Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254933 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.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218689 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not known that no cause is required.
That's why physicists search for it.
One theory is the Higgs particle was the cause.
Watch as Miichio Kaku contradicts you. Notice the term "cause", and notice the phrase "before the Big Bang".
The Spark That Caused the Big Bang
"There's a reason the newly discovered Higgs boson is called the 'God particle.' It started it all."
By MICHIO KAKU
July 5, 2012 6:57 p.m. ET
"To put it another way, what was the match that set off the initial cosmic explosion? What put the "bang" in the Big Bang? In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion".
"The latest thinking is that, just before the Big Bang, the universe was very tiny but also perfectly symmetrical. All the masses of the particles were the same, i.e. zero. But the presence of Higgs-like particles shattered this perfect symmetry. Once the symmetry was broken, the particles were free to assume the various masses we see today."
You are also wrong about quantum science. Cause is required there, same as all other science, just like Kaku illustrates.
Causality goes out the window in quantum mechanics, it doesn't follow the rules Einstein thought it should. In fact future events can effect the past, in retro causality.
But cause does not require time, causality does , it is the inherit nature of cause and effect and does require time. But you jumped on Michio's boat too soon , if you will notice what you copied was Higgs-like particles, and there are presumed to be other ones than the Higgs itself. But you are very wrong about why it was named the god particle.
It was dubbed "The god damned particle" because all the time money and effort that went into finding it. Goddamned was shorted to the acceptable god particle.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218690 Mar 12, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Irreducible complexity allows that individual parts can have other functions.

Behe made this clear in his book.

The tie-clip demonstration shows just how profound Miller's ignorance is.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218691 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I believe the FSM doesn't exist.
Wilderide wrote:
Welcome to atheism. I recommend you apply it consistently.
__________
Are you truly that stupid?
Atheism is the belief that no god exists. None. Not just the FSM.
" Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"
-(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).
Okay goal post shifter, you already swore the allegiance of being...

"Atheist on a unicorn"

hahahah

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218692 Mar 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Causality goes out the window in quantum mechanics, it doesn't follow the rules Einstein thought it should. In fact future events can effect the past, in retro causality.
But cause does not require time, causality does , it is the inherit nature of cause and effect and does require time. But you jumped on Michio's boat too soon , if you will notice what you copied was Higgs-like particles, and there are presumed to be other ones than the Higgs itself. But you are very wrong about why it was named the god particle.
It was dubbed "The god damned particle" because all the time money and effort that went into finding it. Goddamned was shorted to the acceptable god particle.
I didn't call it the god particle, and I didn't say why it was called that. The article did. I didn't call it anything.

Your post is gibberish. "Cause does not require time, causality does" is flapdoodle.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218693 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
I think that atheism refers to the rejection of the principle religious claim - that a god or gods exist.

You are an indefatigable warrior in the battle over how others use the word "atheist." Nevertheless, I hope you won't mind that I intend to continue using theword the way I prefer rather than the way you prefer. My atheism is based on no other beliefs than that I believe that nobody has made a compelling case for a god yet, and that I believe that that requires that I not embrace those claims just yet.

Because I have no god belief, I am an atheist. But because I cannot and do not rule the possibility out, I am an agnostic atheist.

I appreciate the frequent opportunity to reinforce this nomenclature in those that might be amenable to it made possible only by your repetition of that comment above. It would be awkward trying to insert these ideas into other kinds of posts like the ones about mousetraps and slaves. You might consider that in the future.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218694 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Irreducible complexity allows that individual parts can have other functions.
Behe made this clear in his book.
The tie-clip demonstration shows just how profound Miller's ignorance is.
Funny , it's you who shows massive stupidity.
You just change anything around to suit yourself.

This is straight from the horses mouth.

(((CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.)))

Require all of their parts to function.... means they have no function if taken apart,
IE: a system that can't be reduced by any of it's parts, and none of the parts could have evolved from another function to create the system. Which means it's "irreducible complex" .
But...

AS Evolution specifically says the parts can evolve from other functions and create new systems.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218695 Mar 12, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, Gods NON-existence is a fact until proven otherwise.
Over 2000 years and still no proof.
There has never been proof for ANY god conceived by man....as they ALL are.
Can you explain how an Alien visitor inspired the Jewish people and predicted their survival and exceptionalism?

No one else on here can.

