Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 comments on the Jul 18, 2009, Webbunny tumblelog story 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

#201240 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, RR, I am.
<quoted text>
It wasn't spoon fed to me. I was a Christian when I took my only biology class in high school. I did well, but I didn't retain much.
Most of what I learned about evolution I learned after becoming a rational skeptic. What makes evolution a fact is that it happens, and it is undeniable, like gravity.
<quoted text>
So? Do they guess that the missing section was a school bus with rockets? No. Their guesses are educated ones, and they remember that they were guesses instead of actual observations.
One thing that science does well (I'm personifying) is accept the quality of its pronouncements. A guess remains a guess, or a hypothesis, until it earns a greater status.
<quoted text>
I accept it because it all adds up. Up to the limits of my understanding, I have found nothing to cast doubt on the theory.
Most criticisms of the ToE are arguments from ignorance or straw men. The opposition have literally nothing to stand on but their own willful ignorance and bias. They usually reject it first, before knowing much of anything about it, then look for justification later. This is one of many examples of how the mechanisms that protect faith are damaging.
Fair enough. You're a rational skeptic.

I have my doubts about ToE, though. And you might be surprised they aren't Biblically based.

Wings are a strange one. Why would evolution go from no wings to wings? It'd take millions of years for animals to evolve sings and in the process the "winglets" would be useless. Conclusion: a useless adaptation for millions of years?

The missing links, which you criticize. Scientists line up five or ten ape skulls then have a human skull at the end. The gaps are too big in between the skulls to say 1, 2, 3.... It's more like 1, 167, 2356....

The Cambrian Explosion. We've found deep within the earth layers of fossilized bacteria. Right near that layer we find a variety of species, including vertebrates. Whereís the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?(The missing links you don't like...)

Humans. I mean, c'mon. Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet. Our closest 'relatives' can't even speak let alone create what humans have created. I think is apes and man have a common ancestor, why did only the human evolve into the intelligent creature that we are.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201241 Jan 9, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't get evolution do you?
You don't evolve, species evolve.
This is how it works.
1. All living things produce offspring which are slightly different to themselves, either through sex mixing two sets of genes or mistakes in copying or because bacteria can swap genes. Just observe how different you are to your parents and children.(Thatís Random).
2. All living things produce far more offspring than can possibly survive on the resources available.
3. Most of those offspring will die (watch any nature program).
4. Those most likely to survive are those most suited to that environment. Different environments will suit different individuals. In other words, what survives breeds, what doesnít doesnít.(Non random Natural selection).
5. So over many generations, a species changes, becomes more adapted to its environment.
6. If a branch of a species changes enough, it might be called a different species, just as foxes are a different species to wolves.
7. Only tiny changes can be expected to happen from one generation to the next. So the evolution of all body parts such as the eye and brain has to be explained in very small steps. Scientists are sure they can do that.
It isnít just the fittest that survive. Species can survive by becoming smaller, quieter and better at hiding.
Nor is it about increased complexity, thatís just one of many survival strategies.
Earthworms are very successful despite being very slow and dim.
This process is incredibly slow, but it does happen and as life has existed for about 3.5 billion years, itís had plenty of time to branch into all the forms we see today.
Sorry, but small incremental changes and time are not sufficient to explain the data.

As highlighted by Georgi Muskhelishvili and Andrew Travers refereed paper in "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences", completeness of the system of information generation and transfer in the DNA of all cells contains irreducibly complex organization. This means small incremental additons of information generation could not cause the necessary information for cellular regulation without the distinct lines present and functional.

As the authors put it, " the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cellĒ

In other words, the cell cannot convey genetic information if the completeness of the DNA coded lines of information is not present. Various paths of information are, as they say, "self-referential".

