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
124,701 - 124,720 of 224,077 Comments Last updated 37 min ago
truthrules

Ormond Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129291
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.

It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129292
Oct 13, 2012
 
Yes exactly! So let's all have some roasted meat and adult beverages knowing full well the Dionysus worshippers will drink us all under the table :)
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm right with you there. How does that go again?
Science taught us to build planes. Religion taught us to fly them into buildings.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129293
Oct 13, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
...adult beverages ....<quoted text>
Bacchus kicked my ass drinking 30 years ago. I would be stupid to get back in THAT ring.
However:
What kind of food do you have, can I smoke and will there be women there ? <smile>

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129294
Oct 13, 2012
 
truthrules wrote:
whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.
It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?
This guy?

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

bwahaha

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129295
Oct 13, 2012
 
truthrules wrote:
whasssupp anti God people? for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website but you have to google his name.
It may poke some holes in you're big bang, atoms meet molecules in space theory, but if you can stomach some truth, checker out! Where is that slithering former Christian/atheist/not sure guy Bob the cut down man?
Truth does rule you don't.

"Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 19821984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in the Glen Rose Formation.[12] In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked human characteristics."[12] After a three year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129296
Oct 13, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
And Kant showed how all were faulty.
Kant self refutes. It fails its own standards
#2 is based on causality, which we know fails at the quantum level. It also assumes that the process cannot go on to infinity. And, finally, it only shows that there are uncaused causes, not that there is a first cause (there could, for example, be many uncaused causes).
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.
#3 is based on the flawed philosophy of necessary and contingent existence. Again, an Aristotelian viewpoint which is known to be wrong.
if ever a time there was nothing then there cannot be anything is valid. From nothing comes nothing. Nothing cannot produse anything.
#5 is based on the idea that complexity must be produced by an intelligence, which we again know is incorrect.
Sorry, but your medieval 'proofs' simply don't hold the water you want to carry.
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/...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129297
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
No, it is not a secret society. The training is widely and publicly available. No oaths of secrecy are required to learn it. You simply have to do the background work.
And yes, to understand technical material requires training. In the case of abiogenesis, a strong training in biochemistry is clearly required, but also geology (to know about the conditions on the early earth), some astrophysics (to know the chemicals available), and a good deal of regular biology (to know the systems as they exist now and probably existed in the past). If you don't have that training, you cannot talk sensibly about the topic.
BS. All one has to do is look at their claim. An ad hoc exception under imagined circumstances where life somehow happened from non life absent intelligence. It is all speculation. Never observed. Based on anti supernatural agenda.
Theology starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct and that a deity exists.
Vague statement. I know of errors in the New so do not assume Bible is correct in details. Assume Christ resurrected and take it from that point.
Every different sect has a different theology.
In Christianity they agree on essentials and differ on details. If they do not agree on essentials then they are cults.
That alone shows it isn't an area of knowledge, but is, instead, a matter of opinion and desire.
Theology is not a matter of knowledge is your opinion and carries that much weight.
Yes, read the Bible, please. But as you do so, put it into the historical and archaeological context.
I have done that.
Compare it to the other texts of that time and area.
What other texts? If they assume Christ did not resurrect then they are wrong. One does not need to study the counterfeit to know the real.
For that matter, compare it to other texts from other cultures. If you do so, you will realize it is the writings of a self-absorbed culture (most are) amidst greater cultures which it didn't understand and trying to match its superstition with the realities of the day. This is hardly unique.
Either are your arguments against resurrection of Christ. There is nothing unique. I have posted historical and archeology references and they are rejected for a host of reasons which are nothing more than excuses. Bottom line being atheists here do not want to accept the truth God exists and Christ resurrected. They will go to absurd extremes to explain it all absent intelligence. It all happened naturally. They are agenda driven and dogmatic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129298
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
If living organisms *can* evolve, but not necessarily *do* evolve, based on "environmental pressure"... I got one question...
...
...Why the **** would plants evolve???
Because their environment has constantly changed. Changing climate. Changing animal life (that feeds upon them or that can spread their seeds). Changing competition from other plants.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129299
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

