Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258039 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.

Eagle12

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#129447 Oct 13, 2012
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd wager the ants will be around long after humans are long gone,but there is no way of covering the bet.
How is the US getting along with the eradication of the red fire ant? Surely,itty bitty itty bitty ants are no match for big tough Americans.
When I lived in Houston Texas those fire ants were everywhere. Those bastards are mean.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#129448 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>That is just an illogical spew. Infinity can not be calucated, measured, observed or reasoned, which means that scientifically it does not exist, and for it to exist, it must exist in the supernatural and out of the realm of science.
Solve these equations:% equals infinity
1/0=%
2/0=%
3/0=%
4/0-%
100/o=%
1,000,000/0 =%
So, what is the valuation of % when it has no point of origin and ending? Sometimes the only intelligent answer is "I do not know" and the absence of evidence can never be anything except the absence of evidence. Also, nothing can ever be evidence of something.
I deal with reality , so lets calculate that.
In 13.7 billion years the universe expanded to a 90 billion light year circumference to the edge of detection by all telescopic detection method. This a physical impossibility of matter to achieve , therefore the expansion of space/time geometry has been presumed to have happened and as general relativity explains this as the infinite expansion of space , makes infinity a reality.
By all measure taken the actual measure is infinite.
Making infinity reality. The fact it is incalculable a point in our inability to measure it. Infinity not only exists , it does right in front of your face. You are powerless to give the sum of all days future and past because they are infinite.
Atheist Silurist

Gloucester, UK

#129449 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>These people are either historically or biblically ignornat. What we have is usually a result of war and conquering your enemy.
Choices:
1. Conquer him and let him go so he comes back and kills you in the night.
2. Conquer him and kill, so he does not come back.
3. Conquer him and enslave him, like a prisoner, until his next generation is no longer your enemy.
With black slavery, neighbors and enemies were not enslaved. The Canadians and Mexicans were not the enslaved.
1. God told Saul to do no. 2, after 300 years of the Israelite children being stalked and killed.
2. Saul decided to do no. 1 with King Agag and spoils. Well, King Agag had a son, who came back and killed even more Israelites than Agag had.
3. No. 1 was the only mericiful choice, when it came to the Amalekites.
It's funny how the bible can be used to justify slavery and genocide.
If it can be used to justify those things it can be used to justify anything,and it usually is.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#129450 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>My quote from Aquinas was simply that. You were the one who tried to refute the quotes, and you failed. You saying something does not make it true. Either disporve it or leave it.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR Associate Professor of Physics on
June 1, 2005
EITHER DISPROVE IT OR LEAVE IT.
Even Christians laugh at Humphreys' "theory". They've already disproved Humphreys' various "theories" on many levels.
QUOTING:
"In 1994 a physicist who is prominent in the young-earth movement, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, unveiled a proposed alternative cosmology1 which, it was claimed, resolved a long-standing problem for the young-earth movement --- how light could travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years of Earth time. This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form2. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.

Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unravelin... End Quote.

Humphreys is a laughingstock.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#129451 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>so, what is your proof that love is real. Prove that your mother loves you. Let's explore your statement.
prove that god exists!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129454 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
I understand the concepts, lovey, but you aren't considering the mechanics involved for a concept to be a reality.
Something mutated the genes. The individual had to be able to exploit the mutation for it to be carried on.
It looks too hard for you to grasp, Dave. Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#129455 Oct 13, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>YOUR STATEMENT that it is possible to have many uncaused causes, is not proof that your statement is true.
But you also have not proved there is only one. And that was my point.
Give us an example of something that is possible be uncaused.
You can not even prove that simplicity can be caused without being designed.
Nothing happens to a muon just before its decay that makes it decay. There is no change in properties. That decay is, in this sense, uncaused.

In many ways, simplicity is more likely to be caused than complexity. The laws of physics lead to complex structures very naturally.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129456 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
uh-huh....
How are the plants aware enough to compete?
Would you guess that it's autonomic?
How could a plant understand that it's being eaten?
Why haven't plants that are perfect food "evolved" with toxins to prevent eing eaten? ie; potato, tomato, lettuce, basil, parsley, onion, etc,etc...
You've said before that evorution is brought on by necessity, adaptation. Are you now saying that a plant knows what's necessary for survival? A plant is cognisant?
Plants are aware of their own bodies and of sunlight through chemical processes. When they get damaged, their ongoing processes are interrupted, and they produce more toxins.

