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

#186455 Nov 21, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
Doctor do you practice any medicine in Mexico?
Not in clinics or on strangers. I am not licenced here.

But I do give opinions to friends that ask for them, including second opinions on the meanings of lab tests and X-rays, diagnoses, prognoses, and therapeutic options just as I did with Riverside Redneck and his parotid, submandibular or sunlingual stones.

I do this at no charge, with no exam, and keeping no records. I also tell them that I have not studied medicine or examined a patient in four years.

I was at the top of my game, however, when I bowed out four years ago. Would you find it improbable if I told you that I used to study medicine diligently and was a very good student of it until I stopped? I have been blessed with an insatiable curiosity, the ability to learn just about anything, and a strong sense of duty - exactly the opposite of what the theists who accuse me of being a corner cutting, insurance defrauding, law avoiding hack on the run imagine.

Why do you ask.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#186456 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what his faith is or says.
I have watched him employ reason and logic to mow down the vaunted Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and other luminaries.
Craig's debate with physicist/atheist Krauss was particularly enjoyable. Krauss' contention that the universe arose from nothing did not go over as well as it did with atheists scientists.
I apologize if my nomenclature is out of date.
I haven't checked the bulletin board today.
His cosmological argument is flawed, as are all arguments dealing with this premise. Thats something CAN'T come from nothing is an argument from ignorance. There is NO way to prove that something CANNOT come from nothing. In order to make the claim that something CAN"T come from nothing, you are required to have an example of nothing. We have examples of *something* but NO examples of nothing. Therefore to claim with certainty that SOMETHING CANNOT COME FOR NOTHING, is an unsupported claim, exactly the same as the claim that God exists. So until you can product and example of NOTHING, you have no leg to stand on claiming something cannot come from nothing.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186457 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be correct. It may have been inevitable given how hospitable earth is to life. It'd very possible that life formed on earth repeatedly between a series of sterilization catastrophes that were likely common in the earlier eons of earth's history.
Why is that "very possible"?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186458 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

I appear to have been promoted from an anus to a man.
Some women might not consider that a promotion....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186459 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull shit.
"Anti-choice" is inaccurate and contrived. The action being opposed is the abortion of the fetus. "Choice" is unrelated to the offense in all situations except one specific act - abortion. So "anti-choice" is neither accurate nor precise.
People you label "anti-choice" don't care whether you choose paper or plastic at the grocery. It is an inaccurate and vague term, purposely so.
It is a weasel word, and a euphemism. It is an invention for casting negative connotations on those who oppose abortion.
Your bull shit might sell to allies; not to a rational skeptic like me.
What would a better term be?

Anti-abortion?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#186460 Nov 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
We got stuck on that oddly asymmetric gyratory on the abc road a couple of times and felt the benefit of the A/C then. But yes, mainly pointless.
Most UK people refer to Grantley Adams International as Bridgetown Airport. BA fly there from London Gatwick, which is also nowhere near London. ;)
http://barbados.airport-authority.com/
<quoted text>
There's a railway junction in Ireland called Limerick Junction. It's way out in the sticks in County Tipperary, and nowhere near Limerick...

I once overheard two little old ladies on the platfom:

#1: "I wonder why they put the station all the way out here?"

#2: "Probably so it'd be near the tracks."

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#186461 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what his faith is or says.
I have watched him employ reason and logic to mow down the vaunted Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and other luminaries.
Craig's debate with physicist/atheist Krauss was particularly enjoyable. Krauss' contention that the universe arose from nothing did not go over as well as it did with atheists scientists.
I apologize if my nomenclature is out of date.
I haven't checked the bulletin board today.
See?

You cite reason, logic, enjoyment.

I require EVIDENCE.

I need an evidentiary basis for a god, in order to consider the possibility there is one or more.

