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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217854 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The only misinformation involved is from the DI critics.
Sorry, Buck, but I disagree twice - once about the Discovery Institue critics supplying misinformation, and once about the DI not. It seems to me that response about fundraising and the emphasis on conspiracy theorizing and theocracies was an attempt to mischaracterize what the DI was doing and what its critics had said.
Buck Crick wrote:
Secular humanists like Barbara Forest have an agenda apart from pure science, as is illustrated in her propaganda campaign about this document.
We all have agendas apart from pure science. Peace on earth would be one. And I do not see a campaign of any kind coming from Barbara Forrest, certainly not propaganda if by that term we mean an effort to deceive using dissembling and psychological techniques.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217855 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Scientific materialism, the creed of modern Darwinist activists, does not limit itself to scientific pursuits. It follows a philosophical materialism, which is not scientific, and which is no less a worldview than the theistic view of the Discovery Institute.
Scientific materialism, like rational skepticism, empiricism, and falsifiability are core philosophical tenets of the scientific method. No other philosophy has been shown to produce reliable knowledge about the natural, physical world, and as such, is the "creed" of all scientists, whether "Darwinist," activist, or otherwise.

I don't know of any difference between philosophical materialism and scientific materialism. One definition of the former is "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena are the result of material interactions," and one of the latter is "the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists." Do you see a difference?

Incidentally, the word "philosophical" can also be replaced with either the word "metaphysical" or "ontological," and the word "materialism" can be replaced by either the word "naturalism" or "physicalism" rendering a variety of essentially synonymous terms.

These are all distinct from methodological materialism, which is a statement of the obvious: "Science limits itself to matter, energy, and their interactions." This is a practical observation about what kinds of things science can study rather than a statement about what exists.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217856 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The Discovery Institute has as much of a legitimate claim to pursuit of scientific discoveries which contain philosophical implications as do the Darwinists and Humanists. You cannot have your philosophical monopoly. Sorry. As DI attorney James West explains, continuing in the defense of DI: "...we have supported research that challenges specific theories (such as neo-Darwinism, chemical evolutionary theory and various 'many worlds' cosmologies) that provide support for the materialistic vision of a self-existent and self-organizing universe. We also have supported research that challenges theories (such as behaviorism, strong artificial intelligence, and other physicalist conceptions of mind) that have portrayed humans as completely determined animals or machines".
Nobody is excluded from doing science. As far as I know, little science has been done that supports the hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
Buck Crick wrote:
The humanist problem is not the alleged lack of scientific integrity with these people. The problem is humanists do not want a competing worldview to gain scientific support. If research supported by DI produces results easily dismissed, make the case.
Your idea of how things are is alien to me. I don't see a turf war from the mainstream perspective, although I do see the proponents of ID make that claim. I think that they are wrong.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that anybody has been accused of lacking scientific integrity apart from the ideologues funding the ID movement, who are not the scientist generating papers for publication in scientific journals. The chief complaint about the material generated by the scientists generating papers for ID is either that their publications are either editorials (opinion pieces or arguments) or fail to support the hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217857 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
But spare us the moralizing about motives and agendas.
What moralizing? I am saying what thousands of others have said: the Discovery Institute has a religious agenda to discredit science and supplant it with faith based ideas.

If it can support them scientifically, meaning according to the limitations imposed perforce by nature called methodological materialism, it's discoveries will be welcomed by the scientific community. Of course, that would only further support the claims of science as the only path to knowledge about the physical world, and repudiate the part of the DI agenda to overturn materialism.
Buck Crick wrote:
Let your science say something. Maybe it will drown out the roar in my ear of your philosophy for a minute. It's the repeating argument, as in the re-tooling of the definition of atheism - you want to pretend and have it believed that atheism and Darwinism are innocent of philosophical and theistic assumptions and agendas. The jig is up.
Well, you've stated your position, but you haven't convinced me that I should change mine. I don't know why we can't agree in these matters, but it seems we never will.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217858 Mar 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You not only run and hide when I point out examples of benefits in your own community, you can't even provide a poster boy country example of your own 'rational humanist'!
You're intellectually sloppy, unteachable, and monotonous. Your claims and requests have all been answered, but you don't seem to know it, so you are mostly ignored.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217859 Mar 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
That is the 'rational HUMANIST' oxymoron response?... Smirk
.
This is what I mean by monotonous. Psychiatrists call it perseveration: "continuation of something (as repetition of a word) usually to an exceptional degree or beyond a desired point."