There are other more obvious examples of the irreducible complexity, which means systems exist that could not evolve incrementally. One is the vertebrate eye, which is of no use without the intricate structure and function of the optic nerve. The eye would have to have evolved independently 30 times - incrementally.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201242 Jan 9, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I was wondering the name of the story, saves me looking it up
And thanks
And when it comes to how we respond to the other 'side' I think we all have been somewhat programmed by Topix to answer how we do at times
It obviously kept Ians and I from actually talking as we let out pride get in the mix. Good exchanges where we can actually talk to the other person and maybe even learn a little bit about why they feel as they do are few and far between. Kudos for your willingness to take ownership of your reply and your desire to have those exchanges. We can help one another to remember this
(T) Peace brother
I have an old newspaper clipping somewhere out in my garage with that story on it. It's really old, you know have a newspaper gets all brown? That's where I first read it.

I thank you for that very witty post. It's part of my learning curve here on Topix. It was one of those posts where I went WOOOOOOAAAAHHH.......

And hey, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have no ego that prevents me from admitting it.

I'm only mostly perfect :)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201243 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Of course.
There isn't much Catcher can't do.
Alright! This is gonna be cool.

Now spit in your palm and let's shake on it.

Or do you prefer blood? You know, the Klingon way......

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#201244 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Fair enough. You're a rational skeptic.

I have my doubts about ToE, though. And you might be surprised they aren't Biblically based.

Wings are a strange one. Why would evolution go from no wings to wings? It'd take millions of years for animals to evolve sings and in the process the "winglets" would be useless. Conclusion: a useless adaptation for millions of years?

The missing links, which you criticize. Scientists line up five or ten ape skulls then have a human skull at the end. The gaps are too big in between the skulls to say 1, 2, 3.... It's more like 1, 167, 2356....

The Cambrian Explosion. We've found deep within the earth layers of fossilized bacteria. Right near that layer we find a variety of species, including vertebrates. Where’s the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?(The missing links you don't like...)

Humans. I mean, c'mon. Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet. Our closest 'relatives' can't even speak let alone create what humans have created. I think is apes and man have a common ancestor, why did only the human evolve into the intelligent creature that we are.
***religious tard who thinks it's an intelligent human***

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#201245 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Topix Atheist! Answer is simple: "It took billions of years and a lot can happen in billions of years."
Based on the fact that all the evidence we have, the evidence we've been searching for for 150 years, tells us that life cannot come from non-life tells me that something had to create it.
All life is complex, even the tiny DNA is complex. So complex that I can't see any way for it to provide itself. And science cannot answer that question.
I agree with you, I'm no Creationist either. I believe God started life, say back and waited for the opportune time to introduce Himself to His greatest creation - mankind.
The 4 billion year thing may be correct. But on God's clock, that means nothing.
Thoughts?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
(...)I'm no Creationist either. I believe God started life(...)
That makes you a creationist, it just so happens that you've adjusted your creationist stance to incorporate science, because the original creationist hypothesis was just too credulous and impossible to accept in it's original form.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201246 Jan 9, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
This should be interesting.
You joining in?

No shit talking tomorrow.

Civility, civility, civility.

It's hard when opinions vary so much. Especially when people have been hurt before.

You can do it, girl. We got your back.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#201247 Jan 9, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Shrinkie dinkie doo doo! Can't post under your normal name again?
STFU you creepy crusty ding bat.
Is that ShrinkyDink?!?

Dammit, I could really use a fart up the nose right about now!
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#201248 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
There isn't much Catcher can't do.
Read the book:

Willyoudoit

By: Betyawont

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#201249 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You joining in?
No shit talking tomorrow.
Civility, civility, civility.
It's hard when opinions vary so much. Especially when people have been hurt before.
You can do it, girl. We got your back.
Can I insult you just one more time today?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201250 Jan 9, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I'd be more curious how a single-cell organism split to form millions of different species. But even with the theory of one going from water to land, how would that work with the breathing? I always thought evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years for the smallest changes. So lungs and gills at sine point?
Mind you I'm not a literal Creationist. But to me, it is clear God got this whole ball rolling. It would take intelligence, power, and ability beyond that of man or chance for a perfectly sustaining universe with millions of different species all from one starting point
It is a complex subject. It take a lot of difficult study to get even the basics. Perhaps this is why you don't bother? Or is your question merely rhetorical?

