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
123,941 - 123,960 of 226,028 Comments Last updated 20 min ago

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128448
Oct 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not ignorant of science. I have limited knowledge of it but I'm by no means ignorant of it.
Uhm..."ignorant" literally means "does not know." From google:

"ig·no·rant/&#712;ign &#601;r&#601;nt/
Adjective:
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"."

Just as I am uneducated in religion and dishwashing, you are uneducated in biological science.

:)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128449
Oct 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't "built" anything. Obama will tell you that he built it all. LOL
I don't have health insurance. It's a rip off. They charge way too much for the mediocre services they provide.
I would not want a government run health care system. It's not their job to run a business, it's their job to run a government.
I don't know if Japanese & UKians live longer or not, that's disputable.
omg! Get some health insurance - you don't want to go bankrupt!

It's not disputable. It's fact - just pick up any statistics on lifespan in different nations. Here, from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-...

US is ranked 50th. 7 of the G8 nations are before it. Oh...woops, that makes the US dead last in the G8. It doesn't fair well in the G20, either...

Having national health care is not the gov't telling you how to take care of yourself, but the public protecting itself from corporations from profiteering of illness. Everyone gets old and sick - companies can only make money on health care by cutting corners, ripping customers off and overselling products.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128450
Oct 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
wooooah!!
Invisible Japs....
We're flucked!
I am filming you even now.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128451
Oct 8, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The American health care system is run on greed. By doctors, insurance companies, and lawyers. The reason IANS left. His god status was reduced by the insurance companies.
I was pointing out the environment in America is just inherently more dangerous healthwise. These aren't tourists being funneled through a general society like most places, or underpopulated places like Canada. You have cultures from all over the world establishing themselves here that then interact with the larger population in a populous country. You just have more available things to ruin your health, from diseases you haven't been exposed to, the breeding ground for new one to develop, and the social aspects, such as heavy drinking and drugs that contribute to a higher health risk and damages that result from such. Which puts a bigger financial burden on the whole than would occur in less cosmopolitan places.
Add the hospitals with cracks, crevices, ventilations systems, and all sorts of places almost impossible to sterilize for those collections of organisms to evolve.
Plus the different life expectancies of those cultures affecting the overall rate. Don't forget, America is the refuge for the huddled masses.
Oh. Ok, that's true. All hospitals have cracks, though. Japanese hospitals have poor to no ventilation. I wonder if that actively stops pathogens from spreading?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128452
Oct 8, 2012
 
My time for bed, young men and ladies. Good night!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128453
Oct 8, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, that's a Pew Research Center poll from: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/sectio...
They included people trained in medicine who are part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)- I'd like to see which scientists disagreed with evolution. I would bet it would be the medical ones or those utterly not involved in biological research. Medicine hails from a dualist tradition - but us evolutionary theorists are challenging that, showing that they're wrong, and changing the field. It's a work in progress, but in the future, medicine will be unified by evolution, as all biological sciences are.
There is no competing theory to evolution to explain evolution the observation. Evolution literally is "allelic frequency change over time." It is directly observable, objectively measurable. The theory exists to explain it.
Evolution has never been disproved, not once.
To answer your question. We have the fossil record. How much of it do you understand? Fossils get older the deeper you dig; younger species are closer to the surface (after the geological law of original horizontality; things are buried from oldest to newest).
So we know how old specimens are. We can work out their morphology - based on morphology, we can draw up relationships based on similarity. For example, your shoulders are a ball and socket joint that can rotate 360 degrees. You can turn around on the X-axis if you're hanging by one arm. The same is true of all the great apes, and monkeys, but not true of other mammals, like canines and felines. So we know that humans fit into the primate clade (group), based on this one morphological observation (there are many that make us primates; that are only shared by primates that we have).
Second, on some specimens we can sequence their genetic material. The genes and, more importantly, the mutations and genetic insertions (from viruses and bacteria) can be compared to any species we can sequence - and we can draw up lines of relationships here, too (b/c non-coding sequences build up mutations. If these are shared between species, they are related.).
If species did not have evolutionary relationships, if species were separately created, we would not observe what we observe in nature. Chickens would not be carrying around ancient reptilian genes that are turned off (you can turn them back on and get reptilian leg bones instead of bird bones) if they were separately created. That chickens have reptilian genes in them tells us they share genetic material with reptiles - they have a phylogeny that stretches back to a shared ancestor in the remote past with reptiles.
So we observe all these lines of evidence that demonstrate species must be related to those in the past and each other. Not a single shred of evidence suggests that species were separately created.
What you are proving is you have different devices with DIP switches that can be thrown to meet varying conditions based upon a common building block. You have not proven such were not the result of a Creator or that such could be solely from abiogenesis, which even then can be the result of intelligent design, part of the process of creation. Denying the possibility of an ultimate intelligent creator is a large leap of faith given that we utilize much cruder methodology to effect the same in our creations. Such would be true also if we could even CAUSE life to begin from chemicals.

