Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258515 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221151 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what he said. You lied again.
What you are too stupid to know is that Darwin's evolution theory would not fit the NAS definition of "scientific theory" in its early decades.
According to Behe, evolution qualified as a scientific theory. According to the NAS, it would not have.
Well, Buck, he didn't use those precise words, and I didn't say he did.

But he did say it.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221152 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not logical.** That Ceiling Cat created the universe is logical.
(**After all, if everything needs a creator, who created God?)
Infinite regression argument does not apply, since god, as theorized. is independent of chronological time.

You atheists humps need to update your arguments.

("chronological" means arranged in order of succession of time)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221153 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
According to Behe, evolution qualified as a scientific theory. According to the NAS, it would not have.
Oh, now there is a lie.

From the National Academy of Sciences...

Quote

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

End quote

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.htm...

You listen to these crackpots at the DI and it leads you to say stupid things like this.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221154 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
But you expect everyone to believe you just because you said so. Sorry, but that isn't how skeptics work. Evidence...REAL evidence...is required.
Real evidence?

Like this trial transcript that proves you a liar?

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________

Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:

Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it is.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. What is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it does.
__________

Oh yes, you are such a skeptic, Darwin's SuckPup.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221155 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied again.
Behe didn't say you need to redefine anything.
He pointed out, with numerous examples from scientific literature, that in practice, scientists do not use the definition provided by the NAS. And he pointed out, correctly, that the definition of scientific theory scientists use would include Intelligent Design.
Behe has been exactly right on every point you have challenged his statements on.
And you have been wrong, or lying, on every single point.
How do you like your drubbing, Dagwood?
Those ID guys are too smart for you. And far more honest.
Quote

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

End quote

--Behe testimony at the Dover Trial

Gee, Buck, he never says specifically "I redefined 'scientific theory'.

But note..."your definition is a lot broader"..."your definition of scientific theory"..."using your definition"...all of which Behe agrees with.

All of that means Behe was redefining the term "scientific theory", not using the standard definition.

You have even posted this quote. It is right there in front of you face, yet you are so blind you can't see it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221156 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Real evidence?
Like this trial transcript that proves you a liar?
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________
Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:
Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it is.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it does.
__________
Oh yes, you are such a skeptic, Darwin's SuckPup.
There you go again, ignoring the cross examination. Behe only considers it science because he redefined what a scientific theory is. You are the one lying.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221157 Mar 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Real evidence?
Like this trial transcript that proves you a liar?
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________
Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:
Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it is.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?
Behe: Yes, I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
Behe: Yes, it does.
__________
Oh yes, you are such a skeptic, Darwin's SuckPup.
How many times do you have to have your nose rubbed in it?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221158 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Buck, he didn't use those precise words, and I didn't say he did.
But he did say it.
You're lying again. He said something totally different than what you are claiming.

You made it up.

More precisely, you read it somewhere where it was made up, and repeat it like a pull string doll.

That's what people like you do because you can't think.

But I welcome you still, and will give you another chance. Show us where Behe admitted ID is not science.

I won't even restrict you to Kitzmiller. Find Behe admitting that anywhere.

Prove to us you are not a liar.

Be aware, I will check your sources, since you changed Behe's testimony and cited it previously.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221159 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote
Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
End quote
--Behe testimony at the Dover Trial
Gee, Buck, he never says specifically "I redefined 'scientific theory'.
But note..."your definition is a lot broader"..."your definition of scientific theory"..."using your definition"...all of which Behe agrees with.
All of that means Behe was redefining the term "scientific theory", not using the standard definition.
You have even posted this quote. It is right there in front of you face, yet you are so blind you can't see it.
Wrong.

Behe did not agree with the attorney's questions you cited. Rather than define his idea of "theory" as "looser", Behe kept re-directing him to the way scientists use the term in scientific literature.

And Behe is correct.

And there was no "standard definition" discussed. You are mischaracterizing that. It was the NAS definition being discussed, which the NAS has themselves not always agreed on, and revised it several times.

So your suggestion that Behe was deviating from some righteous "standard definition" is phony and dishonest.

Furthermore, scientists who are strict Darwinists do not adhere to the NAS definition any more closely than Behe does. They refer in their own work to "scientific theory" using it exactly as Behe does here.

You have nothing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221160 Mar 24, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently scientists see it differently.
Oh, and rational atheist scientists do too. The first to assert the Big Bang now isn't so sure about God.
Interesting that countless cultures believe in the supernatural, but not one single culture has accepted ss couples as married for any length of time.
Smile.
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the ones which did of course, and all the ones which increasingly do today.
Which culture was that? Why, in 8,000 years has there NEVER been a place where ss couples established themselves as married and spread?