River Tam wrote:
There's a leading Horseshoe crab expert? Awesome. How sad would it be to be the second best Horseshoe crab expert?
Well, eventually the leading one would retire.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129300
Oct 13, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those are my words. Apparently they're quite difficult for you to grasp.
No, individuals with mutations do not evolve. They are individuals born with mutations.
Once again, evolution is defined as "allelic frequency changes in a gene pool, over time."
The individual born with mutations would be part of the evolutionary process, but does not themself evolve. That would require their genes to change and that doesn't happen.
<quoted text>
Individuals are not gene pools. Only species compromise gene pools. Individuals' genes do not change during their lifetime.
<quoted text>
Sure. Individuals contribute to the evolution of a species. They don't evolve, though.
<quoted text>
No. For mutations to be passed on, they have to be in the germline DNA - so the gametes. You're a man, presumably, and you make sperm every day. Each one of those sperms, well the fertile ones anyways, has a chance to have a mutation. That doesn't mean the mutation is represented in your body, though.
Remember your basic biology? Meiosis? In males, meiosis is the largest cause of mutations in the sperm. However, your gametes can also be hit by mutagens, too. No, that doesn't alter your genetic makeup, only that of your gametes.
If, on the other hand, you were born of one of those mutated sperm, then the mutant gene is already expressed throughout your body (or where ever it expresses itself). Again, you're not evolving since your genes aren't changing. You were born that way, the genes stay that way your entire life.
I suppose you could imagine some kind of Star Trek disease/parasite that changes your entire genome. In that case, you would have evolved. That doesn't happen in nature. The closest parallel to this sci-fi would be something like a somatic-line genetic virus that humans have turned HIV into. The first time it was used, it caused massive organ failure and the patient died in 48 hours. So, they didn't evolve. They just died b/c their DNA was disrupted and they could no longer function.
I understand the concepts, lovey, but you aren't considering the mechanics involved for a concept to be a reality.

Something mutated the genes. The individual had to be able to exploit the mutation for it to be carried on. Very simple life would be something like chemical reactions that gave it an advantage in capturing energy, but more complex life has to be able to manipulate this change to its basic programming. It has to learn. If it doesn't have to learn, then part of the mutation is change to the processing mechanism that affects animation or thought. You would be looking at major program changes in the latter case, and very, very long times waiting for mutations to assemble in such a way.

The same goes for thinking. One may be born with the ability to think on a different level, but one has to have successful experience using it to make it a worthwhile mutation. But at the simplest, say something is born with a nub. The nub isn't much good unless a connection is made in the brain to activate it and use it. That is a lot of circuitry and wiring in the meat. Nerves pathways, etc. Dig deeper and in time you will see how much of that evolution on the higher levels involves a brain setting into motion the establishment of those circuits and molecular assemblages, and it getting written into the DNA. Your perspective is chemicals coming together randomly and making magic versus direction in the assemblage. You are leaving out intelligence.

Your DNA has the programming to be a factory assembling molecules. It takes raw materials and manufactures new ones. This is not an insignificant ability. Any changes, mutations, are more likely to occur on that level, internally, than as a result of random external changes.

Reprogramming within and by the individual, because it has to.

I know you are an atheist, but please don't discount intelligence as a basis for evolution.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129301
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
If an individual inherited mutated genes from its parent, did it not evolve?
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129302
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
That's rather preposterous of you, considering all the thousands and millions of gays who want sex with children too.
You've confused gay people with pedophiles.

Not the same thing.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129303
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

truthrules wrote:
for you science junkies you may want to check out Dr Baugh out of Texas and his evidence for instant creation. He has a website...
Does he have papers published in peer-reviewed science research journals?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129305
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129306
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129307
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129308
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129309
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129310
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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....

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Charchar king 192
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr religionisillness 834
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr religionisillness 361
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Magyar 101 21,383
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 8 hr Patrick 16
Of Interest InTheNews 8 hr Patrick 3
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... Wed Patrick 1,285
•••
•••