Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
210,201 - 210,220 of 224,094 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218852
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The mousetrap is irreducibly complex, per the definition.
It is falsifiable. All you have to do is remove a component and observe the same trap still performing the same function that the complete system does.
And mammalian sea creatures do not have a pelvis.
That not the hypothesis, you can't remove a part from anything and expect it to perform the same function. Remove a leg and lets see you run, do you even believe your own nonsense?
The IR hypothesis says remove a part and the remaining parts are functionless in any way.
Another way of saying without that one part , it never could have evolved to become a mousetrap.

"Is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...

Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously.

How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part','system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmys...

Remove your lower jaw and chew on that awhile. or is your head IC?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218853
Mar 13, 2014
 
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, as I said before, this is how Buck argues. He redefines terms to suit his arguments and hopes that no one notices. Of course they do, but then he lobs ad-hominem attacks and bluster to try and cover up his errors. It's not that Buck is stupid; it's that he is emotionally crippled with narcissism. And I would not be surprised if he also self-medicates too.

Eye Spec wrote:

As Christianity is the worship of self, it is easily argued that narcissism is its root.
__________


Thank you doctors Freudy 'n Slip.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218854
Mar 13, 2014
 
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>As Christianity is the worship of self, it is easily argued that narcissism is its root.
Well, as to Buck, I recall him insisting that he isn't a Christian, so I don't think we can blame religion for his neuroses.

Since religion is the ego projected onto the universe, yeah, I'd have to agree with you that it's has narcissism at it's root. I never really thought about it that way, but it makes sense.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218855
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
sure bud, that's simple:

as an atheist, obviously you don't know nor care what you believe, as long as it's in direct opposition to your perception of fundamentalism!

that'll be 20 bucks!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218856
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That not the hypothesis, you can't remove a part from anything and expect it to perform the same function. Remove a leg and lets see you run, do you even believe your own nonsense?
The IR hypothesis says remove a part and the remaining parts are functionless in any way.
Another way of saying without that one part , it never could have evolved to become a mousetrap.
"Is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...
Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously.
How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part','system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmys...
Remove your lower jaw and chew on that awhile. or is your head IC?
Nothing in your post is correct.

You can remove parts from many things and they perform the same function. Take a sparkplug out of your car, it performs the same function, though not as efficiently. You can remove the entire battery and starter from a diesel engine, and it performs the same function.

And you can also remove parts of a leg, and it performs the same function.

The Darwinian mechanism has no way to explain systems requiring parts that are self-referential, that is, relying on many parts to be present for there to be a selective advantage.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218857
Mar 13, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. Evolution is one wise and intelligent cookie.
If I accept your thesis, I don't need a god any more. I mean,...besides the one you describe here.
Everyone of course has the option to accept reality or not, but I really don't get what your opposition to the process of evolution is. The only thing it threatens is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and you aren't a Biblical literalist anyway.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218859
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Happy Lesbo wrote:
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 ??..
<quoted text>
.. aren't children 'others'??..
am i on another one of your infamous 'time-outs' for being naughty?:-(

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218860
Mar 13, 2014
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
KiMare wrote:
This reeks at so many levels coming from you... Do you understand the irony and hypocrisy embedded in your words??? Smirk.
I know that I don't take moral instruction from people like you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218861
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>You're right, which actually proves my point even better. Thank you.
You didn't have a point. You just stated the second law of thermodynamics for no apparent reason, and you got it wrong to boot.

Welcome to Buck School.

Have a seat in the back next to the guy who looks like Oscar Wilde's sister.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218862
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?
"to whom much is given, much will be required" Jesus

wouldn't it be more wise of you to properly process the information that you've been given rather than concern yourself with issues that you have no control over???

that is, of course, unless you want to be a part of this great commision to preach the Gospel to all peoples & nations!!!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218863
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Silly redneck, words usually have more than one definition and always more than one application. Pay close attention to definition 2 and the example.
Full Definition of PHARAOH
1: a ruler of ancient Egypt
2: tyrant
Examples of PHARAOH
<like some pharaoh of a third-world country, more interested in building monuments to himself than in creating a future for his people>
Ignorance suits you. It's why you defend the multi-billion dollar Christian scam industry. Tax free! Huzzah!
Where'd you get that definition from?

Post your source.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218864
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
According to James 3:1, those ego know the Bible, the gospel, will be under stricter judgement that those who don't.
And according to Romans 2, those that are ignorant of the gospel will be judged by their actions, not their following of Jesus' teachings.
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. So according to Paul, God needs to have two entirely different and contradictory methods for judging humans because God can't communicate effectively.
Ridiculous, isn't it?
That's what you picked up from my post?!

You're truly unteachable.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218865
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
Behe's system will not work if a part is taken away. McDonald showed that a conceptualization of a system with fewer parts could work.
I don't know what McDonald showed, but if you are correct, that refutes Behe's claim for its irreducible complexity and affirms McDonald's comment that, "[Behe] seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity."

That is what Miller showed. And he showed that just because someone proclaims that a mechanism is irreducibly complex doesn't mean that it is.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218866
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll break it down further for you:
Do you believe in the divinity of Lord Krishna? If not, doesn't that make you an atheist in that regard?
No.

An atheist believes that no gods exist.

I believe God does exist.

