Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239082 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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129304 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Forgive me for this wall of text. I'm going to do what Eage12 and so many other Christians on this thread do - I'm just going to paste something that I can't honestly verify. Unlike them, I freely admit my ignorance on these issues. I'm only pasting it to demonstrate how ridiculous it is for Christians to paste comments they don't understand about science down and subsequently pretend they've made an argument.
That said, here it goes. Jesus never existed. He is a fictional figure:
They got another thread on that. It is called Proof Jesus never existed. Currently on page 2.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129305 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Species evolve, not individuals. Say it with me. Species evolve, not individuals. One more time? Species evolve, not individuals.
Next: Why do plants evolve?
Do you honestly believe that the environments of animals change while plant environments remain exactly the same? Are you trying to tell us that, throughout world history, the environments of plants never changes? How the hell does the animal's environment change, but not that of plants?!?
The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs had no effect on plants, RR? Volcanoes, no effect on plants? Global climate changes, no effect on plants?
What do you think plants do? They just sit there, happily being eaten by insects and animals - and there's no selection pressure?
Plants are not mobile. They are attacked by insects, viruses, fungi, bacteria and animals. Other plants also parasitize them and plants compete for sunlight. All of these act as selection pressure on plants - just like animals, those that can survive and reproduce better will have their genes represented in higher proportion in the next generation.
Plants produce toxins to deal with insects. Insects evolve around those toxins - but they have to specialize to do so. That's why each plant species almost invariably has an insect species that only eats it. That's why we have the carrot beetle, the tomato worm, etc. Because only those species of insects can get around the plant's toxin defenses to eat it.
But if plants focus on producing too much toxin, they can't divert energy and resources to getting taller and bigger. Then other plants beat them out for the sunlight. This is why, if you look at your garden, some species grow really fast but are eaten more (less poison production), while others grow slowly but are eaten quite a bit less.
In short, plants are competing with other plants and everything that eats them. Their environment changes with each new input - new insect, new plant, new gene in a rival plant, etc.
uh-huh....

How are the plants aware enough to compete?

Would you guess that it's autonomic?

How could a plant understand that it's being eaten?

Why haven't plants that are perfect food "evolved" with toxins to prevent eing eaten? ie; potato, tomato, lettuce, basil, parsley, onion, etc,etc...

You've said before that evorution is brought on by necessity, adaptation. Are you now saying that a plant knows what's necessary for survival? A plant is cognisant?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129306 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity has a history of using force to promote its message when it can. It has a history of colluding with tyrants to get its message across. It has a history of lying to get converts.
In fact, you used this message of dishonesty in the prove thread by purposefully misquoting a prominent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin. He wrote something very, very important to the philosophy of science and, by removing select wording, you turned it into religious propaganda.
So we all see how your religion works and how it is unethically pushed on others.
An excerpt, honey, Exerpt. Learn...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129307 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Species evolve, not individuals. Say it with me. Species evolve, not individuals. One more time? Species evolve, not individuals.
ummm.... So, not just one fish grew legs, an entire species did. All at once?

And whatever the palm tree came from, they all popped up at once?

And the eagles, they all came at once? As a SPECIES?

lol

Either your reasoning or your science is proving God more & more....

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129308 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How are the plants aware enough to compete?
They don't have to be "aware" in order to compete.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How could a plant understand that it's being eaten?
It doesn't. Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why haven't plants that are perfect food "evolved" with toxins to prevent eing eaten? ie; potato, tomato, lettuce, basil, parsley, onion, etc,etc...
For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds. Other plants, such as basil,*do* produce toxins that can prevent them from being eaten by insects.

But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You've said before that evorution is brought on by necessity, adaptation. Are you now saying that a plant knows what's necessary for survival?
Nope.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129309 Oct 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it didn't.
Evolution is the change over time in the frequency of alleles in a *population*. The individual is not the population.
Populations (species) evolve. Individuals don't.
You have a strange perception of how things work.