The universe doesn't give a damn about your (or my) ability to understand something. That you do not understand evolution is not a point against it. I doubt you understand the Taniyama Conjecture but that didn't keep Wiles from proving it about 15 years ago. Whether or not you personally get it, the theory of evolution has been thoroughly evidenced. Better than any other theory in science save possibly for quantum mechanics. It has mountains of real data supporting it, and no one...especially creationists...have come up with a different model that explains all the data nearly so well.

BTW...if you doubt the ability of things to change over time, consider that by means of a combination of natural selection and artificial selection, some wolves turned into chihuahuas in a mere 10,000 years or so. Now try to imagine what might happen in 4 billion years...a time span 400,000 times as long.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#201251 Jan 9, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! I bet all the blokes loved that.
It's the male shirt-lifters they fear. Not your sort of gay.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
They seemed to like it. They didn't know that I'm homosexual. They just wanted to see tits and I just happened to have them handy. The sign said, "Give a guy a break. Show me your tits".

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201252 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Topix Atheist! Answer is simple: "It took billions of years and a lot can happen in billions of years."
Based on the fact that all the evidence we have, the evidence we've been searching for for 150 years, tells us that life cannot come from non-life tells me that something had to create it.
All life is complex, even the tiny DNA is complex. So complex that I can't see any way for it to provide itself. And science cannot answer that question.
I agree with you, I'm no Creationist either. I believe God started life, say back and waited for the opportune time to introduce Himself to His greatest creation - mankind.
The 4 billion year thing may be correct. But on God's clock, that means nothing.
Thoughts?
Except that you are almost certainly wrong about "life cannot come from non-life"...and you are absolutely wrong about a lack of evidence. Over the last couple of decades there has been a wealth of evidence from the labs. But I suspect you think labs should be able to instantly reproduce (or at least in a few years) what happened over 100's of millions of years with the whole Earth as a lab.

As for "life from non-life", I suspect you are trying to point to Pasteur's work. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what Pasteur showed. He did not show that life can not come from non-life. What he showed was that "complex life can not come from non-life in our modern environment". But then, I have noticed that most theists ignore the caveats of scientific statements. They want it simple, the simpler the better, and caveats do not make for simple statements.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201253 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The Topix Atheist! Answer is simple: "It took billions of years and a lot can happen in billions of years."
Based on the fact that all the evidence we have, the evidence we've been searching for for 150 years, tells us that life cannot come from non-life tells me that something had to create it.
All life is complex, even the tiny DNA is complex. So complex that I can't see any way for it to provide itself. And science cannot answer that question.
I agree with you, I'm no Creationist either. I believe God started life, say back and waited for the opportune time to introduce Himself to His greatest creation - mankind.
The 4 billion year thing may be correct. But on God's clock, that means nothing.
Thoughts?
What you posted is pretty much how I are it too. I even see evidence some species have evolved. I think science has provided some useful information like carbon dating and insights into matter forming and different ages and what not. But like you I believe this was way too much to be chance and God's timetable is very different than man's. However He did it, I don't expect man will ever know. This isn't just like, hey what's that hot fiery thing in the sky? It must be a god. Obviously science has answered some things that used to be unknown. But the scope of this to me is what makes it so different. The creation of every single thing in the universe from nothing. I believe some answers won't ever be found because the answer comes from a source so beyond our capability

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201254 Jan 9, 2014
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> dogpile, tell me that quip about the rules, please, I need a laugh
You can emulate Buck if that is your desire, but IMHO Buck is an awful role model.

