Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201331 Jan 10, 2014
Buck is a Christian pretending not t be.

Reverse Poe dosn't work, Buck. It just make you look even stupider and makes your religion look like an asylum for the criminally insane.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201332 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole concept of irreducible complexity is flawed. Yes there are systems where removal of one piece will cause the system to fail. However, that does not mean the whole as it exists now had to evolve as one piece.
What happens is that the original evolution changes an old system into something new by adding or modifying some parts. Often, the result works, but has more there than is absolutely needed. And this early version WILL work with some parts removed. Evolution tends to be efficient and removes those parts which are not needed. The end result is an irreducible system...but didn't get that way all in one go.
This is the failure of logic that the Discovery Institute and its mavens make. They still have the creationist mindset that what we see today is the way it always was.
An example from the non-biology world of what I am describing...an archway. With an arch, remove any one of its stones and the whole thing comes tumbling down. The system is irreducible. Remove one part and whole fails. But was it always that way? No. At the start, it was a wooden frame filling the opening in the arch. This did not function as an arch, but as a support for stones. One by one the stones were added until the keystone is placed on top. After that, the wooden frame is removed. Note that its removal does not cause the arch to fail. What is left is the stone arch which is NOW irreducible. But as noted, it wasn't always irreducible.
And, no Buck, this is an analogy and does not prove that an intelligence had to be at work. Making such a simplistic statement...and I KNOW how much you want to make it...is just a case of forgetting it was an analogy to begin with.
Buck, you are So predictable.
Your archway was intelligently designed. It's your analogy - you live with its flaws.

Your tapdance around irreducible complexity is sophomoric. Everyone understands that a complex system does not evolve in one step.

The problem is that many systems consist of components that offer no advantage for selecting by strict Darwinian processes, and they are additive and accumulative anyway, resulting in the ultimate function of the system. The Darwinian model allows no goal orientation. They system, therefore, indicates design.

Your dismissal of irreducible complexity should be directed at the scientific publications who publish authors like Muskhelishvili and Travers in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs0...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#201333 Jan 10, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Buck is a Christian pretending not t be.

Reverse Poe dosn't work, Buck. It just make you look even stupider and makes your religion look like an asylum for the criminally insane.
Don't worry, it's very obvious. He said Hitler was an Atheist. That's all that's needed to spot a christian.
Thinking

Blaenau-ffestiniog, UK

#201334 Jan 10, 2014
Buck is practising the christian form of taqiyya.
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry, it's very obvious. He said Hitler was an Atheist. That's all that's needed to spot a christian.
Thinking

Blaenau-ffestiniog, UK

#201335 Jan 10, 2014
Not if you count for an infinite time. You did say "as long as you like".
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Count as long as you like. You'll be on a finite number.
Thinking

Blaenau-ffestiniog, UK

#201336 Jan 10, 2014
Bollocks.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your archway was intelligently designed. It's your analogy - you live with its flaws.
Your tapdance around irreducible complexity is sophomoric. Everyone understands that a complex system does not evolve in one step.
The problem is that many systems consist of components that offer no advantage for selecting by strict Darwinian processes, and they are additive and accumulative anyway, resulting in the ultimate function of the system. The Darwinian model allows no goal orientation. They system, therefore, indicates design.
Your dismissal of irreducible complexity should be directed at the scientific publications who publish authors like Muskhelishvili and Travers in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs0...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#201337 Jan 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Buck is practising the christian form of taqiyya.
Pmsl. Gold.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201338 Jan 10, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry, it's very obvious. He said Hitler was an Atheist. That's all that's needed to spot a christian.
You are correct. Thanks for the reminder.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201339 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Count as long as you like. You'll be on a finite number.
Flap your arms as long as you like. You will never fly.
Based on your argument, birds do not exist.

ROFLMAO

You really need to take your Haldol.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#201340 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Count as long as you like. You'll be on a finite number.
Of course you would, but infinity is a concept beyond the human perception of counting.
But you see infinity is the fact you could never count that high.
All attempts to measure an infinite sum fail.
We try to make sense of the universe by attempting to make it finite, but utterly fail because it is infinite. Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201341 Jan 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Buck is practising the christian form of taqiyya.
<quoted text>
'Divinely' approved dishonesty. Correct.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#201342 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to recall that lightbeamrider said the only source you should listen to about the Discovery Institute is...get this...the Discovery Institute.
Because people never lie about themselves. Never.
Or something like that.
Factually a lie.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201343 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
You said he is "almost certainly wrong" that life cannot come from non-life.
You also mis-state my position. Nowhere did I say it was impossible.
So far, there is o (zero) evidence of abiogenesis. Yet you claim it is almost certain.
You are making a faith claim. You are a religious materialist.
And a dishonest one. Say 10 Hail Darwins.
Buck...if you state that life can not come from non-life, then you DO say that life from non-life is impossible. The two statements say the same things.

But, as usual, you think that if you use different words, the meaning is necessarily different. This has always been a mistake of yours. Over and over you say, "I never said..." when you in fact did say ... but used synonymous language.

And your claim for 0 evidence of abiogenesis is flat out false. It is you that is lying. I have seen your arguments against evidence of any sort. Almost nothing but logical fallacies. Despite how badly you want there to be no evidence, the evidence does exist. You are just swimming up a river in Egypt.