Plants have immune systems that keep them from being turned into fungus, bacteria and food. These are largely ambient poisons in the plant. When plants do not have optimal conditions, they get invaded by pathogens.

The domestic plants that you mentioned have been shaped by humans over the generations to largely detoxify them - at least, to us. Because they're less able to compete with other plants, we have to take care of them and give them optimal conditions. That's called "weeding," fertilizer and pesticides. Humans take care of them so they can devote their energy resources to producing foods for us - we have selected them for food production at the expense of defense. It's human induced plant evolution.

Plants are not sentient like you and I are, but they react when damaged and they can communicate damage to other plants. When you cut garlic, it primes all the garlic around it to producing more garlic flavor, which is its toxin. It's the same with trees. When one gets invaded by an insect, say, it sends out chemicals that other trees pick up on - and all of them will produce more toxins in defense against the attacking insect.

Marigolds are pretty cool. They actually send out chemicals that attract wasps. So when a caterpillar is eating it, the marigold calls out to wasps "come here" as wasps parasitize caterpillars.

You don't believe me, look it up. Here's a simple explanation for you, and some examples in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_ag...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129457 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An excerpt, honey, Exerpt. Learn...
You removed key words from the sentences thereby altering his meaning dishonestly.

You don't understand that misquoting people by removing certain words to change their meaning is wrong? Are you in grade 5?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129458 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ummm.... So, not just one fish grew legs, an entire species did. All at once?
And whatever the palm tree came from, they all popped up at once?
And the eagles, they all came at once? As a SPECIES?
lol
Either your reasoning or your science is proving God more & more....
No. It doesn't work like that. Species are basically loosely bounded gene pools. Genes make traits, right? Each generation has mutations in their genes that differ slightly from their parents. From one generation to the next, you aren't going to notice any difference. But these small changes add up and, over deep time, a species' gene pool will alter enough such that different morphology is produced. From the point of view of the fossil record, it looks like one species is changing into another.

But all that is really happening is that genes in gene pools are being altered, subtracted and added.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129459 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess he means that though evolution (ie; somehow or another) an entire species of, say bird, evolved into a different species of bird. All together, all of their genes mutating at the same time. Spontaneously. To attain a goal of a better existance....
That makes no damn sense at all.
Do they even know how ridiculous the sound?
That's not what Drew was saying. Yes, your misinterpretation is ridiculous. That's not how evolution works.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129460 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with."
What about humans using the same methodology in schools of thought in their societies and civilizations? Each a "culture". Would this then become interfering with natural selection?
Yes, behavior influences selection pressure. Humans utterly changed their selection pressures through the development of agriculture.

Since: Sep 10

Gonzales, CA

#129461 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In a case in my city a couple of years ago.
What's wrong with your statement?

Huh?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129462 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A species is a collection of individuals.
"1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evo...
Note the reference to process. Which in biological evolution is through the individuals. The way you are defining it is a magical poof between start and end process. Those genes got there somehow, Bubba. Unless Darwin sprinkled magic pixie dust. BTW, he thought evolution could be a process of a higher intelligence.
Individuals get mutations, but their genes do not alter in their lifetime. They simply live and die and possibly pass their genes on. If they do, they contribute to their species' evolution. If they get eaten by something else, they contribute to that species' evolution.

Individuals do not evolve. Individuals contribute to evolution. Individuals are not gene pools, except in extreme cases where their species is going extinct.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129463 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweets, these words were taken right out of your reference. These are the words of creative imaginations of science.
{evidence to suggest that}
{might have given rise to the}
I see in the fossil record a horseshoe crab 500 mya. Today’s horseshoe crab looks identical. Some minor changes noted by biologist, ok no problem. Basically the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged.
The earth and the oceans have changed a lot in 500 million years. Yet the horseshoe crab remains unchanged even though it’s environment was and is constantly changing.
That's b/c science doesn't talk in definites like religion does. We know new evidence can alter our perspectives, but you are unable to do so because of dogma.