You are using a definition of evolution as the process. In your case it is a noun, not a verb. The absolute reality is each individual within the species has to evolve to carry the genes forward to the current end product. It is not a comparison between one point in time and another point in time. Evolution is a continually ongoing process.

This is a weakness of the atheist mind. It reads things without understanding what it is reading.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129310 Oct 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't have to be "aware" in order to compete.
<quoted text>
It doesn't. Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features.
<quoted text>
For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds. Other plants, such as basil,*do* produce toxins that can prevent them from being eaten by insects.
But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with.
<quoted text>
Nope.
Why would the "natural" selection be interfered with when a human eating a tomato is in fact "natural" to begin with?

"Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features."
That would imply that they are aware. They're not.

"For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds."
Spread their seeds? Through poop? The digestive system of the animal eating the plant destroys the seeds. There's no benefit to the seed to be eaten. But they haven't adapted or evolved to prevent being eaten....

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129311 Oct 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't have to be "aware" in order to compete.
<quoted text>
It doesn't. Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features.
<quoted text>
For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds. Other plants, such as basil,*do* produce toxins that can prevent them from being eaten by insects.
But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with.
<quoted text>
Nope.
"But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with."

What about humans using the same methodology in schools of thought in their societies and civilizations? Each a "culture". Would this then become interfering with natural selection?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129312 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a strange perception of how things work.
You are using a definition of evolution as the process. In your case it is a noun, not a verb. The absolute reality is each individual within the species has to evolve to carry the genes forward to the current end product. It is not a comparison between one point in time and another point in time. Evolution is a continually ongoing process.
This is a weakness of the atheist mind. It reads things without understanding what it is reading.
I guess he means that though evolution (ie; somehow or another) an entire species of, say bird, evolved into a different species of bird. All together, all of their genes mutating at the same time. Spontaneously. To attain a goal of a better existance....

That makes no damn sense at all.

Do they even know how ridiculous the sound?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129313 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Kant self refutes. It fails its own standards
<quoted text> Many uncaused causes just pushes things back. You still need an original cause. Infinity does not exist in reality. Most of your assumptions is no more valid than Star Trek's transporter room. It is Science fiction.
<quoted text> if ever a time there was nothing then there cannot be anything is valid. From nothing comes nothing. Nothing cannot produse anything.
<quoted text> Design does not need intelligence is an illogical assumption. To have design you need intelligence. On your point 2, here are some responses from Christian sites which will be ignored.
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010...
http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2010/...
Who created god?
Prove infinity does not exist?
Science does not claim the universe has no cause. It just does not make up a cause like religion does.

The Hawking's hypothesis says energy likely always existed. Thus energy could have caused the big bang.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129314 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess he means that though evolution (ie; somehow or another) an entire species of, say bird, evolved into a different species of bird. All together, all of their genes mutating at the same time. Spontaneously. To attain a goal of a better existance....
That makes no damn sense at all.
Do they even know how ridiculous the sound?
Not sure if anyone ever said this. Possibly it was a creationist pamphlet creating a straw man.Science certainly does not make such a claim, nor needs to for evolution of birds.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. None of the differences between dinosaurs and birds needed to occur at once.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129315 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Who created god?
Uncreated outside time and space.
Prove infinity does not exist?
In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today.
Science does not claim the universe has no cause.
Agree
It just does not make up a cause like religion does.
It is neutral on God. Atheists assume no God and highjack science to validate their atheism. True science is neutral. Atheism assumes no God.
The Hawking's hypothesis says energy likely always existed. Thus energy could have caused the big bang.
That does not count for intelligence or life or design. It is lacking. Besides it assumes energy is infinite. If energy is infinite in reality what is it's source? Hawkins assume the universe created itself. In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created. It is a logical absurdity. The only sufficient cause for everything has to be God. It cannot be anything else. Any other explanation lacks sufficiency.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#129316 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
uh-huh....
How are the plants aware enough to compete?
Would you guess that it's autonomic?
How could a plant understand that it's being eaten?
Why haven't plants that are perfect food "evolved" with toxins to prevent eing eaten? ie; potato, tomato, lettuce, basil, parsley, onion, etc,etc...
You've said before that evorution is brought on by necessity, adaptation. Are you now saying that a plant knows what's necessary for survival? A plant is cognisant?
The plant does not need to think. The mutations that occur on occasion that helps to prevent being eaten just keeps that kind of plant able to flourish. It flourishes when the old kind may die off to the point of extinction due to being eaten.
If no mutations occur that keeps the plant able to adapt to the environment, the species goes extinct with no line of its sort to continue.