And you are quite wrong Buck. There is both evidence and logic behind thinking abiogenesis is possible. But since you understand neither evidence nor logic, it does not surprise me you fail to see it. You see only what you want and for some who-knows-why reason you want to see things in a fundamentalist Christian light.

For someone who claims to not be a Christian, you sound ever so Christian in your beliefs.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201344 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f riendlyatheist/2014/01/06/reme mber-the-pastor-trying-out-ath eism-for-a-year-he-just-got-fi red-by-his-christian-employers -lets-help-him-out/
Seems a Seventh Day Adventist pastor decided to perform and experiment and see what it was like to be an atheist. He decided to spend a year attending atheist meetings and reading atheist literature.
Well, four days into his experiment he found out one thing. He was a professor at a Christian university and seminary and a councilor for the Seventh Day Adventist church. Was. But no longer. He has been fired from both jobs for his experiment. He was told he needs to rededicate his life to Jesus. Even though he had not stopped believing in Jesus.
Well, his explorations into atheism have already showed him how Christians tend to treat atheists.
How very interesting. All I can say is that Ryan Bell is better off out of that organisation - and that's from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Saving Pastor Ryan...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201345 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your archway was intelligently designed. It's your analogy - you live with its flaws.
Yup. Knew that was coming. Even though it is flat out stupid, you couldn't help saying it, could you?

Buck's new found source of knowledge. Proof by analogy.

Why don't you take it one more step, Buck. In the archway analogy, the archway was built by HUMANS. Therefore HUMANS are responsible for irreducible complexity...not some invisible superman in the sky.

Of course, I never said who or what built the archway. And the unstated mechanism is clearly an analogy for evolution. But Buck doesn't understand how analogies work any better than he understands math or logic.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your tapdance around irreducible complexity is sophomoric. Everyone understands that a complex system does not evolve in one step.
Well, everyone but the Discovery Institute. Because their whole argument for the Intelligent Designer, based on IC, is that it would HAVE to evolve all in one step...which they then claim is so incredibly unlikely.

And since you are saying that IC does in fact evolve in multiple steps over time, you must disagree with the DI, and agree with me that IC does not show ID in any way. Because you understand that a complex system does not evolve in one step.
Buck Crick wrote:
The problem is that many systems consist of components that offer no advantage for selecting by strict Darwinian processes, and they are additive and accumulative anyway, resulting in the ultimate function of the system. The Darwinian model allows no goal orientation. They system, therefore, indicates design.
And now you are contradicting yourself and taking the DI line that it would have to evolve in one step.

BTW...you really really need to read up on evolutionary theory if you are going to debate the subject. You are once again using simplistic analogies that fail to follow the complexities of he reality. All of your complaints are actually addressed in evolutionary theory. Things actually do happen in those ways, and for real, logical, understandable reasons. But what is the use of trying to give an upper class biology lecture to a high school dropout? You aren't going to listen and you wouldn't understand it if you did. And you certainly have shown in the past that you have no desire to understand. You are purely confrontational.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your dismissal of irreducible complexity should be directed at the scientific publications who publish authors like Muskhelishvili and Travers in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs0...
Wow, Buck. DNA contains information!!! Stop the presses!

Buck, I hate to have to inform you of this, but information does not imply an intelligent source. Lots and lots of things in nature have information and have nothing to do with intelligence.

This is just one more case of you twisting language to fit your own ends. Talk about being dishonest.

Buck, you would be much better off not saying stupid things. I suggest you just keep your mouth closed and avoid any chance of it happening.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201346 Jan 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Your reply was much more succinct and to the point than mine. Well done.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201347 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck...if you state that life can not come from non-life, then you DO say that life from non-life is impossible. The two statements say the same things.....
Buck and RR are just douche bags playing "Word Salad".

They provide their own vinaigrette dressing, too !

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201348 Jan 10, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Factually a lie.
What? That you said that you should not read the critics of the DI to get their position, but rather you should read what the DI had to say about itself.? And then you posted what the DI ha to say about itself?

Or that people never ever lie about themselves. That one I will admit is a lie, but it was used rhetorically and in context means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Yes, the DI would lie about itself, and does all the time.

However, I could give you references all day long, and you won't accept them, because you thing you should only listen to what the DI has to say about itself.

LOL

(No. Really. The DI claims to be a SECULAR think tank??? That is just effing hilarious.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201349 Jan 10, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
How very interesting. All I can say is that Ryan Bell is better off out of that organisation - and that's from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Saving Pastor Ryan...
Yeah, the story definitely does not shed a good light on some Christians. And what is really ironic is that these are the same sort of Christians that are always whining about how oppressed they are. And yet they don't have a tolerant bone in their body.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201350 Jan 10, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck and RR are just douche bags playing "Word Salad".
They provide their own vinaigrette dressing, too !
It is my decided opinion that Buck is full on OCD. He is obsessed with twisting the meaning of words and thinking synonyms actually mean different things since they are different words.

I can just hear it...

Me: The sky is cerulean.

Buck: NO IT ISN"T! The sky is blue.

Because, of course, cerulean and blue are different words.

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) 42 min RoxLo 1,760,152
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 49 min cpeter1313 340,603
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Chosen Traveler 35,927
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 19 hojo 12,405
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May 16 Go phartse 4
News PBA: Columbian parades new import vs Aces May 4 AndPhartse 2
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar '18 Lonnie Peters 201,480