What definition of theist says "You have to believe on all gods"?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218867
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll break it down further for you:
Do you believe in the divinity of Lord Krishna? If not, doesn't that make you an atheist in that regard?
That's as stupid as saying I'm not American because I only live in one of the fifty states.

Or 57 states if you like Obama...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218868
Mar 13, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in your post is correct.
You can remove parts from many things and they perform the same function. Take a sparkplug out of your car, it performs the same function, though not as efficiently. You can remove the entire battery and starter from a diesel engine, and it performs the same function.
And you can also remove parts of a leg, and it performs the same function.
The Darwinian mechanism has no way to explain systems requiring parts that are self-referential, that is, relying on many parts to be present for there to be a selective advantage.
No it isn't you're citing examples of things with multiple parts that performs the same function, Remove the battery and starter and it wont start at all. You're making a fools argument, in the same argument you have to use one of 4 to 12 mousetraps as a car spark plug.
You can't just make it up as you go FACE IT "ID" is a failed hypothesis, it has no scientific legs 00Buck! The whole concept is an argument from ignorance!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218869
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the science here, not with the professional thieves at Apologists, Inc. Did Kent Hovind teach you that from the comfort of his sink toilet at FCI Berlin? There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild. These hind limbs would only manifest from pelvic structures.
Wieland, C.(1998) "The strange tale of the leg on the whale." Creation Ex Nihilo 20: 10-13. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp
Wiedersheim, R.(1893) The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History. Second Edition. Translated by H. and M. Bernard. London: Macmillan and Co. 1895.
Woodburne, M. O., and Case, J. A.(1996) "Dispersal, vicariance, and the Late Cretaceous to Early Tertiary land mammal biogeography from South America to Australia." Journal of Mammalian Evolution 3: 121-161.
Wray, C. C., Easom, S., and Hoskinson, J.(1991) "Coccydynia. Aetiology and treatment." J Bone Joint Surg Br 73: 335-338.[PubMed]
Zembskii, V. A., and Berzin, A. A.(1961) "On the rare phenomenon of atavism in the sperm whale." Nauchnye Doklady Vysshei Shkoly. Series "Biologicheskie Nauki."
Then, of course, there are the babies born with tails, male breast tissue and nipples, fake sex in Virgin Whiptails Lizards, unused sexual organs in dandelions, wisdom teeth, the blind fish, erector pili, body hair, flightless birds, vitamin C synthesis, vomeronasal organs, the third eyelid, Auriculares muscles, et al.
Why do you align yourself with thieves and why does an ID always presuppose their personal god?
HA HA HA!!!

I'm glad to see that you think the Creation Ministries are "science and not the professional thieves at Apologists, Inc".

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218870
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone of course has the option to accept reality or not, but I really don't get what your opposition to the process of evolution is. The only thing it threatens is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and you aren't a Biblical literalist anyway.

Actually I think he getting dumber as he goes, it may be possible he's evolving into 0^10 Buck.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218871
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wilderide wrote:
You aren't paying attention again Buck; that's not what I said. Any Christian who argued against slavery did so against the clear dictates of the Bible.
Yeah and any Ku Klux Klan member or any southern racist slave owner is in full agreement with you. You find common ground with them.
Christians were not the only ones who fought against slavery but they were they only ones who fought for it.
Only Christians fought for slavery? Prove it. First off the Civil war was not a religious war and Dred Scott along with Minor v Happersett were not church related functions.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks not just slaves had no legal standing as persons in our courts they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders' rights to their property.
----------
http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne....
p. 9.
THE practice of human slavery is not condemned in the Scriptures by that name, nor mentioned in any of our common law definitions by the same name. But it is condemned in the Scriptures under other names, and by descriptions, plainly and severely. There are many modern practices, such as piracy, duelling, gambling, &c., which are not condemned in the Scriptures by those names, but by descriptions. In this way, though all the crimes against God and his religion have been legalised by men in this world, they are all plainly described and condemned in the Scriptures, so that mankind are without any moral or just excuse for committing them. But that the practice of human slavery is thus condemned, is plainly proven, as follows:--

I. By our slaveholding definitions, human slavery is described as property in man, and slaves are declared to be the property of their masters or owners, and cannot own, possess, or enjoy anything but what belongs to their owners. But by our common law definitions, human slavery is compounded of the crimes of kidnapping, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218872
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone of course has the option to accept reality or not, but I really don't get what your opposition to the process of evolution is. The only thing it threatens is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and you aren't a Biblical literalist anyway.
Thank you for that reasonable, non-asshole question.

I have no opposition to the process of evolution. I accept it. I have studied it extensively, in academic settings and otherwise. It is a fact that it occurs.

The process of evolution is different than the current Neo-Darwinian "Theory" of evolution.

Some instances of evolution are rock solid science. The all-encompassing theory, as the explanation of practically everything, mud-to-man, strictly material and undirected,....

No. I don't buy it. I don't think it's solid science.

More here, from the only man on the planet with whom I would consider trading brains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

11 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 48 min NightSerf 194
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 1 hr No-Doubt 270
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr DonPanic 21,384
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr religionisillness 834
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 8 hr religionisillness 361
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 14 hr Patrick 16
Of Interest InTheNews 14 hr Patrick 3
•••
•••