Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257133 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

#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!;-)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218627 Mar 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
You here me there?
I here all.

I sea all.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218628 Mar 12, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
.. boy, oh boy, oh boy, the Christian men on this thread are really in a tether ..

.. tremendous change has occurred in western societies. Expecting women to adhere to ancient religious and moral codes that demean their gender will only make them reject all Abrahamic religions. Don't you get that ??..

.. you probably don't endorse female genital mutilation or sanctioned rape but some cultures do. It is for these women, the females living in countries like Afghanistan or Uganda, that I weep ..

.. in an effort to make this about me instead of women, you utilize character assassination. Do you feel so threatened by my views that you seek revenge and think, "If there is any justice you will get yours". What's that all about? Are you offended by my critique of religion or does it threaten your perceived superior position ??..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218629 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. 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 ..
Thus I find questionable the claim that the current state of affairs is the “same as it ever was”, implying that the patriarchy responsible for bootstrapping Western Civ from mud huts on the banks of the Rubicon to a complex post-industrial society is also the very same patriarchy that turns men into kitchen bitches today. Yes, patriarchy…literally, the ‘rule of the father’…places responsibilities on men. Responsibility to act in a socially productive manner. Responsibility to care for his kin, his children, his woman. Responsibility to fight in the defense of his community. In exchange he is guaranteed a link to his seed, and in a monogamous patriarchy, is more or less guaranteed access to sex. His role as the master of his home is codified and protected in law. Usurpers of that order–cads, women too big for their britches or who attempt to abrogate the terms of the social contract, adultresses, rapists–are punished commensurate with their violation.

But just as patriarchy places limits upon the freedom of men in favor of the larger social order, patriarchy also keeps the voracious appetite of the hungry beast known as female sexuality in its box. More importantly, patriarchy keeps the feminine, a spirit that knows no limits, justice, or fairness, a force that is all id and no superego, productive in moderation and destructive in excess, inward-focused on the self as opposed to outward-focused on others, in balance with the masculine. Just as patriarchy channels men’s excess energies in a socially productive manner, patriarchy also channels and caps women’s energies in a socially productive manner. It keeps her innate hypergamy in check; indeed patriarchy prevents the feminine from becoming intensely dysgenic and destructive of the social order.

Keep reading at http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/27/in-de...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218630 Mar 12, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, you want a timeline? Okay, here's one at grade school level. Learn something.
http://patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm
I almost made it through the first sentence, then my skepticism kicked in.

"The Big Bang
10-43 seconds
The universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time,"

I hadda stop there.

Because that is 100% assumption and speculation.

“BAS in Electrical Engineering”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#218631 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost made it through the first sentence, then my skepticism kicked in.
"The Big Bang
10-43 seconds
The universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time,"
I hadda stop there.
Because that is 100% assumption and speculation.
That is actually 100% based on observation and physically possible events. Also experimentation on much smaller scales.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#218632 Mar 12, 2014
So I'm curious: to those who insist that atheism is a belief, please describe what that belief necessarily entails. I'm an atheist, so I'm interested to see what I therefore must believe as a consequence.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218633 Mar 12, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
That is actually 100% based on observation and physically possible events. Also experimentation on much smaller scales.
There is no observation of that event.

And "physically possible events" doesn't necessarily mean fact.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218634 Mar 12, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And the people? They don't count?
What do you mean?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218635 Mar 12, 2014
wilderide wrote:
So I'm curious: to those who insist that atheism is a belief, please describe what that belief necessarily entails. I'm an atheist, so I'm interested to see what I therefore must believe as a consequence.
The belief is that gods don't exist.

For some atheists, they specify gods. Some of them here go as far as to say the god of the Bible doesn't exist.

Since that opinion can't be proven, it's a belief.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218636 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus I find questionable the claim that the current state of affairs is the “same as it ever was”, implying that the patriarchy responsible for bootstrapping Western Civ from mud huts on the banks of the Rubicon to a complex post-industrial society is also the very same patriarchy that turns men into kitchen bitches today. Yes, patriarchy…literally, the ‘rule of the father’…places responsibilities on men. Responsibility to act in a socially productive manner. Responsibility to care for his kin, his children, his woman. Responsibility to fight in the defense of his community. In exchange he is guaranteed a link to his seed, and in a monogamous patriarchy, is more or less guaranteed access to sex. His role as the master of his home is codified and protected in law. Usurpers of that order–cads, women too big for their britches or who attempt to abrogate the terms of the social contract, adultresses, rapists–are punished commensurate with their violation.
But just as patriarchy places limits upon the freedom of men in favor of the larger social order, patriarchy also keeps the voracious appetite of the hungry beast known as female sexuality in its box. More importantly, patriarchy keeps the feminine, a spirit that knows no limits, justice, or fairness, a force that is all id and no superego, productive in moderation and destructive in excess, inward-focused on the self as opposed to outward-focused on others, in balance with the masculine. Just as patriarchy channels men’s excess energies in a socially productive manner, patriarchy also channels and caps women’s energies in a socially productive manner. It keeps her innate hypergamy in check; indeed patriarchy prevents the feminine from becoming intensely dysgenic and destructive of the social order.
Keep reading at http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/27/in-de...
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: "EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at
the blog The Elusive Wapiti."

.. sounds like your kind of guy Ar-Ar ..

.. no rebuttal necessary ..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218637 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. women don't take responsibility for their offspring ??..
I said others, not children. Don't change the words to suit your argument.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#218638 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. women don't take responsibility for their offspring ??..
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
it's also about someone being responsible for others, which is historically a job that most women don't want.
<quoted text>
I said others, not children. Don't change the words to suit your argument.
.. aren't children 'others'??..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#218639 Mar 12, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: "EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at
the blog The Elusive Wapiti."
.. sounds like your kind of guy Ar-Ar ..
.. no rebuttal necessary ..
That's right, attack the author and ignore his points.

“BAS in Electrical Engineering”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#218640 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no observation of that event.
And "physically possible events" doesn't necessarily mean fact.
It is fact to this day until proven otherwise. Given what we know it is the only outcome. Until proven otherwise.

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 A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 6 min Braindead Texan 6
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 35 min Eagle 12 10,344
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 42 min Aura Mytha 20,285
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Eagle 12 21,400
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr ChristineM 45,559
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 7 hr ChristineM 548
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 9 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 325
More from around the web