The likelihood is, the current situation will end like all the others. A temporary aberration of history. You can't build anything permanent on a fallacy.

Smile.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221161 Mar 24, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> It is impossible for science to achieve immortality. The best science can do is extend days of life. I will die. You will die.
Which afterlife is the real afterlife does not matter. My afterlife is based on what the Prophet Jesus Christ and claimed Son of God of the bible says of the afterlife.
That is not up to me to convince you that the Christian afterlife view is the real afterlife. My claim is we all die, no matter how much you enjoy living. To ignore that you will one day die is naive.
There is only two ways to deal with the reality of death. Believe once you die it's over. Or believe once you die there is an afterlife. That is your only two choices.
,..You forgot reincarnation kiddo..

carry on
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221162 Mar 24, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> It is impossible for science to achieve immortality. The best science can do is extend days of life. I will die. You will die.
Which afterlife is the real afterlife does not matter. My afterlife is based on what the Prophet Jesus Christ and claimed Son of God of the bible says of the afterlife.
If we all lived forever in Heaven wouldnt it get Overpopulated eventualy?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221163 Mar 24, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise that an "outside agent" had to begin the process is unsupported.
My evidence against the existence of the biblical god is the bible itself.
And that is just one form of many.
Unsupported?

A mind boggling complex event occurred and you not only call it 'unsupported', but have ruled out an outside intelligent force.

Anything infinitesimally as complex in science can only be accomplished in a lab under controlled circumstances.

Ah, the 'rational atheist' oxymoron mind, who can fathom the perversions of logic it uses...

Smirk.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221164 Mar 24, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> It is impossible for science to achieve immortality.
Is it?

Prove it!

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221165 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, ignoring the cross examination. Behe only considers it science because he redefined what a scientific theory is. You are the one lying.
Wrong.

Behe didn't redefine anything. Do you think there is one person somewhere who sets the definition of scientific theory and everyone follows it?

No, that's not how it works. Behe used the terms as scientists use them in practice.

If Darwinists are not obligated to follow the NAS, neither is Behe.

Furthermore, you are still confusing the qualification for being "science" with the qualification for a "scientific theory". Lots of things involve science, but do not qualify as a theory.

Your claim was that Behe admitted ID "is not science".

That's a higher standard for you to prove than proving he admitted it is not a "scientific theory", which he did not.

How do you plan to prove Behe admitted "ID is not science", when the only time he was asked this, he said "Yes, it is"??

Here it is again:

Darwin's Stepchild wrote:

"And, yes, Behe admitted that ID is not science"
__________

Kitzmiller, Day 10, Trial Transcript:

Q. Sir, do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design is science?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it is.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design makes testable scientific claims?

Behe: Yes, I do.

Q. What is that opinion?

Behe: Yes, it does.
__________

Time for the fancy footwork, Dim Wood.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221166 Mar 24, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text> Because the responsibility for evidence is not with the believer, regardless of the Deity. The Deity is responsible for supplying the proof.
The muslim or the hindu or the christian can point to their holy book. But it is the God of the book that is supposed to provide the evidence.
Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him
--
Clearly the Christian God wants to give you the evidence of his existence. Maybe your time would be better spent asking the Deity for the evidence instead of the believer.
Can't ask something that doesn't exist,silly boy!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221167 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibilities aren't all taken, are they? So how can God know for a fact the results of choices that we never make?
If you come to a fork in the road, you can only choose to go either right or left. You can't simultaneously do both. So if God knows you will go left, can you turn right instead? If yes, then you have free will but God is not omnipotent, if not then God is omnipotent but you don't have free will.
You can make arguments about whether God lives in linear time or not, but we certainly do live in linear time.
Do you think a god you can understand is worthy of the title?

SMile.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#221168 Mar 24, 2014
Phantom2010 wrote:
<quoted text>The latest scientific discovery is that the universe had a beginning. Which means an outside agent had to begin the process.
So I don't see your evidence against the existence of God.
You need to update your scientific knowledge Bucko!

http://youtu.be/nZiROWO6iVs

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221169 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you figure that God can be infinite but the universe can't be?
Because we know that the universe had a complex beginning. And the theory is that there are likely multiple universes. We also know that there is likely an end to the universe.

Do you know anything about what you are debating???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#221170 Mar 24, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Atheists aren't afraid to show and respond through honesty.
Thanks AB for promoting this trait.
If you were to focus just on this trait with so-called "Christians" - they will lie to you or change the subject immediately.
Yes, I can vouch for that...

Smirk.

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) 38 min Critical Eye 93,314
News American Atheists terminates its president over... 11 hr Reality Speaks 18
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Apr 17 Graftedin1 75
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Apr 2 blacklagoon 3 35