You are a fanatic.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128454
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Ok, that's true. All hospitals have cracks, though. Japanese hospitals have poor to no ventilation. I wonder if that actively stops pathogens from spreading?
Actually, it would. If something, like ventilation systems, can not be sterilized, then you have a breeding ground.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128455
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Greeks had gods.
Yes. They were pagans.
Rome was being overtaken by those it conquered and educated before the Church took over. The Church collected and collated the educational materials that allowed for the blossoming later. They encouraged education, even if it did have a theological bent to it.
You might look into the story of Hypatia and the burning of the library of Alexandria. Hardly church support of education.
Your atheist secularism of today is doing the same thing. The denial of the supernatural as a basis for objective reasoning has become a religion. Even though it is obvious something started this existence. Perhaps those that advocate such have an ego desiring to fancy themselves the pinnacle of evolutionary development.
Provide evidence of the supernatural and science will listen to you. Not some vague 'it needs to start somehow', but actual, direct, unambiguous evidence of a supernatural. Until then, the possibility can safely be ignored.
Those pagan civilizations were basically secular and superficial. Lip service was paid to the gods, but it was more on the order of gaining the favor of lady luck than deep religious thought. The here and now and your place in society was the major concern.
This was something that changed over time and was different in different locations. For example, Socrates was killed for lack of respect to the Gods. That is hardly 'lip service'. On the other hand, by about 200AD in Rome, the gods were not taken seriously by the intelligentsia.
Monotheism such as Christianity caused thinking to develop on a much deeper level, which of course lends to thinking about everything on a deeper level.
This aspect actually goes back to Platonism and was not original to Christianity. In fact, much of early Christianity is based on middle Platonism. And that, truthfully, is one of the main things working against the scientific method. Aristotle was much better than Plato in that regard (although those taking Aristotle as dogma were much worse later on).
More than this it is just here and exploit it thinking of secularism. Modern secularism is an offshoot of that development. Eliminate the source of that inspiration and you will revert to the simple exploitation again. Exploitation of people as physical assets, not as souls of equal worth.
Garbage. Modern secularism has lead to the huge growth in our understanding over the last 250 years. It is certainly NOT based on any explicit Christian understanding of the universe.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128456
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The difference being that the rational are using evidence and logic, and the irrational are not. In this case, the irrational would be the creationist, since they don't based their position on evidence and logic but instead on a literal interpretation of a specific set of scriptures.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Someone irrational would say the same thing you just did.
No, they wouldn't, since science is not based upon any religion's scriptures.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Can't you see the logic?
You haven't presented any logic. It's not "logic" to merely respond to pointing out the irrationality of basing a position on a mythological story instead of on evidence and logic by saying "Well, they think you're irrational too".
Dave Nelson wrote:
Creationism is actually more logical.
No, it isn't, when you recognize how many different religious creation stories there are in the world, and how they cannot be reconciled with the available scientific evidence.
Dave Nelson wrote:
So, somewhere back in time, something created all of this somehow.
You mean, natural processes are responsible for what we see? Yes, natural processes. Physical processes. Chemical processes. Biological processes.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have several science books, with beaucoup evidence and logic that are wrong.
And when those documents are pointed out to be wrong, then they are no longer referred to. But when do creationists stop referring to the Bible when it is pointed out that the Bible cannot be reconciled with the available scientific evidence? When do the creationists ever admit that the Bible is *wrong*?
Dave Nelson wrote:
They may even be right, but wrong in interpretation.
How do you distinguish between a document's being *wrong* and a document's being merely "misinterpreted"? What exactly must happen before a creationist admits that the Bible is *wrong*?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128457
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Dave Nelson wrote:
Democracy.
Majority rules.
Not if it violates the Constitution.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128458
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. They were pagans.
<quoted text>
You might look into the story of Hypatia and the burning of the library of Alexandria. Hardly church support of education.
<quoted text>
Provide evidence of the supernatural and science will listen to you. Not some vague 'it needs to start somehow', but actual, direct, unambiguous evidence of a supernatural. Until then, the possibility can safely be ignored.
<quoted text>
This was something that changed over time and was different in different locations. For example, Socrates was killed for lack of respect to the Gods. That is hardly 'lip service'. On the other hand, by about 200AD in Rome, the gods were not taken seriously by the intelligentsia.
<quoted text>
This aspect actually goes back to Platonism and was not original to Christianity. In fact, much of early Christianity is based on middle Platonism. And that, truthfully, is one of the main things working against the scientific method. Aristotle was much better than Plato in that regard (although those taking Aristotle as dogma were much worse later on).
<quoted text>
Garbage. Modern secularism has lead to the huge growth in our understanding over the last 250 years. It is certainly NOT based on any explicit Christian understanding of the universe.
You have a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Hypatia incident and other things.

