min Into The Night 9,870
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 hr Todd for Real 311,342
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 18 hr Barbi A 201,865
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Mon Trojan 32,289
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web