Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 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.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#218057 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
See how the Topix Atheist! swears that ID is talking about a deity even thought the ID doesn't make that claim.
The incandescent light bulb was designed. Would you say it takes God to do that?
Maybe they'll put God in their theory, if and when God allows them to test Him.
ID doesn't specifically make a claim for a deity, because that would weaken the strategy.

It wasn't a very good strategy to begin with.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218058 Mar 10, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
Define and give examples of complex and specified information.
Your DNA.

Wanna start with that?

Do you have any theories of how it came to be?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218059 Mar 10, 2014
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
Tide with Beach wrote:
The hypothesis is invalid, invalidating all that follows.
Why do you think it's invalid?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218060 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is erroneously drawn.
The question being pursued by scientists who investigate design is whether the universe and living things indicate design. The "designer" is an implication.
Nobody is proposing evidence for a designer.
What "scientists" are pursuing this question?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218061 Mar 10, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
From wiki:
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology.[1][2][3] Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducible complexity.
Your wiki entry is wrong.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218062 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry dude. Those are facts.
No they aren't. I'm not a homophobe, I haven't hit any babies and I haven't hit women.

Apology accepted.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218063 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously. Just as man is the designer of atheism. Or materialism. Or humanism.
That says nothing about the existence of a god.
Religion is man's design of a method of properly dealing with their deity.
How does man deal with a deity that cannot be detected?

Religion is simply infantile ego projection upon the universe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218064 Mar 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't have an answer.
Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have said Atheism is a religion, or can be considered a religion.
Materialist theories and dogma, as in Darwinism, is atheistic and obviously breaches the requirement that government schools be neutral toward religion.
Do you deny the courts have insisted on this neutrality?
So evolution has to go. You should be standing up for civil liberties! Where's the ACLU?
So what if atheism **WAS** a religion?(it's not-- but so what if it was)?

It doesn't have **ANY** bearing on EVOLUTION-- which is SCIENCE.

Are you seriously this STUPID, or did you take too many getting-hit-on-your-head lessons again?

You are dumber than a box of rocks.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218065 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Sorry, but your post makes no sense to me. Try posting it again. This time, try English.
Vamos a probar esto, para la gente con problemas lik que no saben discernir edad, de nuevo, adeudados de pagado, incompletas y completas.

Aquí hay una ley. Saber de dónde viene?

"Si algún esclavo resiste a su amo, corregir tal esclavo, y deberá pasar a ser asesinados en dicha corrección el capitán deberá estar libre de todo tipo de castigo, como si tal accidente nunca hubiera ocurrido."

Es una ley. Está escrito. Es estadounidense.
Usted es americano.

Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con Topix Ateo! lógica, debe seguir esa ley y debe poseer un esclavo.

Apology accepted.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218066 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does. Here's what I wrote previously:
Scientific theory, four-step process:
1. Observations
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiments
4. Conclusion
Intelligent design theory uses those steps.
1. Observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
3. Experimental testing on natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
4. Irreducible complexity found in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
And then you said that ID did not even pass #1, since there is no objective observational evidence of an intelligent designer.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218067 Mar 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Come on. So we can have intelligent design without an intelligent designer? Or is your designer, by definition, beyond the scope of evidence? If the answer is yes, then it's a belief held on the basis of faith. And tell me, am I an implication? You?
You can't read very well. He wrote:

"The question being pursued by scientists who investigate design is whether the universe and living things indicate design."

Hope that helps.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218068 Mar 10, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Here you go-- 100's of examples listed where you are **COMMANDED** to murder non-believers.
http://www.evilbible.com/
I didn't see one from that obviously non-biased, accurate and honest website......

You'll have to try harder.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#218069 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Oh no.... More Topix Atheist! nonsense...
Ok, tell me where the Bible says that I, a Christian, can (or should) own a slave.
Go.
The whole Bible says you can own a slave, because it never says you can't. The Bible addresses the issue of slavery several times, in the OT and NT, but never once says that slavery is immoral.

Don't covet your neighbor's wife. But his daughter? See how much he'll take for her.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218070 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to decide it's value.
Scientific theory, four-step process:
1. Observations
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiments
4. Conclusion
Intelligent design theory uses those steps.
1. Observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information.
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
3. Experimental testing on natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
4. Irreducible complexity found in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Notice no mention of any deities involved, as the Topix Atheist! claims.
Re:#4.

100% of the cases where the IDiots claimed "irreducible complexity"?

100% of the examples?

Proved to be-- when examined closely-- 100% false--

--- that is, EVERY TIME, some IDiot claimed "irreducible complexity"?

EVERY TIME, it was shown to NOT be irreducibly complex.

Every single time-- without a single exception.

How about that?

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218071 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your DNA.
Wanna start with that?
Do you have any theories of how it came to be?
There are plenty, and to spare:

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Proof of evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Proof of evolution: http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-w...
Proof of evolution: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Proof of evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/sear...
Proof of evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm...
Proof of evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218072 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
2. Hypothesis that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information.
<quoted text>
Why do you think it's invalid?
100% of the time?

**ALL** natural objects examined have turned out to NOT be designed.

How about that?

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#218073 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No they aren't. I'm not a homophobe, I haven't hit any babies and I haven't hit women.
Apology accepted.
Liar.

You have posted, in the past, that you have hit women-- and you even bragged about how you finished that "fight".

And also lie: you have posted in the past, hateful things with regards to gay people.

Why do you lie so?

Oh!

Silly me-- you're a godbot-- you **must** lie-- and all the time, too.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#218074 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus fulfilled the old laws.

This is a concept beyond you, I think.
I can understand how a prophesy could be fulfilled (though I don't believe in prophesy in the biblical sense), but I can't understand how a law can be fulfilled.

I didn't speed today.

Does that mean I've fulfilled the law and can speed legally tomorrow?

I need to know by midnight EDT.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#218075 Mar 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible is not claimed to be written by God.

Where'd you get that nonsense?
Semantics.

It certainly does claim to be written by god through his chosen ones.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#218076 Mar 10, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>The hypothesis is invalid, invalidating all that follows.
It's not just false. It's nonsense.

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) 7 min Eagle 12 - 79,859
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 2 hr The Bible Student 54
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 hr Eagle 12 - 32,581
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
what science will NEVER be able to prove Sep 15 Me _ Myself _ I 8
More from around the web