Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258040 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.

tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220956 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I will be honest. I don't know.
You, on the other hand, are not honest and make sh*t up.
Lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220957 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical Buck. He won't address real arguments. Buck arguments consist of calling people names.
At least, most of the time. And always when you bring in the writings of an expert. Buck will not even bother to glance at them.
A "seeker of truth" my arse. All Buck is interested in is validation of his own beliefs.
You don't even understand your own argument. I'll explain your position to you, then I'll explain why it is wrong.

Your position is that the path of the laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx is best explained by Darwinian common ancestry, and refutes intelligent design, because that path is found in lower vertebrates, and if systems were influenced by intelligent design, a more efficient path would be the result.

Now, here is why you are wrong:

1. You assume design means designed from scratch for each taxon. The design inference can be present and also altered through succeeding taxons by purely evolutionary processes.

2, Design is not incompatible with common ancestry.

3. You assume the shortest distance between two points is the best design. You don't know this. You don't know all the design considerations in play and the constraints on them.

4. Gray's anatomy shows that the circuitous route of the nerve has design advantages, as branches provide other functions along its path, including during embryological development. Therefore, your preferred shorter distance may not be the best design.

In summary, when we discover there is a rational and reasonable purpose for the particular "design", then your objection to the design as irrational or inferior falls apart.

Are you getting accustomed to your arguments falling apart?

tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220958 Mar 23, 2014
Atheist: I'll be honest. I lie all the time.
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220959 Mar 23, 2014
Atheist: I'll be honest. If I'm not lying, I wish I was but I couldn't think of a good one. If I'm not lying, something's wrong. If I'm not lying, there's a good chance death is around the corner. If I'm not lying, I'm headed for the big one, Lizbeth. I'm on my way, darling. I'm coming home honey.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220960 Mar 23, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's the cult leader of Christianity?
Now that your pal Phelps is dead, who knows?
Pat Robertson? That Lively fellow? Phoney Baloney Mahony?
Who is the leader of atheism now that Stalin and Mao are dead?

Sam Harris would seem the logical choice, since he has similar thoughts about killing.

He's not as intelligent as Stalin, however.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220961 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously.
Saw a guy in the grocery store today with a tshirt that said "I'd rather die for my beliefs than live a life without meaning."
Sad, really.
Not sad for you. People willing to die for their beliefs is why you live free.

Obviously, no thanks to you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220962 Mar 23, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, man, be honest, you may not agree with the way Phelps and his people go about promoting their "beliefs."
But you certainly share in many of them.
You've made that amply clear over time.
Dodging and dancing and changing the subject will get you nowhere, Redneck.
You are Phelpsian in many, many respects.
You may not agree with the way Stalin and Hitler promoted their beliefs, but you share many of them.

Their antipathy toward the religious, their Darwinism, it is prevalent among you liberal atheists.

You are Stalinist in many ways.

YOU ASKED FOR IT

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220963 Mar 23, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you polish your boots with dogshit.
And dogshit is atheist.

(see Topix Atheist definitions)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220964 Mar 23, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>

You know, there are still Branch Davidians to this day, and there are still people that are Branch Davidians(not all)- and some call themselves Koreshians - that still believe the Koresh! was "god".
Sound familiar?
There would be many more of them if Bill Clinton and Janet Reno hadn't burned them alive.

Lucky break for us, huh?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220965 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And dogshit is atheist.
(see Topix Atheist definitions)
That made no sense, Buck.
I am not surprised.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220966 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Buck and the Discovery Institute maintain that Intelligent Design is secular science. Yesterday, Casey Luskin, spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, wrote an opinion piece in which he says criticism of ID in school classrooms must be balanced with "traditional religion".
biologist Jerry Coyne makes a good point...
Quote
What’s especially telling about Luskin’s letter is his tacit admission that ID, if it’s to be criticized in any class, must be balanced with “traditional religion”. If ID isn’t religious, and is, as the Discovery Institute claims, purely science, and if its scientific conclusions point to the existence of a designer with intelligence, why on Earth would that have anything to do with “traditional religion”? I believe Michael Behe said that the designer could have been a space alien. Worship of aliens is not “traditional religion.”
End quote
--Why Evolution is True Blog
Yes, why would criticism of a secular scientific theory have to be balanced by traditional religion? Would criticism of the theory of the luminiferous ether have to be balanced by religion? Would the phlogiston theory of fire?
The fact that Luskin thinks dissing ID must be balanced by religion...well...says it all. Luskin really thinks ID is religion. He just isn't honest enough to say so in public.
You can read Dr. Coyne's post, along with Luskin's entire opinion piece, here...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/...
Point out in Luskin's letter where he call for criticism of ID to "be balanced by traditional religion".

