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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187680 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Because in nearly 4,000 years, the Bible hasn't changed it's tune. Science seems to change every 2 seconds.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Is this an argument for the validity or reliability of the Christian bible over over science?
Not over science. The Bible is not over science, it's a completely different subject.

It's a testament to the Bible's longevity.

How about other sources of information like encyclopedias, textbooks, telephone directories and dictionaries? Do you trust the oldest one most there as well?
I don't know.

Be more specific.
Incidentally, I think your bible changed pretty radically almost two millennia ago.
Only the translation has changed, not the core concept.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187681 Nov 27, 2013
Buck also posts incomplete definitions of Atheism.
Buck doesn't like the whole truth.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Who can compare with Tim Bolen when it comes to insults?
I don't see an argument here, just innuendo and insults. I don't know who would care about Randi's finances apart from whether he can afford to make good on his offer if necessary.
Is this the kind of person and material you want to associate yourself with, or to use to make points? This type of language pretty much discredits any speaker that chooses to use it.
Incidentally, you forgot the first line of Bolens rant, so I've included it, as well as the link which you choose to provide :
"I have absolutely no use for the group that describes themselves as "Skeptics." The group, made up, I believe, of life's flotsam and jetsam, inhabits ..."
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/D...
I can see why you would want to remove that.
=========
Incidentally, you probably know about flotasam and jetsam, but did know about lagan and derelict?
"Flotsam is floating wreckage of a ship or its cargo.
"Jetsam is part of a ship, its equipment, or its cargo that is purposefully cast overboard or jettisoned to lighten the load in time of distress and that sinks or is washed ashore.
"Lagan is cargo that is lying on the bottom of the ocean, sometimes marked by a buoy, which can be reclaimed.
"Derelict is cargo that is also on the bottom of the ocean, but which no one has any hope of reclaiming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flotsam_and_jets...
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187682 Nov 27, 2013
Buck posted his solution is to cut climate science budgets.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
That's why it has spiked WAY beyond all historical cycles, covering hundreds of thousands of years, in the last 100 years.
Sure.
OK.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187683 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Can you share some of those proofs for us? Your video was longer than I was willing to give to this. Do you have a written report of any paranormal claim proven with scientific precision?
Buck Crick wrote:
Extrasensory Electroencephalographic Induction between Identical Twins
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Duane1965.p...
OK, thanks for that.

Incidentally, when I ask you something like this, I expect you to provide your best data first. It is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to pour through a dozen papers to see the evidence that he doesn't expect to see ever. If I'm wrong about that, I need to know pretty quickly. Open-mindedness only requires a willingness to be convinced by compelling data and arguments, not an obligation to review a torrent of citations

I asked you for "a written report of any paranormal claim proven with scientific precision" - your language. You provided me with a papaer dated October 1965 that ended with,

"Our series of experiments does not permit us to draw any conclusions regarding the incidence of this phenomenon. Because of the paucity of controlled data, contrasted with the voluminous controversial information available on the subject of extrasensory perception, it appears unwise to draw any conclusions or to make any statements regarding these aspects of our investigations.

If the investigator/author doesn't consider it proof, why are you offering as such? Why didn't we see something from 2012 or 2013 expanding on these findings instead? Did it die along the way?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#187684 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck posted his solution is to cut climate science budgets.
<quoted text>
I hear that's a popular solution with the big oil companies, too.

What a co-inky-dink.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187685 Nov 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially
separated human subjects
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Wackermann2...
have

I see at least three or four more of these ahead. Give me your best one. If it is compelling, I'll ask for two more. If you have something here, it will be evident by three papers. I'll give you that much of my time and energy in good faith.

Do you know what a Gish gallop is?

"The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187686 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They have not proven it yet so how are they "proving it now"?! You're a fortune teller for science, are ya?
If.......IF........science demonstrates abiogenesis is possible, they're doing it using intelligence and intelligent design.
Sucks, huh?
<quoted text>
You know what?
Never mind.
You're puny mind can't comprehend basic logic.
Thanks for "folding" You know I'm right. Comes down to what kicks the process into action, natural means or a God thing. We can actually witness some of the natural means, but none of the God thingy. Next you'll claim God is responsible for the natural means, of course you will have made an assertion, and assertion for which evidence is required, yeah I know, thats a word that scares the shit out of you guys, sorry, but thats what rational people require.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187687 Nov 27, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Thanks for "folding" You know I'm right.
A man can only reject himself is many times before realizing that he's debating with a brick wall.