You are hardly qualified to describe the fossil record - and you don't have a fossil horseshoe crab with you so you can determine its morphology and compare it to the extant species. You, for example, aren't looking at the feet properly. If you did, you'd conclude they were different species as the contemporary horseshoe crabs have different feet than those of their extinct relatives.

Different morphology in the size of the bodies, number of appendages, shape of appendages = different species.

All you see is a general class whereas the biologists use precise language and break the class into species categories. Hence your analysis is always going to be overlysimplified and meaningless.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129464 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that one mutated gene in one creature is equivalent to a species?
<quoted text>
And the "unfavorable"? lol
<quoted text> So the mutated gene is NOT evolution?
<quoted text> Except that part that "A mutation can appear in one individual"....
The individual with a mutation is part of the process of evolution, but the individual itself did not change. It was born with the mutation.

How come this is so hard for you to grasp?

Evolution is "allelic frequency change in gene pools."

Individuals are not gene pools. Their genomes don't alter during their lifetime, except to wear down and fail.

This is what happens when religion gets in the way of your basic understanding of biology - basic education, really.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129465 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I still love you.
I don’t know if you have ever gone fishing. The harder the fish fight. The more respect they earn by the fishermen. You are a fighter sweetheart and one day you will be a prize fish.
You are an idiot for writing the above.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129466 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?
You believe you know with 100% certainty, but you are actually experiencing a subjective reality that does not describe an objective reality, because of your enculturation and observer bias.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#129467 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the point was, "life" can't come from nothing.
As you put it, matter is NOT a life form, but can come together to make something.
But not life.
One question: why are you believers so illiterate about science? Why is it so hard to grasp for you?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129469 Oct 13, 2012
timn17 wrote:
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are running a gag on everyone here. Your posts are hilarious.
You go on and on about how science has gotten it all wrong, and then freely admit that you know next to nothing about the things you constantly dismiss out of hand.
I know enough to know a con job when i hear one. In courts regular people determine guilt or innocence based on testimony from people in Science. These jurors may or may not have special training in Science fields. It does not matter there. Poly comes along and prints there is no cause at quantom level. It begs the question, what is he not telling us? So we have to go and look it up and we do. Come to find out they is plenty he is not telling us. We post it here and it is either ignored or dismissed as Creation Science. From my POV it is legitimate peer review. If we had to depend on the selective statements provided here by atheists we would never get to the truth. Then you have hiding who says nobody understands unless they have had science training. Under that sccenario nobody could be a juror in a murder trial unless they had extensive science training if science evidence is part of the process. It's not the way things work. If you are saying life somehow came from non living through non intelligent (natural) means you have to do better than all the tap dancing and special pleading that goes on here.
To make matters worse, after you choose to simply ignore something that you don't even take the time to learn about, you chastise people for not taking the time to understand your personal myths.
That is in response to their jumping all over me because i have no science degree. They made it the issue, not me.
So let me get this straight - you expect everyone else to thoroughly study,
No.
and presumably *believe* your personal brand of religious belief (which is just one type out of many thousands, and for which there is no objective proof),
No.
yet you refuse to consider the ability of science to explain our universe.
My objection has more to do with anti theistic assumptions wrapped in science mumbo jumbo. It has to do with their tactics. To question abiogenesis is the same as being stupid, opposing science, opposing malaria treatment etc etc ad nauseam.
That's just absurd. To you, people are *blind* because they don't seriously consider something for which there is no objective evidence and instead choose to put their "faith" in a mode of thought that has actually proven itself time and time again.
People like you are a dying breed. Even most religious people have been forced to accept the unparalleled ability of science to explain things. It takes a particularly hardy case of brainwashing to produce an individual who can look at the totality of the evidence and still remain a biblical literalist. This is why I'm starting to believe (or rather, hope) that you are a troll. The other option is just depressing.
It is your atheism and lame explanations that are absurd. The selective conclusions. The rejection of counter points. Etc. Atheist have no interest in truth when it comes to God. They have their minds made up. Like cement heads. Truth cannot enter.

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 6 min Khan 503,044
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min Liamm 665,188
News History abounds with contributions of Islam to ... 29 min Brexit 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Chimney1 48,488
News Turkey's New Islamic Republic 33 min Brexit 3
News Russia-Ukraine row over ancient prince (Jul '15) 3 hr Pro Ukraine_ 38
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 4 hr Dragnet52 255,954
More from around the web