Copying him has caused me to lose respect for you. And you clearly hold no respect for me. Ergo...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201255 Jan 9, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not claiming a "mud and lightning" origin.
Yes you are. You have no choice.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201256 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have an old newspaper clipping somewhere out in my garage with that story on it. It's really old, you know have a newspaper gets all brown? That's where I first read it.
I thank you for that very witty post. It's part of my learning curve here on Topix. It was one of those posts where I went WOOOOOOAAAAHHH.......
And hey, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have no ego that prevents me from admitting it.
I'm only mostly perfect :)
:)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201257 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You worship RR.
Now bring your god RR a semi-burnt offering.
Make it a duck or a chicken.
And don't forget to caramelize the onions this time.
I don't want to have to smite you or anything.
;)
Now you are starting to sound like Buck.

Have you had the Buck experience?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#201258 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Fair enough. You're a rational skeptic.
I have my doubts about ToE, though. And you might be surprised they aren't Biblically based.
Wings are a strange one. Why would evolution go from no wings to wings? It'd take millions of years for animals to evolve sings and in the process the "winglets" would be useless. Conclusion: a useless adaptation for millions of years?
Ask an expert when you get the chance.

I personally would not assume that "winglets" were useless, because that is not predicted by the ToE.

I would imagine that some of the ancestors of birds were light weight predators that used their almost wing like appendages to glide over obstacles while chasing prey.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The missing links, which you criticize. Scientists line up five or ten ape skulls then have a human skull at the end. The gaps are too big in between the skulls to say 1, 2, 3.... It's more like 1, 167, 2356....
Do you want a skull from every generation?

Who are you to say the gap is too big? Too big for what?

I've got news for you, there will never be enough links to satisfy those that use that as some kind of criticism. It's bullshit.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion. We've found deep within the earth layers of fossilized bacteria. Right near that layer we find a variety of species, including vertebrates. Whereís the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?(The missing links you don't like...)
Huh?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Humans. I mean, c'mon. Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet. Our closest 'relatives' can't even speak let alone create what humans have created. I think is apes and man have a common ancestor, why did only the human evolve into the intelligent creature that we are.
Are you forgetting Neanderthals? They were primates too.

It's possible that other primates will get to our current level of intelligence, if we allow it, or if we disappear. Pigs may eventually build brick houses or fly planes.

High intelligence is just one characteristic, which from an evolutionary standpoint, is really no more important than the characteristic of a virus that rewrites its host's DNA. Having unique characteristics is not unique.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#201259 Jan 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
See how readily you go to a straw man? No one, absolutely no one, says "a hoofed animal jumping over a creek and turning into a whale". Using this as a reason to reject ToE is ludicrous.
<quoted text>
And "damn yaíll will believe anything associated with evolution" coming from someone that believes humans were made from clay is absolutely hilarious.
<quoted text>
So please explain to me how one adaptation is AOK, but just a tad bit more adaptation is just too much. This is like claiming there is a largest number. It is just plain illogical.
You believe in Whale evolution because someone told you whales evolved from land animals.

But when you discard the artist conception and the speculation what is really left?

Whales like dolphins have a sophisticated sonar system that supersedes anything the United States Navy has ever designed. So hoofed animals, bears, wolfs or some kind of land animals evolved into whales with this advanced sonar capability?

This whale evolutionary tale is the most incredible child like imagination Iíve ever heard. A story beyond even what Walt Disney could produce.

I challenge you to prove your point about whale evolution minus the speculation, guessing, and artist conceptions. Evolutionist claim they have lots of fossil evidence for whale evolution. But when you look at it close thereís not even enough to fill a five gallon bucket.

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) 3 min THE DEVIL 1,220,877
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 19 min tom wingo 29,660
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr TerryE 5,306
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 hr Junket 309,690
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) Apr 25 Yogurt Nads 82
Conor Clifford 7ft center to commit to Utah. Apr 19 UHB 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Apr 16 ocean 201,862
More from around the web