Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#219022 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
This uncertainty is why Harvard's greatest evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, said, "Furthermore, the objective of selection may change from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary."
Selection has no objective. Neither does gravity. Both are blind, but neither is random. Both are unidirectional. In the case of gravity, it has relentlessly caused the primeval gas clouds of the early universe to organize into galaxies of solar systems. In the case of biological evolution, simpler forms have continually given rise to more complex forms.
Buck Crick wrote:
Darwinian evolution is random, blind, and non-directional.
Nope. Just blind.
Buck Crick wrote:
The powers ascribed to it are almost mystical, like Buddhism.
Gravity even more so. Newton was at a loss to explain action at a distance with no apparent material connection between bodies exerting gravitational influences on one another.

I wonder why the bible writers never commented on the magical aspect of gravity always pulling, and always pulling in the same direction. It seems like they ought to have ascribed agenticity to that phenomenon like they did to natural disasters.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219023 Mar 14, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Can you prevent it? Can anybody?
KiMare wrote:
Ah the 'rational atheist' oxymoron avoids answering the question with an idiotic diversion. So childish.
You are staggeringly uninsightful.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219024 Mar 14, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Here's a point; How can you maintain integrity without addressing the vast difference between the functional design of heterosexual intercourse and the abusive violation of anal sex? Smirk.
Here's a better point: Why would I care? I'll leave the panty sniffing to you and your god.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#219025 Mar 14, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. Watch the mourning at the demise of Kim Jong Il. Dear Leader was as much a deity as Immanuel, Jesus, or Lucifer.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much, he was a god to his people as is his son
You will bow down to your supernatural dear leader.
Dumb and Dumber...

Exactly how is he 'as much a deity' as Jesus?

Smile.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219026 Mar 14, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
According to James 3:1, those who know the Bible, the gospel, will be under stricter judgement that those who don't.
James who? Who is this guy? And who can vouch for his integrity and reliability?

Did anybody offer a contradictory opinion - perhaps a Frank or a Larry?

What does your god say?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#219027 Mar 14, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting.
How is it that a book you claim okays slavery is the only source prompting people to fight slavery?
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, well, that is a question for you, isn't it? It's just like Christians who argued for womens' suffrage, despite what the Bible says. It's Christians acting in opposition to the Bible. But then Christians do that all the time anyway, and given how morally repugnant the Bible is, that's fine with me.
No, the question was for you, but when asked for a rational response, you defer to lazy scoffing.

The recent discourse about Stalin is an example of those who twist the Bible for their own interests.

So again, how do you explain the presence of Christians at the forefront of anti-slavery actions?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#219028 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you do this, Christine? It always ends badly for you.
Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism"...“not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”
"Five Year Plan of Atheism":
"According to the plan on religion liquidation, all churches and prayer houses should have been closed to 1932-1933, all religious traditions implanted by literature and family – to 1933-1934, it was planned that the country, and firstly, youth would be grasped by total anti-religious propaganda to 1934-1935, the last clerics were to eliminated to 1935-1936, the very memory about God should have been disappeared from life to 1937."
And why do you need to lie? Again, it’s almost as though it’s compulsive, genetic even

You said and I quote “Nobody assumes Stalin was atheist. He told us,…”

And then you provide the text of a committee written directive as your evidence. Go figure. That is not quite on a par with your lies that I clamed the pope was atheists but pretty damn close but it certainly beats your claim that youtube proves god exists..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219029 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
This is a well-articulated argument. I thank you.
And thank you, too, Buck.
Buck Crick wrote:
You want, and need, to apply to this material process a "force" as in pressure or a "pull" as in gravity. We understand gravitational force acting around bodies of matter bending space. We have bathroom scales to measure it. Darwinism lacks any such force.
It's not a physical force, but selection pressure is analogous to one in that it tends to causes unidirectional change, and not physical direction, either. In thus case, pressure and direction are metaphorical.

The social pressure to conform is such a force, and the direct it pulls is towards mainstream behavior, much as gravity exerts an inward force toward the center of mass.
Buck Crick wrote:
You have offspring that randomly receive a chromosomal mutation not present in another offspring. Due to environmental factors, also unpredictable and variant, the offspring with the random chromosome survive at a higher percentage. This assumes they don't have the equivalent of another offspring shoving a spear through their neck, or falling in quicksand, which is also random and having nothing to do with the "lucky" chormosome.
I disagree. You are more likely to get a spear in the neck if you are not smart enough to recognize when that risk is present, or if you are not agile enough to evade it, or strong enough to take the spear away, or so nasty as to provoke it.

