Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255484 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.

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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186551 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Fundies keep reiterating that old and disproved stuff. Are you a fundy?
Nope. Not a fundie.

Are you an athie?

Your belief that E=MC2 disproves God makes it seems likely that you are.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186552 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".
Hold on there, pardner. There's no evidence for abiogenesis. None. All the evidence we have suggests that life cannot create itself, that it needs an outside force. Even with our greatest efforts and talents, we cannot create life. We can't even create a dead atom.

And if this sentence is true:

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

Then you must admit that God is possible.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186553 Nov 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Don't define words for me. I have a dictionary. The meaning is not open for debate.

Religion is also open to question, further evidence and learning. It's also open for different variations. That's why there's so many different forms of Christianity.

There's no one way, honey boo boo.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186554 Nov 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats like when creationists post sh*t about god in this forum, but when we ask for proof, it turns out there's no god.
You won't find proof here.

I've told you that many times.

God ain't gonna appear here for your personal gratification.

The only way you'll find proof of God is to ask God yourself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186555 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't know. But natural science existed since the discovery and manipulation of fire. So maybe a longer than recorded history.
By science, I mean the word as it is most commonly used today, not in it's original sense - a prescribed method of examining the world, and the body of knowledge gleaned using that method.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
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.
If your point is that the methods before modern science were faith based and unreliable, I agree. Aristotle's natural philosophy was faith based and wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186556 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What "facts" are we being taught now that aren't facts?
Plenty, especially in the area of health and medicine. You are right to be skeptical of that. I told my wife just this week when she told me that it was announced that drinking milk is not good for children's bones, that I didn't trust the report, and not because of what it said, but because I don't trust reports of that nature anymore whatever the conclusion. We've all seen them reverse themselves on too many topics too many times.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drinking-milk-i...

But I trust high level science - well vetted scientific theories and their core tenets, and that is probably what this discussion is about: the science that challenges the Christian bible and its creation story.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186557 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
We used to be taught that our solar system has one planets. OOPS! Not a fact.
Did you mean nine planets?

Originally, only Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were known, and Earth wasn't included among the planets. Also, there wasn't much distinction made between the five non-Earth planets, and the moon and sun. They were all thought to orbit the earth along with the stars, but with the big seven wandering independent of the stars. This, as you know, was overturned with the supplanting of the Ptolemaic model of the universe with the Copernican model about the time that modern science was just getting under way.

Later, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered by telescope and added to the list. Pluto was deleted not because any knowledge previously called fact was overturned, but because new discoveries and new knowledge led to a redefinition of what kinds of objects we wanted to call planets.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186558 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck doesn't like politically correct weasel words like "pro-choice." He's like us to be more honest: pro-baby-murder.
Fallacy of the False Dilemna.

"Pro-Abortion Rights" would suit me, and is accurate.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#186559 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not a fundie.
Are you an athie?
Your belief that E=MC2 disproves God makes it seems likely that you are.
Good to know, I have no tolerance for the deliberate ignorance of funnymentalism

Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

For me there is no “disbelief” involved, I know.

E=MC^2 proves that the god as described in the kjv version of the babble (and others) revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.

As yet and despite your attempts to muddy the facts with old and disproved information, that formula still holds.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186560 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There is an underlying philosophy which operates in most if not all science.

Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186561 Nov 22, 2013
Anti choice is the honest term for the religitard position.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck doesn't like politically correct weasel words like "pro-choice." He's like us to be more honest: pro-baby-murder.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186563 Nov 22, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you hateful because you're a Christian?
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#186564 Nov 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't define words for me. I have a dictionary. The meaning is not open for debate.
Religion is also open to question, further evidence and learning. It's also open for different variations. That's why there's so many different forms of Christianity.
There's no one way, honey boo boo.
Yet you mocked and then mocked the mocker, very hypocritical of you

Nope, religion does not change, they repeat the same old BS over and over, however yes there are different variations of personal egotism but all basically saying the same disproven and discredited thing.

Certainly not your way for sure…
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186565 Nov 22, 2013
"Remember kids, all the above is just a work of fiction."
-Revelation 22:22

The religitards rarely print this last verse.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know, I have no tolerance for the deliberate ignorance of funnymentalism
Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
For me there is no “disbelief” involved, I know.
E=MC^2 proves that the god as described in the kjv version of the babble (and others) revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.
As yet and despite your attempts to muddy the facts with old and disproved information, that formula still holds.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186566 Nov 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Anti choice is the honest term for the religitard position.
<quoted text>
"Anti-choice" is honest for you.

But then, you're a bald-faced liar.

So you're probably not the best barometer.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#186567 Nov 22, 2013
The religitard solution would be to hide the existence of the extra dwarf planets. You lot have to chase your tails just to keep your plates spinning on their untruthful foundations.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186568 Nov 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
By science, I mean the word as it is most commonly used today, not in it's original sense - a prescribed method of examining the world, and the body of knowledge gleaned using that method.
<quoted text>
If your point is that the methods before modern science were faith based and unreliable, I agree. Aristotle's natural philosophy was faith based and wrong.
You're missing the point and I can't tell if you're intentionally doing it or not.

The point is that they used to call it science, they used to think it was fact. Just as we think our modern science is fact.

Nowadays we call their old science just a "natural philosophy", but they didn't. They thought they were using actual science.

And they taught their non-facts to the world and the world accepted them, including their scientific communities.

Even though they were never right.

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) 5 min FYVM 1,394,443
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Yes We Are 9,780
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Thu Trojan 32,287
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Jun 16 ThomasA 311,316
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 13 Dump Trump 201,862
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web