That'd be you, dude.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#187688 Nov 27, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for "folding" You know I'm right. Comes down to what kicks the process into action, natural means or a God thing. We can actually witness some of the natural means, but none of the God thingy. Next you'll claim God is responsible for the natural means, of course you will have made an assertion, and assertion for which evidence is required, yeah I know, thats a word that scares the shit out of you guys, sorry, but thats what rational people require.
How many times must you be told God can do things that man considers majic. What is impossible with men is possible with God. Do you understand, babbling buffoon?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187689 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A man can only reject himself is many times before realizing that he's debating with a brick wall.
That'd be you, dude.
*repeat*, not reject , ya dumb redneck.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#187690 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Because in nearly 4,000 years, the Bible hasn't changed it's tune. Science seems to change every 2 seconds.
<quoted text>
Not over science. The Bible is not over science, it's a completely different subject.
It's a testament to the Bible's longevity.
<quoted text>
I don't know.
Be more specific.
<quoted text>
Only the translation has changed, not the core concept.
Btw someone paid over 14 million for a first edition book of psalms. A first edition bible goes for 35 million. This suggests God is alive. His spirit endearing people.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#187691 Nov 27, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, itÂ’s dripping along with the testosterone
ugh how gauche.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187692 Nov 27, 2013
There is no all powerful compassionate god because I have evidence of avoidable suffering.
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> How many times must you be told God can do things that man considers majic. What is impossible with men is possible with God. Do you understand, babbling buffoon?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187693 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Because in nearly 4,000 years, the Bible hasn't changed it's tune.
Science seems to change every 2 seconds.
I can't consider that reliable.
Even so, if abiogenesis is ever actually discovered, that would not disprove God. If scientists are ever successful in creating life in the lab they will have only proven that life can be produced as a product of intelligent design.
They will unwittingly be making the theists point true.
Are you actually saying that when it comes to explaining our reality, you consider the bible to be more reliable than science?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187694 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, are we talking prayer or God?
Cuz I thought we were talking God.
No one can convince me that prayer doesn't work, as I've had prayers answered directly.
<quoted text>
No sir, you didn't offend me.
I'm unoffendable.
I consider your rationality when posting to you.
I'm doing my best.
I know what you mean about the success of prayer.

It certainly worked for the 9/11 bombers when they prayed to their god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187695 Nov 27, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Btw someone paid over 14 million for a first edition book of psalms. A first edition bible goes for 35 million. This suggests God is alive. His spirit endearing people.
uh-huh...

Someone paid of $30 million for da Vinci's "Codex Leicester".

I guess that suggests he's alive, too...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187696 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There is no all powerful compassionate god because I have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
Supply said evidence.

(and try not starting a few posts with the word "Buck"....)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#187697 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is an HMO involved?
All seriousness aside, Riverside Redneck has been asking us what evidence could we hope to find for a god. As you likely know, this would be it, although we would need a third arm of the study: people getting no prayer or medical care (a placebo controlled study).
If we beefed up the numbers being tested to increase the power of the study, and chose our subjects so that the three groups were roughly alike going in (a randomized study), and our investigators and patients didn't know which therapy if any they received (a double blinded study), we could determine if either medicine, prayer, both, or neither did more than nothing.
But Riverside Redneck is correct to be cautious about the conclusions generated by a single study, and we should be suspicious of the findings - especially medical findings.
Incidentally, when cardiac patients were studied for the benefit of prayer, if they didn't know they were being prayed for, they did no better or worse than those getting no prayer.
But if they were told that they were being prayed for, they did worse (had more postoperative complications), as this ten-year study of 1800 patients revealed:
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 31, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pr...
"Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study called the STEP study (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) has found.
"And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested."
Anybody interested in looking at what an abstract to a study like this one looks like, check http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 , which gives a capsular summary of the study design and its outcomes.
And yes, this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Still, one wonders why the Lord didn't take this wonder opportunity to show us how real he is and how much he loves us. Surely he must know that doing otherwise will weaken faith and likely cost millions of souls that could have been saved had he protected all of the prayed for patients as the bible seems to suggest that he promised he would.
The thing is? Many illnesses can and do go away due to the simple fact of evolution: humans have built-in anti-sickness mechanisms.

So you'd have to factor in that in your study.

And?

Nutrition plays a role too-- so you have to account for *that*.

And?

Mental health has a say in how quickly people get better-- another variable to consider.

Finally?

The placebo effect is well established phenomena (see: mental health. <heh>).

It would be quite difficult to account for all of these variables.

But not impossible.

Still?

I'll take "Modern Medical Science" for $10, Alex.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#187698 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're misrepresenting me. I compared god blindness to color blindness and paranoia but considered the paranoia more analogous. This is what I posted:
My solution to problem [2]
The color blind know that normally sighted people are actually seeing something that they are not because of the ability of those people to identify colors consistently, and to agree among themselves about what they see, such as when one claims that the colorblind person's socks don't match, and he is able to poll any number of people that give him the same answer without collaborating. The colorblind are convinced by the strong correlation of the answers they get.
The paranoids, however, are different. They seldom agree, even with themselves, coming up with ad hoc argument after argument for why the danger is real, each contradicting the last one, with no two paranoids having the same version of their delusion, and most frustrated with and angry at those who "pretend not to see the obvious." Unlike the color sighted, the paranoid have to make emotional and passionate pleas to be believed.
Which group do you suppose the faithful most resemble to those of us that don't experience what they claim to experience? Many angrily chide the rest of us for disagreeing, often using the same emotionally charged pleading as the paranoids, often resorting to threats of hellfire. Furthermore, each describes a different god, contradicting not just one another, but themselves from telling to retelling. That's how I know that the god visions are in their heads.
So, in conclusion? Faith makes you .... a paranoid-delusional?

Okay. That certainly fits what I've seen here on Topix.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187699 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What happened? How is it awful?
Whatever your answer, it's nice you have you with us.
Hey, IANS.

Become a Mexican.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/27/209810/...

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) 1 min Incognito4Ever 1,496,870
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 44 min Fake News 10,975
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 44 min Trojan 32,755
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 19 hr ThomasA 313,381
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 19 hr TrumpsPhartsx 99
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