Yes, a strong, fast, bright and affable person can also be speared in the neck, but less likely so.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219030 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Now, we are told, this infintesimally small change, doused with large doses of time, and repeated over many chormosomal traits, can "pull" or "pressure" those fortunate enough to remain living into radical, breathtaking innovation.
No, the change is generally neither radical nor breathtaking on the small temporal scale, nor surprising that it can become much larger over long periods of time.

I just saw a new one from the anti-Darwin crowd. I'll recopy it intact:

"You Atheists always manage to get things wrong ! Darwin's general theory of Evolution !involves one species changing into another ! Darwin's "Special Theory on Evolution " Notice he has two different theories going, but they are worlds apart in the understanding ? His "Special" theory has to do with variations within species ! Stop getting it all wrong !! We can all except that there are all different varieties of dogs cats Elephants etc , But to change from one species to another(As in his General Theory) is quite a different thing ! There is no evidence whatsoever to support Darwin's General theory of Evolution ! PERIOD !!!"

Apparently a man named Gerald A. Kerkut used this language in 1960 - the Special and General Theories of Evolution (the caps give it gravitas), referring to what the creationists now call micro- and macroevolution, and the faithful have seized on it. I told the poster that Darwin had no special or general theories of evolution, and the scientific community makes no such distinction.
Buck Crick wrote:
Add to your theory a designing intelligence in the first particles, and you have yourself a theory.
But not a scientific one, as it is not falsifiable.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#219031 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So says you, Eye Speck.
You're out of your league here. If you persist, I will make you look as stupid as Christine=mc^2.
You are a return visitor. I recognize the phony cocksure-ness.
The day you make me look stupid is the day you give up lying and vomiting BS and accept scientific fact over “doh I don’ unnerstan’ so it mus’ be my god wot dunit wiv magic.’

Honey, you have an awful long way to go and I really can’t see that happening any time soon

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219032 Mar 14, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're the one that brought up the hole in the rock and compared it to the design of a mousetrap.....
I don't think so.

It's amazing how little light and how much much heat and smoke is generated when you post. You make so many mistakes that forward progress is virtually impossible. You have somehow gotten yourself entangled in just about the least useful part of the discussion, skillfully eluding any meaningful aspect of the mousetrap issue.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#219033 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.
-Abraham Lincoln
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like." - Abraham Lincoln

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#219034 Mar 14, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>The U.S. spends way too much on defense. I have read anywhere between more than the next 10 countries combined, out of which all but 1 is an ally. In addition to the waste and corruption. While less than 1% of tips about Internet child porn don't even have the manpower to be checked. I agree that the things that take priority with much of our spending makes no sense to me
And I don't sat 1.8% to minimize it. Just to put it in perspective for those that feel (sometimes in part due to the media coverage) that there is a disproportionate amount of abuse in the church compared to anywhere else. And yeah the breach of trust makes it worse if that's possible for a crime that bad
As for the media, sure report it. But my point is that is should all be newsworthy. A kid abuses by a priest is no more victimized than one abused by some unknown teacher. And I know realistically all crimes can't get coverage or equal coverage but it should be based on ability and resources. We should be trying as a society to expose as much as this as possible. The church gets so much attention in the same way Paris Hiton or celebrity gossip does. Because people's priorities and concerns are messed up as well. We only seem to care if it can be labeled a scandal because that makes for juicier 'news' rather than news being based on what's more important that society knows
Here in the UK and France recently it was teachers when one ran off from the UK to France with a pupil. That media circus would outstrip a royal wedding. Before that we had celebrities of various levels of celebrity. Nope the church is not getting disproportionate attention, it is getting the attention it deserves.

