Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218607 Mar 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
Yet you vilify atheist based on your own personal views and little of no experience? Go figure your hypocrisy
Who is it you think I vilify?
You can try but Stalin was raised christian, after he consolidated his power he set about rebuilding the christian church. Not really the actions of an atheist eyh?
Raised Christian means nothing, many atheists were raised Christian but dropped their religion of Christianity for their religion of atheism.

Stalin destroyed nearly all Christians churches, probably what most atheists would do, given the power.
As were Adam Lanza and James Holmes and the IRA and the KKK and the NTFL
I don’t know about much about the other guy but it seems that he was raised christian and then gave it up
Of course he gave it up, most of those murdering psychopaths gave up a religion and became a humanist or some shit.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#218608 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. I watched the video. Dude removed a piece of the mousetrap and it wasn't a mousetrap any more.
By his own words, it wasn't a mousetrap any more.
Unless in your world tie clips and mousetraps are the same thing. Are they?
In biology, you can start with a simple thing, with a simple function, and add to it over time till it becomes something else, and continue to add components fully functional till it becomes something else. That was shown by the flagella, that each part was fully functional as parts were taken away even though it did something different. That's why is was not IC.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#218609 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. gender based violence stems from patriarchy, an ideology based on power and inequality. It can be physically, emotionally and/or spiritually violent ..
.. patriarchal countries like Afghanistan or Uganda have rigid gender models where male dominance is the norm and violence against women is accepted, even expected ..
.. religion fosters the domination of women <wives obey your husbands>, perpetuates the myth of superiority <Eve did it> and encourages submission. Backed by the bible <the word of God> and custodians of the faith <clerics>, in many instances, there is almost unquestionable adherence to the principles espoused. The divinely ordained tenets found in religion have made women second-class citizens ..
.. the negative impact of religion on woman, their health, their veryl being, is historically documented ..
.. yes, I dare compare the violence found in patriarchal systems to 9-11 ..
You are just like the abuser. Unpredictable. Everyone walks around the house on eggshells hoping to not offend the abuser who can be gentile and likable for the most part but then go off at the drop of a hat over any perceived slight or no slight at all. You are enemy centered and subject to severe mood swings just like the abuser and your posts reflect that. Indirectly blaming Christianity for 9/11, you really show your true colors and I believe you believe the poison you spew. At best it is a bimbo eruption and at worst well it is just venom. Thanks for revealing your true colors and I have been around long enough to remember the harassment heaped upon that Christian woman a while back. You folks were like a pack of rabid dogs to her as I recall. If there is any justice you will get yours. Whatever she was she did not deserve the abuse she received here. So don't go getting so sanctimonious now about abusers. Just go look in the mirror.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218610 Mar 12, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>The desire to believe in a just universe necessitates such fictions as karma and reincarnation. I've been contending with a strange one about that. He claims that natural laws as opposed to human laws prove the existence of god, but he can't prove the existence of the natural laws without referring to god. He cannot see the circularity of his logic.
The universe makes so much more sense when viewed in the context of random chance. No need to explain how any good can come from a man drowning during an outing to the beach with his fiancee while attending his wake on what should have been their wedding day. It becomes okay to say, "This sucks. This REALLY sucks!!!" Same goes when an unrepentant sadist is "blessed" with fortune that would make Donald Trump envious.
People should do their best to be fair and just. To expect the same of the universe is delusional.
I agree.

One of the huge advantages of unbelief is the comfort of knowing that when a child dies of leukemia, for example, it was just rotten luck, and not something caused by or allowed to happen by a creature that had the power to prevent it. It diminishes the human spirit to worship a creature that you believe allows such things to happen.

