Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258481 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218151 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Jesus fulfilled the old laws. This is a concept beyond you, I think.
It's not a concept at all. Laws can't be fulfilled.just like apples can't be emancipated or educated. It's a category error. Only certain verbs can apply to laws or apples. Laws can be written, amended, obeyed, broken, or rescinded, for example. But most other verbs don't apply. Laws can't be squared, invested, broiled, vacuumed, elongated, hospitalized, or evaporated. Nor can they be fulfilled.

Jibba-jabba.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218152 Mar 11, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an argument from ignorance.
No, your statement is from ignorance. It wasn't intelligently designed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218153 Mar 11, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The designer is an unavoidable implication.
You can dance around it any way you like, but you just look silly.
At least I can admit that I look silly when I dance.
That's what I said - the designer is an implication.

But that is not what is tested for.

The Big Bang has an implication of a cause. Does the absence of identifying the cause make the theory illegitimate? No.

You have no argument because you have no grasp of the subject.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218154 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Bible is not claimed to be written by God.
Yes it is.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Where'd you get that nonsense?
Where does most biblical nonsense come from? Christians. Shall I find you examples of them making that claim?

It's understandable why you might want to jettison that doctrine at first blush. But who would bother to read such a book for guidance if they were told it was written by primitive men? It would be no more appropriate to believe its stories about gods, let alone make important life decisions based on them, than it would be to do the same with the Iliad or the Odyssey.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218155 Mar 11, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is the default condition.
Religion had to be manufactured.
Atheism was manufactured later than religion.

It originated in the 16th century. Modern atheism, about the 18th century. Atheism as a political force got rolling with Lenin and Stalin with, shall we say, unfavorable results.

Religion is far older than atheism. Atheism is manufactured, same as religion, only later.

Your default position is stupidity.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218156 Mar 11, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypothesis unsupported by any evidence, is well.
Less than compelling.
IF you people know nothing about ID science, and obviously you do not, you should not comment on it.

I know it frightens the living shit out of you. But relax. The theory does not necessarily require that God exists.

Now take a breath.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218157 Mar 11, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>There's a flaw in that hypothesis - we know that complex and specified systems are produced by Nature, chemstry and physics also.
The only honest approach is to say "Wow, that's complex. Let's look and see how it happened".
Starting out with a deity - or a designer - is dishonest.
...face in hands...

High levels of CSI are not explained naturally, and the hypothesis does not begin with a designer, and definitely not with a deity.

Stop being so scared! God is not required for the hypothesis!

Stop trembling! It makes you atheist A-holes say such stupid things.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218158 Mar 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on.
So we can have intelligent design without an intelligent designer?
Or is your designer, by definition, beyond the scope of evidence?
If the answer is yes, then it's a belief held on the basis of faith.
And tell me, am I an implication? You?
Can you have a Big Bang without having a cause or initiating action?

We consider the BB a valid theory. Cosmological physics, even Stephen Hawking, admits we don't know the cause.

A designer, same as the cause of the BB, can be implied, but it's nature and identity are not required for the theory to advance.

Being a slip-and-fall attorney, I don't expect you to understand how evidence works. But what I'm telling you here is valid science.

I know you are terrified by ID and hate it because you think it might suggest God exists. But let's just follow the evidence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218159 Mar 11, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
ID doesn't specifically make a claim for a deity, because that would weaken the strategy.
It wasn't a very good strategy to begin with.
Big Bang theory doesn't specifically make a claim for a deity, because that would weaken the strategy.

This discussion is comical to watch.

I'm waiting for someone to post the picture of Ken Miller wearing a mousetrap for a tie clip to disprove intelligent design.

What the hell! I'll post it myself. Ken Miller and the Mousetrap Tie Clip - disproving Intelligent Design.

And this dumbass is supposed to be a scientist.

Watch and see if you can spot the glaring fallacy in Miller's case...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218160 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
You haven't explained the distinction between "abolish" and "fulfill" in this context.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Distinction? Would it matter? I'll try anyway.... In this context, the word 'abolish' comes from a Greek term 'kataluo', which literally translates to "to loosen down". It's used in Matthew 26:61 & Acts 6:14 to illustrate the destruction of Jewish temples. In the context of Matthew. 5:27,'abolish' is set in direct opposition of 'fulfill'. Jesus came '...not to abolish, but to fulfill'. Jesus fulfilled the law, all of the law, His death means for sacrifices the same as every other Mosaic law.
More jibba jabba. You still haven't fulfilled the request.

Note that a request can be fulfilled but not abolished, and it doesn't mean any more to say that a request has been abolished than to say that a law has been fulfilled.

You are not used to considering abstract propositions and their precise meanings the way scientists, attorneys, and engineers must. You don't recognize when words have no content. like abolishing a law.

To clarify a distinction between two things, you need to provide clear guidelines for deciding when one, the other, both or neither is present or is the case. What is the thing or things that are true when a law has been fulfilled that is not true when it has been abolished, and what is the thing or things that are true when a law has been abolished that is not true when it has been fulfilled.