Can you provide any evidence?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186462 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You claimed that Buck's claim was unsupported. That is false.
Spontaneous generation was a scientific "fact" for nearly 2,000 years and was taught as such.
How old do you imagine science to be?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I can't supply a link right now, but this is from Wiki, "Spontaneous generation", under the "scientific method" section: It goes back to the 3rd century BC, but Aristotle coined it and made it "fact"...
Then you consider Aristotle a scientist? I don't. His philosophy was excellent, but his science a tad deficient. Do you know what he taught about the principles of nature? It's purely faith based, not evidence based.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Jan Baptist van Helmont (15801644) used experimental techniques, such as growing a willow for five years and showing it increased mass while the soil showed a trivial decrease in comparison. As the process of photosynthesis was not understood, he attributed the increase of mass to the absorption of water. His notes also describe a recipe for mice (a piece of soiled cloth plus wheat for 21 days) and scorpions (basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight). His notes suggest he may even have done these things.
--
In 1745, John Needham performed a series of experiments on boiled broths. Believing that boiling would kill all living things, he showed that when sealed right after boiling, the broths would cloud, allowing the belief in spontaneous generation to persist. His studies were rigorously scrutinized by his peers and many of them agreed.
--
Joseph Priestley said: "There is nothing in modern philosophy that appears to me so extraordinary, as the revival of what has long been considered as the exploded doctrine of equivocal...by which is meant the production of organized bodies from substances that have no organization, as plants and animals from no pre-existing germs of the same kinds, plants without seeds, and animals without sexual intercourse."
--
It wasn't until the 1850s when Louis Pasteur discovered that spontaneous generation was in fact a false science. So from some time in the 300s ears of scienceBC, to the 1850s AD, spontaneous generation was a fact. Even though it never was. The only reason I bring it up is because of all the Topix atheists that absolutely swear their existence to the belief of science and to point out that even scientific fact is not always a fact.
Thanks, but we don't place much confidence in anything that is not generated and vetted by the scientific method as we conceive it today.

Offering the difficulties encountered in the earliest years of science as an argument against the findings of modern science is not compelling. I'm not willing to throw out modern science based on what somebody living on the cusp of modernity said.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186463 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You said, "No scientific experiment concluded that. That was what was commonly believed on faith until science debunked it with experiment." Baptiste's scientific experiments concluded exactly that.
It wasn't faith, it was science, in his case.
So you say.

Do you have any evidence to support that "Baptiste" did valid scientific experimentation, or even invalid experimentation? If so, will you offer it, or should we just accept your pronouncements on faith?

And do you think that if you were correct, that it would have ramification for the reliability of science, or are you just being argumentative and hoping that somehow it undermines the validity of modern science anyway?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186464 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I thought analysis was the detailed examination of the elements or structure of something. But that's me.
That's correct, and a paraphrasing of what I posted, but it wasn't you. I just Googled your definition and found it all over the Internet.
christ INSANITY is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#186465 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Respect is the word that comes to mind when I think about how you write. And thanks for telling us what kind of a guy you are.
But back to the discussion, how distinguished do you suppose the life of Jesus would be today without the people who wrote about him?
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The reader should note how Buck defines his his own judgments not as opinions, but as objective truth, an implying that those who disagree are wrong. Impressive does not refer to a psychological state caused by an experience, but an objective truth floating in space.
Note also that he doesn't merely disagree with me. He disbelieves me, implying that I am lying.
This is Buck demeaning his disputant, reifying his opinions, and telling his audience how to think with verbal sleight of hand.
as E12 would say,,Tipping hat!!
LLL
what puzles me is,just why does he need to Lie so much?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186466 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:

How old do you imagine science to be?
I don't know.

But natural science existed since the discovery and manipulation of fire.

So maybe a longer than recorded history.
Then you consider Aristotle a scientist? I don't. His philosophy was excellent, but his science a tad deficient. Do you know what he taught about the principles of nature? It's purely faith based, not evidence based.
He was a scientist for his time to be sure.

Just as Einstein was a scientist of our time.

Who's to say that in 2,000 years, "real" scientists of that time won't laugh and mock us for thinking Einstein was a real scientist?
Thanks, but we don't place much confidence in anything that is not generated and vetted by the scientific method as we conceive it today.
Offering the difficulties encountered in the earliest years of science as an argument against the findings of modern science is not compelling. I'm not willing to throw out modern science based on what somebody living on the cusp of modernity said.
I'm not talking about modern science, I'm talking about science from roughly 300BC to 1850AD.

