Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Siro

Sydney, Australia

#186525 Nov 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely a "cult of evolution" would be based around Charles Darwin and not Richard Dawkins - jus shows us how ignorant your creationist cult really is.
Evolution is a fact, and the people that reject facts are mentally ill - being unable to prove the object of their hallucinations - god. The mental illness of faith is great cause of stupidity & ignorance amongst society.
Fact is youre a nutjob, if you reject that you must be mentally ill, which in turn makes you a nutjob

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#186527 Nov 22, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you bitter because you lost a close love one to leukemia?
Are you hateful because you're a Christian?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186528 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There is no term that better describes people that oppose the right of a pregnant mother to choose to have a lawful abortion.
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
Then you are arguing that anti-choice is inaccurate because the term is overly broad, and doesn't specify that it is referring only to the choice of having an abortion? And you're indignant about it, too, going so far as to call it a weasel word? Is this your objection and emotional reaction to the use of the abbreviate term "pro-choice?"

OK.

Is it safe to say that you are just as livid over the use of the term "pro-life" even by people that support the death penalty and the slaughter of animals, or do you have a separate standard and emotional response for that camp?

I would argue that anti-choice might not be as precise as you life for failing to narrow down to choice-to-have-an-abortion, but it is still accurate. What would be inaccurate is calling us anti-choice or anti-abortion. Remember, accuracy is achieved when the range includes the correct answer, and precision refers to the narrowness of that range. Saying that navy is a color is accurate, though not as precise as saying that it is a shade of blue, which in turn is less precise than calling it a shade of dark blue.

=========

Three days ago, I provided a list of the philosophical areas that we had defined and examined in some detail over the week or two preceding that post. I'd like to update it:

Rational skepticism, freethinking, atheism versus agnosticism, organized religion versus personal religion, belief versus belief in, evil versus malice, science versus pseudoscience, hypothesis versus scientific theory, the scientific vetting process, biological evolution, analytic truth and tautology, arrogance, the functional (operational) definition of a Christian, prescriptive versus descriptive lexicography, the equivocation fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, the law of noncontradiction, two meaning of respect, two meanings of faith, open- and closed mindedness, submission versus autonomy, infantilism versus self-actualization, mature versus infantile love, spirituality versus spiritualism, ego and the self, intelligence versus intellect and wisdom, dialectic vs sophistry, analysis, logical positivism, analytic philosophy, the philosophy of language, framing, premise versus pseudopremise, conclusion verses pseudoconclusion, reverse argument, valid argument versus sound argument, and accuracy versus precision.

Add to that assorted word lists such as comical words (quibberdick, mome, breedbate, snool, and snoutband), paraphilias, medical terms for common bodily functions, adjectives describing family relationships and the cardinal directions, assorted words about criticism (calumny, impugn, etc.), and even roofing terms.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186529 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why is that "very possible"?
Are you taking issue with the use of the word "possible," the modifier "very," or both?

It's possible because whatever cannot be shown to be impossible is possible.

The word "very" was chosen because there is evidence for abiogenesis, and none for divine creation, and evidence that the earth was bombarded with what would occasionally be earth melting, life sterilizing asteroids and comets, meaning that if the process were a natural one, it would likely have had to occurs repeatedly before it led to the permanent presence of life on earth. Let's look at the geological timeline:

The present chain of life seems to go back to when the earth was about a billion years old, meaning that no completely sterilizing event occurred after that date. The current estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.5-4.6 billion years. The late heavy bombardment (LHB) is thought to have occurred approximately 4.1-3.8 billion years ago. Our ancestral prokaryotic cells are thought to have first appeared 3.6 billion years ago. It seems likely that the process that led to these would have done the same thing several times in the hundreds of millions of years between the time when the earth and its oceans cooled sufficiently to sustain life, and the end of the late heavy bombardment, hence the word "very".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186530 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What would a better term be? Anti-abortion?
Buck doesn't like politically correct weasel words like "pro-choice." He's like us to be more honest: pro-baby-murder.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186531 Nov 22, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you bitter because you lost a close love one to leukemia?
Was that the leukaemia that your god invented at the same time as everything else?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186532 Nov 22, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Good day to you stranger, it’s been a while, good to see you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186533 Nov 22, 2013
christ INSANITY is EVIL wrote:
as E12 would say,,Tipping hat!!
Thanks.
christ INSANITY is EVIL wrote:
what puzles me is,just why does he need to Lie so much?
Buck is not here to explore ideas, expand his data base, discover new truths, or achieve greater insights. He's here to prevail, and will post whatever he thinks will facilitate that goal. Lying is only part of it. Ridicule, sophistry, fallacious argumentation, self-congratulations, telling his audience what to think, evading arguments, and impugning the intelligence, motives, and character of his opponent are also standard fare.