You're lying again. Luskin didn't say that. Nowhere.

What Luskin complained about was a text that was referred to as "religion friendly", when it has no semblance of being friendly to "traditional religion".

He's right. It says “As scientists, we must toil and labor and toil again to silence God.”

Luskin says that is not friendly to "traditional religion".

He does not call for criticism of ID to be balanced by religion.

The author of your cited article is a liar, and you are a liar.

Again, prove me wrong from Luskin's letter.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#220967 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not agree with the way Stalin and Hitler promoted their beliefs, but you share many of them.
Their antipathy toward the religious, their Darwinism, it is prevalent among you liberal atheists.
You are Stalinist in many ways.
YOU ASKED FOR IT
What are the "many" beliefs you would say I share with Stalin and Hitler?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220968 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not embarrassed by this constant repetition of baseless personal smear of every source that disagrees with you?
You lie about Lonnig. You lie about David Barton. I proved you lied about Michael Behe, and doctored a quotation from him.
Are you embarrassed at all?
You are not just a disgraced liar, you are a living insult to science and math.
Addition to list:

Now Dagwood has lied about Casey Luskin.

...We wait to see who's next.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#220969 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they haven't mapped the ENTIRE observable universe. There are large gaps in observations along the galactic plane.
They've mapped enough to make fairly accurate estimates of the real numbers, though.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/22/22...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#220971 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>The Sloan Digital Sky Survey was pretty amazing, and they have continued to use the telescope and its spectroscopes for further projects. IIRC, it was the first data to show the web-like structure in galactic clusters.
I love the videos they make showing the large scale structure.

Mind boggling to see all the galaxies that HAVE been mapped.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220972 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the videos they make showing the large scale structure.
Mind boggling to see all the galaxies that HAVE been mapped.
Here is the Christian map of the universe:

http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/g/...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220973 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can see, the opinion that an agent had to be responsible for initiation the Big bang comes fro the article's author, Dr. Leslie Wickman. Wickman's masters degrees are in aeronautical and astronautic engineering and her PhD is in human factors and biomechanics. Impressive as that it, it does leave her qualifications in astrophysics open to question. Dr. Wickman is also an inspirational speaker who focuses on the interface between science and theology, which suggests that her opinions are not without bias.
She also cites Fred Hoyles famous quip,“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." Ironic, considering that, while he coined the term, "Big Bang," Hoyle did so in opposition to the theory, arguing instead for a "steady state" universe. He regarded it as pseudoscience, as irrational and unscientific as were arguments for a creator. Now Wickman uses his quip in support for another pseudoscientific argument in favor of a creator.
Wickman's mistake, from my point of view, is to try to speak as a scientist and as a religious apologist in the same breath. She compounds that error by relying on credentials that are outside of the fields on which she relies to support her thesis.
Arguing from authority is one of the basic fallacies, but if one is going to engage in it anyway, one should at least use greater ones than Wickman.
It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.

You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.

What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#220974 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.

You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.

What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
Gravity is a theory, too.

Care to test it?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220975 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.
You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.

I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220976 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
The Sumerian texts aren't books, they are tablets.

Hail Marduk !

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) 6 min Chimney1 48,552
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 23 min Rings9780 21,867
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 17
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Into The Night 23,503
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Dec 2 Scaritual 14
Jesus Christ and Wisdom, Knowledge, Understandi... Nov 29 Richardfs 5
More from around the web