Sorry you think that, my priority is for children not for protecting priests by shovelling their abuse under the carpet. If global infinity means that people know that some priests have paedophile tendencies and that knowledge helps protect children then for me the media is welcome to emblazon it in 100 mile high lights on the moon

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#219035 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
No need for sarcasm, Scar Tissue.
I'm just trying to resolve this conflict among you atheists...
You can't resolve it and there is no conflict. I nor any other atheist defines what an atheist is, short of not having the theistic belief there are deities, in the absence of any non biased evidences there are.
Buck Crick wrote:
Oh, excuse me. Everyone is an atheist now, according to Wilde Rice.
Maybe they are, to him, maybe not.
Buck Crick wrote:
Anyways, Wilderice says atheism is just skepticism. Others claim it is lack of belief.
In one scenario, a rock or a turd is an atheist. In the other, no.
What about you? Is a turd an atheist? Have you met atheist turds?
If atheists have a King Turd, I'm nominating Sam Harris.
Yep, there you go, polishing that turd. I'll go ahead and say you're the turd of topix, with Ar aR a close second, or maybe you're pushing him, or he's pushing you. I'm not sure, nor do I care, except to say you both smell about the same.

I'm guessin' you're bigger though, from what you say.

Be gentle on Ar aR, he's from Riverside.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#219036 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Which atheist? The "skeptic" or the "lack of belief" atheist?
Because you atheists have rejiggered the definition of "atheist" so many times, the term presently has no meaning whatsoever. It means the same as a fart noise.
Pffffffffttttttt...= atheism.
So when you say "atheist", it is too vague, and you will have to specify. Do you mean the skeptic atheist, the belief-lacking atheist, or are you just making a fart noise, or are you referring to the actual meaning of the term, which is, someone who believes no god exists?
You know, that's kinda' the reason we give meanings to terms - so each of us will know what is being said when the term is used.
To that end, I supply you with this:
Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).
Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia).
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God.(Oxford Companion to Philosophy).
Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia).
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana).
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia).
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion).
Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
I know, I know, I know, you sure do like other people telling you what to believe or told you to read so you'll know what you believe.

I don't have the theistic belief there are deities, because there is no unbiased evidence that is convincing to all theists and nontheists alike that there are deities.

I don't let theists or nontheists define my position in the matter concerning deities. I don't care who they are.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#219037 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Which bible?
No, it isn't.
If contradictory features are described, it could be the description that is in error.
If someone describes you to another, and gets features wrong, you would still exist.
But the description would be wrong, and due to the absence of a correct description, the deity described isn't possible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#219038 Mar 14, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
The Redneck does serve a purpose. He shows the importance of having an educated populace.
Agreed.

He, along with so many other faith based thinkers like him, and contrasted with so many unlike him from a competing tradition - humanism - also illustrates the tendency toward moral and intellectual failure more typical of the alumni of faith based educational programs.

Virtually all unbelievers posting here are bright and decent people. The difference between the two groups has to be in large part the fault of religious teaching, which puts a brake on optimal development in these areas. It costs the direct victims the most, and the rest of us as well to a lesser extent. Seeing this should help all unbelievers see that it's not enough just to say that religion might be fine for the next guy, but not for him- or herself. Those with a social conscience might want to see this phenomenon mitigated.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#219039 Mar 14, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you conveniently ignore what happened after he instilled himself as pharoah?
Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.
So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not an atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution. That is one of the evils of god belief and how the rubes can be so easily deceived.
A lie by omission is still a lie you knuckle-dragging cretin.
Nicely stated.

The problem here is that buck has a problem with self delusion and incredulity with an awful lot of predantism mixed in. He makes statements based on his personal belief that believers in his god can do no wrong, so when one does go against the buck image of perfection he simply excludes them from his faith.

He does often seem to forget that he is no angel himself and has spent time locked up for criminal activity. So according to the buck laws of religious belief he, in theory at least, should be unable to believe in himself.

A quandary that goes far beyond his comprehension which leaves him with just one option. Lie and make up BS so he can big himself up.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#219040 Mar 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Pope is an atheist.(He rejects the FSM)
You and Christine are the only people I've ever seen make that claim.
I have never made that claim, I provided evidence that proved you were talking out you’re a$$ so you have made it up out of BS just to make your self feel proud of being a lying T\/\/AT.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#219041 Mar 14, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
- Abraham Lincoln
It is Tried and True Under the Guise of Religion..

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) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,618,012
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 min Trojan 34,436
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr weapon X 318,260
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Oct 15 Heretic 11,649
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 30 Frankie Rizzo 201,871
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 29 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web