There is no bigger picture in which causing or allowing gratuitous suffering to occur is moral, and accepting what you believe is preventable suffering as moral good because you believe a god willed it is in my estimation a perversion of conscience and an abdication of moral responsibility.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218611 Mar 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong, the roman catholic church tries to hide paedophilia under the carpet which is the very reason why the media stink has been so smelly as far as catholic paedophile priests are concerned.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/02/documen...
http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2013/02/pope-prom...
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/cath...
http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Caught_Orch...
Is he you buddy? You did advertise his cause
Still screwing you little boy?
Well to their credit a pope resigned for the first time in history basically because all the people in positions of power under a pope lose their job if the pope goes ( or dies or becomes too ill which is normally the case) and did so to clean house because he was pissed about the cover ups

Nobody really will deny there have been cover ups. Or that however these prevents figure out who other perverts are the pedophiles that were in the church did their best to work together and keep it hidden. And some simply buried it because it was cost-effective. Obvious heinous and disgusting crimes against humanity.

However the press targets it simply because its bigger "news". I guarantee there are cover ups in schools and athletic departments and public practices and corporations all over the country and even when it comes out there are not national camera to cover it. Don't kid yourself that the coverage is humanitarian. Unless its a Penn State with a famous coach that everyone knows the media isn't all too interested.

Abuse in the RCC is on par with basically anywhere in society, less in some cases. It was 1.8% in the church of priests accused out of total priests. Yet you can go online and get 10 pedophiles soliciting a minor in a minute. People watch To Catch A Predator more for entertainment. Where is the public demand for these kind of stings running 24/7 all over the country?

Not that I think anybody is cool with abuse but the motivation to be publicly outrages seems to be proportionate to the statue of the accused

But if people really want to fix systemic abuse and cover ups its pretty easy. Make it illegal to have non-disclosure agreements in civil suits over child abuse. Fight it out in court or pay someone off but be known for what they did. At the same time there needs to be felony laws if someone is convicted of knowingly making a false accusation or coaching a child to lie. It's very hard to prove perjury for instance because how do you prove what someone knew? It can be hard. And I can't see any prosecutors risking the public wrath trying to charge an accuser without solid proof. But maybe if it wasn't simply a misdemeanor for filing a false police report people wouldn't be tempted to make fake accusations for a buck knowing the person will settle because even bring accused leaves permanent stigma

Get all this out in the open. The current laws on both sides enables the secrecy and coverups

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218612 Mar 12, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what happened at 10^-34th a second after the event. The laws that make up this universe began to resolve
And I know what happened at 10^-24th of a second after the event, the laws that make this universe resolved.
As to what happened prior to 10^-34th of a second no one yet knows and BTW, 10^-63rd of a second is a much, much shorter time period, notice the –(minus) sign
And we are talking minute fractions of a second here, millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick on the fastest computer yet devised my man
As to after those times, it got bigger, lots bigger
And as to whether it happened, observations leave little doubt what with the hubble observations (and diagram) and the CMB & WMAP experiment.
Oh.

Well since you know what happened 10 to the power of -34 seconds after the supposed bang, surely you know what happened 5 minutes later.

Of course you don't know that, no one knows that. It's needs much speculation to imagine up.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218613 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I here you.
Really?

You here me there?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218614 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Atheism doesn't refer to religious claims at all. It refers to the existence of god or gods. And it is not skepticism, it is a belief.
It's skepticism of religious claims. Atheism would not exist if religion did not, and thus it is not a system of belief itself. Moreover, I don't find the argument that atheism is itself a belief really meaningful anyway. You have a history of deciding what you want words to mean. Knock yourself out. I don't find that discussion very interesting. Except that what you are trying to argue seems to indirectly denigrate belief in the process, which I find amusing.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218615 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are excessively full of shit.
Your bigotry assigns all available blame to Christians when they act poorly; zero credit for acting well.
Further, those acting against slavery were not acting in direct contradiction to their bibles. They were following clear instruction from their bibles, in their minds. And their minds are what counted.
You are a worse bigot than the people you vilify with your uncritical blather. And your selective moralizing is offensive.
Well, when the Bible says slavery is fine, it's kinda hard to argue that you can rationally use the Bible to argue that slavery is evil. Duh. But again, tell yourself whatever you want to believe I guess.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218616 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So what if it was 1500 or 15,000 years? God's got time to wait.
And the people? They don't count?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218617 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
According to who?
Atheism is the disbelief in God or gods.
So you are arguing that disbelief is belief?

