Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208854 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not measuring, Stepped-In-Shit.
That's sampling and extrapolating.
According to you and Polymath, this means snowflakes are infinite.
Sure it is. Sampling and extrapolating is a form of measurement. And real measurements are involved.

That last statement is typical Buck nonsense. An attempt at deflection, one of Buck's common means of dishonesty.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208855 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not measuring, Stepped-In-Shit.
That's sampling and extrapolating.
According to you and Polymath, this means snowflakes are infinite.
Are you going to try and tell me that real measurements come up with exact values?

BS.

If you really knew anything about measurement theory, you would know that EVERY measurement has a error range associated with it.

Measure out one inch with a ruler. Have you measured exactly one inch? No. The ruler you use is not marked with exactly one inch. There is always a tiny error present there. Plus your visual resolution is only so good. There is error there, and it is also incorporated in the measurement you take.

But you are still attempting to deflect from the discussion.

Things in the natural world can have measurements taken of them. We can measure quite closely the number of snowflakes in a pile. We can measure that there are one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms in each molecule of water in each snowflake.

We CAN make measurements about the snowflake. That is because snowflakes exist in the natural world, and anything in the natural world can be observed and can thus have something about it measured.

God has never been observed. God has never had any aspect of him measured. Now try to claim God is natural.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208856 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly and for the benefit of buck, Darwinism is not atheism, Darwinism is not materialism, Darwinism is - the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. True there are other definitions, all similar but non other than perhaps creation.com , which does not really count in the scheme of things, that claim atheism or materialism in the definition
And I have never (as buck claimed) stated that any pope is atheist. That’s just one of the buck looser rants and bares no resemblance to fact. It’s so funny how whenever he cannot win an argument then he always (ALWAYS) resorts to name calling, misdirection, misrepresentation and/or outright lies. It’s one of the ways I know that he is beaten. What is doubly funny is that you invariable back him up with irrelevance and join in the name calling.
But yes true that I said “the Catholic Church accepts Darwinism.” And following Bucks incredulity attack I introduced the evidence of several catholic edicts (along with multiple links) which included documents written by 3 separate popes.
And finished with the by line I see your archbishop and raise you three popes.
I seem to have won that hand because although buck did his usual irrelevant ranting he was not able to beat 3 popes and had now gone into the lying stage. But feel free to join him I that’s what excites you.
So YES I DID and you need to grow up and live with it….
P.S. I know it gives you great pleasure in trying to p|ss me off but my name is Christine, or you may use my screen name of ChristineM or even a shortened CM. All you are doing is showing your own ignorance by deliberately using a diminutive form of my name. But of course, it’s expected form people like you.
You keep changing your definition of Darwinism, and you haven't gotten it right yet.

Let's take the definition most amenable to your point of view:

"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"

Are you trying to claim that "all species" arising via small inherited variations has no philosophical implication?

Are you trying to tell us the Catholic church accepts life as a material process of variation?

No, my dear. The Pope and the Catholic church do not accept this.

I have explained to you the mode of evolution they accept, and it is not Darwinism.

You were wrong, and can't bring yourself to admit it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#208857 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to decide on "do no harm".
That's a moral principle, and it's up for grabs, if the others are.
Why don't I? It is a philosophical principle, and that is all morals are. Morals are what we have decided them to be.

Besides, morals like any philosophical system, have to be based on some assumptions. I think that "the basic moral principle is 'do not harm others'" is a very good assumption to start from. Are you going to disagree?

So, if you have any morals, what do you base them on? How do you claim that homosexuality is immoral? An ancient book?

Personally, I prefer a reasoned approach to the development of my moral system. The ancient book under discussion was written in a barbaric time, and it shows.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#208858 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You think? Have you checked Osteen's book sales?
I know.

Sure, Osteen's bank account is growing, but it won't last forever.

I'd give it 2 more generations before fundamentalists will be relegated to the looney bin, the bible will be seen by the vast majority as the work of fiction it is, the Vatican will be in serious jeopardy of becoming a museum and what remains of religion will be no more than personally held beliefs that there is "something more" or the like. There will still be churches, but they will more resemble UU churches or simple community gathering places. Fundamentalists will be further and further relegated to the lunatic fringes.

You'll still have company.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#208859 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying things cannot thrive if they evolve slowly?