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217860 Mar 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if she thought I was cheap, handsome, ugly, fat, depressed or hung like a horse. I wasn't there to impress a waitress, I was there to enjoy a dinner. She was a shitty, uncaring waitress and EARNED no tip, not even a penny.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That explains why you got lousy service: the waitstaff likely remembered your cheapness from before, and put the worst of the lot on your table...
Nice theory. But it was our first time there.

And last.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217861 Mar 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Please Topix Atheist! quote mine the Bible where it say it's ethical for ***ME*** to kill ***YOU***.
Go.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 100's of verses which **command** you to do so.
I'm not going to educate you on your own ugly book, dumbass.
Then you lose.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#217862 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Does infinity have a website?
In the finite donut hole, yes

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217863 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
"Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text." - The Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture
It aint necessarily so wrote:
This is also from the Discovery Institute: THE WEDGE CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE http://libcom.org/library/wedge-document-inte... "FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY - Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. GOALS - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Which should we believe they meant, and which was disinformation?
Buck Crick wrote:
The two do not contradict. Particularly since the two statements refer to two different entities - Intelligent Design Theory is the former, The Center for Science and Culture is the other. "defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text." is different from being "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" about whether the world is strictly enslaved to materialist philosophy. Again, my explaining the obvious is evidence you are not really interested in this.
What is obvious to me is that both you and the Discovery Institute are into the same kind of linguistic sophistry, and both are more committed to promoting faith based ideas than going where the evidence leads.

Sorry that I can't agree with you, Buck, but I just can't. I'd really like to.

But I am far past believing anything coming from the Discovery Institute or cdesign proponentsists. They have been caught playing games too often to be trusted. And I am at a loss to account for why you don't agree.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#217864 Mar 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
In the finite donut hole, yes
Thought it was the infinite doughnut hole?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217865 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're intellectually sloppy, unteachable, and monotonous. Your claims and requests have all been answered, but you don't seem to know it, so you are mostly ignored.

This is what I mean by monotonous. Psychiatrists call it perseveration: "continuation of something (as repetition of a word) usually to an exceptional degree or beyond a desired point."
Ah, the 'rational atheist' oxymoron. Can't provide a rational answer, so he reverts to personal attacks.

Every time I note the "'rational atheist' oxymoron", it is directly related to an example. Hardly pathological.

Man up honey.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#217866 Mar 9, 2014
Churches in our community today secured volunteers to serve a mission in Harrisburg for atheistic street people.

Meanwhile, this is what an atheist was doing;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/...

"North Korea tyrant Kim Jong-un has reportedly ordered that 33 Christians believed to be working alongside South Korean Baptist missionary Kim Jung-wook be put to death."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217867 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I'm still searching for evidence that such a letter ever went out, or that it went out before Duss and Rhodes released the same information in February 1999. Have you ever seen this letter and the date on it? Can you link us to a copy of it? None of this passes the sniff test, Buck. In the opening paragraph of an explanatory document called, "The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend" < http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files ... >, we read the following:
"Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them." Do you know why the Discovery Institute referred to those believing that a secret document was leaked to the Internet as paranoid conspiracists? Do you know why they referred to people that found this document meaningful and disconcerting as "true-believers on the Darwinist fringe" or said that their claims were to install a Christian theocracy? Whatever your answers, these tactics are all too familiar, and are typical for propagandists. What legitimate scientific institution releases material like this? Does the NIH? How about the National Science Foundation or the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Do they call their critics religionists or conspiracists? Of course not.
Buck Crick wrote:
Yes, they certainly do. Members and representative call ID theorists and the Discovery Institute far worse, and they lie repeatedly about them. Barbara Forest is one example. She put out an article wherein she blatantly lied about the Kitzmiller trial. Specifically, she claimed Stephen Meyer and William Dembski refused to testify "for fear of cross-examination". Their true reason was they were refused the right of having their own counsel present for preliminary depositions.
You are probably right about some of the things you post. But you virtually never support them -- just claim them. I'd be interested to know when you are right, but generally not enough to chase the matter down. As I've indicated several times before, if you want to be believed, include a link from a mutually reliable source. I'll accept almost anything that isn't dedicated to promoting Christianity or ignoring rational skepticism.

I was able to hunt this down at http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/vi...