I'm talking about the two mellenia where science "knew" life came from non-life spontaneously.

You can't deny that for all those years, they thought it was fact.

And for all those years, they taught it as fact.

Even though it was never a fact.

What "facts" are we being taught now that aren't facts?

We used to be taught that our solar system has one planets. OOPS! Not a fact.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#186468 Nov 21, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
One does not prove God. One experiences God.
When are you going to experience God?
Please elaborate on something that you feel would be an experience of God. I'm asking genuinely.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186469 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How old do you imagine science to be?
<quoted text>
Then you consider Aristotle a scientist? I don't. His philosophy was excellent, but his science a tad deficient. Do you know what he taught about the principles of nature? It's purely faith based, not evidence based.
<quoted text>
Thanks, but we don't place much confidence in anything that is not generated and vetted by the scientific method as we conceive it today.
Offering the difficulties encountered in the earliest years of science as an argument against the findings of modern science is not compelling. I'm not willing to throw out modern science based on what somebody living on the cusp of modernity said.
The modern day "findings" are always in error.

If the Higgs's boson has actually been discovered then an entire rewrite of the atomic particles will then have to be done to account for the energy transfers "observed". Do not forget the protons and neutrons were the base of the nuclei, and assigned values to fit the model. Your "forces". The Higg's boson is at least 30-40 times the mass of a proton. This will have to rewrite atomic physics, chemistry, and cosmology.

You don't seem to understand those particles and forces of physics are purely mathematical visualizations based upon much, much greater transfers of energy. They are not real "things". They are rationalizations.

You are still following priests.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186470 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
.
Would juice work as well as water or should I just stick to water?
Water. You want to dilute the offending ions, not add more of them.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Also, would you suspect that excess beer would help cause sialolithiasis analogous?
Beer (alcohol) is a diuretic, meaning that it stimulates urination, which facilitates dehydration - your enemy.
http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/h...

This doesn't mean that you can't enjoy your beer, but you should chase it with water.
It aint necessarily so wrote:

Is a gable end two rake walls end to end?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, exactly.
Dude!
RiversideRedneck wrote:
In hot inmates, I recommend to everyone to have a gable vent fan installed, to help draw out the hot air from the attic thus cooking the house for the cost if a fan. For the green wise, most companies sell solar powered gable vent fans, making heir daily use free.
Hot inmates?

We went solar last year at this time. Or power bill was six dollars this month.
christ INSANITY is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#186471 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hate the legend/myth of Jesus. I just don't exalt it like you do, either. His public persona is that of a nice person, much like Mary Tyler Moore.
maybe not
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186472 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How about this? I know Caucasian doesn't mean "white". Why do people think it does? How did it change? Do you know?
I don't know that story well enough to help you. The word Caucasian derives from the Caucasus Mountains separating Europe and Asia, but how the white race came to be designated by that word is a story I've never investigated except just now to review the Wiki article on the mountains, which offered no answers, and the Wiki on the Caucasian race, which was not very enlightening, either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#R...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186473 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
CORRECTION not "hot inmates"......."hot climates" Lmao Shut up, Buck.
LOL.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#186474 Nov 21, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the truth. You Atheist are like parrots in that you just repeat the same things over and over. Just take a moment and go back a few pages and look for yourself.
The religious folk on this forum do that as well.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186475 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Please, allow me to gloat a bit. It's not often I get to go toe-to-toe with a physicist like Polymath, knowing I'm right and he's wrong, and then have my rightness confirmed by an independent expert.
Thanks, but I have to defer to Polymath in these matters. I'm merely expressing my understanding of things, which agrees with yours.
Buck Crick wrote:
and the infinite multiverse is impossible.
Please make sure to let it know.

[I guess my status as an expert just expired.]

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 Grey Ghost 1,656,997
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Chosen Traveler 35,087
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr ThomasA 322,076
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 10 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 11,898
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web