99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth have gone extinct.

This fact is in perfect line with the theory.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129317 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ummm.... So, not just one fish grew legs, an entire species did. All at once?
And whatever the palm tree came from, they all popped up at once?
And the eagles, they all came at once? As a SPECIES?
lol
Either your reasoning or your science is proving God more & more....
The fish that grew something like a leg had offspring that survived because they were able to escape a predator.
All the other fish in the original species didn't escape the predator , leaving the mutated fish as the only survivor.
It like saying the war killed everyone on the island , but a few had escaped and did because they were tall enough to walk through the water without drowning.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#129318 Oct 13, 2012
Mike D!

Whatup?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129319 Oct 13, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Uncreated outside time and space.
<quoted text> In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today.
<quoted text> Agree <quoted text> It is neutral on God. Atheists assume no God and highjack science to validate their atheism. True science is neutral. Atheism assumes no God.
<quoted text> That does not count for intelligence or life or design. It is lacking. Besides it assumes energy is infinite. If energy is infinite in reality what is it's source? Hawkins assume the universe created itself. In order for a thing to create itself, it would have to exist before it self created. It is a logical absurdity. The only sufficient cause for everything has to be God. It cannot be anything else. Any other explanation lacks sufficiency.
"In math if you have an infinite number of days past you never get to today."

That is only saying you cannot count the whole sum of days.
But you can start counting from a point anywhere along the line of days and arrive to today.
Which is exactly what calenders , watches etc. do.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129320 Oct 13, 2012
Evolution is the change over time in the frequency of alleles in a *population*. The individual is not the population.
Populations (species) evolve. Individuals don't.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have a strange perception of how things work. You are using a definition of evolution as the process. In your case it is a noun, not a verb.
The word "evolution" is *always* a noun. Did you notice that "-ion" ending?
Dave Nelson wrote:
The absolute reality is each individual within the species has to evolve to carry the genes forward to the current end product.
Nope. Individuals don't evolve. Species do.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#129321 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply that they are aware. They're not.
.. plants are aware and some scientists think they can see, smell and feel ..

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129322 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why would the "natural" selection be interfered with when a human eating a tomato is in fact "natural" to begin with?
Because the phrase "natural selection" refers to selection that is not consciously done by humans.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"Those that have biological features that tend to prevent them from being eaten also tend to reproduce more than those that don't have those biological features."
That would imply that they are aware.
It implies no such thing. One can benefit from one's biological features without being aware of them.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
"For plants such as potatoes, tomatoes, and others that have seeds, it *benefits* them to be eaten, because it tends to spread their seeds."
Spread their seeds? Through poop?
Or through partially eaten material being carried away from the plant. Or by being spat out by the animal. Or by being carried away for storage by animals but never consumed in their new location.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The digestive system of the animal eating the plant destroys the seeds.
Incorrect. Seeds can pass through the digestive system without being destroyed.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#129323 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
"But once humans discovered these plants, and began to cultivate them for being nutritious and tasty and non-harmful, the *natural* selection of the plants was interfered with." What about humans using the same methodology in schools of thought in their societies and civilizations? Each a "culture". Would this then become interfering with natural selection?
The term "natural selection" has to do with biological evolution. So I have no idea what you are referring to when you try to apply it to "schools of thought".

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 min Eagle 12 7,315
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 5 hr NoahLovesU 7,453
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 5 hr hpcaban 30
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 16 hr thetruth 101
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web