Hmmm....
If they evolve TOO slowly to keep pace with the changing environment, which, in the case of religion, is changing very rapidly.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#208860 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not Baked Baboon's argument.
He argues that since science had not discovered DNA, they considered it non-existent.
Not so. They considered it unknown. There's a difference.
The relevant point for this thread is that entities can exist without the knowledge or understanding of science. It happens all the time.
Yup RR has already explained that thank you for repeating it, I really hope you derived some enjoyment from it.

Knowing of BLs posts, which are usually scientifically accurate and hence can be quite upsetting to the average funnybot and of the idiocy (sometimes outright lies) of some of RRs and your posts then I was reminded to question the interpretation. Which is what I did and RR chose at that time to include extra evidence that he had previously chosen to pretend did not exist. It was this extra evidence that I based my statement and perhaps the actual meaning of BLs contention. So…

Of course something can exist before it is known to exist, that is just basic logic. Hell the universe has existed for over 13 billion years without a single human on this planet to know about it

However if something is not known then it cannot be known - whether it exist or not. Before humanity knew about the universe it was not known that there was a universe. Before science knew about DNA, it was not known that DNA existed. Sure it did actually exist but it was not known that it existed.

Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known.

Which is why I phrased my statement in the way I phrased it, just to see if any pedantic godbots would bite. Thank you.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208861 Jan 29, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
So you've never had feelings or dreams?
I have, I've also seen black holes, many times.
All things that can be observed, studied and measured.
Of course I've had feelings and dreams.

Not that they could ever be proven to exist, though...

If you've seen black holes, you're the only human to have done that.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208862 Jan 29, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
I think that if you have a dream, then you've observed a dream, directly, not its "effect".
I've observed God directly, not just His effect.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208863 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it. When I observe you, what I "see" are the effects of electrons in your body interacting with photons. We call this "seeing you". But in actuality, all we "see" are effects. We "see" the interaction of photons with cells in our eyes.
If you are going to make this silly distinction, then according to you we observe nothing. But if the interaction of photons counts as observation, then the interaction of gravity counts as observation.
Black holes have never been directly observed.

I know you've already been to the googlers about this.

Just deal with it.

Some things exists without being able to be observed or proven to exist.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#208864 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. "Evolution" means many different and conflicting things, depending on how the term is utilized.
For instance, you can say the Pope accepts "evolution".
By one definition he does. By another, no, he does not.
As you can see, such an elastic term is highly useful for propaganda purposes.
By the definition that 3 popes have gone to the bother of writing that they do accept revolution

And the definition you don’t want to accept what they have written.

But thank you for eventually admitting that the head of the catholic church accepts evolution. It really must have taken balls the size of a couple of peas to make such an admission.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208865 Jan 29, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup RR has already explained that thank you for repeating it, I really hope you derived some enjoyment from it.
Knowing of BLs posts, which are usually scientifically accurate and hence can be quite upsetting to the average funnybot and of the idiocy (sometimes outright lies) of some of RRs and your posts then I was reminded to question the interpretation. Which is what I did and RR chose at that time to include extra evidence that he had previously chosen to pretend did not exist. It was this extra evidence that I based my statement and perhaps the actual meaning of BLs contention. So…
Of course something can exist before it is known to exist, that is just basic logic. Hell the universe has existed for over 13 billion years without a single human on this planet to know about it
However if something is not known then it cannot be known - whether it exist or not. Before humanity knew about the universe it was not known that there was a universe. Before science knew about DNA, it was not known that DNA existed. Sure it did actually exist but it was not known that it existed.
Funny thing really that for the most part scientist did not even consider DNA it at all, certainty not prior to about 75 years ago when perhaps some few theorised DNA. It was not until Watson and Crick made their astounding discovery that it was known.
Which is why I phrased my statement in the way I phrased it, just to see if any pedantic godbots would bite. Thank you.
No, the enjoyable part was when Barf Lagoon expounded on his erroneous point, claiming dinosaurs had no DNA.

Almost as funny as watching you persist in the Pope and the entire Catholic church being atheist.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208866 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Excuse me, but one CAN measure the mass of a snowflake. Take a large sample of snowflakes, and one gets an average mass for snowflakes...the larger the sample the closer one comes to a true average.
One can then take the mass of a pile of snowflake, divide by the average mass, and one gets a very close measure of the number of snowflakes in the pile.
No, not immeasurable.
Your thinking is limited.
I did not say you can't measure a snowflake. I said snowflakes. As in, you can't measure how many snowflakes there were yesterday.