You could fulfill this request for guidelines for distinguishing between an ordinary nail and an ordinary screw. You might refer to the head, which is smooth in the case of a nail but has a groove in it in the case of a screw, or to the shank, which is smooth in the case of a nail but threaded in the case of a screw. These are clear guidelines for distinguishing between the two.

Your inability to give a clear and useful answer to these questions in the case of abolishing and fulfilling laws is the evidence that a semantic error has been made (i.e., jibba jabba).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218161 Mar 11, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
forcing your hate and religion onto everyone.
<quoted text>
Like I give a ratfart what pedophiles like YOU think.
Calm down, your weakened sphincter will create a mess!

What a ugly, ignorant, bigoted statement. I'm not 'forcing' anything on anyone, nor is a 'faith' that has choice a fundamental tenant.

I simply note a medical fact; Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Why would you try to defend such a disgusting, ugly behavior???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218162 Mar 11, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ignore the Old Testament.
Good.
That's a start.
So you are a immoral 'rational atheist' oxymoron who can't defend her assertion.

Got it.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218163 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Rolling papers? Oh dear, I hope you use a vaporizer. Much healthier. So I've heard. ;)
Anyway, I really find apologists for slavery puzzling. The fact that God ever condoned slavery for anyone should bring immediate condemnation from any rational and moral person. And if Leviticus was only for the Levites, does that mean everything else in that book, including condemnation of gay relationships, only applies to that specific group as well?
I find 'rational atheist' oxymorons very consistent.

You want to pin the ancient dictates of another faith on Christians.

You ignore the Letter to Philemon that expresses the Christian position on slavery.

But more so, you ignore the fact that in recent history, Christianity has stood, virtually alone, in the fight against slavery. First in regards to African Americans, and now in regards to the sex trade.

Even more telling? Many of you 'rational atheist' oxymorons have visited the boys of Brazil or the girls of Thailand.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218164 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
A law is either in force or it isn't. If Jesus did not come to abolish them, then presumably they are still in force. Please explain what your understanding of the term "fulfill" means in the context of this topic.
Why are you pretending you not only don't have access to the answer, but you don't know the answer?

I have a question for you;

Is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning behavior an act of love?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218165 Mar 11, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Man is certainly the intelligent designer of religion.
I agree that man is often the designer of their belief systems, but 'intelligent'???

Hence my comments to 'rational atheist' oxymorons.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218166 Mar 11, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what if atheism **WAS** a religion?(it's not-- but so what if it was)?
It doesn't have **ANY** bearing on EVOLUTION-- which is SCIENCE.
Are you seriously this STUPID, or did you take too many getting-hit-on-your-head lessons again?
You are dumber than a box of rocks.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218167 Mar 11, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you find that moral condemnation of slavery in the Bible?
Nope.
Now, if the Bible didn't mention slavery, and didn't purport to be the ultimate moral guide, I couldn't make this point, but since it does, I can.
The Bible condones slavery.
Perfect example of a 'rational atheist' oxymoron....

Smirk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218168 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nope. Basically, irreducible complexity means it is impossible to reduce the complexity of a complex system by removing any of its parts and still maintain its functionality. The common mousetrap illustrates irreducible complexity. It's made of five integral parts: a catch, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar and a foundation. Remove any of them and the design fails. It is complexity that cannot be reduced or simplified.
Here's your irreducible complexity of a mousetrap argument deconstructed in three minutes


Incidentally, this is why the argument for irreducible complexity doesn't win converts from the evidence based community. Just because you can't imagine functionality in less complex forms doesn't mean that they can't have function, perhaps of a very different nature than the larger mechanism, or that this function couldn't have been selected by nature by virtue of it conferring a competitive advantage.

You really can't look at a natural mechanism and declare it irreducibly complex just because you can't imagine a slightly less complex mechanism with functionality. Many systems have been offered as examples of irreducible complexity only to have it shown that there was functionality in slightly less complex systems. Famous examples apart from the mousetrap include the flagellar motor on some microorganisms, the coagulation cascade, and the eye.

Also, consider this arch:
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/phd_research/Lan...

You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down. Does this mean that it was intelligently designed and constructed?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218169 Mar 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a concept at all. Laws can't be fulfilled.
And a welcome back to the ranking 'rational atheist' oxymoron!!!

I drove the speed limit yesterday, fulfilling the law regulating speed.

I'm not trying to embarrass idiots, but you just keep on giving me material...

Smirk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218170 Mar 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't believe a puddle of goop could flourish into life without the assistance of a designer.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ig... :

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination - Arguments from incredulity take the form 'P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false (or, I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true).' These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance.[How rude!]
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I believe that designer is God.
Statement of faith.

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) 10 min RoxLo 1,497,487
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 58 min Patriot 10,958
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr LongerPharts 32,752
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 8 hr LongPhartz 95
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 13 hr ThomasA 313,372
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Feb 15 Jhuerta 287
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web