Simple and inescapable fact. This "modern secularism" got here directly through the Christian religion preserving, and encouraging the study of ancient texts that would have been buried after the fall of Rome.

Man had thousands of years and many cultures and civilizations where he could have advanced, but he didn't. It took that one. Your random evolution finding the right environment.

You are a fanatic.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128459
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if it violates the Constitution.
The Constitution is subject to interpretation. Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected. They are indirect gatekeepers of those interpretations whose power goes beyond the will of the people.

They are not gods, but they have the power of them, with little means to replace them.

You worship them?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128460
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concern...
Read those with a less jaundiced eye.
Now you're an apologist for the Catholic Church.

What next, the Inquisition was like a fraternity prank?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128461
Oct 8, 2012
 
Not if it violates the Constitution.
Dave Nelson wrote:
The Constitution is subject to interpretation.
Which doesn't change the fact that it still overrules majority rule.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected.
Nope, they are appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate, who *are* democratically elected.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You worship them?
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128462
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Hypatia incident and other things.
What, that the bishop of Alexandria at the time lead a mob that attacked and killed Hypatia because she had the nerve to be a woman doing scholarship at a pagan temple that dualed as a library?
Simple and inescapable fact. This "modern secularism" got here directly through the Christian religion preserving, and encouraging the study of ancient texts that would have been buried after the fall of Rome.
The encouraging of the study of ancient texts didn't happen until the renaisance. Until that time, the priests were quite happy to scrape off earlier writings on parchment to replace them by their own records. Fortunately, they occasionally did a poor job and we can recover the originals (like the Archimedes palimpset).
Man had thousands of years and many cultures and civilizations where he could have advanced, but he didn't. It took that one. Your random evolution finding the right environment.
And this is at least a good point. I would suggest the book by Toby Huff comparing Medieval Europe and the Islamic world at the time. There were certainly institutions in Europe that encouraged the scientific revolution and the church at least occasionally supported those institutions, although always timidly and often retracting its support. Ultimately, it was looking for support of its own dogma and anything that went against that dogma was heretical and would lead to ex-communication. Even Aquinas was ex-communicated. Many of the brave men that lead to the development of logic were priests, but they were also often rejected by the church at the time.
You are a fanatic.
I am thinking the same about you. You clearly misinterpret history to your liking a lot.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128463
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm..."ignorant" literally means "does not know." From google:
"ig·no·rant/&#712;ign &#601;r&#601;nt/
Adjective:
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"."
Just as I am uneducated in religion and dishwashing, you are uneducated in biological science.
:)
I am uneducated in science, but not ignorant of it.

