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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218707 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They'll have a **different** functionality. Why is this such a difficult concept for you?
Point?

Move on. This isn't for you.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#218708 Mar 12, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As punishment for the Redneck, I was going to suggest having sex with one of his chickens.
Then I thought it over.
Why punish him with something he might enjoy?
You make him mad stealing his date like that.
Hahahah
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#218709 Mar 12, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: "I can't count."
Haven't seen you in awhile, it was a nice time.
I count just fine; I just don't quibble.

They all are appreciative.
huytra

West Mifflin, PA

#218710 Mar 12, 2014

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#218711 Mar 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>I count just fine; I just don't quibble.

They all are appreciative.
Says the guy who quibbled over my post count.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#218712 Mar 12, 2014
God offered his tablet of commandments to the world. He first approached the Italians. "What commandments do you offer?" they said. He answered, "Thou shalt not murder." They answered "Sorry, we are not interested."

Next he offered it to the Romanians. "What commandments do you offer?" they said. He answered, "Thou shalt not steal." They answered, "Sorry, we are not interested."

Next he offered them to the French. "What commandments do you offer?" they asked. "Thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife." "Sorry we are not interested," they answered.

Finally he approached the Jews. "How much?" they asked. "It's free," he answered. "We'll take ten of them!"

This was told to me many years ago by a Scotsman named Cohen. Really!

Two friends, a Scotsman and a Jew, are out drinking one night. Eventually Nature calls, and so they head for the head. The Scotsman takes the lone urinal, and the Jew says that he has to take a dump anyway so he enters the stall. The usual noises are heard for a minute, and then the Jew says "Damn!"

"What's the matter?" inquires the Scotsman.

"Well, when I was pulling my pants up, I dropped a dime into the toilet."

The Scotsman joins the Jew in the stall to look at the sad sight. They both shake their heads in despair. Then the Scotsman reaches into his pocket and drops a quarter into the toilet.

"What did you do that for?!?" cries the Jew.

And the Scotsman sez, "Och, I'm not gonna stick my hand in there for a dime!"

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#218713 Mar 12, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the guy who quibbled over my post count.
You're projecting, child.

You quibbled over my rough count of 23000.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#218714 Mar 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>You're projecting, child.

You quibbled over my rough count of 23000.
I quibbled over your quibbling or over the comparison you made?

Was my original post even about you?

Do you even know what you were quibbling over?

Doesn't look like it.

Now I get why you like the word "projection" so much.

Incidentally, I have children and you're still a clueless arse.

:-)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#218715 Mar 12, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I quibbled over your quibbling or over the comparison you made?
Was my original post even about you?
Do you even know what you were quibbling over?
Doesn't look like it.
Now I get why you like the word "projection" so much.
Incidentally, I have children and you're still a clueless arse.
:-)
You've been nailed, child.

Deal with it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#218716 Mar 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>You've been nailed, child.

Deal with it.
Lol, you wish.

Deal with what, exactly?

Be specific, see if you can write a full, coherent sentence though or I may get bored of your parrot, troll like antics and speculative projections.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#218717 Mar 12, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you wish.
Deal with what, exactly?
Be specific, see if you can write a full, coherent sentence though or I may get bored of your parrot, troll like antics and speculative projections.
You're easily confused.

Why is that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218718 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information.
That's a different argument from irreducible complexity (IC). Behe introduced the mousetrap as an example of IC, not specified complexity (SC).

Has Dembski ever defined that term mathematically? It was an issue previously.
Buck Crick wrote:
It's a hole in a rock. If rather than one hole, it sported multiple openings in the shape of letters that spelled out "E=mc^2", then it would indicate design. In fact, that would be damn hard to deny as exhibiting design, even though it's much simpler than the simplest component of the simplest living cell.
Yes, that's correct. If the rock spelled out E=mc2 (or better yet "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared"), that specified complexity would prove that intelligence had been there.

But that is true of any surface. This particular formation, like Behe's mousetrap, are offered as examples of apparent irreducible complexity, which, if present, is a different kind of evidence of intelligent design.

Now reconsider your comment above, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information". An object indicates intelligent design if it contains either IC or SC. We should reword that, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design is because it contains neither irreducible complexity nor complex specified information, although on first blush, it might appear to be irreducibly complex."