"When [Thomas More Law Center] rejected Meyer, Dembski, and Campbell’s demand for legal representation independent of TMLC, the three withdrew from the case by refusing to continue without their own attorneys." It doesn't say whether this was related to depositions. Nor is there any indication of why those men of faith felt that they needed independent representation. There's always this cloud of misinformation and partial information hovering over this issue.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217868 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Forest also said (here's you some agenda-free science) ID-proponents are "creationists," "legal mincemeat," "jaw-droppingly stupid," "evangelical scholars," "part of the Religious Right," "mean-spirited," having "contempt for the judicial system," promoting "warmed-over creationism," having "cocksure confidence," using "nastiness," "they make things up and/or slander their opposition," using "long-discredited pro-ID arguments," reduced to "peddling ID" and "riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter," while arguing using "standard creationist canards," which "highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry." Nothing like a secular humanist bitch on the rag, huh?
Why is that important? Is she the one who claimed that the Discovery Institute was promoting theocracy? Why are we discussing her now?
Buck Crick wrote:
Further, DI is not strictly a scientific institution, as the "culture" in the title of the originator of the wedge statement illustrates. They support scientific research, as well as other endeavors. It's a free country, I have heard.
Once again, why is that relevant?

And I notice that you ignored this: "I'm still searching for evidence that such a letter ever went out, or that it went out before Duss and Rhodes released the same information in February 1999. Have you ever seen this letter and the date on it? Can you link us to a copy of it? "

Will you address it now?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217869 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Your criticism would hold more water if it refrained from the fanatical. The DI has not, nor has anyone affiliated with it, sought to discredit the scientific method. ID scientists employ the method every day. The real complaint (I'm gifted for seeing through pretense) emanates from the fear that the scientific method could yield results not comfortable for the secular humanist/materialist/Darwinist orthodoxy.
What does this phrase in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document under governing goals mean to you?:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217870 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Not a claim, its an accusation. Not a criminal accusation, more along the lines of thought crimes.
You don't seem to know what a claim is. Here is one definition: "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." Even accusations are claims.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah any mention of an Intelligent agent {Thought Crimes} is dismissed as religious propaganda or promoting a religious agenda.
Can you refute the claim that ID is a faith based hypothesis, and that promoting it without sufficient scientific support constitutes a religious agenda?
lightbeamrider wrote:
You keep ignoring this mystery document was for the purpose of fund raising. These type things are public by nature. That caste doubts about this whole conspiracy to undermine science create theocracies etc. Its just looney tunes.
As far as I know, nobody is claiming that a criminal conspiracy occurred, just a secret plan. Also, even if the Wedge Document was to be included in some fundraising effort, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a top secret mission statement until it was leaked. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence in support of the claim that it was used for fundraising or ever intended to be used this way. The DI is not exactly a credible source.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217871 Mar 9, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah here is the link and the quote with the matching citations. which is common courtesy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[22] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[23]
----------
When i checked the top secret and not for distribution #23 I got this.....
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discov...
Your link didn't work.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah accusations of thought crimes and the accusation is the equivalent of conviction with you guys. We get that.
Where does this "thought crimes" stuff come from? Who used that phrase or made any similar claim?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217872 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this phrase in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document under governing goals mean to you?:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
It means it is a religious movement masquerading a scientific institute.

'Lipstick on a pig"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217873 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It Ain't Necessarily So wrote:
"Authentic science has no agenda apart from discovering how our universe works,..."
__________
I like this tactic. I like it even better when the term "real science" is used. It lets me go sarcastic about the "R.S. degree".
Let's go hunting for the non-existent agenda of Real Science. See if you spot one.
"Venter Team Creates Artificial Life in Lab"
(No, they did not)
"Global Warming Scientists Caught Fudging Data"
Global Warming Bombshell
"A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics." - MIT Technology Review
Time Magazine Cover, 1977 "PREPARING FOR THE COMING ICE-AGE"
Science News, 1975 "Chilling Possibilities" (warning of a coming ice age)
NY Times, 1975 "The most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years."
Time, 1994 “The Ice Age Cometh?
The Register, 2013 "What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age."
Science and Eugenics
"The longterm support by leading research scientists, basing their claims and beliefs on scientific evidence, for the discredited Eugenics movement from the 19th well into the 20th century is a classic case of the interdependence of science and cultural beliefs. Fully established and accepted scientific views were used as the basis for legislation and court decisions, not that long ago, and here in the U.S. which sought to strengthen the superior "white race" and discourage intermarriage and reproduction of the other "inferior races"."
The Peppered Moth
H.B. Kettlewell: "If Darwin had seen this, he would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work."
Bwahaha....sorry, excuse me.
Kettlewell faked the data and pictures, which persisted in biology textbooks for 30 years.
The pictures of moths on tree trunks are moths that were laboratory bred and raised, then glued to the trees. Some of the moths were so lifeless, Kettlewell's team had to warm them up on the hood of his car.
For those of you who divert to the lame appeal of science being self-correcting,....correcting errors says nothing about the agenda in place that caused them.
None of that is science, by which I mean hypothesis formation, experimental design, experimentation and/or observation, data collection and analysis, peer review, confirmation, etc..

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 1,401
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Dogen 78,599
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Aug 16 Science 32,430
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web