An average mass and a "very close" isn't a precise measurement.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#208867 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1953?!
Try the 1860s, puddin pop.
See: Friedrich Miescher.
You can't even get THAT right.....
DNA is documented as being discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953

Prior to that it was theory without evidence, rather like your god eh?

What home school did you go to?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208868 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Again, observing a thing's effects is not observing a thing.
Observe a wake all you want, that won't tell you much about the boat.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
But it DOES tell you there was a boat. It is still an observation. It still gives information.
There is no observation of any sort concerning your God. There is no information.
Nope. You're assuming it was a boat that caused the wake because you know that boats cause wakes.

You did not witness the boat causing the wake.

You're doing what science does, you're filling in the blanks because you must have an answer.

The wake might've been caused by a whale.

it could be a natural phenomenon.

You don't know.

But you "know" it was a boat....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208869 Jan 29, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:

No. Dreams themselves cannot be observed of measured.
Even though they exist.
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Then how do you know dreams exist if you have not observed them?
You don't, that's the point.

To a person that hasn't had dreams or that can't dream, dreams are nonexistent and no one can provide evidence that dreams exist.

No dream has ever been empirically observed.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#208870 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Then please inform us of something we know exists that has not been demonstrated by some evidence. Dreams have been. Black holes have been. Dark matter has been.
We know virtually nothing about dark matter. We DO know it is there. The gravitational effects tell us that. And all of our experiments rule out the matter that we know. What it is exactly, we don't know yet. But we DO know something is there.
But though we know very very little about dark matter, that is vastly more than we know about this God of yours. For him, we know absolutely nothing.
Your claim is that this God of yours is natural, part of the natural world. If so, demonstrate it.
We don't know that black holes exist. We see evidence of effects and figure something is causing it. Just like you did assuming the wake is caused by an invisible boat, scientists assume the black holes.

There is no direct evidence of dark matter, either. It's a fill-in-the-blanks for what is unknown.

I never claimed that God is natural or part of the natural world.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#208871 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the meaning of either Darwinism or Atheism.
I could explain them to you, but you still wouldn't know, because you are incapable of learning.
Here's one hint: The Pope is not atheist as you claimed.
Just because what I know as the meaning is different from what you think is the meaning is your problem, perhaps you need to buy a dictionary rather than looking at the discovery institute for your education.

Sorry to disappoint your but the discovery institute is not a source of word definition

Why do you lie? Is it congenital or is it something you picked up later in life like syphilis?

If you want to insist on your lies then please show one (JUST ONE) post where I said the pope was atheist?– Just one, otherwise choke on your own vomit.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#208872 Jan 29, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, there are literally thousands of scientists saying the Discovery Institute is lying.
Who is saying the Discovery Institute is telling the truth?
The Discovery Institute.
Well, of course a liar is going to tell you he is telling the truth.
And you believe him.
Your accusations are of the same poor quality as those against David Barton, or anyone else who differs with your boiler-plate, canned, freeze-dried, heat-'n-serve lines.

Once we probe deeper than your accusation itself, you have nothing.

Furthermore, I don't get my opinions from the Discovery Institute. The Darwin-Hitler linkage is well-established throughout historical academics, and is irrefutable.

Of course, a know-nothing crusader for Darwinism like you finds it much easier to respond to this embarrassing linkage by tossing an insult at an irrelevant party, than to actually address the problem.

That's because you are you - the hapless Darwin's Stepped in Shit.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#208873 Jan 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You think? Have you checked Osteen's book sales?
Osteen believes in amassing riches on earth, not in heaven. Lord knows every Christian wishes to be rich and powerful. Soo he feeds their desire and it makes him even more rich than his father. He doesn't preach a lot about your soul and charity and rich people have a hard time getting into heaven.

Osteen is a sham, a rich one, but still a sham.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Samuel Patre 87,363
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Feb 17 superwilly 5,811
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 14 ChristineM 4,032
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb 10 superwilly 5,154
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Feb 9 Eagle 12 - 257
More from around the web