Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Since: Mar 11

Ft Mitchell, KY

#108197 Jun 26, 2012
Wisdom teeth are a great example of an intelligent designer. So are rabbits that eat their own sht to survive lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108198 Jun 26, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
"Irreducible complexity" is just the watchmaker argument in a new dress. On that point alone, it is not a double standard considering ID is simply a rehash not of previous analysis, but of previous philosophy.
Also, studying with the intention of demonstrating "the inability of the process of natural selection to account for it" adds absolutely nothing to a new theory unless you can otherwise explain what you claim natural selection cannot. But ID papers never do because 1) their arguments that natural selection/evolution cannot explain complexity has continually been shown to be refuted (or completely irrelevent to evolutionary theory such as origins of life etc), and 2) because they have no actual explanation for that particular phenomena.
In a nutshell, all ID "research" about "irreducible complexity" consists of is a massive argument from ignorance with no alternative explanation thrown into the mix, which would actually qualify it as science.
How, then, is it a double standard when one side does science, and the other side does not?
Wrong.

ID does not claim that natural selection cannot explain complexity. They claim natural selection can account for complexity just fine.

Wrong.

Showing that natural selection cannot account for certain aspects of life DOES contribute, as that is how scientific theories are shaped and refined.

Wrong.

ID does have an explanation for the living phenomena that their research suggests is not explained by natural selection. Their explanation is testable and falsifiable.

Wrong.

Irreducible complexity as the watchmaker argument is a straw man.

You have nothing, SuperSuc.

Curl up with a 9th grade science book.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#108199 Jun 26, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooo. 7000 posts.
I get a prize, right?
If you do, I ought to get one when I reach 70,000... right?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#108200 Jun 26, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovely.
Tell that to those that invented microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers, and all of those other goodies that enables science to do science.
If they did? They were not godbots-- they were scientists.

At the time, they obviously suppressed their faith.

Why?

Because faith is SURE. Faith is CERTAIN.

When a person is sure and certain, there is no need for... microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers and other things.

THOSE are for people who do NOT know for sure.

People without...

... certain faith.

So I am 100% certain that none of those devices were invented by a godbot.

None.

And if they happened to have a tiny little bit of faith?

Fortunately, they were successful in suppressing it-- long enough to invent ...

... scientifically useful tools.

For science is the END of faith, you see...

... no need of faith, when you have...

... actual reality (facts).

Since: Sep 08

Las Animas, CO

#108201 Jun 26, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wisdom teeth are a great example of an intelligent designer. So are rabbits that eat their own sht to survive lol
Ever seen running boards on automobiles? External headlights? Flashy grillwork? Wing windows? Oil bath air cleaners? Points and condensors?

Are they still called automobiles today?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#108202 Jun 26, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, you realize there's a ferret on your head, right?
If so, that ferret is much smarter than he.

Clearly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#108203 Jun 26, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are looking at evolution from one direction, with no origination point you can identify. Like I said, assuming it works from the inside out.
Look at it from the other direction, inward. Standing waves, light, and various things focused together to make a pretty fancy hologram. The original may have been done that way, and it was thrust into an unprotected environment where it "evolved" from there. That is what Genesis kind of describes. Of course, there is always the possibility adjustments are made in the projector to account for environmental changes.
You are product. Period.
Good gracious, look how we can manipulate matter and energy now. You think that came about by accident, or do you just wish to think so?
Intelligent design is neither.

There is zero evidence of irreducible complexity-- the sole hinging point for ID.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#108204 Jun 26, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember the Harckel’s Embro’s in my school text books and my sisters also.
How many years was this false information in our school textbooks?
30 to 40 years?
Evolutionary Science was making kids believe a lie. It’s probably the only science that has promoted falsified data as facts through education.
Who corrected the errors again?

Was it you godbots?

No?

Interesting: science is self-correcting.

Is your godbot-religion?

No?

This explains why your religion is always... wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108205 Jun 26, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Theories certainly are refined. However, the only way evolution could be "refined" enough for ID "scientists" to accept will be when evolution can no longer explain how life, including man, evolves over a prolongued period of time.
Why? Because it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis. You can cry "liar liar!" all you want, but your complete refusal to address the Wedge document demonstrates otherwise.
You cannot and do not possess the privelige of knowledge to know how a theory would have to be refined to be accepted by ID scientists.

And you have no point, since the refinement, if valid, is scientifically beneficial whether it satisfies the hopes of anyone or not, and it would be science.

On the sinister Wedge Document, the Discovery Institute has already addressed it well:

"The Wedge Document, like the individual scientist, is irrelevant to addressing the questions we are raising and the arguments we are making. It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed the evidential case we are making and the challenges that now face neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialist theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on the focus of our funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister plans displays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who do not change the subject and focus on motives, conspiracies, and personal motivations."

Sounds like they're talking about you, SuperSuc.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108206 Jun 26, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You are uneducated.
Come back when you truly understand what you are claiming based not on what a minister told you.
Dave Nelson is better-educated and way, way more intelligent than you, SuperSuc.

Dave is the second smartest guy on these forums.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108207 Jun 26, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweets, what do you have to say about the idiots that swear by that "science" between correction events? And then get on here and tell others how uneducated and stupid they are?
When I was in college, I was tested on Haeckel's embryo drawings and the concept "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Embryologists had debunked it at least 50 years earlier.