Just for completeness sake, we note that images of Jesus in toast are examples of apparent specified complexity just as the mousetrap was an example of apparent but false irreducible complexity..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218719 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yeah, inevitable. This isn't worth the effort to write more than that there is zero doubt that such [imposed celibacy and relatively safe and easy access boys] will generate priest-altar boy sex. Zero.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Just because you write your opinion does not make it fact. But then again, you're not trustworthy with statistics.....
I might as well be posting to a tree stump.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218720 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Once you remove a piece of the mousetrap, it's no longer a mousetrap. Your video vids yes that, he calls it a tie clip or a paperweight. Tie clips and paperweights are not mousetraps, IANS. Dumb ass.
Why don't you take a break for awhile and put your computer in front of a tree stump for me, will you. I want to see if I can explain this stuff to the stump instead.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218721 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Good point. I hadn't considered that.
Is this the Redneck or the stump posting now?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218722 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Evidence suggests your idea of random chance, that the human brain and human consciousness is the result of random combinations of material particles moving away from chaos, is far more absurd than any concept of reincarnation I have seen.
There are many natural examples of order arising from apparent chaos. The chunks of matter that eventually came together to form the earth embody a type of order - a symmetry in this case - that might suggest an intelligent designer had formed them together. After all, what are the odds of those pieces just arranging themselves into a pattern of such specified complexity by "random chance"? What are the odds of pieces of liquid soap randomly arranging themselves into a perfect spherules of soap, or of H2O molecules arranging themselves in snowflakes by random chance in (apparently) clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

If you can see the fallacy in those arguments, then you can see the fallacy in your own argument. According to the theory of evolution, matter arranges itself into brains not by random chance, but by the steady and relentless application over deep time of natural principles that favor such arrangements over others - principles able to overcome the tendency for local disorder in open systems.

Apologists for design typically substitute the term "random" for "undesigned." in teleological arguments. Mutations may be random, but the process selecting some over others is not. It is directional, just as the appearance of new chunks of matter to an accreting planetesimal is "random," but the pressure to organize into a spherical form (or oblate spheroid, more precisely) is not. Gravity relentlessly pulls toward the center of mass, not in random directions. The process is mindless - blind, unplanned, undesigned, ateleological - not random.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218723 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Your particular God concept/view of justice represents the height of irresponsibility and injustice. Your chosen religion has us born as reprobates, guilty before we’ve even taken a single breath, and responsible for things we’ve never done. It offers instant undeserved forgiveness for the most horrible of crimes and punishes people whose only crime is disbelief. Forever.

"This justice you so admire is no such thing. It’s divine edict, it’s arbitrary, capricious and ultimately unjust and immoral ... It advocates slavery, denigrates women, curses homosexuals, orders the stoning of unruly children, sanctioning wars of extermination, condones human sacrifices, and poisons every mind it touches. It includes only one unforgivable crime, disbelief. Is that just?"
lightbeamrider wrote:
And that is why you associate belief in God as a thought crime. Not a thought error.
Is that right? Then you think after reading that passage from Dillahunty that I want people punished for their god belief, do you?

Faith can be called an error, and even a sin against the self (sin meant in a secular and metaphorical sense). But I have never called it a thought crime.

A thought crime, as Dillhunty illustrates with his reference to sentencing someone to eternal torture for the thought crime of unbelief in your god, requires punishment or the threat of it for the thought.

Have I suggested that? No. I'll leave that kind of thing to your god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218724 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Would you like me to compare all atheists to Stalin or McVeigh?
Not again. Haven't you beaten that horse to its death yet?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#218725 Mar 13, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>You're easily confused.

Why is that?
More speculative projection.

Yawn.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218726 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a different argument from irreducible complexity (IC). Behe introduced the mousetrap as an example of IC, not specified complexity (SC).
Has Dembski ever defined that term mathematically? It was an issue previously.
<quoted text>
Yes, that's correct. If the rock spelled out E=mc2 (or better yet "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared"), that specified complexity would prove that intelligence had been there.
But that is true of any surface. This particular formation, like Behe's mousetrap, are offered as examples of apparent irreducible complexity, which, if present, is a different kind of evidence of intelligent design.
Now reconsider your comment above, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information". An object indicates intelligent design if it contains either IC or SC. We should reword that, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design is because it contains neither irreducible complexity nor complex specified information, although on first blush, it might appear to be irreducibly complex."
Just for completeness sake, we note that images of Jesus in toast are examples of apparent specified complexity just as the mousetrap was an example of apparent but false irreducible complexity..
The mousetrap is irreducibly complex, and illustrates the concept in simplistic terms. The rebuttals are logically flawed, for reasons outlined. I'm not sure the arch qualifies as either IC or CSI. Is that the natural stone arch I have seen previously, or a man-made arch? The natural arch lacks complexity, specified or otherwise.

The hypothesis of ID is much more rigorous than things "looking" designed. As Behe pointed out, the tactic of Miller and McDonald is a visual PR ploy for Darwinism, which falls apart on scrutiny. I admit it is effective on the lay audience, like cigarette commercials with no warnings, or an Obama political ad. Unseemly for people calling themselves scientists, though.

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 Science 82,045
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sun Science 2,206
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Sat Science 33,086
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 18 Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web