Smile.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218696 Mar 12, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
the one guy that continued to be a jerk posted a cartoon in response that I actually found kind of funny and revealing and the tip half was this dude beating someone with a cross. The bottom pic the guy grabs it and goes to snap it on his knee when the believer protests "hey that's disrespectful"
It's a classic: http://img5.visualizeus.com/thumbs/6e/69/athe...

If you don't mind looking at them. here are a few more of my favorites on the subject:

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/carto...
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/01/maybe/
http://www.atheist-community.org/images/carto...
http://www.atheist-community.org/images/carto...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218697 Mar 12, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really not understand what I'm saying? What happened to all the people who lived and died post-Jesus who never heard about him?
And moreover, why is belief so important to this deity in the first place?
You are so confused.

Belief? That's not important.

The very first chapter explains why relationship is important.

Why do you resist and reject something you have no understanding of?

Smile.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#218698 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't call it the god particle, and I didn't say why it was called that. The article did. I didn't call it anything.
Your post is gibberish. "Cause does not require time, causality does" is flapdoodle.
Of course it is to 00Buck Hillbillies , if you don't think it's so define causality.
While cause takes no time, the effect does and causality is the relationship of whats between them, and most notably *time is what separates the two.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218699 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Behe's mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Removal of a part destroys its function. What Miller's "illustration" shows is a conceptual construction of a simpler trap - nothing more. It has nothing to say about whether the original trap is irreducibly complex.
Miller is supplied the more complex system as a precursor to the less complex system, aided by insertion of intelligent manipulation. This murders his own logic.
Miller's rebuttal bolsters Behe's case. If it requires intelligence to go from the more complex functional system to the less complex one, all the more is intelligence suggested for going from the less complex precursor with less specified information content to the more complex system with more specified information content.
I don't see it like that, and I don't know how to express that without repeating myself. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#218700 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the same stupid argument borrowed from Richard Dawkins, which he stole from someone previously.
The fallacy of it is the idea of "all but one god".
This is foisted as a minor exception. But the exception is eternal and everlasting, if true.
One god is not quantitatively different than many gods. So there is no point.
Only stupid people employ this tactic.
That's a horrible rebuttal, Buck.

I'm becoming increasingly disappointed?

What's the matter with you?

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#218701 Mar 12, 2014
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
For your penance, you must go to a local gay bar and dance on a table...
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?

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#218702 Mar 12, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I believe the FSM doesn't exist.
Wilderide wrote:
Welcome to atheism. I recommend you apply it consistently.
__________
Are you truly that stupid?
Atheism is the belief that no god exists. None. Not just the FSM.
" Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"
-(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).
How many more times do you expect to repeat this, Buck?

We've heard it at least 100 times.

And to boot, it's stupid.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#218703 Mar 12, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
But you have zero proof of anything existing in the supernatural world. All you have is a book written by people about some person. The only proof I have seen about this god you adore is that someone existed during that period. Your beloved book doesn't even have an adequate timeline of the events.
Hell your birthday for him is a Pagan holiday. I violent one at that.
Do you know which Pagan God it coincides with and who held the first "Christ Mass" ? if you did you'd know that it had nothing to do with Christ but of Deception by The Roman Catholic Church. specifically in 453 by pope Sixtus 111 (literally 666)(Apollo~greek god of death) Sun God, God of Heathens( Apollyon) In 10bce Ceasar Augustus adopted dec. 25th to coincide with the solar deity

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218704 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
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?
Move on. I don't want to argue at this level. It's not any more interesting than arguing with a tape recorder.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218705 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You say: You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down. I say: you could remove many pieces of that without it coming down. You say: I said that "You can't remove any segment of the arch without the whole thing coming down." Not what was claimed?
I guess that you don't know what a segment is in the geometric sense. Removing a segment of an arch would leave a space in it, with pieces of cantilevered rock from either side failing to appose in the middle. Boom!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218706 Mar 12, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If that's the case, then any book means what ever the reader wants it to be. Do you believe that?
Can you prevent it? Can anybody?

“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.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#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

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Knowledge- 11,555
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 45 min superwilly 50,962
News Speaking for God 2 hr Jaimie 558
Religion Down Suicide Up 2 hr nanoanomaly 80
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr Uncle Sam 358
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr MIDutch 29,506
Is the sun 450,000 times brighter than moon? 5 hr Eagle 12 24
More from around the web