O.o

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218618 Mar 12, 2014
. gender based violence stems from patriarchy, an ideology based on power and inequality. It can be physically, emotionally and/or spiritually violent ..
.. patriarchal countries like Afghanistan or Uganda have rigid gender models where male dominance is the norm and violence against women is accepted, even expected ..
.. religion fosters the domination of women <wives obey your husbands>, perpetuates the myth of superiority <Eve did it> and encourages submission. Backed by the bible <the word of God> and custodians of the faith <clerics>, in many instances, there is almost unquestionable adherence to the principles espoused. The divinely ordained tenets found in religion have made women second-class citizens ..
.. the negative impact of religion on woman, their health, their veryl being, is historically documented ..
.. yes, I dare compare the violence found in patriarchal systems to 9-11 ..
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. I didn't expect a mother custody and automatic man-at-fault divorce FemiNazi answer like that.
Patriarchy isn't just about dominance, it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. I didn't expect a mother custody and automatic man-at-fault divorce FemiNazi answer like that.
.. what did you expect? An endorsement of sanctioned rape, female genital mutilation, illiteracy or death by stoning for a widow who indulges in 'illicit' sex ??..

.. throughout the world, religious discrimination against women is alive and thriving ..
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Patriarchy isn't just about dominance,
.. who said patriarchy was about dominance? It's about control and inequality ..
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
.. women don't take responsibility for their offspring ??..

“ Ich liebe Erdbeeren!”

Since: Mar 14

Munich, Germany

#218619 Mar 12, 2014
This morning, I woke up and thought: "why can't people just settle on the idea that some people believe in gods, and some people don't want to be blasted with the flak cannon of religion?" Then I remembered Christians.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#218620 Mar 12, 2014
You know you're dumb as a donut right?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218621 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Miller's mousetrap argument is nonsense. Irreducible complexity says nothing about starting from a more complex functional system and arriving at a less complex functional system, which is what Miller is illustrating.
I think that you missed the point of the exercise, which wasn't about evolution per se, but about irreducible complexity, a feature that ID proponents say shouldn't be present in biological systems if they arose by purely naturalistic processes.

Behe was trying to illustrate what irreducible complexity was with a mousetrap. Even had he been successful, all that he would have accomplished is to illustrate the quality that he was claiming is found in biological systems, not that it actually occurred in living things.

But Miller showed Behe how unsound the claim that something is irreducibly complex is absent any rigorous, algorithmic, deterministic method for determining when that quality was present . At present, all we have is people declaring that some systems are irreducibly complex because they haven't identified functionality for any combination of parts less than the entirety, which is not the same as saying that none exists.

It was perfectly appropriate for Miller to begin removing parts - reducing the complexity, if you well - to demonstrate that irreducible complexity was not present. The claim was that if you remove any part of a mousetrap, it is no longer able to catch mice.

Miller demonstrated not only that the absence of reducible complexity might be difficult to demonstrate, but that even if a simpler mechanism couldn't catch mice, it didn't make the device irreducibly complex if subunits had other functionality..

The fact that Miller was able to reduce Behe's five piece mousetrap to smaller and smaller mousetraps was just theater. All that was necessary was to show any useful function for the less complex mechanisms, such as serving as a tie clip.

The challenge to ID proponents claiming that some complex system is irreducibly complex will always be to demonstrate that that is the case, something that may be impossible to do even were it true.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218622 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The original problem remains. Miller thinks or pretends he addressed it, but he didn't. Behe: "Mousetrap rebuttals have popped up in a variety of situations including national television, but most recently... where Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, spent several minutes during his presentation attacking the mousetrap. In doing so he used images of mousetraps that were drawn by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware and can be seen on his web site(2)(reproduced below with permission). In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including:(1) McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap; (2) intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps; (3) if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell."
I don't see the relevance of this to the claim that the mousetrap was irreducibly complex when it wasn't, and by implication, that such claims are difficult to demonstrate. How do any of the points Behe makes refute that?