And I bet you can still find the pictures of peppered moths in biology textbooks that Kettlewell glued to tree trunks.

Evolutionary biology has embraced more hoax than any other area of science.

They love the "Darwin of the Gaps" arguments.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108208 Jun 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, 1 geneticist who does research not related to ID and 1 never very molecular biologist who no longer does research, plus a mathematician who can't seem to work out a theory and, what, 2 philosophers, don't scare me in the slightest.
They're welcome to play in their fictional sand box as long as they want.
Your post is unreadable.

And it's just as well.

Since: Sep 08

Las Animas, CO

#108209 Jun 26, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design is neither.
There is zero evidence of irreducible complexity-- the sole hinging point for ID.
You would get totally lost if they quit dropping those bread crumbs for you to follow.

Your problem is you think you know something. Typical of magazine and mass media browsers. Steel yourself sometimes and dig into the details. Take a fresh look at what you "know". Quit blindly accepting the wisdom of the High Priests. Who quite often are not the scientists, but the writers about science.

Examine how things "can" happen based upon the simplest tried and true physics. That includes how those "things", such as elemental building blocks, can be made.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108210 Jun 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You spelled "pretty" wrong.
There have been no tests of ID in components or hypotheses. It has not theory - I've schooled you on this often enough. Your best argument is to insult rather than actually pony up something that passes for theory.
ID is just rewritten creationism. All they are capable of are ignorant and baseless attacks on evolution. Either they don't understand evolution - which they demonstrated in the trial - or they are lying for personal reasons.
The entire ID argument is:
"I can't understand evolution, so it must be wrong."
"We can't prove all the steps in evolution, so it must be wrong."
"I personally see design in apparent design, so there must be a designer."
All of the above are logical fallacies. Every single one of them. And that's how you get Intelligent Design, folks.
Taaaa-daaaa!
I wasn't spelling "pretty". I was spelling "petty".

And you are lying.

Intelligent Design relies on nothing you said here.

You just ridicule what you don't understand.

That's because you are an idiot.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#108211 Jun 26, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot and do not possess the privelige of knowledge to know how a theory would have to be refined to be accepted by ID scientists.
And you have no point, since the refinement, if valid, is scientifically beneficial whether it satisfies the hopes of anyone or not, and it would be science.
On the sinister Wedge Document, the Discovery Institute has already addressed it well:
"The Wedge Document, like the individual scientist, is irrelevant to addressing the questions we are raising and the arguments we are making. It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed the evidential case we are making and the challenges that now face neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialist theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on the focus of our funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister plans displays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who do not change the subject and focus on motives, conspiracies, and personal motivations."
Sounds like they're talking about you, SuperSuc.

Sure it is ...Sure it is... Buck.
Don't worry about the fine print... just believe what the nice man over there is selling you.:) Were you just at a birthday party, or do you wear that a dunce hat everyday ?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108213 Jun 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, baby, wrong right from the beginning.
You see, all matter has "properties." It makes matter behave in specific ways.
Carbon, for example, has 4 binding sites for other atoms. So it can form molecules.
It's not random, Dave. Carbon never suddenly goes "pop!" and becomes a pixie.
You need serious remedial chemistry classes if you think matter acts randomly. Oh, nevermind. I don't think you can learn at this point.
Matter doesn't act randomly???

So no phenomenon is random?

I didn't know that.

Send us a peer reviewed research article on it - one that doesn't focus on components, but the entire "No Random Occurrence Theory".

I'd love to read it.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#108215 Jun 26, 2012
The Ban plays on wrote:
<quoted text>I have a question for these evolutionist,
Yes he duuuuus. What a good boi.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#108216 Jun 26, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't expect an honest, intelligent answer from him.
That's the fool who posted a fake Supreme Court justice quote just a few pages back.
And he's the same fool who was touting pretend ancient copper scrolls about Jesus on another thread.
You are a fucking liar.

I have never faked a quote from anyone.

And what the fuck is your problem with the copper scroll in the find at Qumran? Pretend?

You are a fucking liar.

"The scroll labeled 3Q15, though, was an anomaly. It was unlike its companion manuscripts in almost every way. It was written in a different form of Hebrew than the rest. It was not made of leather or papyrus, but a sheet of almost pure copper. It was found alone in the back of a cave. The contents were not literary or doctrinal in nature. It was simply a list with 64 entries that described where to find a unique and fabulous treasure of incalculable value. Not just an intellectual treasure, but one composed of gold and silver. As Professor Richard Freund put it, of the dead seas scrolls, the copper scroll is "probably the most unique, the most important, and the least understood."

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#108217 Jun 26, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Matter doesn't act randomly???
Yes, you do.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#108218 Jun 26, 2012
The Ban plays on wrote:
<quoted text>Calling Hiding an idiot, is an insult to idiots.
My wittle boi should stop insulting himself. Yes he shuuuuuuud.

Go get your chew toy.

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) 28 min Subduction Zone 58,045
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Subduction Zone 1,846
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 27,261
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 6 hr Eagle 12 5,960
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 7 hr Eagle 12 4,945
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... 7 hr Eagle 12 111
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 7 hr Eagle 12 137
More from around the web