Ignorant: Lacking in knowledge.

I know the diff between ignorant & stupid.

---

You can tkake night classes to hone your dishwashing skills. Then you can find a man.:)

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128464
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, that's a Pew Research Center poll from: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/sectio...
They included people trained in medicine who are part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)- I'd like to see which scientists disagreed with evolution. I would bet it would be the medical ones or those utterly not involved in biological research. Medicine hails from a dualist tradition - but us evolutionary theorists are challenging that, showing that they're wrong, and changing the field. It's a work in progress, but in the future, medicine will be unified by evolution, as all biological sciences are.
There is no competing theory to evolution to explain evolution the observation. Evolution literally is "allelic frequency change over time." It is directly observable, objectively measurable. The theory exists to explain it.
Evolution has never been disproved, not once.
To answer your question. We have the fossil record. How much of it do you understand? Fossils get older the deeper you dig; younger species are closer to the surface (after the geological law of original horizontality; things are buried from oldest to newest).
So we know how old specimens are. We can work out their morphology - based on morphology, we can draw up relationships based on similarity. For example, your shoulders are a ball and socket joint that can rotate 360 degrees. You can turn around on the X-axis if you're hanging by one arm. The same is true of all the great apes, and monkeys, but not true of other mammals, like canines and felines. So we know that humans fit into the primate clade (group), based on this one morphological observation (there are many that make us primates; that are only shared by primates that we have).
Second, on some specimens we can sequence their genetic material. The genes and, more importantly, the mutations and genetic insertions (from viruses and bacteria) can be compared to any species we can sequence - and we can draw up lines of relationships here, too (b/c non-coding sequences build up mutations. If these are shared between species, they are related.).
If species did not have evolutionary relationships, if species were separately created, we would not observe what we observe in nature. Chickens would not be carrying around ancient reptilian genes that are turned off (you can turn them back on and get reptilian leg bones instead of bird bones) if they were separately created. That chickens have reptilian genes in them tells us they share genetic material with reptiles - they have a phylogeny that stretches back to a shared ancestor in the remote past with reptiles.
So we observe all these lines of evidence that demonstrate species must be related to those in the past and each other. Not a single shred of evidence suggests that species were separately created.
I understand all this. I do. My big problem with all this "knowledge" is that some day it'll probably be refuted by someone smarter than whoever figured this out.

100 years ago, science "knew" that insects grew from rotting food. They could prove it....

There's a lot of things that science claims to prove that inevitably get unproved...

I don't buy it. Evolutionary theorists start with "man & ape have the same shoulder joints". They then "conclude" that man & ape are related & then assume that we had a common ancestry. THEN, they search for evidence.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128465
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
omg! Get some health insurance - you don't want to go bankrupt!
It's not disputable. It's fact - just pick up any statistics on lifespan in different nations. Here, from the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-...
US is ranked 50th. 7 of the G8 nations are before it. Oh...woops, that makes the US dead last in the G8. It doesn't fair well in the G20, either...
Having national health care is not the gov't telling you how to take care of yourself, but the public protecting itself from corporations from profiteering of illness. Everyone gets old and sick - companies can only make money on health care by cutting corners, ripping customers off and overselling products.
Not the way Obamacare is spelled out. It's just another way for the gubment to take more & more taxes. It won't benefit Americans at all, just the American gubment.

Besides, I don't want a nanny-state. The government has no right to tell me if I need insurance or where I should get it from.

I'm NOT getting health insurance. As I said, it's a rip off! What I used to pay in insurance I now deposit into savings. I'm good.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128467
Oct 8, 2012
 
I see the senile creationist is at it again. Do you think his family lets him go out in public?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Hypatia incident and other things.
Simple and inescapable fact. This "modern secularism" got here directly through the Christian religion preserving, and encouraging the study of ancient texts that would have been buried after the fall of Rome.
Man had thousands of years and many cultures and civilizations where he could have advanced, but he didn't. It took that one. Your random evolution finding the right environment.
You are a fanatic.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128468
Oct 8, 2012
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. it's funny how Christians now embrace Jews after thousands of years of persecution ..
.. why is that ??..
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••