The mousetrap is not analogous to a living system beyond being polymerous. It is not a model of a living system, but of a system thought to embody irreducible complexity. An evolutionary scientist would say than no irreducibly complex system can represent a biological system that arose spontaneously through natural selection.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#218623 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
Well since you know what happened 10 to the power of -34 seconds after the supposed bang, surely you know what happened 5 minutes later.
Of course you don't know that, no one knows that. It's needs much speculation to imagine up.
Oh, you want a timeline? Okay, here's one at grade school level. Learn something.

http://patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218624 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Behe: "The logical point Professor McDonald [and Miller] wished to make was that there are mousetraps that can work with fewer parts than the trap I pictured in my book.
I doubt it. That would be irrelevant. I believe that the points that Miller (and probably McDonald) wished to make is that irreducible complexity can be hard to identify, and that the functionality of the less complex system need not be the same as that of the whole.

McDonald said it nicely "[Behe] seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity"
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Buck Crick wrote:
Behe: "the point that is relevant to Darwinian evolution is not whether one can make variant structures, but whether those structures lead, step-by-excruciatingly-tedious -Darwinian-step, to the structure I showed."
The structure he showed? The mousetrap? He wants his critics to show how a wood and metal mousetrap could evolve?
Buck Crick wrote:
Again, it is startling to me how much smarter and more logical the Intelligent Design guys are than biologists like Ken Miller and McDonald.
I don't share your enthusiasm for Behe. I think his critics made him look bad.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#218625 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. first, I'm not much of a political animal ..
.. saying that, I generally agree with your contention regarding taxation, especially concerning the future fate of today's children who will be laboring for the Federal Reserve for 8-10 months a year. It's a form of servitude ..
.. that said, there's the social programs, something I advocate. Balance must be found ..
YES, bring on more socialism/social programs! now that the entitlement-minded takers are over-taking the contributors, i'm training my kiddies not to pander to the servitude mentality by slaving for big corporation fat-cats, but instead to have lots of babies and get on all them free programs!

VOTE DEMOCRATIC/SOCIALIST, PEOPLE - MY KINFOLK ARE DEPENDING ON IT!

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#218626 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
. gender based violence stems from patriarchy, an ideology based on power and inequality. It can be physically, emotionally and/or spiritually violent ..
.. patriarchal countries like Afghanistan or Uganda have rigid gender models where male dominance is the norm and violence against women is accepted, even expected ..
.. religion fosters the domination of women <wives obey your husbands>, perpetuates the myth of superiority <Eve did it> and encourages submission. Backed by the bible <the word of God> and custodians of the faith <clerics>, in many instances, there is almost unquestionable adherence to the principles espoused. The divinely ordained tenets found in religion have made women second-class citizens ..
.. the negative impact of religion on woman, their health, their veryl being, is historically documented ..
.. yes, I dare compare the violence found in patriarchal systems to 9-11 ..
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
.. what did you expect? An endorsement of sanctioned rape, female genital mutilation, illiteracy or death by stoning for a widow who indulges in 'illicit' sex ??..
.. throughout the world, religious discrimination against women is alive and thriving ..
<quoted text>
.. who said patriarchy was about dominance? It's about control and inequality ..
<quoted text>
.. women don't take responsibility for their offspring ??..
HEY EVERYONE - LISTEN UP cuz she's a lezzy and of course that automatically makes her an expert on sexuality and diversity and all that kinda stuff!;-)

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 ... 43 min Science 2,572
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 50 min Science 83,147
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Nov 14 Eagle 12 - 3,988
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct 24 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web