It's why we love him so.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#186534 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
<quoted text>
Buck is not here to explore ideas, expand his data base, discover new truths, or achieve greater insights. He's here to prevail, and will post whatever he thinks will facilitate that goal. Lying is only part of it. Ridicule, sophistry, fallacious argumentation, self-congratulations, telling his audience what to think, evading arguments, and impugning the intelligence, motives, and character of his opponent are also standard fare.
It's why we love him so.
This is arguable however I do wonder why Buck has not donned leather wear and frequented the blue oyster bar. off to the ent ugh
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#186535 Nov 22, 2013

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186536 Nov 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> This is arguable however I do wonder why Buck has not donned leather wear and frequented the blue oyster bar. off to the ent ugh
What makes you think he does not don leather wear and frequent gay clubs, there is no evidence that he does not. To my knowledge he has never denied it
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186537 Nov 22, 2013
I'm not bitter but why oh why does your god allow childhood leukaemia?
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you bitter because you lost a close love one to leukemia?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186538 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Then you are arguing that anti-choice is inaccurate because the term is overly broad, and doesn't specify that it is referring only to the choice of having an abortion? And you're indignant about it, too, going so far as to call it a weasel word? Is this your objection and emotional reaction to the use of the abbreviate term "pro-choice?"
OK.
Is it safe to say that you are just as livid over the use of the term "pro-life" even by people that support the death penalty and the slaughter of animals, or do you have a separate standard and emotional response for that camp?
I would argue that anti-choice might not be as precise as you life for failing to narrow down to choice-to-have-an-abortion, but it is still accurate. What would be inaccurate is calling us anti-choice or anti-abortion. Remember, accuracy is achieved when the range includes the correct answer, and precision refers to the narrowness of that range. Saying that navy is a color is accurate, though not as precise as saying that it is a shade of blue, which in turn is less precise than calling it a shade of dark blue.
=========
Three days ago, I provided a list of the philosophical areas that we had defined and examined in some detail over the week or two preceding that post. I'd like to update it:
Rational skepticism, freethinking, atheism versus agnosticism, organized religion versus personal religion, belief versus belief in, evil versus malice, science versus pseudoscience, hypothesis versus scientific theory, the scientific vetting process, biological evolution, analytic truth and tautology, arrogance, the functional (operational) definition of a Christian, prescriptive versus descriptive lexicography, the equivocation fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, the law of noncontradiction, two meaning of respect, two meanings of faith, open- and closed mindedness, submission versus autonomy, infantilism versus self-actualization, mature versus infantile love, spirituality versus spiritualism, ego and the self, intelligence versus intellect and wisdom, dialectic vs sophistry, analysis, logical positivism, analytic philosophy, the philosophy of language, framing, premise versus pseudopremise, conclusion verses pseudoconclusion, reverse argument, valid argument versus sound argument, and accuracy versus precision.
Add to that assorted word lists such as comical words (quibberdick, mome, breedbate, snool, and snoutband), paraphilias, medical terms for common bodily functions, adjectives describing family relationships and the cardinal directions, assorted words about criticism (calumny, impugn, etc.), and even roofing terms.
No, "anti-choice" is inaccurate and dishonest.

Your analogy with navy wear is flawed.

The analogous subterfuge would be to say Navy personnel wear uniforms that are pink.

Navy blue and pink are both colors.

But to say the navy wears pink, knowing otherwise, is deception.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186541 Nov 22, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah, but is this an attempt to engage in a low brow conversation?
Yes.

What about the ghost poop? Ever had that?

You know, where you take a nice shit then when you wipe, there's nothing on the toilet paper.

Ghost poop.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186544 Nov 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You are correct, of course.
What term would you use for "blind faith in science"?
IAnus takes it even further.
He fabricates scriptures.
Buck Crick wrote:
What term would you use for "blind faith in science"?
"Intellectual"?

"Rational skeptic"?

"Freethinker"?

LMAO!

Pretty much none of them have done any scientific research, they get their beliefs from books.

So they can mock us for our belief from a book...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186546 Nov 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I'm not bitter but why oh why does your god allow childhood leukaemia?
<quoted text>
For the same reason he allows this.

http://www.godvine.com/In-the-Arms-of-an-Ange...

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#186547 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
"Intellectual"?
"Rational skeptic"?
"Freethinker"?
LMAO!
Pretty much none of them have done any scientific research, they get their beliefs from books.
So they can mock us for our belief from a book...
Methinks you need to read your post and consider the meaning of the word “mock”

Tell me have you ever done any research, scientific or otherwise?

Science is falsifiable, open to question, further evidences and learning

You are mocked for your gullibility which is different from the god books that are mocked because they are not falsifiable, not open to question, deny further evidence and facts and refuse to lean anything past bronze age belief. Or in the case of the more modern quran dark age belief

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186548 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you taking issue with the use of the word "possible," the modifier "very," or both?
It's possible because whatever cannot be shown to be impossible is possible.
The word "very" was chosen because there is evidence for abiogenesis, and none for divine creation, and evidence that the earth was bombarded with what would occasionally be earth melting, life sterilizing asteroids and comets, meaning that if the process were a natural one, it would likely have had to occurs repeatedly before it led to the permanent presence of life on earth. Let's look at the geological timeline:
The present chain of life seems to go back to when the earth was about a billion years old, meaning that no completely sterilizing event occurred after that date. The current estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.5-4.6 billion years. The late heavy bombardment (LHB) is thought to have occurred approximately 4.1-3.8 billion years ago. Our ancestral prokaryotic cells are thought to have first appeared 3.6 billion years ago. It seems likely that the process that led to these would have done the same thing several times in the hundreds of millions of years between the time when the earth and its oceans cooled sufficiently to sustain life, and the end of the late heavy bombardment, hence the word "very".
There is O (zero) evidence for abiogenesis.

Despite centuries of searching for it, and trying to replicate it, science has been 100% unsuccessful.

No instance of it has been observed in all of history, not one, not once.

But you are free to take it on faith.

Abiogenesis is possible in the same sense as my shitting a grandfather clock.

With a Roman dial.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186549 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I've answered it since you wrote the above, and will amplify that answer here:
Your claim about Needham appears to be valid. It appears that he did do a scientific experiment in the mid-eighteenth century (1745) and falsely concluded that spontaneous generation was possible. Pasteur debunked these claims nearly a century later (1859). I concede that science confirmed and propagated a wrong idea in between.
So where does that leave us? I must retract my comment, "No scientific experiment concluded that [Science once "knew" that insects were born of rotting flesh]. That was what was commonly believed on faith until science debunked it with experiment."
As a point of fact, Needham's experiment did not conclude that insects were born of rotting flesh. His experiment challenged the belief "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."
But that is a fine point, and doesn't undermine your implied claim that science perpetuated a false belief in spontaneous generation for nearly a century.
I stand corrected. Let's begin our discussion again from that newly shared premise. What would you like to say about science? That it can make errors or commit fraud? I agree. That it cannot be trusted? I would disagree. As I have said elsewhere, today, we don't accept the results of a single experiment as scientific fact, perhaps because of having been burned like this in the past:
IANS: "Papers fresh out of the laboratory shouldn't be considered valid science until they have passed this greater test."
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
IANS: "we don't place much confidence in anything that is not generated and vetted by the scientific method as we conceive it today"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Would you equate the theory of evolution with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, and say that if one could be wrong, the other could just as easily be wrong?
Incidentally, Buck's use of Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644) was not a valid counterexample. What he did was not science. Science appears not to have erred until Needham, about a century-and-a-half later.
Very good. You're a stand up kinda guy.

I think what this tells us about science is that it cannot be trusted as it seems most Topix atheists trust it.

Of course science is awesome and ever-changing but it's the "facts" part about it that burns my hide.

Is it a fact that life creates itself? No. But it was taught that it could.

Is it a fact that we have nine planets in our solar system? No. But it was taught as fact very recently. I remember building a solar system model in school with nine planets. My kids build the same model with eight.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186550 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you taking issue with the use of the word "possible," the modifier "very," or both?
It's possible because whatever cannot be shown to be impossible is possible.
The word "very" was chosen because there is evidence for abiogenesis, and none for divine creation, and evidence that the earth was bombarded with what would occasionally be earth melting, life sterilizing asteroids and comets, meaning that if the process were a natural one, it would likely have had to occurs repeatedly before it led to the permanent presence of life on earth. Let's look at the geological timeline:
The present chain of life seems to go back to when the earth was about a billion years old, meaning that no completely sterilizing event occurred after that date. The current estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.5-4.6 billion years. The late heavy bombardment (LHB) is thought to have occurred approximately 4.1-3.8 billion years ago. Our ancestral prokaryotic cells are thought to have first appeared 3.6 billion years ago. It seems likely that the process that led to these would have done the same thing several times in the hundreds of millions of years between the time when the earth and its oceans cooled sufficiently to sustain life, and the end of the late heavy bombardment, hence the word "very".
How fascinating.

You know, other faiths have similar stories about a guy and gal named Adam and Eve, and some dust.

There is the same evidence for both stories, which is to say, NONE.

Both take their stories on faith, but one side is honest about that.

Your evidence is "just so".

It just has to be so.

That's the tally of it.

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) 8 min southern at heart 1,497,484
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Rshermr 10,990
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) 13 hr Worker 289
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed Faith Michigan 313,382
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed ResidentPhartx 32,756
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Feb 21 TrumpsPhartsx 99
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web